Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-3-04B OARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A  T I V E MAR CH 4, 2009 9:00 A.M., AUD ITORIUM C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G     1.         Call to Order. 2.         Pledge of Allegiance. 3.         Moment of Silence. 4.         Recognitions. 5.         From the Board:  Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda. 6.         From the Public:  Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 7.         Consent Agenda (on next sheet).             9:45 a.m. ­ Informational Items 8.         Virginia Department of Forestry Annual Pres entation, Nelson Shaw. 9.         Martha Jefferson H ospital Presentation on New H ospital Construction. 10.        Board­to­Board, Monthly Communications R eport from School Board, School Board Chairman. 11.        Quarterly Updates           a.         Albemarle County Serv ice Authority, Gary Fern. b.         Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority , Tom Frederick . 12.        Bright Stars Annual R eport, C harity Haines. 13.        Climate Change Protection Program Update, Sarah Temple. 14.        Historical Ov erv iew of the C omprehensive Plan Video, David Benish.   15.        Closed Meeting. 16.        Certify Closed Meeting. 17.        Boards and Commissions:             a.         Vacancies /Appointments.   2:00 p.m. – Transportation Matters 18.        a.         VDoT Monthly Report.             b.         Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.   2:30 a.m. ­ Action Items 19.        Update on Status of Crozet Library, Bill Letteri.             20.        From the Board:  Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda. 21.        Adjourn to March 5, 2009, 1:00 p.m., Room 241.       C O N S E N T   A G E N D A     FOR APPR OVAL:   7.1        Approval of Minutes:  April 2, 2008; June 11, 2008; January 7, 2009 and January 14, 2009.   7.2        Set public hearing to consider proposed ordinance to amend C ounty Code Chapter 11, Sec tion 11­ 105 to allow the charging of picnic shelter fees during the period that park entry  fees are charged and to better clarify  authority for setting park fees.   7.3        Proposed Revision to Personnel Policy P­23, Performance Review .   7.4        Resolution of Intent to Amend the Entrance C orridor and Related Provisions  in the Zoning Ordinance.   7.5        CPA ­2008­004. Economic D evelopment Policy ­ U pdate (deferred from February 11, 2009).   7.6        Fire/Rescue Volunteer Incentiv e Program (VIP).   7.7        FY 2009 Appropriations.   7.8        Resolution Endorsing Rail Preservation Application of Buckingham Branch Railroad Company.   FOR IN FORMATION:   7.9        Environmental R egulations Applicable to Home Occupations.   7.10      Copy of letter dated February 9, 2009, from Francis H . MacCall, Senior Planner, to Charles P. Hudson, re:  LOD 20080028 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 100, Parcel 20B, Tax Map 100, Parcel 21 (Property of C harles P. Hudson or Laura H udson) – Samuel Miller Magisterial District.   7.11      Copy of reports prepared by the Department of C ommunity D evelopment:  2008 Albemarle County Year End C ertificate of Occupancy; 2008 Fourth Quarter Building R eport; and 2008 Year End Building Report.     Ret urn t o Top of   Agenda Ret urn t o Board of  Superv isors Home P age Ret urn t o Count y  Home Page COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: Parks and Recreation Fees     SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: To set a public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 11, Section 11­105 to allow  the charging of picnic shelter fees  during the period that park entry fees are charged and to better clarify authority for setting park  fees.     STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Mullaney     LEGAL R EVIEW:   Yes     AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:                INFORMATION:      CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:   X          INFORMATION:        ATTACH MEN TS:   Yes     REVIEW ED BY:     BACK GROUND : In October of 2008, the Parks and Recreation D epartment conducted a study of fees  charged for c omparable facilities and services  by  Virginia State Parks and other local parks and recreation departments in Virginia.  Based on the res ults of that study , the Director of Parks and Recreation has  determined that fees for picnic shelter reservations in the County  should be increased from $25 per day to $50 per day and due to the extra service provided for picnic shelter reservations , the fee should be charged y ear­round.  Currently  the County  Code prohibits the charging of the pic nic shelter reservation fee during the period that park entry fees are charged.  In addition, in recent years the variety of activities and park uses hav e continued to increase whic h requires flexibility in the ability to assess new  charges  and adjust fees to increase revenues or recapture costs which may be specific to a park usage request.  Some examples of new activities include triathlons, mountain bike rac es, television commercials, field and court reservations by private groups etc.  W hile it has been the historic practice for the Board of Supervisors to establish park entry fees as required by the County C ode and for staff to establish all other fees, the current County C ode does  not clearly des ignate this authority for setting all other fees  to staff.   STRA TEGIC PLAN: Goal 1:  Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents. Goal 5:  Fund the County ’s Future Needs.   DISCU SSION : The attac hed proposed ordinance retains  the requirement for the Board of Supervisors  to establish fees for entry and use of parks, recreation areas, and swimming facilities under the County’s jurisdiction and the public hearing requirement for all entry fee changes.  In addition, the proposed ordinanc e clearly establishes the authority for all other fees  to be set by the County Exec utive or his des ignee.  Finally, the proposed ordinance eliminates the prohibition against charging the picnic  shelter fee during the period that park entry fees  are also being charged and eliminates some verbiage.   BUDGET IMPACT: If this ordinance is adopted, additional rev enues totaling approximately  $6,750 to $9,000 are anticipated for shelter res ervations oc curring during the time period when park entry fees are also collected.   RECOMMENDA TION S: Staff recommends that the Board set an April 1, 2009 public hearing for the attached ordinance.   ATTAC HMENTS A ­ Proposed Ordinanc e Ret urn t o c ons ent  agenda Ret urn t o regular agenda OR DINA N CE N O. 09­11(1)   A N ORDIN ANCE TO A MEN D  AN D  REO RD AIN  CH A PTER 11, PARKS A ND RECREATIO N FACILITIES, BY AMEN DIN G ARTICLE I IN  G EN ERA L, DIV ISION 1 PARK S GENERALLY.   BE IT ORDAINED by the  Boa rd of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 11, Parks and Rec re a tion Fa c ilities, is hereby a me nde d a nd re orda ine d by a me nding A rticle  I In Ge neral, Division 1 Parks G e ne ra lly, Se c tion 11­105 Fe e s.   AR TIC LE I.  IN  GEN ERA L D IVISION 1.  PAR KS GENERALLY Se c. 11­105 Fee s. A.        The  board of supervisors sha ll, from time to time  by re solution, e sta blish fee s for da ily a nd sea sona l pa sses for e ntry to a nd use  of pa rks, re c re ational a rea s and sw imming fa cilities unde r the  c ounty’s jurisdic tion.  The  boa rd of supervisors shall hold a  public  he aring to re ce ive  public  c omme nt on a ny proposed fe e cha nges.  Ten da ys’ public  Public  notic e  a nd a  public  he aring sha ll be  provide d for such public hea ring a t le a st te n da ys prior to the  he a ring date  a ll fe e c ha nge s.  A  c opy of the  a dopte d fe e sche dule  sha ll be poste d in the  park at points whe re  suc h fe e s a re  to be  c olle cte d.   B.         Fe e s for progra ms or ac tivitie s, a nd the  re nta l of c ounty­ow ned property, to include  but not limited to boa ts a nd picnic  she lte rs, shall be  e stablishe d by the  c ounty exe cutive or his de signee .  Sea son pa sses w ill be  honore d from Me moria l D a y we eke nd through Labor D a y. The direc tor of pa rks a nd rec re ation sha ll ma inta in a  sc hedule  of e sta blished fee s.   C.         No fe e will be  c ha rged for pic nic  she lte r rese rva tions during the period tha t pa rk e ntry fe es are be ing c ha rged.  She lte rs must be  re se rved on a  first c ome , first se rve  ba sis. Rese rvations a nd pa yment of fee s for the  use of re serve d pic nic  she lte rs sha ll be  made  in a dva nc e of suc h use  unde r proc e dure s e stablishe d by the dire c tor of parks a nd rec re ation or his de signee .  Any pic nic  she lte r tha t is not ma rked a s re serve d shall be ava ilable a t no c ha rge on a  first c ome , first se rved ba sis.    D.        A  copy of the fe e  sc he dule  sha ll be  poste d a t points whe re  suc h fe es a re  to be  c ollec ted.   E.         N otwithsta nding pa ra gra ph A, a bove , fe es for re nta l of c ounty­owne d boats a nd re crea tion progra ms or a c tivities sha ll be e sta blishe d by the dire c t of pa rks and re c re ation.   DF.      N o person shall be permitted to use suc h fa c ilitie s for w hic h fe e s a re  c ha rged w ithout first pa ying the  fee .   EG.      Fee s may be  suspe nded by orde r of the c ounty exec utive or his de signee  for good ca use.   FH .      No fee s pa id for under pa ra graphs A a nd B, above , da ily pa rk entry or se ason pa sse s sha ll be re funded w ithout the approva l of the  direc tor of pa rks and re cre a tion or his de signee .  D a ily pa rk pa sse s a nd sea son pa sse s Passe s issued upon pa yme nt of suc h fe es shall not be  transfe ra ble  to a ny othe r pe rson.   (4­20­72; 5­15­75; 4­21­76; 4­12­78; 6­17­81; 4­14­83; 5­7­86; 4­13­88; Code  1988, § 14­11; Ord. 98­A(1), 8­5­98)   State law reference—Va. Code § 15.2­1806   Retu rn  to ex ec su mmary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: Propos ed Revision of Personnel Policy §P­23     SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Approv al of  revisions to  Personnel Polic y §P­23     STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Ms. Kim, Suyes,  Gerome   LEGAL R EVIEW:   Yes   AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:                INFORMATION:      CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:   X          INFORMATION:        ATTACH MEN TS:   Yes     REVIEW ED BY:       BACK GROUND : Personnel Policy §P­23 establishes standards and procedures for employee performance reviews.  The policy designates that “each clas sified employ ee who succ ess fully completes the probationary period in a permanent position prior to May 1, s hall receive an annual performance review by May 15 of each year.”   The policy was adopted July 1993.  At that time, the merit increase amount was based on a formula which included an employee's performance evaluation rating and sev eral other computations.  The administration of this pooled sys tem required that the evaluations be completed by May 15 to ensure the increase w as effective on July 1.  In FY 2005/2006, the merit pool system was  replaced with a merit matrix whic h simplified the computation of merit raises.      STRA TEGIC PLAN: Goal 1:  Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.  By June 30, 2009, the Board of Supervisors and general government employees will increase collaborativ e efforts with the School Board and with employees of the schools system to assist the School Div ision to achieve recognition as a “world class education system.”     DISCU SSION : Due to the simplified administration of the merit matrix, it is not neces sary to receive ev aluations by May 15.  Additionally , School Board Personnel policy states that teachers and administrative pers onnel will receive evaluations by June 1.  Therefore, it is rec ommended that policy be revis ed so that Loc al Government classified employees will receive written annual evaluations by June 1.     An identic al amendment has been proposed for School Board classified employees.  The School Board will consider approval of that policy amendment on February 26, 2009.     BUDGET IMPACT: There are no budget implications to adopting this amended Policy.     RECOMMENDA TION S: Staff recommends adoption of the attac hed Resolution to Amend Pers onnel Policy §P­23.     ATTAC HMENTS Proposed Personnel Polic y §P­23 Ret urn t o c ons ent  agenda Ret urn t o regular agenda RESOLUTION               WHER EA S, the  County of Albemarle  Pe rsonne l Polic y Ma nua l has bee n a dopted by the  Boa rd of Supe rvisors; and               WHER EA S, the proposed c hange to Pe rsonne l Polic y §P­23, Pe rformanc e Review, extends the date by w hic h a  pe rma nent e mployee  sha ll re ce ive  an annua l performa nce  review from Ma y 15th to June  1st of e a ch ye ar; and               WHEREAS, the  Boa rd of Supe rvisors de sire s to adopt the re visions to Pe rsonne l Polic y §P­23.               NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R ESOLV ED  THAT the Boa rd of Supe rvisors of A lbe ma rle  County, V irginia , he re by a dopts Pe rsonnel Polic y §P­23, Pe rformanc e Re vie w , of the  County of A lbe ma rle Pe rsonne l Polic y Ma nua l, a s a tta che d hereto a nd inc orpora ted he re in, e ffec tive March 4, 2009.   §P­23 COUNT Y OF  ALBEMARLE PERSONNEL POLICY   §P­23                                                 PERFORM ANCE REVIEW            The Boar d believes that the primar y purpose of a performance review is to inform employees about their abilities, contributions, and level of performance, and to offer constructive help as to how they m ight improve.            The Board endorses a regular system of performance reviews and recognizes that this system is designed to:   A.      M aintain or improve each employee’s job satisfaction by showing an interest in his/her development. B.      Serve as a systematic guide in planning further  improvement in job performance. C.     Assure a consider ed opinion of an employee’s performance. D.     Assist in determining and recording special talents, skills, and/or deficiencies. E.      Provide an opportunity for each em ployee to discuss concerns about his/her  job. F.      Assemble data for  use as a guide for such purposes as wage adjustments, promotions, training oppor tunities, disciplinary action, r eassignment, and dismissal.   PROCEDURE F OR COMPLIANCE FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW   A.         Pr obationary T erms – T he probationar y term is a six­month per iod of continuous employm ent in one position dur ing which every new employee shall demonstrate his/her ability to perform  the job.  Police Officers who have no previous experience in Virginia Law Enforcement, and Communication Officers and Supervisors of the Emer gency Operations center serve a twelve­m onth pr obationary period.  If this performance is not satisfactor y, the employee may be r eleased without further obligation.  During the probationary period, the supervisor will meet with the new em ployee at the end of the third and sixth month in order  to pr ovide input about the employee’s progress.  The probationary performance review must be of an overall satisfactory rating for an employee to become a permanent staff member.   At the supervisor’s request (made to the Director of Hum an Resources), an employee’s probationary period may be extended if he misses 10% or more of the available work time, due to an illness or temporary disability, during the probationary period.  This extension shall be for no more than the num ber of work days the employee was absent.   Employees who are promoted into positions in higher pay ranges may be required, by the supervisor, to serve an additional probationar y period.  If unsuccessful in completing this probationary period, the employee will be considered for  any vacancies that occur in his previous job classification.   Likewise, an employee who has m oved voluntar ily to a lower pay grade, may be required by his supervisor to com plete an additional probationary per iod. If unsuccessful in completing this subsequent probationary period, the em ployee will be considered for any vacancies for which he is qualified.   Employees who ar e promoted into positions in higher pay ranges, or who voluntar ily move to positions in lower pay ranges, shall not be entitled, upon successful completion of a subsequent probationary period, to a salary increase at that time.   B.         Each permanent employee shall receive an annual performance review by May 15th June 1st of each year  unless specific reasons are given to the employee, in writing, for an extension.  The performance review will be conducted by the department head or  designee.  Reviews of performance may be conducted on a more frequent basis when desirable.  However, in no case will the review be held less frequently than once a year.   C.        Unsatisfactory Evaluation – A classified employee who receives an overall unsatisfactory evaluation will be re­evaluated in three months in order to assess progress shown by the em ployee.  An employee who receives two consecutive overall ratings of unsatisfactory may be subject to dismissal.  It shall remain the r esponsibility of the depar tment head/designee to point out in writing specific areas of weakness and to suggest constructive ways to improve job performance.   D.        Performance reviews will be made on forms provided by the Human Resources Department, and a signed copy will be included in the em ployee’s personnel file.  A copy will also be given to the employee.   Amended:  August 7, 1996   Ret urn t o ex ec  summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: Entrance Corridor Proc ess  Improvements Zoning Text Amendment – Res olution of Intent   SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution of Intent to Amend the Entrance Corridor and Related Prov isions in the Zoning Ordinance   STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg, and Ms. Maliszewsk i   LEGAL R EVIEW:   Yes     AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:                INFORMATION:      CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:   X          INFORMATION:        ATTACH MEN TS:   YES     REVIEW ED BY:   BACK GROUND : The Board of Supervisors appointed the Development R eview Task Force in March 2006 and the report of the Task Force was  presented to the BOS In May 2007. One of the Task Forc e recommendations reads:   Improve ARB/PC /Board coordination and clarify the role of the ARB. Clarify the sequential review process to alleviate confusion for staff, applicants, Planning Commission and Board of Superv isors and c larify the extent of review from the PC and AR B expected by the Board, prior to BOS rev iew.   Joint meetings of the BOS, PC and ARB were held on May 21 and September 10, 2008 to discuss issues related to this rec ommendation. Also discussed were more specific recommendations presented by staff on methods for streamlining the ARB review process. The AR B further discussed thes e issues at its October 20, 2008 and January 20, 2009 AR B meetings.   STRA TEGIC PLAN: Goal 1: Enhance Quality of Life for all Citizens Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development   DISCU SSION : The attac hed Resolution of Intent (Attac hment A) would initiate a zoning text amendment that will enable the following recommendations presented at the two joint BOS/PC /ARB meetings and subsequently dis cus sed at additional ARB meetings .  The propos ed zoning text amendment would, among other things:         Restate the purpose and intent of the entrance corridor regulations.       Authorize the ARB to issue county­wide certific ates of appropriateness for c ertain classes of structures and improvements that are recurring (e.g., certain personal w ireless  service facilities ) or have been determined through experience to have minimal visual impac ts (e.g., structures  2000 feet or more from the entrance c orridor street or “2nd tier” buildings ).  County­wide certificates would allow eligible proposed s tructures and improvements to be reviewed by s taff to assure they satisfy the terms and conditions of the applic able county­ w ide certificate, instead of requiring the owner from obtaining project­specific certificate of appropriateness from the ARB.       Expand the lis t of development types exempt from the entranc e corridor regulations.  The lis t of exempt development types would be limited to those that have been determined through ex perience to hav e minimum v isual impacts and those w hose impacts may be temporary in nature such as, for example, temporary c ons truction headquarters and temporary construction yards.       Clarify and expand the requirements for submitting, reviewing and acting on an application for a certificate of appropriateness.       Reorganize, provide more accurate and descriptive section headings and s ubheadings, and make other required changes  to the entrance corridor regulations .   BUDGET IMPACT: Adoption of the zoning text amendment w ould enable the County to undertake some or all of the abov e recommenda­tions, resulting in reduced s taff time and costs associated w ith preparing staff reports  and making presentations at ARB meetings.    RECOMMENDA TION S: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution of Intent.   ATTAC HMENTS Attachment A: Resolution of Intent Ret urn t o c ons ent  agenda Ret urn t o regular agenda R ESOLU TION OF INTENT               WHEREAS, Zoning Ordina nce  § 30.6 was adopte d in 1990 for the  purpose  of implementing the  ena bling authority in V irginia Code § 15.2­2306(A) by identifying those a rte ria l stre ets and highw a ys found to be signific ant routes of tourist ac c ess to de signa te d historic landma rks, struc tures or distric ts within the County or in contiguous loc a litie s (he re ina fte r, “entra nc e  c orridors”), re quiring that the  e re c tion, rec onstruc tion, a lte ra tion or re stora tion of struc ture s, including signs, on parce ls c ontiguous to those  stree ts a nd highways, be a rc hitec turally compatible  with those  historic  la ndma rks or structures, and e stablishing the substantive  a nd proc e dura l re quirements for a pproving de ve lopme nt by the  Archite c tura l Re view Board within the  entra nc e c orridors; and   WHEREAS, the  D e ve lopme nt Re vie w Task Forc e (the “D RTF”) was cha rged by the  Boa rd of Supe rvisors in 2006 to re vie w a nd asse ss c urre nt le gisla tive land use proce sse s to ide ntify ne e de d improve me nts in effic ienc y, effe ctive ne ss, quality a nd public  pa rtic ipa tion; a nd               WHEREAS, one  of the DRTF’s re c ommendations to the Boa rd of Supervisors in 2007 w a s to c larify the extent of A rc hite ctural Re vie w Boa rd review e xpe cte d by the  Board of Supe rvisors a nd de velopme nt proposa ls tha t w ould la te r be conside re d by the  Board of Supe rvisors a nd as a re sult of that rec omme nda tion, the  Board of Supe rvisors, the  Pla nning Commission and the Archite ctura l Revie w Boa rd ha ve re ce ntly he ld two joint me etings to discuss issue s pe rta ining to the  D RTF’s re comme nda tion a nd, rela te d thereto, disc usse d rec omme nda tions prese nte d by County sta ff for stre amlining the  A rc hitec tural Re vie w  Boa rd review proce ss in Zoning Ordina nc e § 30.6; a nd   WHEREAS, in order to improve  the  e ffic ie ncy, e ffec tivene ss, a nd qua lity in Zoning O rdina nc e  § 30.6’s substa ntive a nd proc edura l re quire me nts, Zoning Ordinanc e § 30.6 a nd re late d sec tions of the  Zoning Ordina nc e  should be a me nde d to re orga niz e , re vise  a nd stre amline  applic able  proc e dura l re quire me nts, to reorga niz e, re vise and a me nd applic able  substantive  re quire me nts, to furthe r cla rify the  authority a nd the role of the Archite c tura l Re vie w  Boa rd to fac ilita te the  exe rcise  of its powe rs, and to make othe r cha nge s dee me d a ppropriate  in orde r to be tte r ac hie ve the  purpose  of Zoning Ordinanc e § 30.6 a nd to a ddre ss the re c ommendation of the  D RTF.    NOW, THEREFOR E, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purpose s of public  ne c essity, c onve nie nc e , ge nera l welfa re  and good la nd de velopme nt pra ctic e s, the  Boa rd of Supe rvisors hereby a dopts a  resolution of intent to a me nd Zoning Ordina nc e  §§ 3.1, 4.15, 30.6 a nd a ny other re gula tions of the Zoning Ordina nce  de e me d appropria te  to ac hie ve  the  purpose s de scribe d herein.   BE IT FU RTHER  R ESOLV ED  THA T the  Planning Commission sha ll hold a public  he aring on the zoning text a me ndme nt propose d by this resolution of inte nt, a nd ma ke  its re comme nda tion to the  Boa rd of Supe rvisors, at the  e arlie st possible  da te .   Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: CPA­2008­0004 Economic  Development Policy ­ Update     SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Adoption of the updated Economic Dev elopment Policy     STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Benish, and Ms. Stimart       LEGAL R EVIEW:   Yes   AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:                INFORMATION:      CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:   X          INFORMATION:        ATTACH MEN TS:   YES     REVIEW ED BY:       BACK GROUND : The Board held a public hearing on the proposed Economic Development Policy update on February 11, 2009. The Board requested edits to the proposed updated policy and deferred action to March 4, 2009     STRA TEGIC PLAN: Objective 1.3 ­ Economic  Vitality – By J une 30, 2010, the County will c ontinue to maintain a strong and sustainable economy; increase the ec onomic vitality of the County's development areas; and inc rease the ability  of those individuals  and families , w ho are living in lower income households, to become self­sufficient.     DISCU SSION : The edits requested at the February 11 meeting are highlighted in yellow and shown in Attachment A.     BUDGET IMPACT: None     RECOMMENDA TION S: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the updated Economic Development Policy (Attachment B).     ATTAC HMENTS Attachment A – Draft s how ing Changes to the Economic  Development Policy Attachment B – Updated Economic Development Policy Ret urn t o c ons ent  agenda Ret urn t o regular agenda ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY Adopted March 1, 1995 Updated March 4, 2009 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1996-2016 Table of Contents The Policy __________________________________________________________________4 Objective I_________________________________________________________________4 !"#!" $%$ & ’ () ’(*#"+ ’ ", -’$ ."./$0&12 "’(*#" &+ &+ /3 &$!" %//3 !" %//3 /3 ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ 2 Objective II ________________________________________________________________6 Objective III _______________________________________________________________7 Objective IV _______________________________________________________________8 Objective V _______________________________________________________________ 8 Objective VI _______________________________________________________________8 Priority Action Measures _____________________________________________________9 Attachment A - Analysis & Findings _____________________________________________ 10 Attachment B - Data ___________________________________________________________17 - 3 - THE POLICY: The purpose of this economic development policy is, first and foremost, to provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life. Economic growth and vitality are required to sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. By creating and sustaining a high quality, diversified economic environment, citizens will enjoy improved job opportunities, competitive wages, work force development opportunities, and the community will enjoy a growing and diversified tax base. Within well-defined development areas, we will seek to designate opportunity sites to address future growth needs in a manner that will add to the strength of our community. We will engage with our resident and new enterprises seeking to expand their businesses. We will work to find appropriate development areas sites to accommodate this positive growth within the context of the Master Planning process and the Comprehensive Plan. We will work to encourage a mix of uses, and a balance of jobs and housing within our development areas, in keeping with our commitment to the Neighborhood model form of development. We will work with resident and new agricultural enterprises to, in an environmentally sustainable manner, maximize their productivity and tourism opportunities as a part of our overall strategy to preserve the rich agrarian tradition and texture of our rural areas. We recognize our position, along with the City of Charlottesville, as the center of the regional economy. We recognize the economic objectives of other localities in the region, while renewing our commitment to our own economic development within the framework of our growth management objectives. We are like other university communities in that we have an above-average labor force participation rate and above-average number of part-time workers (both students and adults who prefer part-time work). The University of Virginia is a consistently strong employer and offers great potential for associated scientific research and development. Other major employers continue to provide employment stability and diversity. The renowned natural environment, Blue Ridge Mountain location, and historic resources of the area provide a growing tourist trade as well as an attractive place to do business. Note: "Business" and "industry" are intended to be inclusive and interchangeable terms, meaning the commercial production and sale of goods or services. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: Maintain a strong and sustainable economy: 1) benefiting County citizens and existing businesses and providing diversified economic opportunities; 2) supportive of the County's Growth Management Policy and consistent with the other Comprehensive Plan goals; and, 3) taking into consideration the greater Charlottesville Metropolitan region. OBJECTIVE I: Base economic development policy on planning efforts which support and enhance the strengths of the County. STRATEGIES: 1. Protect through diligent growth management efforts the County's distinctive natural and 4 %5 ’(# ##6 ##0 #75 5 # 0 %""(#’( ( "5 8 3 5 ## # 3 %5 ’( #’(9 " ’( */ 3 ’ 000:&; 000:&; 000:+; 000:1; 000:; 000:<; 000:$; 000:<; 000:; 000:; 000:; 000:&1; 000:=; 000:&; 000:&$; 000:&<; 000:&=; 000:; 000:&+; 000:=; 000:&&; 000:&; 000:1; 000:&; 000:$; 000:; 000:; 000:; 000:&; 000:&; 000:; 000:+; 000:=; 000:; 000:1; 4 man-made qualities to maintain its attractiveness as a place to live and work. Support those projects that meet the intent of the Neighborhood model form of development, i.e., offer a mix of uses and a balance of jobs-to-housing in our development areas. 2. Maintain the relationship of high quality schools and public services and an outstanding level of natural and cultural amenities to positive economic development, and maintain these attributes. 3. Increase the promotion of tourism focused on the rural, agrarian, and historical resources of the County, and which does not threaten or compromise those resources and to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Increase the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, more specifically by • Increasing support to local agricultural infrastructure such local food networks and programs. (The agricultural infrastructure provides markets and supplies to farmers and significant economic activity to Albemarle County as a whole.) • Establishing a proactive rural-support program that provides assistance to the local agricultural community, and that includes an on-going dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders. • Supporting farmers by connecting those farmers with technical resources such as those provided by the Farm Bureau, PVCC, PEC and VA Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and to landowners interested in leasing farm land. • Incorporating outreach and education in public school programs. • Addressing the Comprehensive Plan, Rural Area Chapter recommendations for economic vitality. • Participating in or commissioning a study of the impact of agriculture to Albemarle County’s economy. 5. Recognize that the University of Virginia is a main driver of economic vitality and can provide important resources for business and industry. Work with the University, its associated entities and the City to take advantage of opportunities to benefit from this resource in innovative ways. In addition: • Working with the University and the City through the Three-Party Agreements process to encourage appropriate infill locations and environmental sensitivity in the planning and development of University facilities. 6. Recognize the importance and role of military intelligence as another type of economic driver to the local economy and the region, as well as an important resource for national security. Encourage base location and expansion to be consistent with County policies. 7. Maintain a contact point for information about the County, including the Business Development Facilitator who serves as the County’s principal liaison with the business community for the purpose of encouraging development and businesses consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. & /5 $2 > $012 >2 >012 >&2 >&012 >2 >012 >=2 >=012 >12 >1012 > 2 >012 & /5 $012 >2 /5 $2 > $012 >2 >012 >&2 >&012 >2 >012 >=2 >=012 >12 >1012 > 2 >012 & /5 $012 >2 & /5 $2 > $012 >2 >012 >&2 >&012 >2 >012 >=2 >=012 >12 >1012 > 2 >012 /5 $012 >2 ’"? @ " @ "" (5(# #" 4 6 4 000:=; 000:==; 000:=1; 000:=&; 000:=; 000:=; 000:=<; 000:+; 000:=+; 000:; 000:=; 000:=$; 000:; 000:1$; 000:<; 000:1; 5 8. Increase planning for the special needs, and utilize the talents, of the growing retired population attracted to this area, including “encore-career” seekers, a term used to describe work in the second half of life that combines continued income, greater meaning and social impact. 9. Increase support to initiatives that support employment of the local labor force, rather than heavy reliance on relocated workers. 10. Encourage all businesses to adopt environmentally sustainable measures and discourage business and industry which is not environmentally sustainable or friendly (such as high water users, polluters). 11. Increase diversity in business and industry which will accommodate a variety of skill/educational levels, and provide for a diversified tax base, in particular to reduce the tax burden borne by residential property owners. 12. Maintain data on County plans, zoning, sites, and policies, and make these available on request. Monitor and report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors about the volume of economic development activity and how that activity is fitting with the Goals, Objectives and Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. OBJECTIVE II: Plan for land and infrastructure to accommodate future business and industrial growth. STRATEGIES: 1. Assess the quality of areas designated for business and industry through analysis of the site size variety, topography, location, and availability of infrastructure in such areas, and compile an inventory of actual, useable land. 2. Designate areas for office, commercial and industrial development within the designated development areas that meet the development standards of the Comprehensive Plan and will provide sufficient land to meet community needs through the next Comprehensive Plan revision. • Ensure that land for business and light-industrial uses are consistent with the neighborhood model principles, which provide for ease of access for employees to housing, support services, and multi-modal transportation options. 3. Utilize the rezoning process and associated proffer allowances to address needs brought about by new development and to provide the community with assurances about future development activities. 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning land to allow for light-industrial uses as /./$2 $012 5 $2 > $012 >2 >012 >&2 >&012 >2 >012 >=2 >=012 >12 >1012 > 2 >012 A @ " " @ " A 3 # ( #/B A 0 000:1; 000:1=; 000:&; 000:11; 000:; 000:1; 000:; 000:1<; 000:1; 000:<; 000:1+; 000:<=; 000:+; 000:<1; 000:$; 000:<; 000:; 000:<<; 000:=; 000:<+; 000:<&; 000:<; 000:; 000:+$; 000:<; 000:+; 000:1; 000:+&; 000:1&; 000:+; 000:<$; 000:+=; 000:<; 000:+1; 6 needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and light-industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts. Additional infill approaches should include: • Encouraging the provision of business and light-industrial development opportunities in non-residential and mixed-use projects in the development review and approval process. • Encouraging proffers for assembling light-industrial land or funding to offset the cost of local light-industrial-user expansion where there is an impact from the project and it is necessary to mitigate the impacts. 5. Maintain and implement current infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, and community facilities) programs to support business and industrial development of designated Development Areas. Identify infrastructure improvements that better enable business and industrial development, in appropriate locations. 6. Continue to cooperate with other jurisdictions on regional transportation initiatives (trails, rail, road, transit, and air travel). 7. Continue to work with property owners in designated Development Areas to identify infrastructure needs, and promote good planning for development of such areas consistent with County growth management strategies. OBJECTIVE III: Recognize the County's place in the regional economy. STRATEGIES: 1. Maintain cooperation with the City of Charlottesville, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED), other jurisdictions in the region, the University of Virginia, and Piedmont Virginia Community College for: • Development of a coordinated economic data base. • Continuing discussion among the TJPDC jurisdictions about working and shopping patterns, wage levels, job stability, work force development needs, housing affordability, public services, tax burdens, and other topics which relate to the purposes of local and regional economic development policy; • Distribution of information about development opportunities in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) to those who request it; • Regional work force development; • Addressing linkages between housing and wages; • Evaluating local, regional, statewide, national, and worldwide economic trends to determine the current and future economic stability of, and growth opportunities for, different types of business and industry; • Initiatives such as the high school technology tour; and & 4 3 #" 6 *#% *# ’### CA ’ D E D D D D D 0 000:++; 000:$=; 000:$1; 000:$; 000:=; 000:$$; 000:&; 000:$<; 000:+<; 000:+; 000:$+; 000:$; 000:1; 000:$; 000:; 000:$; 000:<; 000:; 000:$; 000:+; 000:&; 000:; 000:; 000:; 000:+; 000:$; 000:=; 000:$&; 000:; 000:1; 7 Regional transportation initiatives (trails, rail, road, transit, and air travel). 2. Support mutual consultation on regional development projects along shared borders, and/or on projects of significance to more than one locality, possibly through a "Memorandum of Understanding." OBJECTIVE IV: Consider fiscal impact as one indicator of positive economic development, along with environmental impact and standard of living impact. STRATEGIES: 1. Maintain evaluation of the fiscal impacts of new business/industrial development. 2. Recognize that County residents place importance on job opportunities and economic growth, but not at the expense of the protection and preservation of water quality and quantity, natural resources, farmland, historic areas, and open space. 3. Recognize that the purpose of this economic development policy is to provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living, improved job and wage opportunities, and work force development opportunities, rather than to seek to stimulate further population growth. 4. Recognize, identify and quantify new benefits and costs (for business and citizens) imposed by any proposed ordinance or policy change prior to taking action on said policy or ordinance. OBJECTIVE V: Increase local business development opportunities. STRATEGIES: 1. Maintain support to existing businesses and industries through an open door policy of communication, and exchange of information and concerns. 2. Support and coordinate with existing entities that assist new small, locally-owned, local agricultural ventures, minority businesses and micro-enterprises in their start-up and early operation efforts. OBJECTIVE VI: Increase work force development opportunities, to further career-ladder opportunity and higher wages. STRATEGIES: 1. Recognize that the most fundamentally sound work force is one that has basic education and good work habits: • Increase support for initiatives that foster career-planning, decision-making and & /5 $2 > $012 >2 >012 >&2 >&012 >2 >012 >=2 >=012 >12 >1012 > 2 >012 /5 $012 >2 /. $2 5 $2 >$012 >2 > 012 >&2 >&012 >2 >012 >=2 >=012 >12 >1012 >2 >012 /5 012 0 "?6 "##’( ’#3 F "" 3 57"3 # 57"3 ##"# #C A " "#’( 57"3 04 4 =0 ,""# ""3 # "G # ’(9 ! ""(04 4 @3 " A 3 4 4 0 000:+; 000:&$; 000:<; 000:&; 000:; 000:&&; 000:; 000:&1; 000:&; 000:$; 000:&; 000:; 000:&<; 000:&; 000:&+; 000:; 000:&; 000:&=; 000:=; 8 workplace readiness skills for the K-12 population, as measured by the number of participants in career-education activities; • Increase support for facilities to support residents seeking apprenticeship, industry licensure or certifications for high-demand and career-ladder jobs. Target populations would include disadvantaged, lower-income and “encore-career” seekers served by the VA Employment Commission; • Promote employee certification and licensure to the business community; and • Focus efforts on opportunities that increase wages to local residents. 2. Encourage and support continuing educational and training programs to prepare the local work force for the skill demands of current and future employers, including appropriate work habits and life skills. • Increase support (purchase of books, etc.) for Albemarle County residents to attend pre-employment training at career centers to include topics such as time-management, stress-management and customer service. • Increase support for continuing education and training programs, ideally targeting incumbent-worker, career-ladder training. 3. Increase the use of information gathering strategies such as, a. A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark underemployment and “not-in-the-labor force” needs as well as employer needs b. A software database, such as Executive Pulse©, to help identify workforce training needs 4. Monitor performance of the County’s Strategic Plan and the Comprehensive Plan (education, housing, day care, transportation, etc.) to address barriers experienced by the local work force, particularly those with greatest needs. Priority Action Measures: To address issues identified in the 2007 updated data, the Policy’s short-term priorities include the following strategies: • Objective I. Strategy 4. Increasing the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, such as the purchase of local products, establishing a rural- support program and continuing a dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders. • Objective II. Strategy 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning to light- industrial uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts. • Objective VI. Strategy 3. Increase the use of information gathering strategies such as: o A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark the needs of “underemployed” and those not in the labor force (as defined by the VA & /5 $2 > $012 >2 >012 >&2 >&012 >2 >012 >=2 >=012 >12 >1012 > 2 >012 /5 $012 >2 & 4 0 @ " "#0 @ " #"#("#5 " 6 6 "04 4 =0 3 57"3 9 Employment Commission) as well as employer needs. o A software database, such as Executive Pulse©, to identify workforce training needs and promote workforce training opportunities. 10 11 !"#$ % !&’#$!#!"#$"#’#!" #’# (##$&’#) !"# #"$%&’ # ()&& *# #*#**+# ,&#&#-.&#/0 1 #2 ## *#$&’#+!#%!,!$!"#!#&’# ’#!"#$-##$’ %!,#$’ $#!*,#*#$ &’#+’ #!#$##%#$"##$!$#" %"###!#)0 ")## &*3 &#)# &4 &#*5 #" ###4 & 6 #"**5 7#"# ) 6 -&# &’#!# !#.%!#’# !"#$*%’### #$,#$!##!!(#,"#!/’#*#’!!’!*,! * $#!!)8 -6 0 (-" )&9 ##"6 4 #"5 0 & :&" "&&"; "" "#&"* 8 # <’-") &&"#"**4 # "5 0 &:&"& &#"";"#& &6 -&#=/8 &>)0 1 0 &## 6 $#$&’#$#$!#!#%!,!#$!*#$&#,&$!##( !##!# ##!"#$# !##!#,# ’ %!,&’#!##"!1 $)#$!#$&#&’#!#$#! ,! "$$#$ .!#,#$!+"!1 !! &$!##(% !&’#) 12 *2 ,(! ’!, #(#*% !&’##$ &$!##(!3 !"#$)"& &&##"’&&# ?#"#"@ ; ;*3@ ;6 63@ **&&-#7 "A &#/"&# )&###B-)#" &####"#)&&&&&-&# A )7 "%C 7#&C #"&C * &####)&"46 5 8 # C &(#&8 4(8 5 D 5 1 +&#5 E +1 -5 ?E " &C @* 7#C &C & .&&27#.A >-"&2&### C -&#-/-F-7 C E &&&4E0!>5 C ""C #"&",&9 &8 #&#C "& ## E0!>&;;"* E0!>"E0!>&"7#### "E0!>####"&"&#8 9 #’0 )E0!>C "&; *? #"# E0!>&*-&#-))E0!> G &&,"& 6 ?*9 "#;!"# )6 *"-&#7 / -&E >-&&4 # 5 ##$% ’H %I J 4H %J 5 #&### 9 )# #9 #6 *;"6;; 7# #"#&8 ##&:*;;6 # ##;**#&&H %J # #"#9 #-&#G % 7#&#&"& ####&&#B-**, &#6 J ##*& #"## -&# 13 G &E , 7##"")E ##" # 7#&&#" - &#B &"" $&’#’###!*!’#,%#$#$##!,%%4 % !#$##!#(,#$!##$!$!#! #) 7#6 "#&#&)# #*# #6 E #&6*# "6 E &#))&&F #&#) ##;&"# 7##D # #9 #)##C &&#3 :#,3 ,#&&& ’####*## #######*66 &"#*?*##### 6* 6 #&####";’ ##"’&###6*"# #4 #)5 &)-&#E 7# ##&&##&#’### "8 #’###6 #- "E #’###$’ ;$&’#’#"’#"#$ !#%$!+! !’#!*!,#,#$!,#$5 (!#( #$6 !,!( !)# &##6 ###&##" &&E #6 * #&#####&# #&&#*.& -"2 "*6 *#&#’ ##3 ###&"7#- #&&"&##6* 6 8 &&&#&#"&*"" -&#8 & #$ $5 (!#,7 !! #$ # !#! ,’ %!, *%’#!("1 #’#!#!(!$!, #$&’#+#$!+(! #)7#B "$ 14 #7#B " &&&&&"*#’ 7#B "&&## @ "&"#C " "C 7##B$4 && &&5 ##4 & &#5 ? B$"&## &#B$#C &&6 4 &#5 ##-&# $#,.%!(%#$&’#+ !*,"##!*! % !#!!(!#)J #"&"# 9 4 6 * 5 9 ##&&#&9 &&-&&9 #" #9 C &"&6 !"#6 # #&&#" 8 "#"# #& )"4 9 5 &#&"&4 6 ;9 5 ##&4 6 9 5 -"#&C & #D 4 ;69 5 & 4 6 9 5 # *4 ;9 5 A C &# &"# -&#? /I %7 H %J #): &#K ##"###& #"&###D ’ "8 #C K # #"#-#"##.A 2 .&&F? -"&2K #-#"##&&# ##"7#-####.0 7 &#&-"&2 #&&&"## 9 &&-&#?/%7 )G (# &8 &4(8 5 & $’#,&’#"!1 !*!,##$!,#$5 (!#" #$!$$!#$6 !,!( !*,!#!# ! #’##$*’!#’#)0 # "*#&&&"&& /#####?$%’&&&4 6)65 # 0 $8 &##-### ##"0 A $8 # ##&4 "#’ 5 &4;"#’*6 5 &&F C &&&4;" 6 5 ##-&#L $#$’ %!, !#$&’#!*#$’ %! % #$ !$! !#(#%)## #:&,#"#4 5 #" 15 #4 6 5 # %C&B$ #9 &#*7# &##-’"### )<&##-&#K $#$&’#$!#($$ "$ !##$!#$##* " ##!!%"#$##(!,!#$#!)8 6 &#&3 ##& #-’"& ####"#--&#M 8 *# &C&D &##&&& -",&##"D & &#&"&-&#+#&&#- $, !((!##$&’#$(##,* (!###,! #,#$’#)?;# C &"*;8 #6 & #"*E #"#&*;*# #&#" 0 ##&#* - &#( 6 $&$!##(!$##!1 #!!#$%## ,’!%! #$##$’,,!%#)!"##&### !##4 $5 ## ##&#& 6 $##&-&#!/ L #&#) ##@ * "@ -&#0 L 0 #!& L (A #7#K 0 G & #&&*#&,#"#&# #"&#&,7### #"#&&))"&#" ##)&))"!##### #&,&#"&#"*+-"&& 8 -;##"&A 4 A5 #; #&@ 3 (";A ### ,&@ A’H ;,&### ##"#,##"+-4 #5 7#"#")C)### &.&2#,7# #&&#&## #####&& 16 !&#?#)H A >"8 C "&" ;6 &##"+&C ; ###"!C&#&### &#6 -#DFF &F *!’#’!,!#!*"$#!"$!,#$(!% ! &’# *(!#$! !## #)J #9 "&&@ **@ ;@ ;6 ,*##4 5 "&&*#"&,8 &&## &##& "#&#&&"#,## & ?#&&’&@ @ ;,*#$&&@ ; "&,&&@ #"","& 6 ;@ 6 @ "<&; &&#))&&@ @ %"##&#&## "&-&#$I J (#!,###$&’#,! * , "$$#!#!!#!)(*& #’#"#&#; ."&2 .<2 #"#@ " 7#&##"0 ’&"& 8 -"&C "&##>#8 <##"0 8 -"&& ##D!#&&"& <-CN 7##&## #&#&&#& #9 &##"&&# =/. /$2 $2 5 $012 >2 >012 >&2 >&012 >2 >012 >=2 >=012 >12 >1012 > 2 >012 17 Appendix B Updated Data 18 &#=/<-"0 Table III-15: Importance and Satisfaction with Services Importance Satisfaction Score Rank Service % Rank 2.99 1 provide quality education to school children 84.8% 15 2.90 2 provide police protection 91.2% 8 2.88 3 provide emergency rescue services 92.5% 7 2.88 4 provide fire protection 95.5% 1 2.86 5 protect water resources 75.6% 25 2.81 6 ensure safety at or near residence 92.7% 6 2.79 7 provide fair property tax assessments (combined) 58.4% 32 2.79 8 provide needed public facilities 93.9% 2 2.76 9 ensure safety in business areas 93.8% 3 2.74 10 provide services to disadvantaged people 76.4% 24 2.72 11 provide opportunities for citizen input 86.3% 14 2.72 12 provide needed infrastructure 80.9% 18 2.71 13 provide recycling services 52.2% 34 2.71 14 maintain QOL dealing with growth and develop 74.6% 26 2.70 15 provide effective service to our residents 90.1% 11 2.70 16 support programs for youth 80.9% 19 2.67 17 protect natural resources and environment 84.0% 16 2.67 18 provide programs to help elderly population 83.8% 17 2.65 19 manage growth in the County 60.8% 31 2.62 20 ensure safety for walkers and bicyclists (combined) 70.2% 27 2.62 21 provide parks and recreation space 89.7% 12 2.59 22 make it easy to get around by car 77.7% 22 2.59 23 assure economic growth and job opportunities 77.7% 21 2.58 24 provide library services 93.7% 4 2.55 25 protect and preserve County's rural character 77.1% 23 2.52 26 promote development of affordable housing 56.5% 33 2.46 27 provide support for people in financial need 68.5% 28 2.46 28 support affordable child-care 62.3% 29 2.44 29 make it easy to get around by public transportation (combined) 61.7% 30 2.36 30 provide learning opportunities for adults 90.5% 10 2.35 31 preserve historic buildings (combined) 91.1% 9 2.15 32 support cultural and entertainment opportunities 87.6% 13 2.13 33 regulate outdoor lighting to reduce light pollution and glare 78.1% 20 2.09 34 promote tourism in our area 93.6% 5 19 1 Left: 1.13", Right: 0.81", Top: 1", Bottom: 0.81", Section start: New page, Do not suppress endnotes, Header distance from edge: 0.5", Footer distance from edge: 0.5", Different first page Font: Times New Roman Heading 4, Left, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Space Before: 6 pt, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" ! %5 ’(#"(0 8 #3 5 " #3 )"(0 #5 "6 "0 * "#G ("#’(F " ""0 ,"####!3 0 % "((#B 3 (9 #"#7 3 ( """"#3 (0 -#7 (""3 (5 (3 (0 # 3 ,"#""# 3 "3 "5 0 # #"5 #"#"(" (0 ###%5 ’(#"##"" 3 "("?6 0 8 6 #3 ("##3 5 3 3 5 " "5 3 3 5 D 6 5 # #D 6 0 %3 ("(#3 #"3 5 "#3 #G (6 #5 ###5 #0 8 "(#( 3 ##"6 """(0 ### 5 ###5 (#"("5 3 3 #"3 5(((0 % "(6 3 ((( ####""(0 8 #3 # #5 6 (#6 0 A 5 " #(5 ##"6 # 0 /"#"6 3 #6 "(3 (3 3 750 " Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ##6 ##0 8 6 # 5 ""#3 Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt 2 #75 3" 5 #0 %""(#’( Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt " Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt 8 3 5 ###G G ("(0 Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ! %5 ’(#’(9 !"" 3 0 " Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt */3 ’""3 Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt 3 Left, Tabs: Not at 1.5" ! Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" " Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" !# @ ""(5(##" #%".!’0 !$ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ! 10 ! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt !! Left, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 5 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5", Tabs: Not at 1" !! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt !! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt !! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt !!! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt !!" Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt !!# 0 ’’(?"6 #3 5 G 0 !!$ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt !! Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" !! Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" !" Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt !" Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "" Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" "" Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ""! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt """ 4 Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" ""# Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ""$ Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" "" Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" "" Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "# Left, Tabs: Not at 0.1" + 0.5" "# Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "# Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "# Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "#! Left, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", Tabs: Not at 0.1" + 0.6" "#" Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.1" + 0.5" "## Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "#$ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "# Left, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.1" + 0.6" "# Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Bold "$ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "$ Left, Keep with next, Tabs: Not at 1.5" "$ Left, Indent: First line: 0", Keep with next, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.1" + 0.6" "$ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "$! Left, Keep with next, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" "$" Left, Indent: First line: 0", Tabs: Not at 0.1" "$# Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" "$$ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt "$ A 3 #)5 ("#"#3 " 3 (#A 0 "$ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt 5 " Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt " Left, Indent: First line: 0", Tabs: Not at 0.1" + 0.6" " Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" " Left, Tabs: Not at 0.1" + 0.6" "! Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" "" (#/B A 0 ## !" 6)A 6 #$ Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Highlight # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # ! 6 *#%6 # " Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # # Left, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" # $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" # Left, Indent: First line: 0", Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" # Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" # ’###CA ’ # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt #! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt #" Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" ## Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt #$ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt 7 # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt # Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt #! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt #" Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $# Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $$ Left, Indent: First line: 0", Tabs: Not at 1.5" $ Left, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Tabs: Not at 1.5" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $ Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" $ Left, Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5" $ Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" $! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $" Left, Indent: First line: 0", Tabs: Not at 0" + 0.5" $# Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $$ %&’%()*( 0 !)5 ##"( "")"#""0 &0 ’#)#"(D (5 "D #D ( 0 +,-(.%*/(/*A 3 6 "3 0 8 $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Underline $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Underline $ Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt $ Left, Tabs: Not at 0.5" + 1" $! Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY Adopted March 1, 1995 Updated March 4, 2009 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1996-2016 - 2 - Table of Contents The Policy _________________________________________________________________3 Objective I ________________________________________________________________3 Objective II _______________________________________________________________5 Objective III ______________________________________________________________6 Objective IV ______________________________________________________________7 Objective V _______________________________________________________________ 7 Objective VI ______________________________________________________________7 Priority Action Measures ____________________________________________________8 Attachment A - Analysis & Findings ______________________________________________ 9 Attachment B - Data __________________________________________________________16 Exhibit A - 3 - THE POLICY: The purpose of this economic development policy is, first and foremost, to provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life. Economic growth and vitality are required to sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. By creating and sustaining a high quality, diversified economic environment, citizens will enjoy improved job opportunities, competitive wages, work force development opportunities, and the community will enjoy a growing and diversified tax base. Within well-defined development areas, we will seek to designate opportunity sites to address future growth needs in a manner that will add to the strength of our community. We will engage with our resident and new enterprises seeking to expand their businesses. We will work to find appropriate development areas sites to accommodate this positive growth within the context of the Master Planning process and the Comprehensive Plan. We will work to encourage a mix of uses, and a balance of jobs and housing within our development areas, in keeping with our commitment to the Neighborhood model form of development. We will work with resident and new agricultural enterprises to, in an environmentally sustainable manner, maximize their productivity and tourism opportunities as a part of our overall strategy to preserve the rich agrarian tradition and texture of our rural areas. We recognize our position, along with the City of Charlottesville, as the center of the regional economy. We recognize the economic objectives of other localities in the region, while renewing our commitment to our own economic development within the framework of our growth management objectives. We are like other university communities in that we have an above-average labor force participation rate and above-average number of part-time workers (both students and adults who prefer part-time work). The University of Virginia is a consistently strong employer and offers great potential for associated scientific research and development. Other major employers continue to provide employment stability and diversity. The renowned natural environment, Blue Ridge Mountain location, and historic resources of the area provide a growing tourist trade as well as an attractive place to do business. Note: "Business" and "industry" are intended to be inclusive and interchangeable terms, meaning the commercial production and sale of goods or services. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES: GOAL: Maintain a strong and sustainable economy: 1) benefiting County citizens and existing businesses and providing diversified economic opportunities; 2) supportive of the County's Growth Management Policy and consistent with the other Comprehensive Plan goals; and, 3) taking into consideration the greater Charlottesville Metropolitan region. OBJECTIVE I: Base economic development policy on planning efforts which support and enhance the strengths of the County. STRATEGIES: 1. Protect through diligent growth management efforts the County's distinctive natural and man-made qualities to maintain its attractiveness as a place to live and work. Support those - 4 - projects that meet the intent of the Neighborhood model form of development, i.e., offer a mix of uses and a balance of jobs-to-housing in our development areas. 2. Maintain the relationship of high quality schools and public services and an outstanding level of natural and cultural amenities to positive economic development, and maintain these attributes. 3. Increase the promotion of tourism focused on the rural, agrarian, and historical resources of the County, and which does not threaten or compromise those resources and to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Increase the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, more specifically by • Increasing support to local agricultural infrastructure such local food networks and programs. (The agricultural infrastructure provides markets and supplies to farmers and significant economic activity to Albemarle County as a whole.) • Establishing a proactive rural-support program that provides assistance to the local agricultural community, and that includes an on-going dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders. • Supporting farmers by connecting those farmers with technical resources such as those provided by the Farm Bureau, PVCC, PEC and VA Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and to landowners interested in leasing farm land. • Incorporating outreach and education in public school programs. • Addressing the Comprehensive Plan, Rural Area Chapter recommendations for economic vitality. • Participating in or commissioning a study of the impact of agriculture to Albemarle County’s economy. 5. Recognize that the University of Virginia is a main driver of economic vitality and can provide important resources for business and industry. Work with the University, its associated entities and the City to take advantage of opportunities to benefit from this resource in innovative ways. In addition: • Working with the University and the City through the Three-Party Agreements process to encourage appropriate infill locations and environmental sensitivity in the planning and development of University facilities. 6. Recognize the importance and role of military intelligence as another type of economic driver to the local economy and the region, as well as an important resource for national security. Encourage base location and expansion to be consistent with County policies. 7. Maintain a contact point for information about the County, including the Business Development Facilitator who serves as the County’s principal liaison with the business community for the purpose of encouraging development and businesses consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. 8. Increase planning for the special needs, and utilize the talents, of the growing retired population attracted to this area, including “encore-career” seekers, a term used to describe - 5 - work in the second half of life that combines continued income, greater meaning and social impact. 9. Increase support to initiatives that support employment of the local labor force, rather than heavy reliance on relocated workers. 10. Encourage all businesses to adopt environmentally sustainable measures and discourage business and industry which is not environmentally sustainable or friendly (such as high water users, polluters). 11. Increase diversity in business and industry which will accommodate a variety of skill/educational levels, and provide for a diversified tax base, in particular to reduce the tax burden borne by residential property owners. 12. Maintain data on County plans, zoning, sites, and policies, and make these available on request. Monitor and report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors about the volume of economic development activity and how that activity is fitting with the Goals, Objectives and Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. OBJECTIVE II: Plan for land and infrastructure to accommodate future business and industrial growth. STRATEGIES: 1. Assess the quality of areas designated for business and industry through analysis of the site size variety, topography, location, and availability of infrastructure in such areas, and compile an inventory of actual, useable land. 2. Designate areas for office, commercial and industrial development within the designated Development Areas that meet the development standards of the Comprehensive Plan and will provide sufficient land to meet community needs through the next Comprehensive Plan revision. • Ensure that land for business and light-industrial uses are consistent with the neighborhood model principles, which provide for ease of access for employees to housing, support services, and multi-modal transportation options. 3. Utilize the rezoning process and associated proffer allowances to address needs brought about by new development and to provide the community with assurances about future development activities. 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning land to allow for light-industrial uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and light-industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts. Additional infill approaches should include: - 6 - • Encouraging the provision of business and light-industrial development opportunities in non-residential and mixed-use projects in the development review and approval process. • Encouraging proffers for assembling light-industrial land or funding to offset the cost of local light-industrial-user expansion where there is an impact from the project and it is necessary to mitigate the impacts. 5. Maintain and implement current infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, and community facilities) programs to support business and industrial development of designated development areas. Identify infrastructure improvements that better enable business and industrial development, in appropriate locations. 6. Continue to cooperate with other jurisdictions on regional transportation initiatives (trails, rail, road, transit, and air travel). 7. Continue to work with property owners in designated Development Areas to identify infrastructure needs, and promote good planning for development of such areas consistent with County growth management strategies. OBJECTIVE III: Recognize the County's place in the regional economy. STRATEGIES: 1. Maintain cooperation with the City of Charlottesville, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED), other jurisdictions in the region, the University of Virginia, and Piedmont Virginia Community College for: • Development of a coordinated economic data base. • Continuing discussion among the TJPDC jurisdictions about working and shopping patterns, wage levels, job stability, work force development needs, housing affordability, public services, tax burdens, and other topics which relate to the purposes of local and regional economic development policy; • Distribution of information about development opportunities in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) to those who request it; • Regional work force development; • Addressing linkages between housing and wages; • Evaluating local, regional, statewide, national, and worldwide economic trends to determine the current and future economic stability of, and growth opportunities for, different types of business and industry; • Initiatives such as the high school technology tour; and Regional transportation initiatives (trails, rail, road, transit, and air travel). 2. Support mutual consultation on regional development projects along shared borders, and/or on projects of significance to more than one locality, possibly through a "Memorandum of Understanding." - 7 - OBJECTIVE IV: Consider fiscal impact as one indicator of positive economic development, along with environmental impact and standard of living impact. STRATEGIES: 1. Maintain evaluation of the fiscal impacts of new business/industrial development. 2. Recognize that Count y residents place importance on job opportunities and economic growth, but not at the expense of the protection and preservation of water quality and quantity, natural resources, farmland, historic areas, and open space. 3. Recognize that the purpose of this economic development policy is to provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living, improved job and wage opportunities, and work force development opportunities, rather than to seek to stimulate further population growth. 4. Recognize, identify and quantify new benefits and costs (for business and citizens) imposed by any proposed ordinance or policy change prior to taking action on said policy or ordinance. OBJECTIVE V: Increase local business development opportunities. STRATEGIES: 1. Maintain support to existing businesses and industries through an open door policy of communication, and exchange of information and concerns. 2. Support and coordinate with existing entities that assist new small, locally-owned, local agricultural ventures, minority businesses and micro-enterprises in their start-up and early operation efforts. OBJECTIVE VI: Increase work force development opportunities, to further career-ladder opportunity and higher wages. STRATEGIES: 1. Recognize that the most fundamentally sound work force is one that has basic education and good work habits: • Increase support for initiatives that foster career-planning, decision-making and workplace readiness skills for the K-12 population, as measured b y the number of participants in career-education activities; • Increase support for facilities to support residents seeking apprenticeship, industry licensure or certifications for high-demand and career-ladder jobs. Target populations would include disadvantaged, lower-income and “encore-career” seekers served by the VA Employment Commission; - 8 - • Promote employee certification and licensure to the business community; and • Focus efforts on opportunities that increase wages to local residents. 2. Encourage and support continuing educational and training programs to prepare the local work force for the skill demands of current and future employers, including appropriate work habits and life skills. • Increase support (purchase of books, etc.) for Albemarle County residents to attend pre- employment training at career centers to include topics such as time-management, stress- management and customer service. • Increase support for continuing education and training programs, ideally targeting incumbent-worker, career-ladder training. 3. Increase the use of information gathering strategies such as, a. A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark underemployment and “not-in-the-labor force” needs as well as employer needs b. A software database, such as Executive Pulse©, to help identify workforce training needs 4. Monitor performance of the County’s Strategic Plan and the Comprehensive Plan (education, housing, day care, transportation, etc.) to address barriers experienced by the local work force, particularly those with greatest needs. Priority Action Measures: To address issues identified in the 2007 updated data, the Policy’s short-term priorities include the following strategies: • Objective I. Strategy 4. Increasing the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, such as the purchase of local products, establishing a rural-support program and continuing a dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders. • Objective II. Strategy 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning to light-industrial uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts. • Objective VI. Strategy 3. Increase the use of information gathering strategies such as: o A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark the needs of “underemployed” and those not in the labor force (as defined by the VA Employment Commission) as well as employer needs. o A software database, such as Executive Pulse©, to identify workforce training needs and promote workforce training opportunities. - 9 - - 10 - !"#$ % !&’#$!#!"#$"#’#!" #’# (##$&’#) !"# #"$%&’ # ()&& *## *#**+#, &#&#-.&#/0 1 #2 ## *#$&’#+!#%!,!$!"#!#&’#’# !"#$-##$’ %!,#$’ $#!*,#*#$&’#+ ’ #!#$##%#$"##$!$#"%"## #!#)0 ")##& *3 &#)#& 4 &#*5 #" ###4 &6 #" **5 7#"#) 6 - &# &’#!# !#.%!#’# !"#$*%’####$ ,#$!##!!(#,"#!/’#*#’!!’!*,! * $#!!)8 -6 0 (-" )&9 ##"6 4 #"5 0 & :&" "&&"; "" "#&"* 8 # <’-") &&"#"**4 # "5 0 &:&"& &#"";"#&& 6 -&#=/8 &>)0 1 0 &## 6 $#$&’#$#$!#!#%!,!#$!*#$&#,&$!##( !##!# ##!"#$# !##!#,# ’ %!,&’#!##"!1 $)#$!#$&#&’#!#$#!, ! "$$#$ .!#,#$!+"!1 !! &$!##( % !&’#) - 11 - *2 ,(! ’!, #(#*% !&’##$ &$!##(!3 !"#$)"& &&##"’&&# ?#"#"@ ; ;*3@ ;6 63 @ **&&-#7 "A &#/"&# )&###B-)#"&# ###"#)&&&&&-&#A ) 7 "%C 7#&C #"&C * &####)&"46 5 8 # C &(#&8 4(8 5 D 5 1 +&#5 E +1 -5 ?E " &C @* 7#C &C & .&&27#.A >-"&2&### C -&#-/-F-7 C E &&&4E0!>5 C ""C #"&",&9 &8 #&#C "& ## E0!>&;;"* E0!>"E0!>&"7#### "E0!>####"&"&#8 9 #’0 )E0!>C "&; *? #"# E0!>&*-&#-))E0!> G &&,"& 6 ?*9 "#;!"#) 6 *"-&#7 /G &E , 7##"")E -&E >-&&4 # 5 ##$% ’H %I J 4H %J 5 #&### 9 )# #9 #6 *;"6;; 7##" #&8 ##&:*;;6 # # #;**#&&H %J ## "#9 #-&#G % 7#&#&"&# ###&&#B-**,& #6 J ##*& #"## -&# - 12 - ##" # 7#&&#" -&#B &"" $&’#’###!*!’#,%#$#$##!,%%4 % !#$##!#(,#$!##$!$!#! #) 7#6 "#&#&)# #*# #6 E #&6*# "6 E &#))&&F #&#)## ;&"# 7##D ##9 #) ##C &&#3 :#,3 ,#& && ’####*## #######*66 &"#*?*#####6* 6 #&####";’# #"’&###6*"##4 # )5 &)-&#E 7## #&&##&#’###" 8 #’###6 #-"E # ’###$’ ;$&’#’#"’#"#$ !#%$!+! !’#!*!,#,#$!,#$5 (!#( #$6 !,!( !)# &##6 ###&##" &&E #6 * #&#####&## &&#*.& -"2 "*6 *#&#’ ##3 ###&"7#-# &&"&##6* 6 8 & &&#&#"&*""- &#8 & #$ $5 (!#,7 !! #$ # !#! ,’ %!, *%’#!("1 #’#!#!(!$!, #$&’#+#$!+(! #)7#B "$ #7#B " &&&&&"*#’ 7#B "&&## @ "&"#C " - 13 - "C 7##B$4 && &&5 ##4 & &#5 ? B$"&## &#B$#C &&6 4 &#5 ##-&# $#,.%!(%#$&’#+ !*,"##!*! % !#!!(!#)J #"&"#9 4 6 * 5 9 ##&&#&9 & &-&&9 #"# 9 C &"&6 !" #6 # #&&#" 8 "#"# #& )"4 9 5 &#&"&4 6 ;9 5 ##&4 6 9 5 -"#&C & #D 4 ;6 9 5 & 4 6 9 5 # *4 ;9 5 A C &# &"# -&#?/ I %7 H %J #): &#K ##"###& #"&###D ’ "8 #C K ##" #-#"##.A 2 .&&F?-"&2K #-#"##&&## #"7#-####.0 7 &#&-"&2 #&&&"##9 && -&#?/%7 )G (#&8 &4(8 5 & $’#,&’#"!1 !*!,##$!,#$5 (!#"#$! $$!#$6 !,!( !*,!#!# ! #’##$*’!#’#)0 #" *#&&&"&&/# ####?$%’&&&4 6)65 #0 $8 &##-#### #"0 A $8 ###& 4 "#’ 5 &4;"#’*6 5 &&F C &&&4;" 6 5 ##-&#L $#$’ %!, !#$&’#!*#$’ %! %#$ !$! !#(#%)## #:&,#"#4 5 #" #4 6 5 # %C&B$# 9 &#*7#&# #-’"###)< &##-&#K - 14 - $#$&’#$!#($$ "$ !##$!#$##* " ##!!%"#$##(!,!#$#!)8 6 &#&3 ##& #-’"& ####"#--&#M 8 *# &C&D &##&&& -",&##"D & &#&"&-&#+#&&#- $, !((!##$&’#$(##,*(!# ##,! #,#$’#)?;#C & "*;8 #6 &#"* E #"#&*;*# #&#"0 # #&#* -&#( 6 $&$!##(!$##!1 #!!#$%## ,’!%! #$##$’,,!%#)!"##&### !##4 $5 ## ##&#&6 $##&-&#!/ L #&#) ##@ *"@ - &#0 L 0 #!& L (A #7#K 0 G & #&&*#&,#"#&## "&#&,7#### "#&&))"&#"##) &))"!###### &,&#"&#"*+-"&& 8 -;##"&A 4 A5 #; #&@ 3 (";A ### ,&@ A’H ;,&### ##"#,##"+-4 #5 7#"#")C)### &.&2#,7# #&&#&## #####&& !&#?#)H A >"8 C "&" ;6 &##"+&C ; ###"!C&#&### &#6 -#DFF &F *!’#’!,!#!*"$#!"$!,#$(!% ! &’# *(!#$! !## #)J #9 - 15 - "&&@ **@ ;@ ;6 ,*##4 5 "&&*#"&,8 &&## &##& "#&#&&"#,## & ?#&&’&@ @ ;,*#$&&@ ; "&,&&@ #"","& 6 ;@ 6 @ "<&; &&#))&&@ @ %"##&#&## "&-&#$I J (#!,###$&’#,! * , "$$#!#!!#!)(*& #’#"#&#; ."&2 .<2 #"#@ "7# &##"0 ’&"& 8 -"&C "&##>#8 <##"0 8 -"&& ##D!#&&"& <-CN 7##&## #&#&&#& #9 &##"&&# - 16 - 2 # - 17 - &#/0 1 # Population Size Year Pop. % Annual Growth Pop. % Annual Growth Pop. % Annual Growth 1950 26,662 ---25,969 ---3,318,680 --- 1960 30,969 1.5%26,427 0.17%3,996,949 1.9% 1970 37,780 2.0%38,880 3.94%4,651,448 1.5% 1980 55,783 4.0%39,916 0.26%5,346,818 1.4% 1990 68,172 2.0%40,831 0.23%6,216,884 1.5% 2000 84,186 2.1%40,019 -0.20%7,104,078 1.3% 2010 96,247 1.3%40,639 0.15%8,010,342 1.2% 2020 107,760 1.1%41,423 0.19%8,917,575 1.1% Sources: US Census, W eldon Cooper for past data, VEC for forecast Albemarle Co.Charlottesville Virginia Popul ati on An nual B irths An nual Deaths A nnual N atural incre ase Mon thly Na tural Inc re ase P opulation Cha nge from t to t+1 Na tural Increas e be tween t and t +1 Imp lie d Net Mi gration betwe en t a nd t+1 Perc ent of tota l popul ati on chang e due to net m ig ra tion 2000 (April 1)84 ,186 1 ,054 632 422 35 ---- 2001 (july 1)85 ,800 968 574 394 33 1,614 514 1,101 68 .2 2002 (jul y 1)86 ,700 973 594 379 32 900 387 514 57 .1 2003 (jul y 1)88 ,100 1 ,018 606 412 34 1,400 396 1,005 71 .8 2004 (jul y 1)89 ,600 960 598 362 30 1,500 387 1,113 74 .2 2005 (jul y 1)90 ,400 1 ,056 650 406 34 800 384 416 52 .0 2006 (jul y 1)90 ,806 ****** Sourc es:Averag e:1,2 43 Aver ag e:6 4.6 W el don C ooper: h ttp://www3 .cc ps .virgi nia.edu/d emo graphics/Me dia n 6 8.2 es ti mat es/2005 /2005 _estim ates_V irginia .xl s Dept of Health: http://www.v dh.state.va.us /Heal thS ta ts /stats.as p, 2006 data is pr ovisional . Tim e Per iod Po pula tion Ag gr egate G rowth Rate W ork Forc e A ggrega te G rowth Ra te Ti m e P erio d P opul ati on- Av erage Ann ual Growt h W orkForce- Av erage A nnu al Growth 1990 68,17 2 ---32 ,61 3 ---1 990-20 00 2 .1 %1 .8% 2000 84,18 6 23 .5%38 ,83 8 1 9 .1 %2 000-20 06 1 .3 %3 .5% 2006 90,80 6 33 .2%47 ,81 7 4 6 .6 %1 990-20 06 1 .8 %2 .4% Sou rc e: VEC , W eldon C ooper Ce nter S ourc e: V EC, W eld on Co oper Cen ter - 18 - &#E /G #& Head of Household Age Distribution Albemarle County, Virginia, and United State 2005 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Albemarle County Virginia USA Source: Claritas, Inc.; ZHA Tables/2005 age distribution Comparing the County’s household age distribution to the state and nation indicates that Albemarle County has a greater proportion of its households headed by 15 to 24 year olds and fewer households headed by persons 35 to 44 years of age. Surprisingly, given the County’s reputation as a retirement destination, the County has a lower share of its households above the age of 65 as compared to the state and nation. - 19 - Head of Household Age Distribution Albemarle County 1990 - 2005 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ 1990 2005 Source: Claritas, Inc.; ZHA Tables/age distribution 1990 2005 The share of households headed by persons under 25 years of age has increased in the County while the share of households between the ages of 25 to 44 has dropped significantly over the last 15 years. The share of households headed by 45 to 64 year olds has increased along with households over 70 years of age. 1990 2006 1990 2006 % of % of % of % of 15-24 %of Total %of Total 25-44 Total Total VIRGINIA 958,422 8% 7% 2,132,44 4 17% 14% ALBEMARLE 12,608 9% 8% 23,559 17% 12% CULPEPER 3,750 13% 6% 9,129 33% 14% FLUVANNA 1,518 6% 5% 4,033 16% 14% GREENE 1,262 6% 6% 3,721 18% 15% LOUISA 2,594 6% 6% 6,442 16% 13% NELSON 1,508 6% 6% 3,897 15% 11% ORANGE 2,577 12% 6% 6,461 30% 13% CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY 10,397 13% 14% 12,916 16% 14% B-J - 20 - Attachment C - Albemarle County Labor Force, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual N ot Sea sonally -A dusted Labo r F orce, E m ploy ment & U nem ployme nt data in Al bem arle County , VA, U S Year AC Re si dent Lab or Fo rc e A C Em pl o ym ent AC Un em p l oym en t AC Une mpl oym ent R at e VA U S 1 98 2 27,54 3 26,0 38 1,50 5 5.5 %7.7%9.7% 1 98 3 31,93 1 30,7 04 1,22 7 3.8 %6.1%9.6% 1 98 4 33,83 0 32,5 16 1,31 4 3.9 %5.0%7.5% 1 98 5 31,95 3 30,3 84 1,56 9 4.9 %5.6%7.2% 1 98 6 31,68 2 30,5 07 1,17 5 3.7 %5.0%7.0% 1 98 7 32,51 1 31,5 96 91 5 2.8 %4.2%6.2% 1 98 8 33,68 2 32,7 78 90 4 2.7 %3.9%5.5% 1 98 9 34,40 4 33,5 44 86 0 2.5 %3.9%5.3% 1 99 0 36,96 1 36,0 53 90 8 2.5 %4.3%5.5% 1 99 1 36,10 1 34,8 28 1,27 3 3.5 %5.8%6.7% 1 99 2 37,25 6 35,7 20 1,53 6 4.1 %6.4%7.4% 1 99 3 35,89 5 34,9 06 98 9 2.8 %5.2%6.9% 1 99 4 36,60 3 35,7 66 83 7 2.3 %4.7%6.1% 1 99 5 37,07 5 36,3 61 71 4 1.9 %4.5%5.6% 1 99 6 38,16 0 37,3 61 79 9 2.1 %4.3%5.4% 1 99 7 38,39 0 37,7 81 60 9 1.6 %3.7%4.9% 1 99 8 39,64 4 39,1 93 45 1 1.1 %2.8%4.5% 1 99 9 39,93 9 39,5 03 43 6 1.1 %2.7%4.2% 2 00 0 43,30 4 42,5 62 74 2 1.7 %2.3%4.0% 2 00 1 43,57 9 42,6 36 94 3 2.2 %3.2%4.7% 2 00 2 44,26 3 43,0 73 1,19 0 2.7 %4.2%5.8% 2 00 3 44,87 4 43,5 81 1,29 3 2.9 %4.1%6.0% 2 00 4 47,09 5 45,9 18 1,17 7 2.5 %3.7%5.5% 2 00 5 48,62 5 47,5 43 1,08 2 2.2 %3.5%5.1% 2 00 6 49,76 1 48,5 72 1,18 9 2.4 %3.0%4.6% A VE. An n Gro wth 1982-200 6 2.8 %4.4%6.0% AVE . An n. Gro wth 1990-200 0 2.3 %4.0%5.5% AVE . An n. Gro wth 2000-200 6 2.4 %3.4%5.1% Total r es iden t lab or gr ow th, 198 2-1992 35.3% Total r es iden t lab or gr ow th, 199 0-2000 17.2% Burea u of Labo r s ta tis tic s, as r epor ted b y VEC, http ://www .vec .v irg i nia.go v/vec port al/ (D7#E >-&4E>-5 "&#& ##$%’&&&#H %I J 4H %J 5 #&#& .2E>-G &&#&#&#H %J &#K #H %J & - 21 - &#4 5 />?&0 B$% 0 2000 Census Albemarle County Workers %of Total Total 39,151 100.0% Albemarle 21,455 54.8% Charlottesville 13,886 35.5% http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html#VA ?#*6 ,** ,##" 7 % ) /H ) ?H A 6 B$B$ L #-"& B$B$ L #-"& B$B$ L #-"& B$B$ L #-"& B$B$ L #-"& B$B$ L #-"& -? 8 & -? 8 & -? 8 & -? 8 & -? 8 & -? 8 & 6 1%?& + 8 & 1%?& + 8 &>+ (#) 1 4>5 (#) 1 4>5 (#) 1 * E &>+ 1%?& + 8 & 1%?& + 8 & G G G G >+ E & ?8 - -"& - ?8 - -"& - 1%?& + 8 & 1%?& + 8 & ;8 &&#&#&# ?8 - -"& -&# ?8 - -"& - 0 0 0 &#E L 8 &# ?8 - -"& - 7 # $E L 8 &0 &0 0 E L 8 E L 8 &0 0 0 - 22 - 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 11,199 11,304 11,306 11,371 11,392 11,502 11,949 12,040 12,296 12,440 12,463 12,489 1st-Year 2,574 2,568 2,539 2,802 2,675 2,761 2,876 2,827 2,908 2,907 2,924 2,927 New Transfers 505 539 486 469 454 479 577 558 535 577 540 494 4,551 4,665 4,615 4,565 4,633 4,505 4,403 4,220 4,155 4,110 3,998 4,160 1,694 1,693 1,685 1,668 1,683 1,697 1,703 1,699 1,680 1,652 1,645 1,607 466 475 400 412 365 307 343 320 286 261 240 294 On Grounds Total 17,910 18,137 18,006 18,016 18,073 18,011 18,398 18,279 18,417 18,463 18,346 18,550 2,969 2,973 3,335 3,519 3,321 3,410 3,330 3,209 3,525 3,636 4,087 3,861 Total 20,879 21,110 21,341 21,535 21,394 21,421 21,728 21,488 21,942 22,099 22,433 22,411 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 12,595 12,748 12,907 13,140 13,401 13,275 13,353 13,350 13,425 13,565 13,700 13,850 1st-Year 2,980 2,999 3,101 3,096 3,112 3,100 3,091 3,170 3,170 3,240 3,240 3,310 New Transfers 541 508 493 529 532 515 503 520 520 525 525 530 4,301 4,459 4,616 4,632 4,699 4,732 4,791 4,782 4,832 4,882 4,932 4,982 1,608 1,608 1,631 1,650 1,694 1,650 1,699 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 344 382 489 596 605 625 554 650 675 700 725 750 On Grounds Total 18,848 19,197 19,643 20,018 20,399 20,282 20,397 20,432 20,582 20,797 21,007 21,232 3,891 3,947 3,434 3,323 3,366 3,350 3,671 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 Total 22,739 23,144 23,077 23,341 23,765 23,632 24,068 23,782 23,932 24,147 24,357 24,582 Diff.405 -67 264 424 303 -286 150 215 210 225 % Increase 1.8%-0.3%1.1%1.8%-0.6%1.3%-1.2%0.6%0.9%0.9%0.9% 0.7% Institutional Assessment and Studies 1989-2006 Ave. Ann %0.8% 2000-2005 Ave. Ann%1.2%Approved by the BOV, May 2005 University of Virginia Approveded Fall Census Headcount Enrollment Plans Undergraduate Graduate 1st-Professional Cont & Prof Studies Off-Grounds 2006 Off-Grounds Note: The 1st-Year and New Transfer counts are included in the Undergraduate totals. December 5, 2006 Undergraduate Graduate 1st-Professional Cont & Prof Studies B$%+0>!=+%(7D 6 #:6 * %D ;6 ;6 "#D ) Year UVA Employees % Growth Students % Growth 2001 9,681 22,739 2002 9,999 3.3%23,144 1.8% 2003 10,783 7.8%23,077 -0.3% 2004 10,912 1.2%23,341 1.1% 2005 11,492 5.3%23,765 1.8% 2006 11,693 1.7%24,068 1.3% Ave. Ann. Growth '01-06 3.8%1.1% B$-&DB$8 -F*F - 23 - &#G /%7 /#" Ye ar Em plo yed City Res ide nts (B LS) Total Ci ty Em pl oym ent (QC EW ) 1 993 1 9,451 36,1 99 1 994 1 9,401 36,5 45 1 995 1 9,726 36,6 16 1 996 1 7,993 37,3 88 1 997 1 8,198 38,5 02 1 998 1 7,966 37,4 88 1 999 1 7,857 36,7 92 2 000 1 8,694 38,8 38 2 001 1 8,391 37,9 81 2 002 1 8,168 37,3 27 2 003 1 7,848 35,3 76 2 004 1 7,555 35,4 61 2 005 1 8,176 35,9 65 2 006 2 0,077 36,6 89 Sourc e: V EC, Burea u of L abor S tatisti cs , VEC Qu arterly Cens us of Em ploy me nt & W ages C harlottesville Employment Trends - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,0001993199519971999200120032005 EmployeesEmploy ed City Resident s (B LS ) Total City Employ ment (QCEW ) - 24 - &#%)%7 Y ear Em plo yed Coun ty Res ide nts (BLS ) Tota l Cou nty Em ploym ent (QCEW ) 1993 34,90 6 29 ,132 1994 35,76 6 30 ,397 1995 36,36 1 31 ,136 1996 37,36 1 32 ,276 1997 37,78 1 32 ,910 1998 39,19 3 35 ,687 1999 39,50 3 38 ,036 2000 42,56 2 38 ,838 2001 42,63 6 38 ,718 2002 43,73 2 39 ,478 2003 44,47 0 41 ,882 2004 45,91 8 43 ,822 2005 47,59 3 45 ,256 2006 48,57 2 47 ,817 Sou rc e: VEC , Burea u of Labo r S tati st ic s, VE C Quarterly Cens us of Em plo ym ent & W age s Employment Trends - Albemarle C ounty - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,0001993199519971999200120032005 EmployeesEmployed Count y Res idents (B LS) Total Count y Employment (QCEW ) - 25 - &#?8 7 / "1 # Al bem arle C ounty Em plo ym ent by Plac e of W ork and Indus try A.C. A verag e An nual Gro wth V A Indus tr y S ec tor 1990 2000 2006 Pe rcen t of 200 6 Tota l Ne t 1990 -2 006 19 90-200 0 200 0-2006 1 990-20 06 1990 -2 006 Total 3 2,613 3 8,838 4 7,817 100 .0%15,2 04 1.8 %3.5%2.4%1.6% Govt T otal 1 1,880 1 1,336 1 5,753 32 .9%3,8 73 -0.5 %5.6%1.8%3.9% Govt State 9,751 8,159 1 1,528 24 .1%1,7 77 -1.8 %5.9%1.1%8.5% Trade-Reta il 2,890 4,531 5,450 11 .4%2,5 60 4.6 %3.1%4.0%0.8% Heal th Ca re 869 3,034 4,133 8 .6%3,2 64 13.3 %5.3%10.2%2.0% Govt Local 2,065 3,106 3,535 7 .4%1,4 70 4.2 %2.2%3.4%9.2% Manu facturin g 6,056 4,395 2,848 6 .0%(3,2 08) -3.2 %-7.0%-4.6%-2.3% Cons tr uctio n 2,137 2,729 3,391 7 .1%1,2 54 2.5 %3.7%2.9%1.6% Ac c omm oda tion /Food 2,386 2,078 2,997 6 .3%6 11 -1.4 %6.3%1.4%2.3% Other Se rv ic es 1,083 1,435 1,533 3 .2%4 50 2.9 %1.1%2.2%1.4% Prof/T ech Sv c.481 1,428 2,723 5 .7%2,2 42 11.5 %1 1.4%11.4%4.3% Adm in /W as te S vc .793 1,439 1,610 3 .4%8 17 6.1 %1.9%4.5%3.4% Mgm t. of Com pani es 820 1,199 1,514 3 .2%6 94 3.9 %4.0%3.9%5.6% Arts /En ter/Rec 534 947 1,172 2 .5%6 38 5.9 %3.6%5.0%1.6% Info rm ati on 253 694 714 1 .5%4 61 10.6 %0.5%6.7%0.9% Real Es tate 426 769 765 1 .6%3 39 6.1 %-0.1%3.7%1.2% Finan ce /Ins ur anc e 439 815 864 1 .8%4 25 6.4 %1.0%4.3%1.8% Trade-W ho les al e 450 565 607 1 .3%1 57 2.3 %1.2%1.9%1.0% Edu ca tion al S vc.240 431 621 1 .3%3 81 6.0 %6.3%6.1%n/a Agri cu lture 465 487 466 1 .0%1 0.5 %-0.7%0.0%0.2% Trans portati on 330 471 591 1 .2%2 61 3.6 %3.9%3.7%0.1% Govt Fe deral 64 71 690 1 .4%6 26 1.0 %4 6.1%16.0%2.0% Min ing 64 45 54 0 .1%(10) -3.5 %3.1%-1.1%-3.1% Util iti es ************************-3.5% http://velm a.vi r tual lm i.com /ana lyz er /sa intr o .as p?c at=I ND&s es s ion=in d202 &ti me=&g eo= as reported in t he V EC's Q CEW r eports Manufacturing Employment Losses Company Peak E mployment Departure Date Comdial 1,200 2001 ConAgra 890 * Acme Visible Records 220 * Badger 189 2007 Siemens 625 * Avionics Specialties 200 2007 Cooper Industries (Murray) ** 1991 * These companies left prior to June, 2005 ** This data is unavailable Source: County phone surveys, VEC data - 26 - ))))&#?/H H %J %8 )G (8 $ Industry Sector A.C. Emp. Ave. Ann. Growth Albemarle Percent of Economic Base A.C. VA James City Co. C'ville Govt Total 15,521 1.7% 32.1% 17.4% 16.4% 26.5% Govt Federal 693 16.1% 1.4% 4.2% 0.1% 1.7% Govt State 12,218 1.4% 25.3% 4.0% 5.8% 17.3% Govt Local 2,610 1.5% 5.4% 9.2% 10.4% 7.5% Trade-Retail 5,515 4.1% 11.4% 11.6% 12.5% 12.1% Health Care 4,162 10.3% 8.6% 9.0% 5.7% 9.8% Manufacturing 2,968 -4.4% 6.1% 7.9% 7.2% 2.5% Construction 3,520 3.2% 7.3% 7.0% 7.2% 5.6% Accommodation/Food 3,078 1.6% 6.4% 8.3% 12.4% 13.4% Other Services 1,584 2.4% 3.3% 3.5% 1.4% 4.3% Prof/Tech Services 2,694 11.4% 5.6% 9.6% 4.7% 8.0% Admin/W aste Ser 1,566 4.3% 3.2% 5.8% 3.9% 2.9% Mgmt. of Companies 1,542 4.0% 3.2% 2.1% 1.6% 0.8% Arts/Ent./Recreation 1,350 6.0% 2.8% 1.5% 13.9% 0.5% Finance/Insurance 859 4.3% 1.8% 3.7% 1.6% 3.3% Information 727 6.8% 1.5% 2.5% 0.5% 4.1% Real Estate 783 3.9% 1.6% 1.6% 4.0% 1.7% Trade-Wholesale 621 2.0% 1.3% 3.3% 2.6% 2.0% Educational Ser 666 6.6% 1.4% 1.4% 0.3% 1.2% Agriculture 533 0.9% 1.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% Transportation 585 3.6% 1.2% 2.8% 3.5% 0.9% Mining 56 -0.8% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0 % 99.6% 99.7% 99.7% Total N. of Employees --- --- 48,340 3,638,687 26,237 36,681 -&D$%.0 7#)H - 27 - &#1 /8 %?& Indus try E m ploy me nt & Proj ect ions da ta in Pi edm ont W ork force Net work, (L W IA V I) from Ba se Year 20 04 to P ro jec ted Yea r 2 014 NAIC S Seg men t 2 004 2 014 A ve A nn. %Tota l % Total 2 004-20 14 11 Agri cul ture 598 637 0 .63 6 .5 21 Min ing ************ 22 Util iti es ************ 23 Cons truc tio n 1 2,335 1 4,038 1.3 13 .8 31 Manu fac turin g 9,768 9,775 0 .01 0 .1 42 W hol es ale Tr ade 3,592 3,936 0 .92 9 .6 44 Retai l T rad e 1 7,438 1 9,351 1 .05 11 48 Trans por tati on/W ar ehous i ng 2,375 2,734 1 .42 15 .1 51 Infor m ati on 3,127 3,587 1 .38 14 .7 52 Finan ce /Ins uranc e 3,047 3,251 0 .65 6 .7 53 Real Es tate 2,173 2,515 1 .47 15 .7 54 Profe ss io nal /Tec hnic al 7,112 1 0,771 4 .24 51 .4 55 Mgm t of Com pani es 2,034 2,482 2 .01 22 56 Adm in is trativ e, S upp or t, W as te M gm t 4,337 5,479 2 .36 26 .3 61 Edu cat iona l S ervi ce s 2 2,985 2 7,372 1 .76 19 .1 62 Heal th Care/Soc ia l S ervi ce s 1 7,538 2 6,487 4 .21 51 71 Arts , En tertai nme nt 2,076 2,417 1 .53 16 .4 72 Ac co mm oda tion /Food S ervi c es 1 2,644 1 5,390 1 .98 21 .7 81 Ot her Se rv ic es 5,049 6,174 2 .03 22 .3 Sou rc e: VEC , Pr oj ec tion s T eam and B ureau of L abor S tatis ti cs - 28 - &#L /!&& 0 J ,&(,4>J 8 $85 !&&%6 V A % of tot al S ubto tal LW IA VI %of Total Total 3,8 71,34 2 100.0 %1 53,54 4 100.0 % Mana gem ent 1 65,80 1 4.3 %5,43 4 3.5 % Bus in es s/Fi nance 2 13,31 9 5.5 %5,73 1 3.7 % Com put/M ath 1 74,51 4 4.5 %3,53 7 2.3 % Arc h/En g 80,48 0 2.1 %2,77 3 1.8 % Scien ce 39,81 6 1.0 %2,67 7 1.7 % Soc ia l S ervice s 40,05 8 1.0 %1,41 5 0.9 % Lega l 35,51 3 0.9 %1,02 9 0.7 % Edu /Lib ra ry 2 08,88 4 5.4 %12,00 0 7.8 % Arts/Sp orts/m ed ia 61,76 1 1.6 %2,47 0 1.6 % Health c are 2 31,74 8 6.0 %32.3 %12,65 1 8.2 %3 2.4% Prote cti ve Sv c 85,95 0 2.2 %3,40 9 2.2 % Food p re p 2 67,19 8 6.9 %13,26 2 8.6 % Bldg Ma ine tnanc e 1 51,64 3 3.9 %6,17 2 4.0 % Persona l c are 1 13,66 8 2.9 %4,44 9 2.9 % Sales 4 62,95 1 12.0 %17,33 3 11.3 % O ffice & Ad min 5 94,57 9 15.4 %43.3 %24,79 2 16.1 %4 5.2% 75.6 %7 7.6% Farming/Fi shing 50,19 1 1.3 %78 3 0.5 % Construc ./Ex trac 2 46,44 9 6.4 %12,05 6 7.9 % Ins tal l/Rep air 1 69,78 5 4.4 %6,17 2 4.0 % Produ cti on 2 22,56 4 5.7 %7,11 9 4.6 % Transp/Mo vi ng 2 54,47 0 6.6 %8,28 0 5.4 % 24.4 %2 2.4% Sou rce: VEC , Indu stry & O c cup atio nal Proj ection s, 2004-20 14 No da ta av ai labl e fo r Alb ema rl e Co unty. Occ upa tion s, TJP DC, pe r 2000 Cens us TJ PDC Manager ial, professional 40,37 3 9,20 6 44%20,54 1 52%3,27 2 33%2 ,549 32%2 ,936 2 4%1,86 9 28% Servi ce 13,91 6 4,09 2 20%4,41 5 11%1,50 4 15%1 ,206 15%1 ,683 1 4%1,01 6 15% Sales & Offic e 23,10 0 4,87 4 23%8,86 0 22%2,75 0 28%2 ,109 26%3 ,025 2 5%1,48 2 22% Sub tot al 87%85%77%73%6 3%64% Far ming, fishing & for es tr y 79 2 4 2 0%24 9 1%11 1 1%51 1%142 1%19 7 3% Constr ucti on, extraction, main tena nce 9,82 7 1,18 9 6%3,06 1 8%1,16 7 12%1 ,106 14%2 ,223 1 8%1,08 1 16% Pr oduction, transpor tation, material moving 9,36 7 1,54 0 7%2,45 8 6%1,00 8 10%1 ,064 13%2 ,195 1 8%1,10 2 16% Total 97,40 2 20,94 3 100%39,58 4 100%9,81 2 100%8 ,085 1 00%12 ,204 10 0%6,77 4 100% Sou rce: US Ce nsu s, as re ported by Tho mas Jeff erso n Planning D is tric t Com m ission Lo uis a NelsonC'v il le Albe marl e Flu van na Gre ene - 29 - &#8 /%& US Census - Albemarle County Summary table %% Population 25 years +53,847 100%57,291 100.0% Less than high school graduate 6,759 13%5,901 10.3% High school graduate (incl. equivalency)9,591 18%8,880 15.5% Som e college 11,822 22%11,458 20.0% Bachelor's degree, and up 25,675 48%31,109 54.3% 100%100% 2000 2005 #DFF &&"F "F-77 OP Q I)P Q *B-*I:P Q -P *P%-7P1 P-*I) P Q -P *P%-7P1 P ?#*&-"#B-)?#" #RF) *; - 30 - &#K/("%1 # Year No. of com panies To tal Emplo yme n t County Population Aver age No. of Emp loye es / Co mpany 1 990 1,462 32,58 1 68,17 2 22 1 993 1,584 29,16 7 18 1 994 1,685 29,14 7 17 2 000 2,039 38,24 9 19 2 004 2,393 42,47 0 18 2 005 45,25 6 90,40 0 2 006 2,640 47,81 7 90,80 6 18 Ann ual Growt h 3.8 %2.4%1.8% Sou rc e: VEC Ann uali zed Q CEW Em ploy me nt dat a, coope r cen ter dem ogr ap hics http://www.co operc ente r.or g/dem ograp hic s /si tefi le s/d oc ume nts /ex ce l/po pestim ates ag ese xrac e/2 006ag es ex .xl s E mpl oye rs & Av er age Em ploy me nt by Com pany (Co vered Em plo ym ent & W ag es in V irgi nia ) %-<%# A lbe marl e Em pl oyee s AC % of Tota l Vi rg inia Em plo yees VA % of Total 0, no em ploy me nt 1 1 0.0%993 0.0 % 1 to 4 em plo yees 2,59 1 5.4%195 ,701 5.4 % 5 to 9 em plo yees 3,08 4 6.4%254 ,140 7.0 % 10 to 19 e mpl oye es 4,28 8 8.9%362 ,705 10.0 % 20 to 49 e mpl oye es 6,61 5 1 3.7%597 ,679 16.4 % 50 to 99 e mpl oye es 4,53 2 9.4%466 ,329 12.8 % 100 t o 249 em ploy ees 6,29 7 1 3.0%571 ,754 15.7 % 250 t o 499 em ploy ees 4,02 5 8.3%372 ,164 10.2 % 500-99 9 em plo yees ******275 ,384 7.6 % 1000 and ove r ******541 ,838 14.9 % 48,34 0 3,638 ,687 Sou rc e: VA Em ploy me nt Com m is si on (V EC) Q uarterly Cens us of Em ploy me nt & W age s (Q CEW ), 3r d-Q uarter (Ju ly, Sep tem ber, Au gus t), 200 6 Note: As teris k s (***) i ndi ca te non -d is cl os abl e dat a. E mp loymen t by S iz e of E sta bli sh men t - 31 - &#M /+8 &$8 &7 CA 6 Adjusted Gross Income on Commonwealth of Virginia Individual Income Tax Returns Median Adjusted Gross Income 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Ave. Ann. All returns (combined)Growth Charlottesville City 21,102$ 22,403$ 21,831$ 21,903$ 21,482$ 22,675$ 1.4% Albemarle County 33,175$ 34,739$ 34,636$ 34,046$ 34,383$ 35,047$ 1.1% Charlottesville MSA 27,739$ 29,392$ 29,428$ 29,269$ 29,172$ 30,084$ 1.6% State of Virginia 28,236$ 29,539$ 30,116$ 30,203$ 30,718$ 31,780$ 2.4% Married couple returns Charlottesville City 47,239$ 50,560$ 49,716$ 49,154$ 48,340$ 52,122$ 2.0% Albemarle County 63,010$ 66,175$ 66,240$ 65,629$ 66,456$ 69,452$ 2.0% Charlottesville MSA 54,720$ 57,783$ 58,268$ 57,964$ 56,860$ 59,660$ 1.7% State of Virginia 53,745$ 56,530$ 57,619$ 57,924$ 59,250$ 62,109$ 2.9% Source: Virginia Department of Taxation data on Cooper Center web site: http://www.virginia.edu/coopercenter/vastat/income/income.html#AGI Note: MSA was redefined in 2003 !6 &#-’3 #)& 6 #-’ - 32 - &#>/+L #8 &0 B- Income Concept 2000 Census American Community Survey, 2005 Ave. Ann. Growth Median household income 44,356$ Charlottesville City 31,007$ not available Albemarle County 50,749$ 60,398$ 3.5% Charlottesville MSA 44,356$ 62,286$ ------ State of Virginia 46,677$ 54,240$ 3.0% Median family income Charlottesville City 45,110$ not available Albemarle County 63,407$ 77,297$ 4.0% Charlottesville MSA 55,455$ 47,543$ ------ State of Virginia 54,169$ 65,174$ 3.8% Source: US Census Bureau Note: Area covered by MSA was changed in 2003, so data are not directly comparable. For the American Community Survey data, the margin of error is +/-$6,065 of the reported $60,398. - 33 - &#+/JC#-Albemarle County Index1998AC*IndexACIndexACIndexACIndexACIndexACIndexACIndexACIndexACIndexACIndexACIndexTotal, All industries50196.952397.253694.458196.260194.664895.965793.166793.269493.57350.9477194.8Agriculture, Forestry354106.6355103.236899.2397104.5399101.8430110.3411101.7429104.6438102.34410.9944194.6Mining769107.1888119.0773103.372693.673091.674888.478691.284097.0985110.99871.0392192.4Utilities******************************************************************Construction43687.645988.448287.852591.654790.657189.558386.958986.161888.56500.8867988.0Manufacturing619106.4673111.2709112.4741113.1790117.7845120.5881119.5854112.4971122.99581.17983115.5Wholesale Trade51772.853471.859374.665178.171778.576877.383284.285487.384182.98950.8388579.5Retail Trade340104.9347104.2362104.6395109.4476126.3478121.3441107.8459108.0462106.04811.07501108.4Transportation, Warehousing44377.2******50482.152080.551677.652675.454275.557376.257276.96100.7864481.9Information49662.753560.558860.257647.166949.164245.563644.475662.281364.69720.731,02073.4Finance&Insurance65096.465590.861977.462772.465974.570775.185180.188081.397182.19970.791,12383.6Real Estate40993.645998.547597.5526101.346383.955595.060697.060793.865897.87331.01792101.9Professional/Technical Svcs56267.866276.068974.371772.672368.374665.379866.884769.489069.88400.6390163.3Mgmnt of Companies******************************************85063.5******9500.62102662.1Admin & Waste Svcs30998.129290.128383.527274.932484.435985.736681.738582.437175.44600.8750494.6Educational Services641130.5644128.0636122.1706132.7698125.8785135.8795132.3783127.1801127.88401.29******Health Care, Social Svcs42081.643181.844483.0626113.0612107.6675113.6705112.4722110.2743110.27731.10838115.4Arts, Entertainment307105.929199.3310102.3339106.9385121.1428127.8411118.8443123.4415110.74451.17447115.5Accommodation, Food Svcs222114.4237117.9238112.8247110.8264113.3282116.5275110.9280110.2282107.62901.07297106.1Other Svcs, ex. Public Admin33584.837089.440594.043295.446698.3503101.2542103.4573105.9594106.66241.08652108.8Public Administration48971.351673.154669.856970.759573.460570.161167.664567.270570.310791.02108599.0Unclassified*******************************************************************State average = 100Source: VEC QCEW (2digit) data for Ablemarle and Virginia1995199619971999200420052000200120022003 (D?&"&#&&" - 34 - &#(/(?0 " Peo ple and f amili es li ving bel ow the poverty l eve l Num ber of Peop le Pe rcent of Pe ople Nu mbe r o f Fam il ies P ercent of Fa mi lie s Albem arle 1 990 4,676 7 .6%8 19 4.8% Albem arle 2 000 5,232 6 .7%8 79 4.2% Charl ottes vi ll e 19 90 9,025 23 .7%8 43 1 0.0% Charl ottes vi ll e 20 00 9,950 25 .9%9 35 1 2.0% Vi rg ini a 199 0 61 1,611 10 .2%126,8 97 7.7% Vi rg ini a 200 0 65 6,641 9 .6%129,8 90 7.0% Sou rc e: US Ce nsu s 0 " All individuals below: 50 percent of poverty level 2,524 (X) (X) 125 percent of poverty level 7,131 (X) (X) 130 percent of poverty level 7,709 (X) (X) Children under 18 years 2,019 (X) (X) Children 5 to 17 years 1,417 (X) (X) 150 percent of poverty level 9,728 (X) (X) 175 percent of poverty level 12,411 (X) (X) 185 percent of poverty level 13,456 (X) (X) Children under 18 years 3,832 (X) (X) Children 5 to 17 years 2,616 (X) (X) 200 percent of poverty level 15,286 (X) (X) Number Poverty Status All income levels Below poverty level Percent below poverty level (X) Not applicable. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices PCT49, PCT50, PCT51, PCT52, PCT53, PCT54, and PCT55. - 35 - 20% 19% 17% 19% 22% 21% V irginia A lbemar le Hanov er Henric o James City Staf f ord &#!/L 1 Of the Rental Units in Albemarle, 38% of Occupants Paid More than 30% of Their Income for the Rental Unit. This Rate Is Higher than the State-wide Rate of 34%. 34% 38% 32% 33% 42% 32% V ir ginia A lbemarle Hanov er Henr ic o James City Staf f or d % of Income for Rent Virginia Albemarle Hanover Henrico James City Stafford <30% of Income 58% 55% 59% 63% 52% 63% >30% of Income 34% 38% 32% 33% 42% 32% Not computed 8% 7% 9% 5% 7% 6% Source: US Census 2000 Table DP-4 Me di an Gross R ent Vir ginia Albemar le H anover He nrico James City Stafford Medi an Gr os s Rent in 1 999 $6 50 $7 12 $686 $6 76 $70 3 $84 2 25%26%25 %24%2 8%2 4% S ource: U S C ensus 2000 T ables H 63 and H70 Medi an g ross rent as a % of hous eh old inc om e in 1999 In 1999, 19% of the Albemarle County Home Owners Paid More than 30% of Their Monthly Income towards Housing Costs - 36 - Attachment P – Housing Assessment 2 000 2 001 2 002 2 003 2 004 2 005 200 6 200 7 <$1 50,00 0 12 071 12 313 12 384 8 967 9 118 6 109 640 5 333 9 $150 ,000 - $199,9 99 4 592 4 667 4 744 5 215 5 303 4 763 487 0 378 4 $200 ,000 - $249,9 99 2 450 2 575 2 669 3 746 3 863 4 605 472 8 397 5 $250 ,000 - $300,0 00 1 594 1 679 1 725 2 474 2 597 3 469 368 5 405 8 >$3 00,00 0 4 377 4 661 4 826 6 654 6 896 9 887 1040 1 1534 7 In 20 06 , H ou sing A ss es s ment s W ide n th e Ga p B et w ee n H ous ing Abo ve a nd B e lo w $30 0 ,0 00 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007# of Housing Units<$150,000 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000 - $249,999 $2 50,000 - $300,000 >$300,000 C ounty Asse ssment Housing V alues Over the past seve n yea rs th ere has be en a drast ic transiti on b etween housi ng be low $150,0 00 an d hou si ng a bove $30 0,000 . As the num ber of housi ng un its assess ed bel ow $15 0,000 has falle n, the num ber of housin g u nits as ses se d abo ve $300,000 h as drama tic al ly i nc reas ed from 4,377 u nits in 200 0 to 1 5,347 in 2 007. Afte r 2 004, the ga p bet ween h ousing units a ssessed ab ove and belo w $300 ,000 has continued to wid en wi th 20 06 b ec omi ng th e m os t si gni fican t gap in t he pa st sev en years . Me thodo logy: R eassessm ent u sed to take pl ace e ver y 2 year s, so th e 20 01, 200 3 an d 2 005 da ta is what the cou nty assessm e nt was ba sed on an d the in ter venin g yea rs were state m an date d r ew or kin g o f the coun ty's ass ess ment done by the R eal Esta te offi ce. That expl ai ns the su dden ju mps and di ps i n th e d ata ever y tw o yea rs. Source: Chris Carlson, Inf ormat ion T echnology. 21 June 2007. - 37 - &#A /7 "%C Ave An n.0.7%0.0%-0 .1%3.3% Source: Smith Travel Research, as reported to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention & Visitor's Bureau Note: "AC" includes Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville hotels. - 38 - &#-/7 C -E0!> 2006 T axable Sales, A lbemarle NAI CS Business Class 0 No NAICS info 132,453,509 164 807,643 111 Crop production 1,934,997 8 241,875 237 Heav y & Civil Engineering Cons truction 5,319,707 8 664,963 238 Specialty Trade Contractors 2,948,614 20 147,431 311 Food manufacturing 1,169,310 6 194,885 312 Beverage & tobac co Manuf act uring 2,531,914 6 421,986 321 Wood Product manufac turing 2,692,863 6 448,811 323 Printing 2,285,058 9 253,895 327 Nonm etalli c mineral product ma nufac turing 1,854,489 5 370,898 332 Fabricated m etal product manuf ac turing 3,319,480 7 474,211 334 Computer & Electronic Produc t Manufacturing 779,222 7 111,317 339 Mis c Manuf ac turing 8,991,436 28 321,123 421 Wholesalers , Durable Goods 1,618,794 8 202,349 423 Merc hant wholesalers, durable goods 23,244,755 67 346,937 424 Merc hant wholesalers, nondurable goods 4,282,606 10 428,261 425 Wholesale Elec tronic s 4,601,722 6 766,954 441 Motor Vehicle & Part s dealers 30,333,407 26 1,166,670 442 Furnit ure & Hom e Furnis hings 38,247,247 68 562,460 443 Elect ronic s & Appl iance Stores 19,771,265 26 760,433 444 Building Material, Garden, Supplies D ealers 190,590,817 46 4,143,279 445 Food & B everage Stores 176,473,816 69 2,557,592 446 Healt h & Pers onal Care s to res 4,877,007 22 221,682 447 Gas Sta tions 22,835,633 35 652,447 448 Clothing & Clothing accessories 48,401,540 87 556,340 451 Sporting, Hobby, Book & Music Stores 35,680,333 119 299,835 452 General Merchandise Stores 169,605,599 22 7,709,345 453 Mis c. S tore Ret ailers 32,720,448 173 189,136 454 Nons tore Ret ailers 33,120,385 65 509,544 511 Publishing I ndust ries 373,845 7 53,406 531 Real Est ate 761,154 7 108,736 532 Rental & Leas ing Services 23,652,398 211 112,097 541 Prof., Scientific, & Techni cal Svc es 4,900,646 58 84,494 561 Administrative Support Services 2,962,622 21 141,077 611 Educational Services 15,085,179 173 87,198 621 Ambulat ory Health Care Servic es 299,061 12 24,922 623 Nursing and Residential C are Faci lities 866,239 10 86,624 711 Performing Arts , Spec tat or Sport s & Related Indus tries38,975 8 4,872 713 Amusem ent, G ambling, & Recreat ion Industries 6,577,477 11 597,952 721 Accommodat ion 51,285,721 30 1,709,524 722 Food Services & Drinking P laces 76,333,807 154 495,674 811 Repair & Maintenance 12,631,763 38 332,415 812 Personal & Laundry Services 1,778,361 45 39,519 813 Religious , Grantmak ing, Civic, Profe ssional & Similar O rga nizat ions6,294,629 11 572,239 $1,206,527,850 S ource: VA D ept of Tax ation, C alendar Year ending 12/31/2006 The count of dealers represents active deal ers that reported taxable sales during the reporting period No. of Dealers Amt. Per DealerAmount - 39 - )))))&#-/7 C -E0!> Pe r Capita T axable Sales Have Increase d Comparably with the Ave rage of Pe e r Countie s 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006P-C Sales (In Thousands of Nominal $)A lbemarle Peer A vg The County's per capita taxable sales have increased by approximately 50% between 1996 and 2006, an increase that is better than that of the peer average (42%). Albemarle's per capita sales are consistently lower than the peer average, however, perhaps because of the proximity of shopping opportunities in Charlottesville, and the fact that our region contains a high number of students, many of whom do not live and shop in the area the entire year. Source: Weldon Cooper Center, (http://www.virginia.edu/coopercenter/vastat/taxablesales/tax_sales.html). Population: Weldon Cooper Center, (http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/POPULATION%20ESTIMATES/). 4 June 2007 Per Capita N omi na l BPOL Ta x Rev enue Incr eased i n 2006 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 1 996 19 97 199 8 1999 2000 2001 200 2 2003 2004 2005 2 006Per Capita Revenue (In Nominal $)Per Capita Nomina l Business License Tax Re venue i n Albem arle County Chang es in t he pe r-capi ta v alu e of BPO L tax reve nue g ives a rough ide a abo ut the inte nsity of bus ine ss ac tivi ty in a c om mu nity . The high er the val ue of BP O L reve nue p er residen t, the high er the lev el of bu si ness ac tiv ity that e ac h reside nt "s upports ". In the cas e o f Al bem arle , thi s a cti vity incre as ed by rou ghly 35.4 % betwee n 199 6 an d 200 1 and inc reased b y 27 .9% in 2006 from 2003 . - 40 - &#7 /G &E , Albemarle County Bank Deposits Fiscal Year Bank Deposits Fiscal Year Bank Deposits Average Annual Gowth 1994 355,399 2000 423,676 94-00 3.0% 1995 357,490 2001 457,000 1996 354,604 2002 495,000 1997 377,117 2003 680,699 1998 365,453 2004 746,292 1999 417,626 2005 1,001,164 00-05 21.7% (1,001,164-354,604) = .9877 / 10 years = 9.87%94-05 9.87% http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/finance/forms/CAFR_2005.pdf - 41 - &#B /E $ Year No.A m t. ($)No.Am t. ($)N o.Am t. ($)No.Am t. ($) 1990 66 5 61,80 2,696 9 21 15,3 42,54 2 26 7,91 0,736 255 11,86 9,356 1991 58 9 51,28 5,672 8 03 11,0 90,51 8 46 13,4 58,79 7 224 22,38 6,373 1992 73 9 78,81 0,454 8 07 20,1 46,38 6 55 14,0 67,36 5 272 11,37 6,911 1993 71 7 68,85 5,330 8 74 15,5 62,51 3 57 16,3 27,78 3 153 10,56 5,021 1994 66 6 87,24 4,515 8 65 17,7 00,08 0 47 14,0 17,36 8 216 17,31 1,228 1995 59 6 75,67 9,003 8 20 18,4 21,10 3 62 19,5 97,73 3 235 10,04 2,333 1996 62 0 88,40 9,350 7 71 12,6 77,44 1 68 14,7 94,99 6 205 17,08 9,126 1997 70 7 1 01,18 1,621 8 38 17,8 86,46 1 70 86,3 68,59 3 304 16,15 7,948 1998 70 4 1 13,54 8,623 8 83 21,0 82,93 8 78 39,2 65,01 0 318 33,33 9,817 1999 76 7 1 35,49 7,848 9 57 24,6 68,82 0 74 25,6 39,52 3 341 18,94 0,639 2000 64 9 1 15,98 0,335 8 70 30,5 53,77 6 79 36,7 01,25 0 306 21,05 1,626 2001 59 5 1 21,58 1,817 7 22 26,7 71,19 8 72 120,7 23,57 7 173 11,25 6,192 2002 84 0 2 19,61 2,245 8 10 32,6 66,40 5 62 32,1 61,18 0 206 20,80 1,458 2003 68 8 1 43,15 8,647 8 04 47,8 49,19 1 60 13,4 05,69 1 324 18,84 6,760 2004 58 1 1 46,32 6,941 7 45 29,4 61,56 0 52 222,3 97,22 7 298 10,78 0,837 2005 73 4 2 15,84 1,361 9 85 42,1 37,02 7 89 34,7 93,17 9 477 42,66 3,330 2006 51 3 1 75,16 7,104 9 87 45,2 03,38 3 55 57,9 77,15 3 346 27,53 2,859 17-Y ear Ave rages ave ra ge 66 9 1 17,64 6,092 8 51 25,2 48,31 4 62 45,2 71,00 9 274 18,94 1,871 medi an 66 6 1 13,54 8,623 8 38 21,082,9 38 62 25,6 39,52 3 27 2 17,31 1,228 Sou rc e: Alb ema rl e Co unty Year-En d Bu ild ing Reports New Re si denti al New Non -Re s & A lter. New C omm erc ial & F ar m B ldg , Al terati ons - 42 - &#$/>?(J # Year Number of Farms Land in Farms (acres) Total Value of Ag Products Sold Total Value of Livestock, Poultry and Their Products Sold Net W orth/Farm 1974 750 213,398 $10,376,000 $7,394,000 $13,835 1978 751 208,476 $18,173,000 $15,032,000 $24,198 1982 830 201,465 $21,892,000 $17,173,000 $26,376 1987 772 186,486 $19,072,000 $14,235,000 $24,705 1992 757 188,567 $21,841,000 $16,411,000 $28,852 1997 747 172,251 $21,400,000 $16,800,000 $28,648 2002 919 177,445 $19,100,000 $12,400,000 $20,783 Source: Census of Agriculture, Albemarle County Farms by Value of Sales Quantity Less than $1,000 283 $1,000-$2,400 152 $2,500-$4,999 142 $5,000-$9,999 115 $10,000-$19,999 87 $20,000-$24,999 22 $25,000-$39,999 38 $40,000-$49,999 17 $50,000-$99,999 33 $100,000-$249,999 19 $250,000-$499,999 3 $500,000 or more 8 Total Farm production expenses $24,724,000 $26,962 Net cash farm Income of operations ($1,839,000) ($2,006) State Rank (total value)35th Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture Average per farm ($) Average per farm ($) >?*6)293,530276,088239,145211,123213,398208,468201,465186,486188,567172,251177,4450 50 ,000 100 ,000 150 ,000 2 00 ,0 0 0 2 50 ,0 0 0 3 00 ,0 0 0 3 50 ,0 0 0 4 00 ,0 0 0 4 50 ,0 0 0 1 9 54 1 9 5 9 1 9 6 4 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 4 1 978 19 82 19 87 19 92 19 97 20 02Acres - 43 - J /&-& $&-&-"&D (;4 #F 5 S ?#&*# &*# &/"&,#&# !&#6 #& ## 0 &#4 &&5 6 # L # -## +,1 *# 1 *6 #& E L 4 ##5 6 6 #& !&0 &;;;#4 #6 #&5 ;&#!&0 & $&-&-"&D $%:-"4 #F 5 " $&-"& 1 0 & && G ? $%A 1%((B >L A$%-7 $>B%4 )5 ,##@6 - 44 - &#N />B Growth Area VR LD MD HD NS CS RS OS IS ORS Total Neighborhood 1 0 0 41 30 0 12 49 0 30 0 162 Neighborhood 2 0 600 75 25 4 45 0 14 0 0 763 Neighborhood 3 0 398 78 90 7 20 56 0 0 236 885 Neighborhood 4 0 719 36 42 0 0 0 0 225 0 1022 Neighborhood 5 0 307 37 103 12 10 40 2 0 0 511 Neighborhood 6 0 449 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 457 Neighborhood 7 0 122 0 38 0 0 0 4 0 0 164 Hollymead 0 190 0 127 10 30 77 65 709 0 1208 Crozet 0 640 154 0 12 15 0 0 214 0 1035 Piney Mountain 0 5 20 0 0 0 0 0 203 0 228 Rivanna 897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 897 Earlysville 246 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 251 North Garden 972 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 977 TOTAL 2115 3430 441 455 58 132 222 90 1381 236 8560 Source: Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development, 1993, using a planimeter Legend VR - Village Residential CS - Community Service LD - Low Density RS - Regional Service MD - Medium Density OS - Office Service HD - High Density IS - Industrial Service NS - Neighborhood ORS - Office/Regional Service Growth Area CS IS I ND NS OS O/RS RS TC T UD Total Neighborhood 1 16.38 0.00 5.39 2.64 0.00 2.96 0.00 35.60 0.00 36.89 79.12 178.98 Neighborhood 2 35.82 0.00 10.22 338.14 2.41 7.36 0.00 3.24 0.00 0.00 127.45 524.64 Neighborhood 3 7.34 0.00 0.00 250.87 2.80 0.00 159.61 33.35 0.00 0.00 75.14 529.11 Neighborhood 4 49.19 31.79 33.50 207.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.43 93.34 424.31 Neighborhood 5 18.68 0.00 0.00 135.62 0.00 3.54 0.00 41.72 0.00 0.00 95.70 295.26 Neighborhood 6 1.55 0.00 64.99 277.73 7.69 12.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.11 368.16 Neighborhood 7 0.00 0.00 6.13 9.40 0.00 6.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.88 70.57 Hollymead 11.29 697.97 33.23 780.88 1.01 11.49 0.00 0.00 8.05 13.61 159.38 1,716.91 Piney Mountain 0.00 202.87 0.00 81.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 284.46 Rivanna Village 64.53 0.00 0.00 356.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 421.51 Total 204.78 932.63 153.46 2,440.91 13.91 43.60 159.61 113.91 8.05 59.93 683.12 4,813.91 Growth Area D PFED CT3 CT4 CT5 CT6 Total Crozet 3.37 0.00 303.67 151.44 55.47 9.60 523.55 Source: Albemarle Department of Community Development, 2007 Note: The figures listed above do not include land which is in the floodplain (100 Yr.) or has a slope of 25% or greater. All acreages are based on GIS polygon acreage - not actual deeded acreage. All parcels queried for this analysis have a building/improvement value of $20,000 or less. This query was based on end of year 2005 parcel and CAMA data. CS - Community Service D - District IS - Industrial Service PFED - Potential Future Employment District I - Institutional CT3 - Urban Edge [CT3] ND - Neighborhood Density CT4 - Urban General [CT4] NS - Neighborhood Service CT5 - Urban Center [CT5] OS - Office Service CT6 - Urban Core [CT6] O/RS - Office/Regional Service RS - Regional Service TC - Town Center T - Transitional UD - Urban Density Buildable Vacant Acres by Growth Area, 1993 Buildable Vacant Acres by Growth Area, 2005 - 45 - )))))&#N )>B $&>T >8 Albemarle County Acreage for Light Industry Activity Area Total IS Total LI Both IS & LI Vacant IS Vacant LI Vacant IS & LI Places 29 1,234 305 266 901 93 88 Crozet 37 124 17 4 64 3 Remaining County 211 599 128 31 176 20 Total County 1,481 1,027 411 935 333 111 1. IS = Industrial Service in the Comprehensive Plan, LI = Light industrial zoning 2. Acreage totals are based on GIS-mapped polygons 3. Any acres in the 100-year flood plain covered were subtracted out and are reflected in these totals 4. “Undeveloped” refers to building improvements values listed in CAMA greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to $20,000 End of year 2005 CAMA data was used for this analysis, compiled by GDS - 46 - &#=/<-"0 Table III-15: Importance and Satisfaction with Services Importance Satisfaction Score Rank Service % Rank 2.99 1 provide quality education to school children 84.8% 15 2.90 2 provide police protection 91.2% 8 2.88 3 provide emergency rescue services 92.5% 7 2.88 4 provide fire protection 95.5% 1 2.86 5 protect water resources 75.6% 25 2.81 6 ensure safety at or near residence 92.7% 6 2.79 7 provide fair property tax assessments (combined) 58.4% 32 2.79 8 provide needed public facilities 93.9% 2 2.76 9 ensure safety in business areas 93.8% 3 2.74 10 provide services to disadvantaged people 76.4% 24 2.72 11 provide opportunities for citizen input 86.3% 14 2.72 12 provide needed infrastructure 80.9% 18 2.71 13 provide recycling services 52.2% 34 2.71 14 maintain QOL dealing with growth and develop 74.6% 26 2.70 15 provide effective service to our residents 90.1% 11 2.70 16 support programs for youth 80.9% 19 2.67 17 protect natural resources and environment 84.0% 16 2.67 18 provide programs to help elderly population 83.8% 17 2.65 19 manage growth in the County 60.8% 31 2.62 20 ensure safety for walkers and bicyclists (combined) 70.2% 27 2.62 21 provide parks and recreation space 89.7% 12 2.59 22 make it easy to get around by car 77.7% 22 2.59 23 assure economic growth and job opportunities 77.7% 21 2.58 24 provide library services 93.7% 4 2.55 25 protect and preserve County's rural character 77.1% 23 2.52 26 promote development of affordable housing 56.5% 33 2.46 27 provide support for people in financial need 68.5% 28 2.46 28 support affordable child-care 62.3% 29 2.44 29 make it easy to get around by public transportation (combined) 61.7% 30 2.36 30 provide learning opportunities for adults 90.5% 10 2.35 31 preserve historic buildings (combined) 91.1% 9 2.15 32 support cultural and entertainment opportunities 87.6% 13 2.13 33 regulate outdoor lighting to reduce light pollution and glare 78.1% 20 2.09 34 promote tourism in our area 93.6% 5 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: Fire/Res cue Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP)   SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Volunteer Leadership D evelopment and Training Program   STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Eggles ton   LEGAL R EVIEW:   Yes   AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:                INFORMATION:      CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:   X           INFORMATION:      ATTACH MEN TS:   Yes   REVIEW ED BY:     BACK GROUND : During the FY09 budget process, the Board appropriated $157,000 to fund the first phase of a Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP). The VIP funding was requested to help ensure the s ucc ess and sus tainability of our current volunteer­based fire and emergency medical services (EMS) delivery  sy stem through a multi­layered incentive program.   STRA TEGIC PLAN: Goal 1: Enhance the quality of life for all citizens: Enhanc e the safety of the County.   DISCU SSION : Fiscal restraints prevent the VIP from proceeding as originally intended. Therefore, the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (AC FR AB) and staff recommend reallocating ex isting funds in s upport of a volunteer leadership development and training program, a key module identified in the original initiative.   The ACFRAB and staff propose a change in the parameters of the program w ith a prioritization of expenditures focused on training and leadership development, allocating $120,000 of the $157,000 appropriated in FY 09 to be expended over a three year period beginning FY09. This strategy allows a component of the VIP to be implemented and helps to support our goal of ensuring the succes s and sustainability of our emergency service sys tem.   Through a majority vote, ACFRAB tasked the VIP committee to define parameters of the training and leadership development module and established a goal to have 75% of current and new officers participate in the program (about 66 of 88 volunteer officers).   Currently, officers are required by federal mandate to obtain certification in the national incident management system (NIMS ­ IS100 through IS800). In some c ases, the lack of availability of local offerings have made it difficult for officers  to obtain the training. Listed below are the results of our NIMS compliance matrix:    IS700 IS100 IS200 IS800 IS300 Senior  Management 14/20 = 70%13/20 = 65%11/20 = 55%8/20 = 40%3/20 = 15% Middle Management 11/14 = 79%8/14 = 57%7/14 = 50%6/14 = 43%  F ir st Line Supervisors 35/54 = 65%28/54 = 52%     60/88 = 68%49/88 = 56%18/34 = 53%14/34 = 41%3/20 = 15%   Implementation of an incident management training program w ould allow for 100% compliance on federally mandated training by ensuring adequate local offerings to obtain the training.   In addition to the incident management training, focus groups of volunteer providers have identified additional human resourc e management and tactical decision­making training opportunities, neither of which are currently  offered locally .  Current statistics do not exist under these c ategories; however, the goal is  to have 75% of current and new officers  participate in the program.   Implementing the training and leadership module is a proactive measure to address a nationwide retention issue. According to the USFA, leadership is identified as a primary reason for system attrition nationwide.  Over the past year, the Human Resourc es Department has conduc ted exit interviews of volunteers, but there are not yet enough respons es for statistic al s ignificance. H owever, there is no evidence to indicate that our system is exempt from the national trend.   The VIP committee explored other strategies of implementing a modified incentive program, including utilizing the funds from other components such as tuition reimburs ement and / or flexible spending accounts. Utilizing the existing funding for leaders hip development and training offers the most tangible return on investment, and has the least impac t if faced w ith discontinuation.  While it is  understood that the VIP cannot be funded in its entirety, this proposal presents a fis cally responsible approach to continued support of our volunteer forces and maintenance of our above­average retention statistics .   Performanc e measures  will include:         number of class offerings;         percentage of officers participating in the program (stated goal of a participation rate of 75% of current and new offic ers ); and         exit interv iew data indentifying trends in reasons pers onnel leave our system.   BUDGET IMPACT: The revised VIP would have minimal w ork load impacts  on existing staff through FY12. Should the VIP continue beyond FY12 or expand, s taff w ould need to further analyze the program to determine the staffing and financial impact.   RECOMMENDA TION S: ACFR AB and staff rec ommend approval of the proposed Volunteer Leadership and D evelopment Program and the allocation of $120,000 to fund the Program over a three year period beginning in FY09.     Ret urn t o c ons ent  agenda Ret urn t o regular agenda   COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: FY 2009 Appropriations     SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Approv al of Appropriations #2009050 and #2009051 totaling $305,300.00 for various school and capital programs and projects     STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans       LEGAL R EVIEW:   Yes   AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:                INFORMATION:      CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:   X          INFORMATION:        ATTACH MEN TS:   Yes     REVIEW ED BY:       BACK GROUND : The Code of Virginia § 15.2­2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as  shown in the currently adopted budget.   H owever, any  such amendment which exceeds  one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by firs t publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self­Sustaining, etc.   The total of this requested FY 2009 appropriation is $305,300.00. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.     STRA TEGIC PLAN: Goal 5:  Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs     DISCU SSION : This request involves the approval of two (2) new FY 2009 appropriations as follows:   One (1) appropriation (#2009050) totaling $296,000.00 for a Federal Safety  Grant for the H illsdale Sidew alk Improvement project; and One (1) appropriation (#2009051) totaling $9,300.00 for various Education programs and projects.     RECOMMENDA TION S: Staff recommends approv al of the budget amendment in the amount of $305,300.00 and the approval of Appropriations #2009050 and #2009051.     ATTAC HMENTS Attachment A Ret urn t o c ons ent  agenda Ret urn t o regular agenda Attachment A   Appropriation #2009050                                                                                                                                                                    $ 296,000.00                              Revenue Source:                        Federal Revenue            $296,000.00       In June 2004, the County  of Albemarle was awarded a $296,000.00 federal safety grant for pedestrian related safety improvements on Hillsdale Drive between Rio Road and Greenbrier D rive.  The purpose of the grant was to identify safety improvements that could be done without major reconstruction.  The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commis sion, the City of Charlottesv ille, and the County worked cooperatively  to complete a safety study for Hillsdale Drive that perfectly matched the grant requirements.  This study identified pedestrian improvements with the input from the public after several public meetings .  The project will include 1,514 linear feet of new  sidewalk starting on Greenbrier Drive and ex tending east on Hillsdale Drive ending at Mall Drive, three landscaped crossw alks with pedestrian signal sy stems at two of the crosswalks, and 1,700 linear feet of new sidewalk on Old Brook Road and 420 linear feet of sidewalk along the Fashion Square Mall on Rio Road.    Bids for the construction phase of this  project have been received and VD OT has authorized the County to proceed.  The $296,000.00 in grant funding, in addition to the $312,000.00 in local funding previous ly appropriated, will cover the project cos ts including design, which has  already been c ompleted, and construction.       Appropriation #2009051                                                                                                                                                                          $ 9,300.00                              Revenue Source:                        Local Revenue               $   9,300.00    At its meeting on February 12, 2009, the School Board approved the following appropriations:   Yancey Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $300.00 from the Kids Care Clubs.  These funds will be used to purchase materials and assis t w ith field trips  expenses for the Yancey Kids Care Club project titled “Party Pals”.  The students will be making birthday cards  for guests of the Laurels of Charlottesville.  The birthday cards will be personaliz ed and sent each month.  In June the club w ill visit the Laurels and meet some of the res idents they sent birthday cards to.   Baker Butler Elementary School has been aw arded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Virginia Education Association.  These funds will be us ed to implement fifth grade teac her Jennifer W hitenack’s project titled “Hardtack and Hardee’s Tactics:  Life as a Civil W ar Soldier”.  This project foc uses on rec ons tructing the daily life of a soldier, personaliz ing the study of the Civil War and instilling interest in and understanding of the Civ il War and the s oldier’s experienc e.   Better Living, Inc. has aw arded seven Albemarle County Public  School teachers  staff development stipends in the amount of $1,000.00 each under the Golden Apple Award.  Rec ipients include Amy Morris, Broadus  Wood; Martha Massie, Cale; Tome Green, Scottsville; Michael Allen, Sutherland Middle; Tom Stargell, Walton Middle; LeAnne Brubaker, Monticello High and Carlos Pezua, Murray High.   Agnor H urt Elementary School has  been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Wal­Mart Foundation.  These funds will be used to purchase physical educ ation equipment that will plac e an emphasis on the importance or aerobic conditioning to prevent c hildhood obes ity.   Ret urn t o ex ec  summary R ESOLUTION  END ORSIN G RAIL PR ESER VA TION APPLICATION  OF BU C KINGH AM B RAN CH RA ILROAD COMPAN Y     WH ER EAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for the projects; and   WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are estimated to cost $857,143.00; and   WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program, provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railw ays in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and   WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the County of Albemarle transportation system; and   WH ER EAS, the Buckingham Branch R ailroad is instrumental in the economic development of the area, and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and provides an alternate means of transportation of commodities; and   WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the project and the retention of the rail service; and   WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for all allocation and distribution of the funds provided.   NOW, TH ER EFOR E, BE IT RESOLVED , that the C ounty of Albemarle Board of Supervisors does hereby request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give priority consideration to the projects proposed by the Buckingham Branch R ailroad; and   BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy, of this resolution be spread upon the minutes of the March 4, 2009 meeting and sent to Buckingham Branch R ailroad.   View letter of request Ret urn t o c ons ent  agenda Ret urn t o regular agenda   COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: Home Oc cupation Regulations   SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Information about Environmental Regulations Applicable to H ome Occ upations   STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs.  Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Shepherd, Brook s, and Ms. McCulley   LEGAL R EVIEW:   Yes   AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:               INFORMATION:    CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:             INFORMATION:  X   ATTACH MEN TS:   Yes   REVIEW ED BY:   BACK GROUND : On December 3, 2008, the Board direc ted staff to prov ide information on the environmental regulations applicable to home occupations and the inspections conducted to ensure complianc e w ith applicable regulations.   Historically know n as cottage industries, home occupations in Albemarle County are increasing in number as more people c hoose to work part­time or full­time from their homes.  In Albemarle County, home occupations  fall into two categories: Class A and Class B.  Class A Home Occupations are defined as an occupation conducted for profit in a dwelling unit for which no person other than members of the family residing on the premises may be engaged in the occupation.  C lass B Home Occupations may be more intensive bec aus e, although like Class A Home Occupations they  are conducted for profit in a dw elling unit and a person and his family members residing on the premises may be engaged in the occupation, Clas s B Home Oc cupations may also use acc ess ory structures  and employ  up to 2 persons who are not family  members.    Class A H ome Occupations are approved administratively and are the more common of the two clas sifications.  Over the past five (5) years, Zoning and C urrent Development has receiv ed a yearly average of 337 applications for Clas s A Home Oc cupations.  Clas s B Home Occupations require a special use permit issued by the Board of Supervisors and typic ally less than four (4) applications are made a year.   (See Attachments A and B for the Zoning R egulations  and Application.)   STRA TEGIC PLAN: Protect the County’s Natural, Scenic and Historic Res ources   DISCU SSION : All home occupations are subject to the performance standards delineated in Zoning Ordinance § 4.14. (Attachment C )  Thes e s tandards pertain to use impac ts such as nois e, vibration, air and w ater pollution, radioactivity and electric al interference.  If the home oc cupation involves  a use with phy sical procedures, machinery and/or operations that might create impacts  regulated under Zoning Ordinance § 4.14, the applicant is required to address the performance standards.    For most home occupations, a letter from the applicant demonstrating compliance w ith the performance standards in Zoning Ordinance § 4.14 is sufficient to allow the county engineer to efficiently and inexpensively  confirm compliance with the performance standards.  As part of his review, the county engineer assures that the applicant has provided all relevant information to allow him to determine compliance.  In any given case, particularly those home occupations that may cause dis charges into the environment, the county engineer may require that the applicant submit a full c ertified engineer’s report. (Attachment D)  A full c ertified engineer’s report must address the performance standards, list all machines, proces ses , products and by­products, state the nature and expected levels of emissions or discharges to land, air and/or w ater, or liquid, solid or gaseous  effluent and electrical impulses  and noise under normal operations.  The report must also specify treatment methods and mechanisms to be used to control the emissions or discharges.  (See Attachment D for engineer’s report standards.)   Because of the high number of applications and the limited external impacts arising from the typical home occupation, Class A H ome Occupations s ites are not ins pected prior to approval. C lass  B H ome Occ upation sites are routinely inspected as part of the special use permit review  proc ess .        Most discharges of solids, liquids and gases into the environment are regulated by the State, rather than by the County.  W ith respect to solid and liquid discharges, septic systems are designed for domestic wastewater only.  If a home occupation involves waste other than domestic w astewater, a means of dis posal other than a septic system would be required.  An applic ant would have to address these discharges in an engineer’s report and the County’s  approval of the home occupation would be conditioned upon an approved plan for disposing of the waste.  Any unusual env ironmental is sues for a Clas s B Home Occupation can be addressed by conditions of the special use permit.   BUDGET IMPACT: Changing the procedure to require an inspection prior to home occupation approval w ould result in a staffing impact. At the current number of home oc cupation applications (average of 337 a year), this w ould involve almost 0.5 FTE.  Increasing the process or regulation of home occupations w ill also increas e s taffing impacts .    RECOMMENDA TION S: Staff recommends that w e continue our current approach to reviewing proposed home occupations ’ compliance with the performance standards delineated in Zoning Ordinance § 4.14.  There are several aspects of the regulation of home occ upations that w arrant review, including the range and scope in the R ural Areas  and the accommodation of live­work units in the D evelopment Areas.  These will be addres sed comprehensively w ith a future zoning text amendment.     ATTAC HMENTS Attachment A:  Home Occupation Zoning R egulations Attachment B:  Home Occupation Class A Application Attachment C:  Performance Standard Zoning Regulations Attachment D:  Certified Engineer’s R eport Standards Ret urn t o c ons ent  agenda Ret urn t o regular agenda HOME OCCUPATION REGULATIONS ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE   Definitions from Section 3.0:  Home Occupation, Class A: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit for profit in connection with which no person other than members of the family residing on the premises is engaged in such occupation.   Home Occupation, Class B: An occupation conducted in a dwelling unit, with or without the use of one or more accessory structures, for profit, in connection with which there are employed not more than two (2) persons other than members of the family residing on the premises, which persons may be in addition to such family members.   5.2 HOME OCCUPATIONS 5.2.1 CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be established without approval of the zoning administrator. Upon receipt of a request to establish a home occupation, Class B, the zoning administrator shall refer the same to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for approval of entrance facilities and the zoning administrator shall determine the adequacy of existing parking for such use. No such clearance shall be issued for any home occupation, Class B, except after compliance with section 5.2.3 hereof. (Amended 3­18­81)   5.2.2 REGULATIONS GOVERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS 5.2.2.1 The following regulations shall apply to any home occupation: a. Such occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory structure, or both, provided that not more than twenty­ five (25) percent of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation and in no event shall the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or both, devoted to such occupation, exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; provided that the use of accessory structures shall be permitted only in connection with home occupation, Class B; b. There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation provided that a home occupation, Class B, may erect one home occupation Class B sign as authorized by section 4.15 of this chapter. Accessory structures shall be similar in facade to a single­family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and scale with other development in the area in which located. Any accessory structure which does not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main structures in the district in which it is located shall not be used for any home occupation; c. There shall be no sales on the premises, other than items hand crafted on the premises, in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty shops or one­chair barber shops; d. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street; e. All home occupations shall comply with performance standards set forth in section 4.14; f. Tourist lodging, nursing homes, nursery schools, day care centers and private schools shall not be deemed home occupations. 5.2.2.2 Prior to issuance of clearance for any home occupation, the zoning administrator shall require the applicant to sign an affidavit stating his clear understanding of and intent to abide by the foregoing regulations. (§ 20­5.2.2, 12­10­80; § 18­5.2.2, Ord. 98­A(1), 8­5­98; Ord. 01­18(3), 5­9­01)   5.2.3 CERTAIN PERMITS REQUIRED No home occupation, Class B, shall be established until a permit shall have been issued therefor. The provisions of section 5.2.1 of this ordinance shall apply hereto, mutatis mutandis.   5.2.4 REVOCATION The zoning administrator may revoke any clearance or permit issued pursuant to this section, after hearing, for noncompliance with this ordinance or any condition imposed under the authority of this section.   Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Application for Home Occupation Class A Permit Home Occupation Class A Permit = $13.00 Name of Business: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Tax map and parcel: _________________________________ Magisterial District: _______________ Zoning: _______________ Physical Street Address (if assigned): ___________________________________________________________________________ Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contact Person (Who should we call/write concerning this project?): __________________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ City _________________________ State ___________ Zip __________ Daytime Phone (____) ___________________ Fax # (____) ___________________ E-mail ________________________________________ Owner of Record ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ City _________________________ State ___________ Zip __________ Daytime Phone (____) ___________________ Fax # (____) ___________________ E-mail ________________________________________ Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing?): _______________________________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________ City _________________________ State ___________ Zip __________ Daytime Phone (____) ___________________ Fax # (____) ___________________ E-mail ________________________________________ County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 2/11/2009 Page 1 of 2 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY HO # _____________________ Fee Amount $___________ Date Paid __________By who? _________________________ Receipt # _____________Ck#_____________ By:_______________ Type of Business ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Does the Public visit the site? Yes ______or No______ Does the use involve procedures, machinery or chemicals that cause noise, vibration, air or water pollution, radioactivity, electrical interference or non-domestic waste discharged to a septic field or sewer? If so, performance standards must be addressed by an engineer’s report. Yes _______ or No _______ This certificate in conjunction with a business license, represents zoning approval to conduct the Home Occupation identified above. Home Occupations, Class A must be conducted a) entirely within the dwelling and are not allowed in any accessory structure, such as a detached garage; and b) must be conducted by the owner/applicant (and other family members) residing in the dwelling. Home Occupations, Class A are also subject to the following restrictions: 1) Employees not living in the dwelling are not allowed. 2) There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation. 3) Outside storage of materials used in the home occupation is not allowed. 4) On-premise sales of goods, other than items hand-crafted on the premises, is not allowed. 5) No more than 25% of the floor area of the dwelling may be devoted to the Home Occupation; and the total area devoted to such occupation shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. 6) No traffic shall be generated in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. 7) Any need to parking shall be met off the street. 8) All home occupations shall comply with performance standards set forth in Section 4.14. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby apply for approval to conduct the Home Occupation identified above, and certify that this address is my legal residence. I also certify that I have read the restrictions on Home Occupations, that I understand them, and that I will abide by them. ________________________________________________ _____________________________________ Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser, Agent Date ________________________________________________ _____________________________________ Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory ________________________________________________ _____________________________________ Reviewer Date ENGINEER’S REPORT ATTACHED: YES ______ NO _______ CONDITIONS: 2/11/2009 Page 2 of 2 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE     Performance Standards from Section 4.14:   4.14 PERFOR MANCE STA NDA R DS N o use shall hereafter be established or conducted in any industrial district in any manner in violation of the follow ing standards of performance:   4.14.1 N OISE All sources of noise (except those not under direct control of occupant of use, such as vehicles) shall be subject to and comply w ith section 4.18. (§ 4.14­12­10­80; Ord. 00­18(3), 6­14­00)   4.14.1.1 (Repealed 6­14­00) 4.14.1.2 (Repealed 6­14­00)   4.14.2 VIBRA TION The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second of earthborne vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified below w hen measured at the points indicated.   4.14.2.1 METHOD OF MEASUR EMENT Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component recording system, capable of measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular directions. The displacement shall be the maximum instantaneous vector sum of the amplitude in the three directions.   4.14.2.2 MEAN IN G OF TERMS Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.   Area of Measurement   Type of vibration   At residential district boundaries       At other lot lines within district Continuous .00   .015   Impulsive (100 per minute or less).006   .030   Less than 8 pulses per 24 hours .015   .075     4.14.3 GLARE N o direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature processes such as combustion, welding or otherw ise, so as to be visible beyond the lot   Page 2 Performance Standards Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance     line, shall be permitted except for signs, parking lot lighting and other lighting permitted by this ordinance or required by any other applicable regulation, ordinance or law. How ever, in the case of any operation which w ould affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall apply.     4.14.4 A IR  POLLU TION R ules of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle C ounty. Such rules and regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and other emissions from stationary sources; particulate matter; odor; particulate emission from indirect heating furnaces; open burning; incinerators; and gaseous pollutants.   4.14.5 WATER POLLU TION R ules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.   4.14.6 R ADIOA CTIVITY There shall be no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the health and safety of persons on or beyond the premises where such radioactive material is used. Determination of existence of such danger and the handling of radioactive materials, the discharge of such materials into the atmosphere and streams and other water, and the disposal of radioactive w astes shall be by reference to and in accordance with applicable current regulations of the Department of Energy, and in the case of items w hich w ould affect aircraft navigation or the control thereof, by applicable current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, and any applicable laws enacted by the General Assembly of the C ommonw ealth of Virginia or the requirements of the Virginia Air Pollution Act, whichever is greater.   4.14.7 ELECTRICA L INTERFER EN CE There shall be no electrical disturbance emanating from any lot w hich would adversely affect the operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and in the case of any operation which would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall apply.   4.14.8 C ER TIFIED ENGIN EER REPORT SU B MITTA L Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit to the county engineer as precedent to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance a certified engineer's report describing the proposed operation, all machines, processes, products and by­products, stating the nature and expected levels of emission or discharge to land, air and/or w ater or liquid, solid or gaseous effluent and electrical impulses and noise under normal operations, and the specifications of treatment methods and mechanisms to be used to control such emission or discharge. The county engineer shall review the applicant's submittal and make comment and recommendation prior to final commission action on the site development plan. (Amended 9­ 9­92)   Go to next attachment Return to exec summary   Certified Engineer’s Reports   According to Zoning Ordinance section 18­4.14.8, Albemarle County requires a certified engineer’s report prior to issuing a zoning compliance clearance or home occupation permit for uses of an industrial character. The certified engineer’s report must be reviewed by the County Engineer (or designee).   A certified engineers report shall consist of;   Type 1: For uses which will have no discharge, noise, vibration, smell, lighting, emissions, impulses or radiation beyond a normal office or residential use, and will not store any hazardous materials, a letter from the owner with the following information will suffice as a certified engineer’s report; 1.      a description of the business and the physical process involved. 2.      a description of any machinery and operations. 3.      a statement or explanation for meeting each of the performance standards of section 18­4.14; noise, vibration, glare, air pollution, water pollution, radioactivity, electrical interference. Examples of type 1 uses might be offices or warehouse storage of clothes or home occupations for wood workers.  An example letter is available.   Type 2: For uses which will have any discharge, noise, vibration, smell, lighting, emission, impulse or radiation which might reasonable be expected to exceed the performance standards of 18­4.14.4 at any time, or which have any permit requirements from DEQ, EPA, Health Department or other local, state or federal agency, a full certified engineers report is required.  This report must contain a signed and dated seal from a professional engineer.  It must contain copies of any local, state or federal permits.  It must contain plans and descriptions of physical and operational measures to meet all of the performance standards, with actual supporting measurements and data where applicable.  Examples of type 2 uses might be a contractor’s office and storage yard or equipment repair shop, or a manufacturer of electrical components.     Return to exec summary I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV) III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF Single-Family (includes modular) SFA Single-Family Attached SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse SFC Single-Family Condominium DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) AA Accessory Apartment INDEX Office of Geographic Data Services 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 Community Development Department 2008 YEAR END CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT County of Albemarle - 1 - I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area Dev Rural Dev Rural 1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48 3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45 4th Quarter 66 62 65 42 393 220 340 171 Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 102 107 In 2008, 509 certificates of occupancy were issued for 511 dwelling units. There were 14 certificates of occupancy issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $35,000. There were 17 certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 200820082007 151 128 Totals 202 100 YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 511613 2007 Totals 207 127 COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS Quarter Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area Dev Area Rural Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Dwelling UnitsSF Unit Other Units Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 2 - 2008 Year End II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 19035300716513% JACK JOUETT 6 080000014 3% RIVANNA 44 6 34 040119018% SAMUEL MILLER 36 042002145 9% SCOTTSVILLE 44 0 2 141 034019438% WHITE HALL 79 9 13 0002010320% TOTAL 228 15 96 146 4 3 16 3 511 100% Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 00900000 9 2% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 15 0030001 19 4% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 6 34 04000 44 9% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 30200000 5 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 4 0 0 141 0000 145 28% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 10000000 1 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 00020000 2 0% 236451464001 225 44% CROZET COMMUNITY 39 9 13 00000 61 12% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 603400070 47 9% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 00000000 0 0% 4594700070 108 21% RIVANNA VILLAGE 70000000 7 1% 70000000 7 1% 7515921464071 340 67% RURAL AREA 1 43 0400020 49 10% RURAL AREA 2 38 0000011 40 8% RURAL AREA 3 35 0000021 38 7% RURAL AREA 4 37 0000340 44 9% 153 0400392 171 33% 228 15 96 146 4 3 16 3 511 100% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL VILLAGE SUBTOTAL Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 2008 Year End II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type % TOTAL SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS Agnor-Hurt 16 1 0 0 4% Baker Butler 9 0 0 0 2% Broadus Wood 19 0 0 2 4% Brownsville 44 5 0 0 10% Cale 8 2 0 0 30% Crozet 15 8 0 0 6% Greer 4 8 0 0 2% Hollymead 6 34 0 7 9% Meriwether Lewis 14 0 0 0 3% Murray 11 4 0 0 4% Red Hill 10 0 0 2 2% Scottsville 18 0 0 2 5% Stone Robinson 34 34 4 0 15% Stony Point 8 0 0 1 2% Woodbrook 2 0 0 0 1% Yancey 10 0 0 2 2% TOTAL III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. No. No. No. No. RIO 65 75 20 121 281 JOUETT 14 44 1 23 82 RIVANNA 90 102 10 138 340 S. MILLER 45 100 5 78 228 SCOTTSVILLE 192 98 4 105 399 WHITE HALL 103 120 11 112 346 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category. .. 100% 577 1,67628,734,569$ 292,684,958$ Amount-$ 10,211,979$ 1,854,678$ 5,012,291$ 511 TOTAL UNITS 78 9 3 12 14 18 12 23 151 32 12 47 20 10 21 49 0 3316 0 0 0 0 AA 0 1 0 0 0 0 00 510,000$ 4,628$ 11,590,946$ 32,008,100$ 23,472,175$ 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 8,080,375$ 799,250$ 00 Amount-$ 1,793,947$ 11,554,638$ 0 2,775,996$ TOTAL 129,757,564$ 42,148,276$ 51 92,044,549$ 24,458,700$ 24,991,176$ 32,491,250$ 509 7,587,290$ 7,220,491$ 539 6,538,499$ 12,672,354$ 5,195,000$ 31,263,000$ 24,262,500$ 6,335,695$ Amount-$ Amount-$ 0 0 TOTAL Amount-$ 0 0 0 44,901,135$ 12,334,573$ 59,604,424$ 70,797,632$ 38,100,757$ 66,946,437$ 00 60 00 00 0 1 0 00 2 0 0 0 96 146 SCHOOL DISTRICT SFA SFC DWELLING UNIT TYPE MF 03 00 00 0 141 90 * Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. ** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. 00 00 0 228 15 0 Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV) III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF Single-Family (includes modular) SFA Single-Family Attached SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse SFC Single-Family Condominium DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) AA Accessory Apartment Office of Geographic Data Services 401 McIntire Road Community Development Department 2008 FOURTH QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 INDEX - 2 - I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 2008 Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals 1st Quarter 98 51 88 57 381 96 184 52 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 127 2nd Quarter 103 82 351 88 292 86 133 90 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53 139 3rd Quarter 90 80 78 55 305 66 103 72 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47 94 4th Quarter 78 68 105 53 426 68 361 84 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30 58 369 281 622 253 1404 316 781 298 318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 2006 575 During the fourth quarter of 2008, 58 building permits were issued for 58 dwelling units. There were no permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200820072005 COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS Quarter YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 1079875 1720650 418599 830 831 Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Dwelling UnitsSF Unit Other Units Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 4th Quarter 2008 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 0 00000000 0% JACK JOUETT 0 00000000 0% RIVANNA 8 0 15 000102441% SAMUEL MILLER 7 50000001221% SCOTTSVILLE 3 00000104 7% WHITE HALL 13 40000101831% TOTAL 31 9 15 0003058100% Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 00000000 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 00000000 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 15 00000 15 26% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 00000000 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 20000000 2 3% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 00000000 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 00000000 0 0% 201500000 17 29% CROZET COMMUNITY 64000000 10 17% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 10000000 1 2% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 00000000 0 0% 74000000 11 19% RIVANNA VILLAGE 00000000 0 0% 00000000 0 0% 941500000 28 48% RURAL AREA 1 45000010 10 17% RURAL AREA 2 70000010 8 14% RURAL AREA 3 90000000 9 16% RURAL AREA 4 20000010 3 5% 22 5000030 30 52% 3191500030 58 100% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL VILLAGE SUBTOTAL Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 4 - 4th Quarter 2008 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type % TOTAL SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS Agnor-Hurt 0000 0% Baker Butler 1000 2% Broadus Wood 1000 2% Brownsville 9000 16% Cale 2000 3% Crozet 3001 14% Greer 0000 0% Hollymead 1000 2% Meriwether Lewis 2000 3% Murray 3000 14% Red Hill 1000 2% Scottsville 1000 2% Stone Robinson 2 15 0 1 31% Stony Point 5000 9% Woodbrook 0000 0% Yancey 0001 2% TOTAL III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. No. No. No. No. RIO 0 7 1 34 42 JOUETT 0 12 0 3 15 RIVANNA 24 35 4 17 80 S. MILLER 12 27 4 6 49 SCOTTSVILLE 4 23 2 8 37 WHITE HALL 18 31 1 15 65 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category. 15 0 00 00 00 0 00 40 00 00 00 00 SCHOOL DISTRICT SFA SFC DWELLING UNIT TYPE MF AA 0 00 0 0 7,700,320$ 2,299,660$ 8,960,815$ 00 00 00 0 1,011,710$ 694,810$ 21,195,595$ 8 Amount-$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 1,401,870$ 2,095,820$ -$ 5,303,080$ 3,715,000$ 609,500$ 569,300$ 6,659,000$ 58 808,000$ 1,805,715$ 135 221,100$ TOTAL 16,246,380$ 6,864,905$ 12 14,062,045$ 275,000$ Amount-$ 144,000$ -$ 0 Amount-$ 0 5 31 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 1 2 8 0 0 0 1 58 TOTAL UNITS 18 5 0 1 2 1 2,816,100$ 326,500$ 412,860$ 827,710$ 3 85,310$ Amount-$ 0 0 509,500$ -$ 11,674,545$ 1,563,000$ 40,000$ 0 * Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. ** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. TOTAL 100% 83 2884,689,580$ 41,862,910$ Amount-$ Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV) III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF Single-Family (includes modular) SFA Single-Family Attached SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse SFC Single-Family Condominium DUP Duplex MF Multi-Family MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) AA Accessory Apartment Office of Geographic Data Services 401 McIntire Road Community Development Department 2008 YEAR END BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 INDEX - 2 - I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 2008 Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals 1st Quarter 98 51 88 57 381 96 184 52 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 127 2nd Quarter 103 82 351 88 292 86 133 90 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53 139 3rd Quarter 90 80 78 55 305 66 103 72 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47 94 4th Quarter 78 68 105 53 426 68 361 84 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30 58 369 281 622 253 1404 316 781 298 318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area 2006 575 In 2008, 403 building permits were issued for 418 dwelling units. There were 5 permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $12,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200820072005 COMP PLAN AREA TOTALS Quarter YEAR TO DATE TOTALS 1079875 1720650 418599 830 831 Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Dwelling UnitsSF Unit Other Units Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 3 - 2008 Year End II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 411513000327418% JACK JOUETT 3 0 15 0 0 12 0 0 30 7% RIVANNA 40 0 48 000209022% SAMUEL MILLER 37 76000015112% SCOTTSVILLE 49 00000405313% WHITE HALL 80 6 8 11 10 0 4 1 120 29% TOTAL 250 28 90 11 10 12 13 4 418 100% Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 16 0 0 12 0 0 28 7% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 38 0 12 00002 52 12% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 48 00000 48 11% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 40000010 5 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 50000000 5 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 20000000 2 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 00100000 1 0% 49 0 77 0 0 12 1 2 141 34% CROZET COMMUNITY 34 6 8 11 10 0 0 1 70 17% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 6 15 000030 24 6% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 10000000 1 0% 41 21 8 11 10 0 3 1 95 23% RIVANNA VILLAGE 30000000 3 1% 30000000 3 1% 93 21 85 11 10 12 4 3 239 57% RURAL AREA 1 40 7500030 55 13% RURAL AREA 2 33 0000020 35 8% RURAL AREA 3 43 0000011 45 11% RURAL AREA 4 41 0000030 44 11% 157 7500091 179 43% 250 28 90 11 10 12 13 4 418 100% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL VILLAGE SUBTOTAL Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services - 4 - 2008 Year End II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type % TOTAL SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS Agnor-Hurt 41 13 0 0 13% Baker Butler 9 0 0 0 2% Broadus Wood 21 0 0 2 6% Brownsville 44 1 10 1 16% Cale 9 0 0 1 2% Crozet 14 7 0 1 7% Greer 0 15 0 0 6% Hollymead 6 0 0 3 6% Meriwether Lewis 12 0 0 0 3% Murray 12 6 0 0 6% Red Hill 13 0 0 0 3% Scottsville 19 0 0 1 5% Stone Robinson 18 37 0 1 13% Stony Point 15 11 0 1 6% Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0% Yancey 17 0 0 2 5% TOTAL III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. No. No. No. No. No. RIO 74 89 13 137 313 JOUETT 20 65 0 20 105 RIVANNA 90 128 8 90 316 S. MILLER 51 121 7 42 221 SCOTTSVILLE 53 109 7 55 224 WHITE HALL 115 168 10 63 356 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category. * Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category. 90 11 00 00 00 0 00 60 00 011 00 00 SCHOOL DISTRICT SFA SFC DWELLING UNIT TYPE MF AA 0 00 0 0 56,747,545$ 32,101,565$ 68,797,288$ 00 00 00 0 37,146,969$ 22,273,278$ 62,678,989$ 26 Amount-$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 4 5,795,760$ 14,111,220$ 5,204,000$ 23,511,580$ 26,241,000$ 4,269,766$ 13,169,684$ 38,437,500$ 403 4,872,035$ 11,494,465$ 680 8,798,223$ TOTAL 121,528,014$ 43,419,952$ 45 55,987,289$ 10,067,100$ Amount-$ 2,876,706$ 14,964,250$ 15 Amount-$ 0 7 250 28 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 00 1 0 0 0 55 9 23 67 20 10 29 0 0 27 24 418 TOTAL UNITS 56 27 1 19 12 13 10,330,104$ 14,771,325$ 2,943,846$ 9,167,369$ 13 12,799,512$ Amount-$ 0 10 11,116,000$ -$ 23,041,545$ 1,624,000$ 10,138,644$ 12 * Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. ** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs. TOTAL 100% 407 1,53558,810,379$ 279,745,634$ Amount-$ Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services Board‐to‐Board             March 2009  A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors       Electronic School Board: In an effort to improve efficiencies in the School Board office and to make the  work of the School Board more transparent to the public, the Albemarle County School Board began  using a paperless product known as ElectronicSchoolBoard, beginning February 6th . All board  agendas, documents, minutes, and policies are housed at the ElectronicSchoolBoard site,  http://esb.k12albemarle.org.     Board members – and the general public – may view items related to a specific board meeting from any  computer with an Internet connection. Paper copies will no longer be produced. The system also adds  the increased functionality of searchable minutes, agendas, supporting documents and policies.     National Merit Finalists: Twenty Albemarle County high school students have been selected as  finalists in the 2009 National Merit® Scholarship program.  Nine Albemarle High school students  received the distinction: John F. Elder, Roger Fan, Cameron K. Hill, Valentina S. Moshnikova, Amy L.  Pugh, Ariel L. Schwartz, Caitlyn M. Suhler, Duncan C. Townsend, and Matthew E. Truwit. Western  Albemarle High School produced seven finalists: Caroline Barnes, Joshua Dugan, Elizabeth Hexter,  Joanna Moody, Samantha Rivkin, Wesley Swank, and Whitney Wenger. Katherine Downs, Patricia  Fernandez, Stephen Lander, and Timothy Pianta were the four students from Monticello High school  to each win a Certificate of Merit for the competition and progress to the finals for college scholarship  opportunities.    The students were selected for this prestigious honor out of nearly 1.5 million high school students in  the United States who take the PSAT (Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test) and NMSQT® (National  Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test) examinations each fall.     This is the largest number of National Merit® finalists in Albemarle County Public Schools’ history.     Virginia Index of Performance Awards: Governor Kaine announced in January the schools that  received his Virginia Index of Performance Award for Educational Excellence.  Three of the 162 schools  announced were Albemarle County Schools.  In addition, 14 Albemarle County Schools were  commended by the Board of Education, receiving either the VIP Excellence Award or VIP Competence  to Excellence Award.      The following schools earned the Governor’s Award for Educational Excellence:  Hollymead Elementary   Meriwether Lewis Elementary   Murray Elementary    The following schools earned the Board of Education’s Excellence Award:  Albemarle High   Baker‐Butler Elementary  Broadus Wood Elementary  Brownsville Elementary   Cale Elementary  Crozet Elementary   Monticello High   Scottsville Elementary   Stone‐Robinson Elementary   Stony Point Elementary  Western Albemarle High   Woodbrook Elementary    The following schools earned the Board of Education’s Competence to Excellence Award:  Red Hill Elementary  Murray High     Representatives from Hollymead, Murray and Meriwether Lewis Elementary Schools attended the  awards ceremony with Governor Kaine on February 16th.  Virginia Students’ AP Scores Rank 3rd in Nation; ACPS Students Top State Averages: The College  Board announced in its fifth annual Advanced Placement Report to the Nation that Virginia students  ranked third nationally in AP achievement for the second straight year. The report uses the percentage  of students who score a 3 or higher on their AP test – considered a passing score – as the criteria. Of  Virginia’s 2008 public school graduates, 21.3 percent received a grade of three or better on at least one  AP examination. Only two states, Maryland and New York, had higher percentages of seniors  receiving grades of three or better. The national average for the class of 2008 was 15.2 percent.   In Albemarle County Public Schools, 64 percent of students taking at least one AP exam earned a score  of 3 or higher, far exceeding the state and national averages. In 2008, 28 percent of high school students  were enrolled in at least one AP course, and of those 87.5 percent took the AP exam. Data for the  percentage of students receiving a passing score at the individual high schools is as follows: Albemarle  High: 62.4 percent with 370 test‐takers, Monticello High: 45.3 percent with 267 test‐takers, and Western  Albemarle High: 82.3 percent with 305 test‐takers.  MESA: The Math, Engineering and Science Academy (MESA), which will  open August 2009 at  Albemarle High School, is now accepting applications for 9 th and 11th graders.  MESA offers a four‐year  college preparatory program designed to lead to a career pathway in engineering.  Students will work  in a laboratory environment designed to provide authentic experiences in mathematics, engineering  and science.      Students who apply for the academy will be notified in April  of their admissions status. Students at  MESA must attend Albemarle High School; the School Division has established a process for accepted  students who reside in other high school districts to obtain a waiver to attend MESA.  The academy  will accept 25‐30 9th graders and 25‐30 11th graders for fall admission. Information about MESA can be  found by visiting the division website at http://www.k12albemarle.org/MESA.     School Division Calendar for 2009‐2010: The School Board approved the School Division Calendar for  2009‐2010 on February 26th.  The 2009‐10 calendar includes 180 student days and 13 non‐student  professional learning days for teachers, with school for students scheduled to begin on August 25, 2009.  It also includes 4 professional responsibility days and 3 staff development days for teachers (outside of  regularly scheduled time), bringing the total number of teacher days to 200.     The calendar includes a 10‐day winter break and a 5‐day spring break. In addition, there are 7  inclement weather make‐up days included, 5 of which occur immediately following the last proposed  day of school. The calendar was created by a joint committee consisting of representatives from  Albemarle County and Charlottesville City Schools. The two divisions have agreed to adopt the same  calendar in order to assist the community with scheduling and to ensure parity. The committee  developed three drafts and received public comment beginning in November 2008.    Instructional Coaching Update: The School Board gave direction to the School Division on February 3  (check this date – the date the budget was approved) to continue with the implementation of the  Instructional Coaching Model reorganization. Under this model, division‐ and schools‐based  instructional support positions will be reorganized into five centrally managed coaching teams that  will serve several elementary, middle or high schools. Each team will be managed by a Lead  Instructional Coach, who will have supervisory and compliance duties, and who will report to either  the Director of Elementary or Director of Secondary Education. Instructional Coaches will be standard  teaching contract positions and will work to help classroom teachers implement effective instructional  strategies and the Division’s Framework for Quality Learning across all schools.     The centrally managed, schools based model for the Instructional Coaching teams is similar to the  Division’s existing Novice Teacher Network and Math Specialist models, both of which have proven  successful over the past three years at raising levels of achievement in students by working with  teachers to improve daily learning experiences. The reorganization also accomplishes just over $1  million in savings through the reduction of 10 full‐time equivalent positions, 5 at the central level, and  5 allocated among the Division’s 26 schools. At this time, the Division is confident that employees who  are affected by the reductions will be placed in alternate positions for which they are certified that will  become available through attrition. Hiring decisions for the Lead Coaches were announced in late  February and are expected in early March for Instructional Coaches. Selected candidates will begin  training and team building immediately in order to be prepared for full implementation for the 09‐10  school year.    Swimming Discussion Update: The School Board on February 12th reviewed the information  regarding use of capital funds to enclose a swimming pool in the County.  After reviewing the  materials that were provided to the Board of Supervisors and discussing the issue among the Board,  the Board approved a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that consideration of capital  requests for swimming facilities occur through the appropriate CIP processes, ensuring greatest need  projects receive highest funding priority.    Golden Apple Awards: Nominations are being sought through March 4th for the 2009 Golden Apple  Awards, which honor outstanding educators from each Albemarle County and Charlottesville City  school, including CATEC, as well as area private schools.  These awards are sponsored by Better Living  Building Supply & Better Living Furniture.      Milken Educator Award: Virginia Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Patricia Wright, and Dr.  Jane Foley of the Milken Foundation surprised Dr. William Sterrett, principal of Woodbrook  Elementary School, with the news that he was one of 80 elementary educators nationwide to receive a  Milken Educator Award for 2008.      The Milken Educator Awards were conceived by Lowell Milken, chairman and co‐founder of the  Milken Foundation, to recognize the importance of outstanding educators and encourage talented  young people to enter teaching.  Unlike most teaching awards, the Milken Educator Awards have no  formal nomination or application process.  Each year exceptional teachers, principals, and specialists –  recommended without their knowledge by a blue‐ribbon panel appointed by each state’s department  of education – are stunned with the news of their awards.      The recipients are honored in early to mid‐career for what they have achieved and for the promise of  what they will accomplish.  Established in 1985, the Award alternates yearly between elementary and  secondary educators.  The 2008 recipients will receive their $25,000 checks during the Milken National  Education Conference in April 2009.      Dr. Sterrett was recognized on February 19, 2009 in Richmond by the Virginia Board of Education and  the General Assembly.      March Meetings:  The School Board will hold its regular meeting on March 12 th and its regular work  session on March 26th.    MEMORANDUM   To:      County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors      From:  Gary W. Fern, P.E., Executive Director Date:   February 25, 2009          Re:       North Fork Regional Pump Station Project                    In January 2008 Hazen & Sawyer, an engineering consultant firm working for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), completed a report on the evaluation of the Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant (Camelot WWTP).  The report concluded that the existing operational configuration of the Camelot WWTP limited its capacity to 120,000 gallons per day (gpd).  In addition, the components of the treatment facilities would need significant work to maintain their integrity.               Since the influent wastewater flow rate is already measured at 120,000 gpd, and knowing that approved development projects which were under construction would generate additional wastewater required to be treated at the Camelot WWTP, the RWSA and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) initiated capital improvements and operational revisions which would allow the facilities to handle the anticipated total wastewater flow.  These improvements are close to completion, and in time to receive the additional wastewater flow.               In August of 1992, the ACSA and the RWSA entered into an agreement with some area developers which required that, when the Camelot WWTP reached 80% of capacity, the ACSA and RWSA initiate planning for the handling of wastewater generated in the area.  In addition, the agreement also stated that when the Camelot WWTP reached a capacity of 90%, the ACSA and the RWSA would implement the proposed wastewater plans.  With the requirements of the agreement, the limited capacity and structural deficiencies of the Camelot WWTP, and the proposed development within the Jurisdictional Area, the ACSA and RWSA initiated a long­ term plan for the handling of wastewater in the Camelot area.  Greeley & Hansen, an engineering consultant working for the RWSA, completed a study of alternatives for handling wastewater in the area.  The recommended alternative included a regional pump station which would discharge wastewater to the wastewater collection system which serves the Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.                The ACSA met with area developers to assess the proposed development and proposed quantity of wastewater to be generated.  In addition, the ACSA procured the services of Whitman, Requardt & Associates (WRA) of Richmond to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report for the project.  Based on the structural deficiencies of the Camelot WWTP and the proposed wastewater generation rates, a solution was required that could be designed and constructed within a two year period.  The Preliminary Engineering Report was completed in December 2008, and included a recommended alternative which is comprised of a series of two pump stations and corresponding force mains.    One of the pump stations is anticipated to be located in the area of the Camelot WWTP, to transport wastewater from development north of the North Fork Rivanna River, to the south side, to a regional pump station.  The Regional Pump Station will transport flows from the Camelot Pump Station, along with wastewater generated from the North Pointe Development and the North Fork Research Park, to the ACSA Wastewater Collection System, south of Airport/Proffit Road.  The Camelot Pump Station will be sized to handle wastewater generated from the existing development area and proposed development area boundary, as depicted on the Places 29 Master Plan.               In December 2008, the ACSA Board of Directors appropriated $840,000 toward the final engineering design of the proposed project.  WRA has reviewed the proffers requiring the North Pointe Development to make substantive roadway improvements along Route 29 South, and has completed an analysis of the location for the Regional Pump Station Force Main.  Representatives of the North Pointe Development have been very helpful in assisting WRA and the ACSA in evaluating the route of the force main.               We anticipate completion of final engineering design by December 2009 and completion of construction by January 2011.  The estimated cost of the current project is approximately $11 million.  The ACSA is currently evaluating funding alternatives for this project.                I look forward to discussing the project with you at the meeting on March 4, 2009.    Return to regular agenda Presented toPresented toPresented to The Albemarle County Board of SupervisorsThe Albemarle County Board of SupervisorsThe Albemarle County Board of Supervisors BBBRIGHTRIGHTRIGHT S S STARSTARSTARS P P PROGRAMROGRAMROGRAM FY 2008 AFY 2008 AFY 2008 ANNUALNNUALNNUAL R R REPORTEPORTEPORT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction Letter from the Superintendent and the Director 3 Coordinator’s Report and Program Highlights 4 2007-2008 Governor’s Preschool Pilot Grant 5 The Commonwealth of Virginia’s Preschool Pilot Report 6 Governor Kaine Visits Albemarle County 7 Frequently Asked Questions 8 II. Program Highlights Program Outcome Measures 9 Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Overview 10 Data and Trends 10 Personal and Social Development 11 Standards of Learning Scores 13 III. Program Demographics 14 IV. Our Bright Stars Schools Individual Profiles x Risk Factors x Family Surveys 15 V. Preschool Steering Committee & Preschool Advisory Board 22 VI. Community Supporters 22 VII. Program Budget 23 3 It is with pleasure that we provide this introductory letter to the FY 2008 Annual Report for the Bright Stars Program, in this thirteenth year of successful collaboration between the Albemarle County Schools and the Department of Social Services of Albemarle County. In FY2008 Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine demonstrated his administration’s support for making early childhood education an option for all Virginia families by making funds available for a Virginia Preschool Pilot Initiative. The goal of the initiative was to allow selected sites to model strategies for quality pre- school network delivery, building on strengths of existing programs. Albemarle County was pleased to be selected as one of the pilot sites. A key strategy in Albemarle was the expansion of “blended” classrooms in which children qualified under Virginia Pre-School Initiative, Title I and Special Education learn together in a single classroom. Successful application of this strategy was accomplished in four elementary schools: Agnor-Hurt, Cale, Red Hill and Stone-Robinson. In addi- tion, partnerships were developed with private settings to provide additional pre-school slots for four year olds. In Albemarle County, the importance of early childhood as a time for special attention and intervention has long ago been identified, goals and strategies determined and initiatives undertaken and supported. Its importance is highlighted in planning for the future on the part of schools, government, and social services. z The Strategic Plan for the Albemarle County Public Schools July 2005 – June 2009 sets as goals to “prepare all students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy,” and to “eliminate the achievement gap.” Both of these goals include strategies addressing early childhood education, including “increase capacity of pre-school programming.” z The Strategic Plan for Albemarle County FY07 – FY10 sets as a goal to “enhance the quality of life” for County residents. A stated priority is to “increase collaborative efforts with the School Board and with employees of the school system to assist the School division to achieve recognition as a “world class education system.’” Significantly, “strategies should include working together to ensure all Albemarle county children enter the school system ready to learn.” z The Strategic Plan for Albemarle County Department of Social Services January 2007 – December 2009 sets as a goal to “develop and implement prevention and early intervention strategies focused on the 0 through middle school aged population.” Key strategies include “expand to scope and scale current educational prevention strategies to ensure that all children needing such services receive them,” and “create strategies focused on early childhood education for the appropriate age groups.” We are proud to report on this latest year of achievement in a collaboration that started twelve years ago with one Bright Stars program and now features eight programs in seven elementary schools. Quite sim- ply, Bright Stars accomplishes for a high percentage of participating children what it sets out to do: to prepare at-risk four-year old children for future schooling. The collaboration on behalf of young children between the County Schools and Social Services as a department of local government is unique in the Commonwealth. The collaboration is strong and will grow stronger as we continuously learn from our work with children and families, adapt to changing conditions in the community, and strive to improve our processes and performance. Kathy Ralston Director Dr. Pamela R. Moran Superintendent 4 BRIGHT STARS PROGRAM COORDINATOR’S REPORT OCTOBER 2008 Change and challenge characterized 2007-2008 for Bright Stars and other preschool pro-grams in Albemarle County. Bright Stars „ implemented the one-year Virginia Preschool Pilot Initiative at Cale Elementary School and two private preschool settings (Bright Beginnings in Forest Lakes and Mill Creek) „ collaborated with Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) services to implement year two of the Inclusive Placement Opportunities for Preschoolers (IPOP) grant at Stone- Robinson, Agnor-Hurt and Cale Elementary Schools „ partnered with Title I for the preschool program at Red Hill Elementary School „ worked closely with Head Start, Title I, Early Childhood Special Education to develop and pilot a joint application form to be more user-friendly to families „ developed a new concept of planning and service delivery called the Preschool Network with its own website and manual „ planned and carried through monthly staff development meetings with ECSE, Bright Stars and Title I staff „ organized a Preschool Leadership Team to steer the Network „ planned the formation of a Preschool Advisory Board comprised of school, social ser- vices and community participants „ aligned program goals with the Smart Beginnings Council Growth and Expansion 16 32 64 64 64 80 80 80 80 96 96 112 135 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1995- 1996 1997- 1998 1999- 2000 2001- 2002 2003- 2004 2005- 2006 2007- 2008 Growth 5 The Governor’s Preschool Pilot Initiative 2007 – 2008 “a one year experiment to examine the feasibility of offering state-funded prekindergar-ten to more children at risk for school failure” Governor Timothy Kaine demonstrated his commitment to early childhood education by launching his Preschool Pilot Initiative Grant aimed at improving and expanding the quality and delivery of prekindergarten services to more children at-risk for school failure. The com- petitive grant required that localities have a proven history of collaboration between schools, local government and the private sector and be willing to undertake innovative strategies to increase and strengthen preschool networks. Albemarle County was one of twelve localities designated by the 2007 General Assembly as eligible to participate based on these require- ments. In the end, ten localities, including Albemarle, elected to participate. Albemarle County submitted a plan to expand prekindergarten services by adding a second classroom at Cale Elementary School and by partnering with Bright Beginnings Pre- school to place four children at their Mill Creek and Forest Lakes locations. In addition, Albe- marle also partnered with First United Methodist Church Preschool, placing one student at that site. This partner was not included in the pilot but was managed similarly to Cale and Bright Beginnings. Our expansion plan originally called for the Cale site to expand through offering eight slots for at-risk children and eight slots for private pay students in the new classroom. Due to circumstances out of our control, the private pay student option did not work out. Instead, Cale placed students needing early childhood special education services in the new classroom along with the at-risk children. In effect, the Albemarle County expansion plan incorporated aspects of a grant received by the school division called the Inclusive Place- ment Opportunities for Preschoolers (IPOP). This was an unanticipated innovation opportu- nity that allowed Albemarle to experiment with braiding funding streams to reach more chil- dren and provide more wrap-around support services and it drew Bright Stars into a closer partnership with the county public schools. Bright Stars worked closely with the Department of Education, the Office of the Gover- nor, the evaluation team from Virginia Tech and Albemarle County Schools and local govern- ment throughout the pilot year. In addition to receiving state funds for expansion ($120,000) the grant also provided technical assistance, networking and program evaluation that pointed out areas of strength and opportunities for improvement. The final report from the pilot evaluation team demonstrated that “diverse preschool delivery is feasible and appears associ- ated with benefits for children at-risk for school difficulties, narrowing the preliteracy achieve- ment gap with more advantaged children.” Bright Stars was privileged to be on the forefront of this important initiative to im- prove prekindergarten educational opportunities and efficient delivery systems to our com- munity. This was truly an effort that could not have been accomplished by one system alone. The partnerships forged during the pilot year will provide a foundation for the future. On the following page you can read more detailed information about the Governor’s Pilot Initiative. 6 The Commonwealth of Virginia’s Preschool Pilot Initiative: A Final Report on Behalf of the Virginia Department of Education Findings of the Report are suggestive rather than definitive Pilot localities increased access to prekindergarten services for at-risk children. Students attending pilot classrooms significantly increased their overall preliteracy and early numeracy counting skills from fall to spring. This gain was over and above gains that could be expected based on more time to be exposed to these concepts outside of preschool which suggests a specific preschool effect. While more advantaged classmates had higher overall preacademic skills, pilot students achieved higher preliteracy gains across the year, narrowing the school-entry achievement gap. Teachers and parents reported that students were enthusiastic about learning and attending their pilot programs. Students’ engagement with learning increased across the year, particularly for girls, older children and those without disabilities. Pilot students were generally healthy, though they were more likely to have experienced a serious illness in their lifetime and suffered from ill health in the recent past, compared to more advantaged peers. Local school readiness groups valued collaborating and often played a vital role in providing quality improvement and resources to programs. Collaboratives appeared to play an instrumental role in crisis and case management. Collaboratives appeared to help providers improve their quality services by offering teacher training, mentoring, more or improved family support services and health and developmental screenings. Preschool programs with active family support can help parents advance their own education or find employment, both factors that contribute to children doing better in elementary school. Family Support can assist families in becoming “school ready.” 7 Governor Kaine Visits Albemarle County A highlight of the year was the March visit of Governor Timothy Kaine to Cale Elementary School. Governor Kaine used this opportunity to recognize Albemarle County as one of 10 sites selected for the Preschool Pilot and to reiterate his belief in the value of early child- hood education to address the achievement gap between at-risk children and their more advantaged peers. He spent time in the Bright Stars classroom reading to the children and talking with the teacher. He impressed everyone with his fluency in Spanish which was espe- cially needed in this bi-lingual group. 8 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. Are we serving the targeted, at-risk population? 83% Low income/poverty based on eligibility for free or reduced meals 36% Limited education/illiteracy of parent (Mother): did not complete high school 44% Limited education/illiteracy of parent (Father): did not complete high school 28% Limited education/illiteracy of both parents: did not complete high school 49% Four or more risk factors 54% Single parent families 38% Teen parent at time of child’s birth 53% No Child Left Behind sub-populations (ESOL, AA, Economically Disadvantaged and Children w/ Disabilities)) 2. Why is the program called Bright Stars? Bright Stars is the name Albemarle County gave the program when it was first awarded the grant in 1994-1995. The official name is the Virginia Preschool Initiative. Bright Stars was more in keeping with the spirit of the program – to bring interesting, age-appropriate learning experiences to young children and their families who might not have had the means to attend preschool otherwise. 3. How is the program funded? The program is funded with state and local dollars. The state pays a portion of what state officials determine is the annual per child cost of educating a prekindergarten child for 180-days, 6 hours a day. In the 2007 – 2008 budget this figure was set at $6,000. The state then pays a portion of this amount based on the Composite Index for Albemarle County. In actuality, the true cost per child for a full day, comprehensive, quality program is $9,160. 4. What results do we want to achieve? „ Close the gap between at-risk students and their peers „ Transition children successfully to kindergarten „ Engage parents in the education of their children „ Refer families to needed community services „ Develop positive social and emotional behaviors and skills „ Foster a life-long curiosity for learning 5. How are we changing and improving? „ Forming a Preschool Network with Albemarle County Schools: Title I and Early Childhood Spe- cial Education and Head Start „ Joining with the Partnership for Children and Smart Beginnings „ Partnering with for-profit and not-for profit preschools to expand opportunities for our at-risk population „ Focusing on staff development and learning „ Intensifying efforts to reach out to the ESOL population „ Ensuring that families who need wrap-around services receive these services BBRIGHTRIGHT S STARSTARS S S ERVICEERVICE M M ISSIONISSION:: To increase the opportunities to learn for our children and their families by promoting family involvement and addressing risk fac- tors that affect school performance. 9 II. Program Outcomes: FY 2008 OUTCOME MEASURE MEASUREMENT GOAL ACTUAL Children who are in Bright Stars for at least six months reach or exceed the benchmark developmental range scores on the PreK PALS* at the end of the preschool year Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Summary Report FY08 Target: 85% FY08 Actual 75% FY07 Actual 75% FY06 Actual 80% FY05 Actual 79.5% Bright Stars alumni achieve the benchmark score on the KPALS during the kindergarten year. Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Kin- dergarten FY08 Target: 80- 85% FY 08 Actual 86% FY 07 Actual 81.5% FY 06 Actual 79% FY 05 Actual 79% Parents of BS children attend at least three Bright Stars/school functions during the school year Bright Stars database FY08 Target: 85% FY 08 Actual 86% FY 07 Actual 91% FY 06 Actual 90% Parents of BS children attend two parent- teacher conferences during the school year Bright Stars database FY08 Target: 90% FY 08 Actual 91% FY 07 Actual 83% FY06 Actual: 87% Parents of BS children make progress on goals that support their child’s success dur- ing the school year. Family Needs Assessment FY08 Target: 80% FY 08 Actual 71% FY 07 Actual 81% PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS LITERACY SCREENING OVERVIEW 2004 – 2008 PreK PALS KPALS Grade 1 PALS Bright Stars 2004-2005 80% Kindergarten 2005-2006 79% Grade 1 2006-2007 75% Bright Stars 2005-2006 80% Kindergarten 2006-2007 82% Grade 1 2007-2008 86% Bright Stars 2006-2007 75% Kindergarten 2007-2008 82% Grade 1 Bright Stars 2007-2008 75% Kindergarten Grade 1 The trend appears to favor rising language and literacy scores in kindergarten and Grade 1 which suggests that skills and knowledge learned in prekindergarten are being sustained. Children who do not reach or exceed the developmental range or benchmark score or who demonstrate deficits in one or more areas are referred for extra help to summer school, Title I or PALS tutoring or ESOL services. *Note: Students tested can include those who have English as a second language as well as those with a special education designation. SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM OUTCOME MEASURES % of students who met or exceeded developmental range or benchmark score 10 24% 80% 19% 76% 20% 75% 0% 10 % 20% 30% 40%50%60%70%80%Children Meeting or Exceeding Developmental Range2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 School Year Prek Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Fall Spring Data and Trends During 2007 – 2008, Bright Stars worked closely with the school’s Department of Accountability, Research and Technology to attempt to show the short and long term value of prekindergarten in Albemarle County. In addi- tion to the progress that Bright Stars students make during the PreK year as shown in the bar graph above, we are also interested in program effects that are sustained through kindergarten and grades one through five. The following graphs and charts show Bright Stars performance on literacy and math assessments and compare Bright Stars to other population groups. One way to interpret the data is to say that Bright Stars “learn how to do school” during the preschool year. That is, they learn the behaviors and attitudes that help them access unreachable content given their limited experiences, their family circumstances their and environment. Exam- ples of this are learning how to ask for help appropriately, to persist at a task even when it is difficult, to listen and follow directions. These behaviors and attitudes are supported throughout early elementary school by the family support they continue to receive from family coordinators. This helps them sustain early gains and suc- cesses through elementary school. English Bright Stars Black Hispanic White Disad 3rd 68.1 57.9 83.3 72.7 65.2 4th 75.6 50.0 80.0 90.9 69.6 5th 73.7 62.5 83.3 81.3 68.4 6th 81.8 80.0 100.0 80.0 79.2 Mathematics BrightStars Black Hispanic White Disad 3rd 80.4 78.9 66.7 85.7 78.3 4th 65 50.0 60.0 76.2 65.2 5th 78.4 75.0 100.0 75.0 77.8 6th 57.5 56.3 75.0 55.0 63.6 English SOLs - Pass Rates 0 40 80 12 0 3rd 4th 5th 6th BrightStars Black Hispanic White Disad Math SOLs - Pass Rates 0 40 80 12 0 3rd 4th 5th 6th BrightStars Black Hispanic White Disad 11 Personal and Social Development Virginia’s Foundation Blocks for Early Learning: Comprehensive Standards for Four-Year-Olds (2007) is a document that “attempts to establish a measurable range of skills and knowl-edge essential for four-year-olds to be successful in kindergarten.” The six Blocks are Liter-acy, Science, History and Social Science, Mathematics, Physical and Motor Development and Personal and Social Development. Why is Personal and Social Development included as a standard? The answer to this question lies in research and contacts with teachers in kindergarten and first grade. The research says that, “personal, social and behavioral competence is a strong predictor of academic performance in the early grades.” These skills can be taught through appropriate learning experiences provided during the preschool years. Teachers say that readiness for kindergarten is about knowing how to get along with others, to share, take turns, follow directions, to be curious and excited about learning. Teachers say that if pre- school can teach these things, children will be ready to be successful. Overall rating for children along 26 social and personal developmental indicators: Spring 2008 66% 32% 2% Not Observed Emerging Consistent Fall 2007 59% 21%20% Not Observed Emerging Consistent 12 Beginning to recognize and express own emotions using words rather than actions: Follows rules and routines within the learning environment: Interacts appropriately with other children and familiar adults by cooperating, helping, sharing and expressing interest: Fall 2007 32%12% 56% Not Observed Emerging Consistent Spring 2008 34%3% 63% Not Observed Emerging Consistent Fall 2007 61% 21%17% Not Observed Emerging Consistent Spring 2008 2% 33% 65% Not Observed Emerging Consistent Fall 2007 59% 20%20% Not Observed Emerging Consistent Spring 2008 72% 28% 0% Not Observed Emerging Consistent Recognizes conflict and seeks possible solutions: Fall 2007 56% 36% 7% Not Observed Emerging Consistent Spring 2008 47% 3% 49% Not Observed Emerging Consistent 13 STANDARDS OF LEARNING SCORES Bright Stars continues to support and track former students who remain in the County, either at the origi-nal Bright Stars school or another county elementary school. We are interested in knowing how the stu-dents are progressing once they leave the four year old program. One benchmark of progress is the Stan-dards of Learning scores in Reading/Writing and Math taken in the 3rd grade year. Grade 3 – Reading/Writing SOL Bright Stars Class of Number PASS Did Not Pass % Pass 1999-2000 2000-2001 52 33 19 63% 2001- 2002 36 25 11 69% 2002 -2003 32 22 11 69% 2003 - 2004 38 26 12 68% Grade 3 – Math SOL Bright Stars Class of Number PASS Did Not Pass % Pass 1999-2000 2000-2001 50 39 11 78% 2001- 2002 37 28 9 76% 2002 -2003 31 22 9 71% 2003 – 2004 38 30 8 79% Grade 5 – Reading/Writing SOL Bright Stars Class of Number PASS Did Not Pass % Pass 1999-2000 32 25 7 78% 2000 -2001 28 24 4 86% 2001 – 2002 32 24 8 75% Grade 5 – Math SOL Bright Stars Class of Number PASS Did Not Pass % Pass 1999-2000 32 21 11 66% 2000 -2001 27 24 3 89% 2001 – 2002 32 25 7 78% 14 III. Bright Stars Demographics 2007-2008 Parent Composit ion 46% 54% Single-Parent Family Two-Parent Family Lunch Program 22% 17% 61% Free Reduced Paid Parent Education 36% 8% 44% 2% 7%4% Did not finish HS GED HS Diploma College 2 Year Colleg e 4 Year Post -g raduate Ethnicity 43%40% 32% 25% 32% 24% 18%20% 29% 10%8% 15% 37% 36% 14% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Caucasion Afric an Americ an Hispanic Other Gender 52% 48% Female Male 15 IV. Principal: Michelle Del Gallo Teachers: Marci McKenzie & Brooke Butchers Family Coordinator: Sue Tansey Teaching Assistants: Beverly Anderson & Debbie Getchell AGNOR-HURT The Bright Stars Program at Agnor-Hurt began in 1997. This program has always been characterized as a culturally diverse classroom reflective of the diversity of the entire school and the neighborhood in which the school resides. In 2007-2008, Agnor-Hurt became a pilot site for the In- clusive Preschool Opportunities for Preschoolers (IPOP), combining at-risk and children in need of early childhood special education services in two classes. Risk Points: Parent Comments from 2007 - 2008 Survey: Please check the things that you have been most pleased with this year and comment about any of them. “Family events, teacher interaction, help in obtaining resources, field trips and parent- teacher conferences. You all really give it your all and it really feels like a family not a class – great job!” What did you like best about the teaching? “I was really impressed by how much my son learned this past year. When a behavior issue or learning issue arose, she had good ideas as to how to problem solve.” “She was very understanding and very interactive with the children and always kept parents informed.” What did you like about family events? “Being able to socialize with other parents.” “Learning! It was really fun and informative.” 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 10 11.5 Range 4 - 17 Range 7 - 17 16 IV. Cale Elementary School Principal: Lisa Jones Teachers: Jenny Weinberg & Nancy Lin Teaching Assistants: Tomaja Johnson & Eileen Sims Family Coordinators: Kim Rambow & Sarah Shedd CALE The Bright Stars Program at Cale began in 1998. Cale opened the 2007- 2008 school year with a new addition that included a preschool/ kindergarten suite in the main building. The program at Cale has been successful in integrating a growing number of Hispanic families. This has presented an opportunity and a challenge to staff to reach out to limited English speaking children and parents. Cale was selected as a site of the Governor’s Preschool Pilot Initiative. Cale also participated in the Inclusive Placement Opportunities for Preschoolers (IPOP). Risk Points: Parent Comments From 2007 - 2008 Survey How would you rate the classroom environment and the teacher’s interaction with the children? “Excellent and my daughter talked about the teacher a lot.” What would you change about the program for next year? “Nothing, everything was great! My child loved coming every day.” What did you like about family events? “Meeting children and parents, teachers were thoughtful and informed of my child’s pro- gress.” Comments “Thanks for all the information.” 2006-2007 2007-2008 13.2 9.5 Range 9-27 Range 3-20 17 IV. Greer Elementary School Principal: Matt Landahl Teachers: Melissa Plemons & Debbie Shelor Teaching Assistants: Kristi Friday & Claudette Patterson Family Coordinators; Jan Pandy & Ilene Railton GREER The Bright Stars Program at Greer began in 1996. In 2006-2007 a sec- ond class was added. Greer Bright Stars reflects the highly diverse character of the rest of the school community. Many cultures and lan- guages are represented by the families served including Hispanic, In- dian, African and Asian. This cultural mix presents many opportuni- ties and challenges for staff. This is also a highly mobile population, resulting in considerable variability in alumni. Risk Points: Parent Comments from 2007-2008 Survey How was BS Coordinator most helpful to you? What could she have done differently that might have been more helpful? “It was very helpful knowing that someone was there for not just my Bright Star but my other child as well, she also kept in touch with various services.” Comments “The parent teacher conference helped me to understand how my son was progressing in the middle of the year. It helped me to help him. Thanks to everyone for helping my child be the best he can be.” “Field trips were excellent, I believe that the classroom activities and exercises were awe- some and really prepared my child for kindergarten.” 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 8.4 11.5 Range 4-15 Range 3-20 18 IV. Red Hill Elementary School Principal: Art Stowe Teacher: Sandy Shaffer Teaching Assistant: Sylvia Jenkins Family Coordinator: Sarah Shedd RED HILL The preschool program at Red Hill began in 2005 as a Title I pilot pre- school. In 2007 – 2008, Title I and Bright Stars blended resources to accommodate children at risk of poor school outcomes based on aca- demic issues and economic and educational risk factors. The merging of the two programs allowed Red Hill to add a family worker to the pre- school staff and to reach out to families whose children might not have been able to attend a fee-based school. Risk Points: Parent Comments From 2007 - 2008 Survey What did you like about family events? “There were a lot of field trips and they did a lot to involve the parents.” How would you rate the classroom environment? “ Excellent.” How was the family worker most helpful to you? “Any concern I had she was there to help.” Comment “ I enjoyed the daily notes about what the children did throughout the day.” 2007 - 2008 6.25 Range 3 - 13 19 IV. Scottsville Elementary School Principal: Nancy Teel Teacher: Jacoba Johnston Teaching Assistant: Christy Batten Family Coordinator: Jacquelyn Ponton SCOTTSVILLE The Bright Stars Program in Scottsville began in 2000. This program draws from rural areas around the community of Scottsville and en- joys connectivity with small town services such as the post office, fire department and library. Scottsville Bright Stars has strong parental involvement. Family Nights are well attended by parents and ex- tended family. The classroom is currently located in a learning cot- tage beside the main school building and close to the kindergarten and Grade 1 classes. In the future, we hope to relocate this classroom within the main building. Risk Points: Parent Comments from 2007-2008 Survey How was Bright Stars Coordinator most helpful to you? What could she have done dif- ferently that might have been more helpful? “She was incredible all the time!! She even brought us some important papers to our home when I couldn’t find the time to come by and get it. She and my son developed a special friendship and we’re very grateful to her.” What would you change about the program for next year? “More field trips.” “Would like to go to the Discovery Museum and the apple orchard.” 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 9.6 9 Range 5 - 16 Range 4 - 14 20 IV. Stone-Robinson Elementary School Principal: Ashby Kindler Teachers: Geisha Goodman & Cathy Wojick Teaching Assistants: Jennifer Pincombe & Kasity Cawthorne Family Coordinator: Terri Higgins STONE-ROBINSON Stone-Robinson is where Bright Stars first began in 1995 under the leadership of a team of local government and school employees. They established a strong connection with the Curry School at UVa, ensuring that program implementation was grounded in the best early child- hood developmental/educational research and practices. Stone- Robinson set the standard for programs that incorporated exceptional, certified instructional staff, concentrated outreach to families, and con- nectivity and visibility in the community. Stone-Robinson participated in the Inclusive Placement Opportunities for Preschoolers (IPOP). Risk Points: Parent Comments from 2007-2008 Survey What did you like about family events? “To give the parents a chance to see what their kids are learning.” “Seeing development of Bright Stars from start to finish.” How was BS Coordinator most helpful to you? “I was always kept informed on trips, daily activities, and everything that involved my child Comments “I cannot think of anything to improve – our entire experience was extremely positive.” 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 11.5 8 Range 3-26 Range 4-15 21 IV. Woodbrook Elementary School Principal: William Sterritt Teacher: Kelli Huffman Teaching Assistant: Sherry Remeley Family Coordinator: Judy Blakey WOODBROOK The Woodbrook Bright Stars Program began in 2004. The class is housed in the main school building in the kindergarten/first grade wing allowing for ease of access among the early grade levels. This program reflects the diversity of the urban area in which it is located, as many of the families live in apartment complexes off Rio Road East and Rt. 29. It is anticipated that this program will receive more appli- cations than can be accepted into the program in the coming years. Risk Points: Parent Comments From 2007 - 2008 Survey How was BS Coordinator most helpful to you? What could she have done differently that might have been more helpful? “Ms. Blakey was always willing to help find information and send information home about things I was interested in, if I left a message she always got back to me in a timely manner.” What did you like about family events? “Just being able to take part in classroom trips with my child and being there to help out with other children as well and the teachers as well.” What do you like best about the teacher’s teaching? “Que mi hijo oprendio mucho y fue una muy Buena maestro.” 2006-2007 2007-2008 8.6 9 Range 5-13 Range 5-14 22 V. LEADERSHIP TEAM 2007 - 2008 The Leadership Team for all the county preschool programs fulfills a requirement for the Virginia Preschool Initiative Grant and brings together all the coordinators and directors of the various programs. Members of this group are drawn from schools and social services as the two systems most closely connected to the personnel and operational aspects of Bright Stars, Title I, and Early Childhood Special Education Members for 2007 – 2008: z Deborah Collins z John Freeman z Charity Haines z Kevin Kirst z Deborah Morris z Tom Nash z Cyndi Wells VI. COMMUNITY SUPPORTERS The following community businesses, agencies, organizations and individuals provided as- sistance to Bright Stars during 2007 – 2008. Martha Jefferson Hospital Thomas Jefferson Emergency Food Bank NGA (formerly the Needlework Guild of America) Book Buddies Albemarle County Schools University of Virginia, Curry School of Education & the Health Sciences System Jefferson Area Board on Aging Virginia Cooperative Extension Service D.J. Bickers, DDS Kathryn Cook, DDS PBS – Harrisonburg, Charlottesville Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation 23 Bright Stars FY2008 Expenditures Total Maintenance and Operating Expenses 4% Total Personnel Expenses 96% Bright Stars FY2008 Revenues Transfer from Local Government 66% Transfer from School Fund 8% Virginia Preschool Initiative Grant 26% VII. Program Budget: FY 2008 Bright Stars Revenues FY 2007-08 Virginia Preschool Initiative Grant 283,445 Transfer from School Fund 87,737 Transfer from Local Government 706,529 Total Bright Stars Revenues 1,077,711 Revenues Expenditures Bright Stars Expenditures FY 2007-08 Total Personnel Expenses 983,870 Total Maintenance and Operating Expenses 45,928 Total Bright Stars Expenditures 1,029,799 THE FACES OF BRIGHT STARS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: Climate Protection Program U pdate   SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Review  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Report and Local Climate Action Planning Proces s   STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Shadman, and Ms. Temple   LEGAL R EVIEW:   Yes   AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:                INFORMATION:  X   CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:              INFORMATION:        ATTACH MEN TS:   Yes     REVIEW ED BY:       BACK GROUND : On D ecember 5, 2007 the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the U.S. Cool Counties C limate Stabilization Declaration committing to reduce the County’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. The C ounty is follow ing the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ (ICLEI) Five Milestone approach in order to reach this goal. In s ummary, the Milestones include: 1) Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecas t; 2) Adopt an emissions reduction target for the forecast year; 3) D evelop a Local Action Plan; 4) Implement the policies  and measures in the Local Action Plan; and 5) Monitor and verify results. The General Services Department recently completed Milestone 1, which includes  an inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors in the County (residential, transportation, commercial, municipal, waste, etc.) for the year 2000, our baseline year. The report c an be found in Attachment A: “Emissions Baseline Report.”  The C ity of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia have also completed their baseline inventories, and officials from the three organizations have all expressed an interest in collaborating as we move towards the Local Climate Action Planning Proc ess .     STRA TEGIC PLAN: Goal 1 ­ Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens Goal 2 – Protect the County’s Natural R esources     DISCU SSION : The emissions baseline data was analyzed using the Clean Air and C limate Protection (CACP) software developed by ICLEI. Ac cording to the bas eline analysis, the C ounty emitted a total of 2,309,363 metric tons of equivalent carbon dioxide (eCO2) in the year 2000, or 27.4 metric tons per capita.  In 2006, total emissions were reduced to 1,780,476 eCO2 metric tons, or 19.2 metric tons of eC O2 per capita. The majority of the reduction in emis sions c an be attributed to the residential s ector, w herein many residents switched from propane to natural gas consumption between the years 2000 and 2006.  The C ACP software allows for “forecast” projections  up to the year 2020 bas ed on a “busines s­as­usual” scenario. This  s cenario ass umes that governments, companies or individuals will not take any actions specific ally directed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The projected emissions  for 2020 under this “busines s as usual” scenario are 2,231,562 eCO2 metric tons.   The County has pledged to reduce emissions by 80% by the year 2050, or an av erage of 2% per year beginning in 2010. Thus, by the year 2020 the County  must reduce emissions by 20% from its baseline emissions or to 1,847,490 metric tons  of eC O2 in order to meet this target.   Although the forecasted 2020 projection is lower than our baseline emis sions, it is  important to realize that without aggress ively implementing climate protection meas ures, w e will not be able to meet our target. Therefore, the next necessary step is to engage in a Loc al Climate Action Planning Process.  The Board of Supervis ors  and County staff, along with officials  from the C ity of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, have expressed a keen interest in collaborating on such a proc ess.  In January 2009 the Board and City Council unanimously pass ed resolutions in support of the County, City and University working together to address energy efficiency and climate change (See Attachments B and C ). Environmental staff from the three organizations are currently developing plans to establish a Steering Committee and a set of Focus Groups that will guide and implement the planning process .  Because the Steering Committee should ideally represent the community as  a whole, the County Executive, the City Manager and the Chief Operating Officer for U Va will appoint members to the Committee. See Attachment D for the Steering Committee’s Miss ion Statement.  Foc us Groups w ill explore partic ular issues s uch as energy efficienc y, w aste and recycling, transportation, and renewable energy, and will be supported by appropriate staff from the County, City and University. The Steering C ommittee will ultimately issue a report outlining s trategies that are particular to each entity , as well as  those that present shared opportunities. In the end, each organization will determine what is appropriate for implementation. Howev er, the expectation is that in those areas where cooperation and synergy are needed, Albemarle, Charlottesville, and UVa will share an approach. In January 2009, staff from the County and City presented this overall approach to the PACC  Technical Committee, and the feedbac k from PACC Tech members was positive. See Attachment E for a graphic detailing the anticipated steps and timeline for the formation of the Steering Committee, Focus Groups, and Plan development.     BUDGET IMPACT: The budgetary impact of this program will depend on the projects and programs that w ill be included in the Local Climate Action Plan, which w ill likely not be completed until the end of calendar year 2009. W hile projects and programs aimed at low ering energy consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emiss ions can have an upfront cos t, in general these types of programs are designed to save stakeholders money over time.  In anticipation of the Local Climate Action Planning Process, the General Servic es D epartment submitted a 5­year CIP budget reques t in September 2008 totaling $1,016,000. This cos t represented the “low­end” of a range researched by  s taff, wherein a dozen localities in the mid­Atlantic region reportedly either budgeted or s pent, on average, betw een $175,000 and $1,860,000 in FY08 alone towards  climate protection initiatives. W hile this CIP budget request has not yet been approved, there are other funding opportunities . The County is considered a “formula recipient” for the federal Energy Efficiency  and Conservation Block Grant that has been recently increased to $4.2 billion. If pas sed by both the House and Senate, as expected, it is estimated that the County w ould receive between $200,000 and $250,000 annually for five years to put towards climate protection and energy  efficiency initiatives. In addition, the General Servic es D epartment has included roughly $55,000 annually in its  CIP budget for municipal energy efficiency projects , suc h as the solar thermal sys tem ins talled at COB 5th Street this February.  Las tly, the C ounty, City and University are currently planning to submit a propos al for the Southeas t Energy Efficiency Allianc e (SEEA) grant. The SEEA w ill be awarding a Southeastern locality $500,000 to des ign a program that reduces energy and water use by c onsumers and businesses. Should our community be aw arded this grant, thes e funds  will giv e the County a jump­start on establishing a program that reduces greenhouse gas emiss ions in the res idential and commercial sectors .     RECOMMENDA TION S: Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to move forward with the proposed Local Climate Action Planning Process.     ATTAC HMENTS Attachment A – Emiss ions  Baseline R eport Attachment B – Board of Supervisors Res olution Attachment C – City Council Resolution Attachment D – Mission Statement for Steering Committee Attachment E – Steps  and Timeline for Local C limate Action Planning Process Ret urn t o regular agenda County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report A summary of greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions for the County of Albemarle, VA for the year 2000 Department of General Services County of Albemarle February 2009 _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements……………………...……………………….……………………………..…...…..3 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………..………...…..4 Part 1. Climate Change Overview.........................................................................................................................................7 Causes..............................................................................................................................................7 Impacts.............................................................................................................................................8 Criteria Air Pollutants.................................................................................................................10 Part 2. Addressing Climate Change at the National, State, and Local Levels Background...................................................................................................................................11 National Level…....……………………..………………...……...……………………………..12 State Level….……………………………………………………………………………………13 County Level…..………………………………………………………………………………...15 The ICLEI Program......................................................................................................................15 Part 3. Baseline Inventory Methodology.................................................................................................................................17 Data Collection.............................................................................................................................18 Part 4. Baseline Results Summary.......................................................................................................................................20 Residential Sector.........................................................................................................................24 Commercial Sector.......................................................................................................................26 Industrial Sector...........................................................................................................................28 Transportation Sector..................................................................................................................30 Waste Sector..................................................................................................................................32 Other Sector..................................................................................................................................33 Municipal Sector...........................................................................................................................34 Trends Interim Year Emissions, 2006........................................................................................36 Forecast Year Emissions, 2020.......................................................................................37 Part 5. Local Climate Action Planning Process……….......................................................................38 Glossary…………………………………………………………...……………………………..………41 References.................................................................................................................................................44 APPENDIX A: Agriculture Emissions Methodology…………………….……………….……..…46 APPENDIX B: Employee Commute Methodology…………..…………………….……….………56 APPENDIX C: Board of Supervisors Resolution …………………………………………………..57 _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Albemarle County Department of General Services would like to sincerely thank the following individuals for providing data, information, and guidance throughout the process of establishing our baseline inventory: Cynthia Adams Climate Protection Program Coordinator, City of Charlottesville Willie Adcock Dominion Virginia Power Miranda Baird Accounts Receivable Technician, Rivanna Authorities Derek Bedarf GIS Specialist II, County of Albemarle Kim Branham Management Analyst, County of Albemarle Mary Beth Castanien Dominion Virginia Power Tammy Critzer Management Analyst, County of Albemarle Nellie Durham Administrative Assistant, Fire & Rescue, County of Albemarle Sarah Edwards Environmental Intern, City of Charlottesville Christina Frederick American Electric Power Michael Freitas Chief of Public Works, County of Albemarle Frankie Giles Assistant Division Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation Peggy Graves Accounts Payable Senior Clerk, County of Albemarle Meade Harris Senior Management Analyst, County of Albemarle Jill Preddy Charlottesville-UVa-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center Tami Radcliff Regulatory Consultant, American Electric Power Ben Rasmussen Senior Program Officer, ICLEI Kristel Riddervold Environmental Administrator, City of Charlottesville Tom Schinkel Senior Transportation Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation Michelle Shively Manager Government Sales, Mansfield Oil Lindsay Snoddy Environmental Compliance Manager, Albemarle County Public Schools Ella Terry Senior Accounts Clerk, Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Tex Weaver GDS Manager, County of Albemarle Lonnie Wood Director of Finance and Administration, Rivanna Authorities Megan Wu Program Associate, ICLEI _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Scientists from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) both state that "there is robust scientific evidence that human-induced climate change is occurring.” Over the last one hundred years, there has been an increase of ~0.6°C in average global surface temperatures, an increase of ~20cm in sea level and an increase of ~2% in global precipitation over land. As a result of greenhouse gases already emitted, the U.S. Climate Change Program’s 2007 report predicts that temperature increases will likely increase globally by another 1°C up to 4°C over the next 100 years. Scientists from George Mason University and the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies in Maryland estimate that Virginia in particular can expect to see an increase in its temperature by 3.1ºC. To mitigate further change, many institutions have urged reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Initiative is a commitment made by 12 pioneering U.S. counties to reduce their contributions to climate change and help their communities become resilient to consequent changes. On December 5, 2007 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors joined these counties by adopting the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration, pledging to reduce emissions County-wide by 80% by 2050. The County is following the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ (ICLEI) Five Milestone approach to addressing climate change. This baseline inventory is the first of the Milestones. The Five Milestones include, in summary: 1) Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast; 2) Adopt an emissions reduction target for the forecast year; 3) Develop a Local Action Plan; 4) Implement policies and measures in Local Action Plan; and 5) Monitor and verify results. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a reduction of emissions by developed countries by 5% relative to a baseline year of 1990. However, due to difficulty in accessing accurate records for community and government utility use for the year 1990, the County is using a baseline year of 2000. This is consistent with the City of Charlottesville’s, University of Virginia's, and the State of Virginia’s baselines, and therefore will aid any future collaboration on emission reduction measures between the organizations. Baseline Data Summary: Year Energy Use Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) Total eCO2 Emissions (metric tons) 2000 23,453,835 2,309,363 2006 16,096,153 1,780,476 2020 Projection 22,903,863 2,231,562 _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CONTINUED The baseline data was analyzed using the Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software developed by ICLEI. According to the software, the County emitted a total of 2,309,363 metric tons of equivalent carbon dioxide (eCO2) in the year 2000. Specific breakdowns across sectors (transportation, commercial, residential, etc.) are presented below. In 2000, the 84,186 residents of the County each emitted approximately 27.4 metric tons of eCO2. In 2006, total emissions were reduced to 1,780,476 eCO2 metric tons, or 19.2 metric tons of eCO2 per capita. The majority of the reduction in emissions can be attributed to the residential sector, where many residents switched from propane to natural gas consumption between the years 2000 and 2006. Although propane is cleaner-burning than natural gas in terms of criteria air pollutants, natural gas has lower eCO2 emissions than propane. Thus, burning more natural gas than propane reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The following graph breaks down the relative percentage of baseline emissions by sector: The CACP software allows for “forecast” projections up to the year 2020 based on a “business- as-usual” scenario. This scenario assumes that governments, companies or individuals will not take any actions specifically directed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The projected emissions for 2020 in this “business as usual” scenario are 2,231,562 eCO2 metric tons (See Figure 10 for more detailed information). By adopting the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration, the County pledged to reduce emissions by 80% by the year 2050, or an average of 2% per year beginning in 2010. Thus, by the year 2020 the County must reduce emissions by 20% from its baseline emissions, or to 1,847,490 metric tons of eCO2 (see figure below) in order to meet its target. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CONTINUED Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections: Albemarle County 1,300,000 1,600,000 1,900,000 2,200,000 2,500,000 2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 YeareCO2 (metric tons)Baseline 2000 Levels: 2,309,363 Decrease in Emissions due to switch from Propane to Natural Gas Business as Usual 2020 Projections: 2,231,562 Year 2006 Levels: 1,780,476 2% Annual Decrease from Baseline levels: 1,847,490 The next major step following the baseline emissions analysis is to engage in a Local Climate Action Planning Process. Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the Charlottesville City Council, and officials from the University of Virginia have all expressed a keen interest in collaborating on such a process. In January 2009, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council unanimously passed resolutions in support of the County, City and University working together to address energy efficiency and climate change. Environmental staff members from the three organizations are currently developing plans to establish a Steering Committee and a set of Focus Groups that will launch the planning process. It is anticipated that outcomes from this process will shape public policies and programs as we individually and collectively look to reduce our contribution to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Steering Committee will ultimately issue a report outlining strategies that are particular to each entity, as well as those that present shared opportunities. In the end, each participating entity will have to determine what is appropriate for implementation and how that implementation will take place. However, the expectation is that in those areas where cooperation and synergy are needed, Albemarle, Charlottesville, and UVa will share an approach. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 7 PART 1. CLIMATE CHANGE Overview Over the last one hundred years, there has been an increase of ~0.6°C in average global surface temperatures, an increase of ~20cm in sea level and an increase of ~2% in global precipitation over land. These changes represent a dramatic departure from natural weather fluctuations that occur every few millennia. Scientists from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) both confirm that these changes are not natural and, in fact, "there is robust scientific evidence that [this is] human-induced climate change.” Furthermore, these global temperature and precipitation trends have also been observed in the United States. Causes Climate change, also known as “global warming”, results from an over-amplification of the greenhouse effect. Solar radiation that hits the Earth is equaled in magnitude with the amount of energy the Earth emits towards space. The greenhouse effect, a naturally occurring process, occurs when greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc.) absorb and re-emit some of the Earth’s outgoing infrared radiation back towards it (Figure 1). Water vapor is actually the most abundant of these gases, and is therefore the most important. Note: Because almost 99% of water vapor originates naturally and cannot be controlled through greenhouse gas reduction measures, it is not included in Table 1 below or assessed in this report. Figure 1: The naturally-occurring greenhouse effect is necessary for life. Historically, it has increased the average global surface temperature from 0°C to a more pleasant 57°C. Historically, the greenhouse effect has made conditions much more bearable on Earth by increasing the average global surface temperature from 0°C to a more pleasant 57°C. Human activities in the last 150 years, however, have greatly amplified the greenhouse effect by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of these gases occur naturally (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor), while others are exclusively _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 8 man-made (e.g. hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride). Table 1 lists some well-known greenhouse gases and their sources. Fossil fuel burning and land use changes (deforestation and pollution from industrial sources, in particular) have increased the volume of greenhouse gases in the air. While all greenhouse gases re-emit energy back towards the Earth, some are much more efficient in doing so than others. The global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of this efficiency. It is a ratio of the warming that would result from one kilogram per greenhouse gas relative to one kilogram of carbon dioxide (kg CO2) over a fixed period of time. When reporting total emissions of all tracked greenhouse gases, it is standard to convert the GWPs into CO2 equivalent units (eCO2). Table 1. Key greenhouse gases and their corresponding GWP. Greenhouse Gas Source GWP Carbon dioxide (CO2) Fossil fuel burning, solid waste, trees and wood products. 1 Methane (CH4) Landfills, coal mines, oil / natural gas operations, and agriculture. 21 Nitrous oxide (N2O) Fertilizers, fossil fuel burning, and waste management. 310 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Synthetic industrial byproducts. 650- 11,700 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Synthetic industrial byproducts produced in the manufacturing of aluminum products. 6,500 Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) Synthetic industrial byproduct. 23,900 Impacts While the aforementioned ~0.6°C increase in average global surface temperatures over the last 100 years may seem minor, it should be noted that the temperature difference between an ice age and a warm age is only roughly 4°C. Thus, even small temperature variations on the global scale can have drastic effects overall. Some regions of Alaska have already warmed by 4°C. The Great Plains are expected to experience intensified drought cycles while the West is expected to have fewer but more intense winter precipitation events. While we know that the U.S. as a whole became warmer and wetter over the past 100 years, local effects can vary greatly by geographic region. Scientists from George Mason University and the Center for Ocean-Land- Atmosphere Studies in Maryland estimate that Virginia, for example, will experience an increase in temperature of 3.1°C along with an 11% increase in annual precipitation over the next one hundred years. Of these region-specific changes, one of the most noticeable has been the consistent decrease in Arctic sea ice as the air temperatures in the region rise. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 9 Figure 2: Photo in the News: Study Shows Arctic Ice Melting Rapidly. Image source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-arctic-ice.html Changes in physical climate are coupled with population changes for various species of plants and animals. Some ecosystems will alter as their natural processes (e.g. nesting times, migratory routes, predator/prey relationships, etc.) acclimate to reflect new climate patterns. However, scientists estimate that large numbers of species, potentially 30-40% globally during the next 50 years, may be unable to adapt to climate change and will be lost. Our quality of life will also be affected by changes in agricultural productivity and increases in forest fires, insect outbreaks, severe storms, and droughts. While agricultural productivity might increase in the short-term, over the long-term, productivity will decrease as changing weather patterns exceed plants’ thresholds for adaptability. The management of these effects will be very difficult due to our limited understanding of these altered ecosystems and inadequate resources. Thus, it is crucial to increase our understanding of past, present, and future processes to mitigate some of these effects. A study conducted by Miller-Rushing et. al. in 2008 documents that the mean arrival dates for North American passerines at Manomet, Massachusetts occurred earlier and earlier each decade. The variations in migratory changes over time were partially explained by climate variables. In particular, short- distance passerine migrants appeared to respond to changes in temperature. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 10 Criteria Air Pollutants In addition to increasing global surface temperatures, the greenhouse gases listed in Table 1 also contribute to air pollution. The six most common air pollutants in the U.S. are collectively known as “criteria air pollutants.” These pollutants are known to endanger public health and the environment and have therefore been the focus of Congress’ regulatory attention. Table 2 lists the criteria air pollutants, their sources, and known health effects. Note: Ozone (O3) that occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere surrounding the Earth provides a filter for the ultraviolet light emitted by the Sun. At ground level, however, ozone is harmful to living things and is an air pollutant that damages human health, vegetation, and many common materials. Table 2. Criteria air pollutants and their corresponding information. Criteria Air Pollutant Source Health Effects Carbon monoxide (CO) Burning of fossil fuels; 77% from transportation sources; wood-burning stoves, incinerators, and industrial sources. Reduces oxygen to organs and tissues. Causes impairment of vision and dexterity. Lead (Pb) Lead gasoline additives, non-ferrous smelters, and battery plants. Causes adverse reproductive effects (reduced fertility, miscarriage). Affect nervous, digestive and cardiovascular blood-forming systems. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Combustion processes from transportation vehicles and electric utility and industrial boilers. Irritates lungs. Causes bronchitis and pneumonia. Ozone (O3) Combustion processes. Damages lung tissue and reduces lung function. Particulate Matter (PM10) Factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires, and natural windblown dust. Reduces visibility. Affects breathing. Contributes to cancer and premature death. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Burning of fossil fuels, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills and nonferrous smelters. Causes visual impairment. Affects breathing. Environment California Research & Policy Center state in their December 2007 "When It Rains, It Pours" Global Warming Report: "Scientists expect global warming to increase the frequency of heavy precipitation. Also, weather records show that storms with extreme precipitation have become more frequent over the last 60 years. Consistent with the predicted impacts of global warming, we found that storms with extreme precipitation have increased in frequency by 24 percent across the continental U.S. since 1948." _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 11 PART 2. ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AT THE NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LEVELS Background Climate change, caused in part by human activities in the past 100 years, will continue into the 21st century. As a result of greenhouse gases already emitted, the U.S. Climate Change Program’s 2007 report predicts that temperatures will likely increase by another 1°C, up to 4°C. The temperature patterns previously noted will thus continue to worsen. Many institutions have urged for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate further changes. The most renowned of these measures is the Kyoto Protocol, which was introduced in 1997. This measure calls for a 5% emissions reduction in developed countries relative to their 1990 levels by 2012. The Protocol was ratified by nearly 150 countries and has been in effect since 2005. In addition to committing to the goals set by the Kyoto Protocol, many other European nations have set more stringent emission reduction targets. The United Kingdom, for example, set a “27% reduction by the year 2020” target in July 2007. Vehicle Emissions Smog over the United Kingdom _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 12 National Level Although more than 150 nations have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, they only account for 32% of global emissions. The U.S. has not yet signed any binding climate protection agreement even though its population, which makes up only 4% of the global population, accounts for over 25% of worldwide emissions. The U.S. has, however, signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. Article 2 of the UNFCCC directs all nations who are signatories to develop and periodically update national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks (“sink” in this context denotes a process or activity that results in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere). Thus, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has routinely tabulated the greenhouse gas emissions for the U.S. in their annual report entitled “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.” According to their most recent report released in 2008, their data shows that the industrial and transportation sectors are the two largest contributors to emissions in the U.S., accounting for more than half of total emissions (Figure 3). Data from 2004 is the most current information included in their 2008 report. Figure 3: U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by sectors for the year 2004. These sector-related percentage trends have been consistent over the years. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 13 State Level Furthering national efforts, action at the state level has been significant in recent years. According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the following 36 states have either completed or are in the process of completing their climate action plans. This graph (Figure 4) was updated by the Pew Center as recently as January 12, 2009. Figure 4: States with climate action plans. Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change Of these states, Virginia is one of roughly 20 that have also set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. In 2007 Governor Tim Kaine’s first comprehensive energy plan set a goal to reduce Virginia’s emissions by 30% by the year 2025. The Governor appointed a Commission on Climate Change to ensure the state’s target is met. The Commission's first assignment was to inventory all state actions to assess the status of their emissions. The Commission released the final state greenhouse gas inventory report at the end of 2008 (Figure 5). _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 14 Figure 5: Virginia State Emissions. Total Emissions for the sectors above are 86.45 million metric tons (MMT) of eCO2. In a related effort Governor Kaine launched his Renew Virginia initiative in December 2008, which will include legislative and executive actions to make Virginia a leader in energy conservation, efficiency and protecting the environment. The Governor met with his economic development team to discuss strategies for attracting renewable energy companies to the Commonwealth. He also unveiled plans to establish an interagency task force and create an energy marketing plan that will attract green jobs to Virginia. Trends observed at the national level vary at the state level. For example, transportation plays a much larger role in emissions at the state level. This can be partially attributed to the fact that the national values are an average of all state values. A high value of emissions in a particular category for any one state (e.g. agriculture emissions from corn production in Iowa) will affect the total national percentages, even though not all states exhibit high agriculture emissions. The emissions information and climate changes specific to Virginia provided by this inventory will be greatly useful to the Commission on Climate Change as they identify subsequent steps that need to be taken to achieve the State’s emissions reduction goal. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 15 County Level In July 2007 twelve pioneering U.S. counties representing over 17 million people, including King County, Washington, and Fairfax County, Virginia, launched “Cool Counties,” more formally known as “The U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Initiative.” In signing the associated declaration, these counties committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and helping their communities become resilient to consequent changes. On December 5, 2007 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors signed the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration, joining other counties across the nation who have pledged to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. The County plans to follow the Five Milestones set forth by ICLEI to achieve this goal. The ICLEI Program The International Committee on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), commonly referred to as “Local Governments for Sustainability,” is an international association that works with various local governments to support sustainable development practices. Their basic premise is that “locally designed initiatives can provide an effective and cost-efficient way to achieve local, national, and global sustainability objectives.” ICLEI's international performance-based and results-oriented programs currently lend support to over 1,027 cities, towns, counties and other associations worldwide. An example of ICLEI's value in providing guidance is evident in their “Five Milestones,” which aim to help jurisdictions achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. The Five Milestones are summarized below. Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emission inventory The baseline inventory will serve as a reference against which to measure future greenhouse gas emission reductions. More specifically, a baseline analysis will reveal which activities are causing greenhouse gas emissions, and quantify those contributions. The inventory is broken down into 2 modules: “Community” and “Government”. The former includes residential, commercial, transportation and industrial sectors, while the latter includes government buildings, employee commute, public schools, and vehicle fleet. The sum of all these sector emissions yields the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the County of Albemarle for the year 2000, our baseline year. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 16 Milestone 2: Set a target for greenhouse gas reduction By participating in Cool Counties, the County has pledged to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. However, ICLEI recommends setting further interim targets to set and track more immediate goals. The County may choose, for example, to set an interim goal for the forecast year of 2020. Milestone 3: Establish a local action plan An action plan including specific policies, programs and projects details how the local government plans to reach emission reduction targets by the target year. See “Part 5. Develop Local Action Plan” in this report for further details on the County’s planned approach for this milestone. Milestone 4: Implement the local action plan This stage involves the implementation of policies, programs and projects outlined in the local action plan. In addition to implementation, ICLEI recommends routinely updating the greenhouse gas emissions inventory to track emission reduction progress. Milestone 5: Assess, report, and modify local action plan Ongoing periodic review, progress assessment and public reporting are critical to the achievement of emission reduction goals. The local action plan should, therefore, be modified to account for the latest changes in federal policies, latest technologies, etc. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 17 PART 3. BASELINE INVENTORY Methodology ICLEI’s Milestone 1, “Conduct a Baseline Inventory” involves an audit of activities known to cause or release emissions during the baseline year. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a reduction of emissions in developed countries by 5% relative to a baseline year of 1990. However, due to difficulty in accessing accurate records of community and government utility use from the year 1990, the County is using a baseline year of 2000. This is consistent with the City of Charlottesville’s, the University of Virginia's, and the State of Virginia’s baselines and should aid any future collaboration on emission reduction measures between these organizations. In accordance with ICLEI guidelines, an interim year was chosen to track changes in emissions over the intervening years. The County chose 2006 as its interim year in order to assess the impact of energy efficiency-related initiatives implemented in the Municipal sector between 2000 and 2006. Also following ICLEI guidelines, a forecast year was chosen - the year 2020 - to project emissions based on a “business-as-usual” growth scenario. The forecast year’s data serves as an indicator of how the County’s emissions would progress over the intervening years in the absence of reduction measures. The baseline inventory was tabulated using ICLEI’s “Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP)” software. The CACP software is an important tool that helps local governments tabulate their emissions. The software computes emissions values and provides users with a standardized methodology to report the impact of their actions. The CACP software breaks down emission categories into seven sectors and any corresponding subsectors. See Figure 6 below. Figure 6: Baseline inventory sectors and subsectors Baseline Residential Commercial Transportation Industrial Other Waste Municipal Streetlights Employee Commute Vehicle Fleet Government Buildings Closed Landfill Agriculture _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 18 Data Collection Residential, Commercial and Industrial Energy Use Dominion Virginia Power and American Electric Power provided electricity consumption for the residential, commercial and industrial sectors for the baseline year 2000 and the interim year 2006. Natural gas information was obtained from the City of Charlottesville. All other fuel consumption (e.g. coal, light fuel oil, propane, etc.) was determined using State and County census data. The University of Virginia was fully accounted for in the City of Charlottesville’s inventory and therefore was excluded in the County’s inventory to avoid double-counting. Transportation The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) reports the daily vehicle miles traveled on all primary roads in the County of Albemarle for any given year. This information was used to calculate vehicle miles driven by County residents annually. National average percentages for commuting methods (e.g. personal vehicle, carpool, public transit, etc.) provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation were used to further categorize the annual miles driven for entry into the CACP software. Waste The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) provided information regarding the amount of waste processed annually at the Ivy Transfer Station and the Allied Waste Zion Crossroads Transfer Station. National averages for waste types (e.g. paper, food, vegetative, etc.) were used to categorize the total waste values for entry into the software. Other o Closed Landfill: Keene Necessary information for calculating emissions from waste-in-place at the Keene Landfill, which was closed in 1990, was available from within the General Services Department. The City of Charlottesville included the closed Ivy Landfill in its baseline inventory, so it was excluded in the County’s inventory to avoid double-counting. o Agriculture Emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management were calculated using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology. Census data at the national, state and local levels were obtained from corresponding online databases to tabulate methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Refer to Appendix A for detailed agriculture emissions methodology. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 19 Municipal o Government Buildings Energy consumption for County office buildings, Court Square, the Charlottesville- Albemarle Regional Jail, the Blue Ridge Detention Center and other municipal buildings was obtained from the corresponding departments. The School Division’s Building Services Department provided energy consumption information for all School Division facilities. When information was not immediately available, past utility bills were located at the County’s storage facility. o Vehicle Fleet The County’s Vehicle Maintenance Facility provided detailed fuel consumption for the County’s vehicle fleet (e.g. fire trucks, school buses, etc.) for the baseline year 2000 and interim year 2006. Vehicle and fuel classification types were used to enter fuel consumption into the software. o Employee Commute The County’s Geographic Data Services (GDS) Department calculated the shortest distance traveled by each employee to work. National average percentages for commuting methods (e.g. personal vehicle, carpool, public transit, etc.) were used to categorize total vehicle miles traveled by government employees for entry into the software. Refer to Appendix B for detailed employee commute methodology. o Streetlights Dominion Virginia Power provided electricity consumption data for all streetlights that the County is responsible for. County Office Building, McIntire Road Hollymead Fire Station _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 20 Part 4. Baseline Results Summary Table 3: Baseline, interim and forecast year emissions data. 1 metric ton ≈ 2,200 lbs. In 2000 the County of Albemarle emitted a total of 2,309,363 eCO2 metric tons. Thus, the 84,186 residents of the County emitted approximately 27.4 metric tons of eCO2 each. In comparison, the City of Charlottesville averaged 19.7 metric tons of eCO2 emissions per capita in 2000. The Residential sector comprises 52.5% of the County's baseline emissions. Transportation and Commercial are the two other significant sectors, contributing 33.9% and 7.5% respectively to total emissions. Figure 7: Greenhouse gas emissions for Albemarle County in 2000 as a percentage of eCO2 tons. Year Energy Use Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) Total eCO2 Emissions (metric tons) 2000 23,453,835 2,309,363 2006 16,096,153 1,780,476 2020 Projection 22,903,863 2,231,562 _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 21 Criteria air pollutant emissions are depicted in Figure 8. The most significant air pollutant emissions arose from the Transportation sector. Carbon monoxide (CO) is emitted as a byproduct from the combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Albemarle County, 2000 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000ResidentialCommercialIndustrialTransportationMunicipal SectorPollutant Emissions (lbs)NOx (lbs) SOx (lbs) CO (lbs) PM-10 (lbs) Figure 8: Criteria air pollutants emissions for the year 2000 in Albemarle County. The carbon dioxide (CO) spike in the Transportation sector represents emissions from motor vehicles. In 2006 total County emissions were reduced to 1,780,476 eCO2 metric tons. Specific sector- related changes are depicted in Figure 9. Residential emissions in 2006 decreased greatly due to a switch by many residents from propane to natural gas consumption. Although propane is a cleaner-burning fuel than natural gas for criteria air pollutants, natural gas emits less CO2 than propane. Thus, burning more natural gas than propane reduces greenhouse gas emissions, or eCO2 emissions. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 22 Figure 9: Greenhouse gas emission comparisons between the baseline year (2000) and the interim year (2006) for Albemarle County. The reduction in residential emissions from 2000 represents a switch from propane to natural gas (which releases fewer GHG emissions) by many Albemarle County residents. The CACP software allows for projections up to the year 2020 based on a “business-as-usual” scenario. This scenario assumes that governments, companies or individuals will not take any actions specifically directed at limiting greenhouse emissions. The projected emissions for 2020 in this “business as usual” scenario are 2,231,562 eCO2 metric tons. By adopting the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration, the County pledged to reduce emissions by 80% by the year 2050, or 2% per year beginning in 2010. Thus by the year 2020, the County would have to reduce emissions by 20% from its baseline emissions, or to 1,847,490 metric tons of eCO2 (Figure 10) in order to meet this target. Change in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Albemarle County, 2000 vs. 2006 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 SectoreCO2 (metric tons)2000 2006 2000 1,212,173 173,148 28,067 783,196 2,205 57,042 53,531 2006 520,358 171,905 105,235 850,597 6,826 38,790 86,765 Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Waste Other Municipal _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 23 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections: Albemarle County1,300,0001,600,0001,900,0002,200,0002,500,0002000 2006 2010 2015 2020YeareCO2 (metric tons)Baseline 2000 Levels:2,309,363Decrease in Emissions due to switch from Propane to Natural GasBusiness as Usual 2020 Projections:2,231,562Year 2006 Levels:1,780,4762% Annual Decrease from Baseline levels: 1,847,490Figure 10: Baseline, Interim and Forecast year emissions data. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 24 Residential Sector The residential sector is the largest contributing sector to eCO2 emissions in the County. 52.5% of all County emissions in 2000 are attributed to residential buildings. The fuel sources of these emissions are shown in Figure 11 below. Emission factors provided by the CACP software were used to determine the emission levels resulting from each fuel source. Figure 11: Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by fuel type in residential sector. Light fuel oil consumption yielded approximately half of residential emissions in 2000. Electricity and propane followed closely behind, contributing roughly one-quarter each to total emissions. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 25 Resulting criteria air pollutant emissions in the residential sector are shown in Figure 12 below. These emissions include those generated from mining the source to refining processes to delivery to consumption. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, nitrous oxide (NOx ), carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from electric utilities, and particulate matter (PM10) from factories all contributed to air pollution. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Residential Sector Albemarle County, 2000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 NOx SOx CO PM-10 Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs) Figure 12: Criteria air pollutant emissions from residential energy consumption. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 26 Commercial Sector The Commercial sector contributed 7.5% to total baseline emissions for the County. Over 97% of the energy consumed in this sector was electricity (Figure 13). Natural gas trailed a distant second, providing 3% of energy consumption. Figure 13: Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by fuel type in Commercial sector. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 27 The two most significant criteria air pollutants emitted from the Commercial sector are sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions from electric utilities (Figure 14). Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Commercial Sector Albemarle County, 2000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 NOx SOx CO PM-10 Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs) Figure 14: Criteria air pollutant emissions from commercial energy consumption. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 28 Industrial Sector The Industrial sector contributed only 1.2% to total County emissions for the year 2000. Similar to the Commercial sector, electricity was the dominant source of energy consumed in this sector (Figure 15). Trace quantities of propane, natural gas, light fuel oil, and coal were also consumed. Figure 15: Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by fuel type in Industrial sector. Note: The emissions from this sector only take into account the energy consumption by the facilities themselves (e.g. electricity), not any supplemental emissions from industrial processes. It is also important to note that buildings within this sector were differentiated from the Commercial sector based on Dominion Virginia Power’s unique classifications. Dominion noted that some of the buildings included in the Industrial sector, for example, could actually be large “commercial” buildings, rather than facilities generally identified with industrial processes (e.g. an asphalt plant). _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 29 Emissions of electricity-related pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO2)and nitrous oxides (NOx) dominated this sector (Figure 16). Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Industrial Sector Albemarle County, 2000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 NOx SOx CO PM-10 Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs) Figure 16: Criteria air pollutant emissions from industrial consumption. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 30 Transportation Sector Constituting 33.9% of the County’s total greenhouse gas emissions, transportation was the second largest contributor to our baseline emissions. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s reports were used to determine miles traveled on all primary roads within the County’s boundaries (and outside the City of Charlottesville limits) for the year 2000. National estimates for vehicle mode of transportation provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation were used to break down vehicle miles traveled, as well as fuel and vehicle types used. Figure 17 depicts the resulting emissions categorized by fuel source. Figure 17: Greenhouse gas emissions based on fuel source for the Transportation sector. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 31 Carbon monoxide (CO) is a common byproduct of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. Thus, it is the leading criteria air pollutant arising from the Transportation sector (Figure 18). Nitrous oxides (NOx) are another significant pollutant resulting from the combustion processes of vehicles. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Transportation Sector Albemarle County, 2000 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 NOx SOx CO PM-10 Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs) Figure 18: Criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation-related energy consumption. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 32 Waste Sector Comparatively, the waste sector produced an insignificant volume of greenhouse gas emissions in the County in the year 2000. County residents collectively dispose of approximately 124 tons of waste each day. Across the U.S., however, this value increases to 700,000 tons. Furthermore, for every ton of municipal waste generated downstream, there is a corresponding 70 tons of manufacturing waste generated upstream. So waste, in general, is not insignificant. Greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) are emitted during the decomposition of waste. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) operates a transfer station in Ivy, and all waste from that facility is transferred to a privately-owned landfill in Amelia County, VA. In addition, RSWA contracts with Allied Waste to receive waste from the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County at its Zion Crossroads facility. All waste from this facility is then sent to the Henrico County, VA landfill. The waste figures in this sector account for the waste transferred through the Ivy Transfer Station and the Allied Waste Transfer Station for the year 2000. The total greenhouse gas emissions from waste disposed of in 2000 were calculated and plotted below (Figure 19). Emissions Based on Source in Waste Sector Albemarle County, 2000 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Paper Products Food Waste Plant Debris Wood/Textiles Waste TypeeCO2 (metric tons) Figure 19: Greenhouse gas emissions from waste decomposition. Methane (CH4) is the primary greenhouse gas produced in the decomposition of paper products and food waste. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is consumed in the decomposition of plant debris and other wood materials. Thus, CO2 is actually removed from the atmosphere as these latter two products degrade over time, causing eCO2 emissions to be negative in these categories. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 33 “Other” Sector This sector accounts for emitters of greenhouse gases or pollutants not accounted for in any other sector. Agricultural emissions and waste-in-place emissions from the closed Keene Landfill are included in this sector. Overall, this sector accounts for 2.5% of total baseline emissions for the County. Note: The City of Charlottesville included emissions from the closed Ivy Landfill in their baseline, so this was left out of the County’s baseline to avoid double- counting. Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) methodology guidelines were used to calculate agricultural emissions. These emissions account for enteric fermentation (animal digestive processes) and manure management processes. For specific, detailed methodology, refer to Appendix A. Although the Keene Landfill was closed in 1990, existing waste in the closed landfill continues to decompose and generate greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions account for the remaining 37% of emissions in the “Other” sector (Figure 20). Figure 20: Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural processes and the closed Keene Landfill. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 34 Municipal Sector Due to readily-available information, the Municipal sector’s energy consumption can be categorized into four subsectors: government buildings, employee commute, vehicle fleet, and streetlights. The breakdown of emissions among these subsectors is shown in Figure 21. Figure 21: Emissions broken down by subsectors within the Municipal sector. Government buildings comprise almost half of Municipal emissions. These include all government-owned-and-operated buildings such as schools, county office buildings, fire stations, etc. Note: The Blue Ridge Detention Center is wholly accounted for in the County’s baseline and interim year emissions even though it is used by other municipalities as well. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 35 Employee commuting accounts for 38% of the emissions from the Municipal sector. This subsector includes emissions associated with travel to and from work by County employees. Using home and work addresses catalogued, the Geographic Data Services (GDS) Department calculated the shortest distance traveled by each employee from their home to their work address. The remaining 15% of this sector’s emissions arise from vehicle fleet use. These include all government-owned vehicles such as school buses, fire trucks, and County fleet vehicles. Information regarding the vehicle, fuel types and amount of fuel consumed were provided by the Vehicle Maintenance Facility for entry into the software. A small fraction of these emissions can be attributed to streetlights. Streetlight electricity consumption was calculated by compiling utility bills from Dominion Virginia Power. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Municipal Secto r Albemarle County, 2000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 NOx SOx CO PM-10 Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs) Figure 22: Criteria air pollutant emissions from the Municipal sector. Government building and government transportation emissions mainly include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), and nitrous oxides (NOx)(Figure 22). The majority of emissions come from CO, since more than half of the emissions in this sector arise from fossil fuel combustion in motor vehicles. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 36 Trends Interim Year Emissions: 2006 Figure 23: 2006 interim year emissions An interim year of 2006 was chosen to track emissions growth since the baseline year 2000. Residential emissions from 2000 to 2006 decreased by 23%. This is attributed to a switch by many County residents from propane to natural gas. Although propane is a cleaner-burning fuel because it emits fewer criteria air pollutants, natural gas has a lower greenhouse gas emissions coefficient. Natural gas only emits 14.47 kg C/MMBtu, while propane emits 17.20 kg C/MMBtu. Transportation emissions increased to account for 47.8% of 2006 emissions. This is largely attributed to the emissions from the transportation sector increasing from 783,196 tons in 2000 to 850,597 tons in 2006. The Municipal sector also increased its total emissions in 2006. The primary reason for this is the increased number of buildings that fell under the County’s jurisdiction between 2000 and 2006. The County assumed greater overhead energy consumption with the opening of the 5th St County Office Building and the Monticello Fire Station. In addition, the Charlottesville-UVa- Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center (ECC/911) was wholly accounted for in this sector for the year 2006, since the City of Charlottesville included it in their baseline emission calculations but exempted it from their interim year calculations. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 37 Forecast Year Emissions: Year 2020 A forecast year of 2020 was chosen in order to be consistent with the City of Charlottesville’s future projections. The CACP software estimates that emissions will increase to 2,231,562 metric tons of eCO2 under the “business-as-usual” scenario. However, this estimation most likely underestimates what the actual emissions would be, since other institutions will likely fall under the County’s jurisdictions by 2020. Most notably, in the Community sector, Martha Jefferson Hospital (which is now accounted for in the City of Charlottesville’s emissions) will move into the County’s emissions calculations from the year 2012 onwards. Another example is the new Hollymead Fire Station, which will increase Municipal sector emissions. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 38 Part 5. Local Climate Action Planning Process Although the forecasted 2020 projection is lower than our baseline emissions, it is important to realize that without aggressively implementing climate protection measures, we will not be able to meet our overall target of 80% emissions reduction by the year 2050. This is indicated by Figure 10, wherein from 2006 onwards there is a constant increase in emissions under a “business as usual” scenario. Therefore, the next necessary step is to engage in a Local Climate Action Planning Process. The Board of Supervisors and County staff, along with officials from the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, have expressed a keen interest in collaborating on such a process. In January 2009 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council unanimously passed resolutions in support of the County, City and University working together to address energy efficiency and climate change (see Appendix C for Board of Supervisors Resolution). On a Collaborative Approach In December 2007 Governor Kaine established the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change to address global warming and its impacts on Virginia. The Commission was comprised of over 40 citizens who were “broadly expert and philosophically diverse.” Their final report, published in December 2008, includes many useful recommendations that will inform public policy and legislation in the short and long-term. Governor Kaine understood that emissions causing climate change are linked to fossil fuel energy use, and this use encompasses topics as diverse as land use planning, transportation, the built environment, industry, waste management, and renewable energy. The use of a Steering Committee and Focus Groups is typically considered “best practice” to build community consensus and involvement with respect to a complicated issue. As is evident in this baseline report, the majority of the County’s emissions result from the residential, transportation, and commercial sectors of our community (as opposed to industry or agriculture). To address them, we will have to garner the support and participation of the public in programs and initiatives proposed. Not only will the Steering Committee and Focus Groups provide insight into stakeholder positions, they will also vet proposals and strategies, and help communicate outcomes to the community at large. The Steering Committee’s composition of influential representatives from the County, City, and UVa – coupled with the participation of well-respected members of our community – will help ensure that recommendations for strategies and programs are relevant, practical, and will serve to further the collective good. While staff cannot predict the details of the final Local Climate Action Plan at this stage, our goal is to find ways to work collaboratively on issues that affect us all, and in doing so pool our resources and maximize impact. One example of an issue that affects us all is energy efficiency. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 39 Is it possible for our area to develop a large-scale, self-funded energy efficiency program similar to the Cambridge Energy Alliance (CEA) developed in Cambridge, Massachusetts? Such a program would help lower the community’s carbon footprint, save participants money, and provide exciting educational and outreach opportunities to UVa faculty and students. With respect to a Local Climate Action Plan, it is expected that each organization will continue to focus on issues particular to their budget, administration, and goals, while also exploring synergistic ways to work together. Lastly, this approach will give us all the opportunity to better understand each entity’s strengths and limitations when it comes to addressing climate change in our community. Our goal is to establish a Steering Committee in early 2009 and quickly begin the Local Climate Action Planning Process. It is anticipated that outcomes from this process will shape public policies and programs as we individually and collectively look to reduce our contribution to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Steering Committee will ultimately issue a report outlining strategies that are particular to each organization, as well as those that present shared opportunities. In the end, each participating entity will have to determine what is appropriate for implementation and how that implementation will take place. However, the expectation is that in those areas where cooperation and synergy are needed, Charlottesville, UVa, and Albemarle will share an approach. Figure 24 below is a graph depicting a combined baseline inventory (year 2000) for the City and the County. This graph underscores the need to work together in order to maximize our impact, and also illustrates the necessity of involving representatives from all sectors at the beginning of this process. Furthermore, since many residents’ lives cross City-County lines multiple times a day, and staff who work at UVa are also members of our greater community, it makes sense that this issue be addressed collaboratively. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 40 Regional (City/County) Emissions (2000 Baseline of eCO2) Residential 43.0% Commercial 20.2% Industrial 1.1% Transporation 29.2% Waste 0.7% Agriculture/Other 3.1%Municipal 2.7% Figure 24: Combined regional emissions for the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. The University of Virginia was included within the commercial sector of the City of Charlottesville’s baseline emissions. "Much more likely than not, global warming is upon us. We should expect weather patterns to continue to change and the seas continue to rise, in an ever worsening pattern, in our lifetimes and on into our grandchildren's. The question has graduated from the scientific community: climate change is a major social, economic, and political issue. Nearly everyone in the world will need to adjust." - Spencer R. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 41 Glossary Baseline Year – A specific year of emissions against which future emissions and emission targets are measured against; the year itself is typically 1990 or 2000 depending on the institution’s availability of resources. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – The most common greenhouse gas, consisting of a single carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. CO2 is released by respiration, the burning of fossil fuels, and is removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis in green plants. During the pre-industrial times, the CO2 concentration was measured to be approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In 1990, this value increased by 25% to 353 ppm. Current values of CO2 are the highest they have been in the last 160,000 years. CO2 concentrations are increasing at a rate of 0.5% (or 1.8ppm) due to anthropogenic emissions. Carbon Dioxide equivalent – See “eCO2.” eCO2 – Also known as “carbon dioxide equivalent”, a common unit for combining emissions of greenhouse gases with different levels of impact on climate change. It is based on the global warming potential of each greenhouse gas. For carbon dioxide itself, emissions in tons of CO2 and tons of eCO2 are the same, whereas for nitrous oxide and methane, stronger greenhouse gases, one ton of emissions are equal to 310 tons and 21 tons of eCO2 respectively. Emission Factors – These factors denote the ratio of emissions of a particular pollutant (e.g., carbon dioxide) to the quantity of the fuel used. Emissions Inventory – The quantification of all emission-related activities within a jurisdiction’s boundaries during a particular year. Enteric Fermentation – Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the rumen of animals such as cattle, as microbial fermentation takes place. Most of the CH4 byproduct is belched by the animal; however, a small percentage of CH4 is also produced in the large intestine and passed out as gas. Forecast Year – Any future year in which predictions are estimated for through growth multipliers applied to the base year. Greenhouse Effect – A naturally occurring process whereby the lower atmosphere and the earth’s surface is heated because infrared energy emitted by the earth is reflected back towards it by greenhouse gases. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) – Gases which reflect part of the earth’s emitted infrared radiation. Includes CO2, H2O, CH2, N4O, etc. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 42 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – GHGs used primarily as refrigerants. Composed of hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – An organization established jointly by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988 to assess information in the scientific and technical literature related to all significant issues relating to climate change. IPCC publications provide a technical analysis of the science behind climate change and guidance on quantification procedures for GHG emissions. Interim Year – Any year for which an emissions inventory is completed that falls between the baseline year and the target year. Completing an emissions inventory for an interim year is useful in determining a jurisdiction’s progress towards meeting their emission reduction goals. Kilowatt Hour (KWh) – The electrical energy unit of measure equal to one thousand watts of power supplied to, or taken from, an electric circuit steadily for one hour. (A Watt is the unit of electrical power equal to one ampere under a pressure of one volt, or 1/746 horsepower.) Local Action Plan – A comprehensive plan for a community that includes an emissions analysis, emissions reduction target, emissions reduction strategy, and emissions reduction implementation strategy. Methane (CH4) – A GHG resulting from the anaerobic decomposition of vegetative materials in wetlands, urban landfills, and rice paddies, the production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion. The principle constituent of natural gas, methane is a single carbon atom linked to four hydrogen atoms. Methane Recovery Factor – A measurement of the percentage of methane produced that is being captured at a landfill. For example, a landfill that is capped, lined, and has a methane extraction system that effectively captures all released methane has a Methane Recovery Factor would be 100. Metric Ton(ne) – Common international measurement for the quantity of GHG emissions, equivalent to 1000 kilograms, or about 2,204.6 pounds or 1.1 short tons. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) – A potent GHG produced in relatively small quantities. It is composed of a two nitrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom and is typically generated as a result of soil cultivation practices, particularly during commercial and organic fertilizer use, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) – A class of GHGs consisting carbon and fluorine compounds. Originally introduced as alternatives to ozone depleting substances they are typically emitted as by-products of industrial and manufacturing processes. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 43 Sectors – Within CACP, records are organized into sectors that contain similar related activities or emissions sources. The sectors for the community module includes: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation, Waste, and Other. The sectors in the municipal module include: Buildings, Vehicle Fleet, Employee Commute, Streetlights, Sewage, Waste, and Other. Sink – Any process, activity or mechanism that results in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) – a GHG consisting of a single sulfur atom and six fluoride atoms. Primarily used in electrical transmission and distribution systems. Target Year – The year by which the emissions reduction target should be achieved. Often also used as a “Forecast Year.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – An international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The UNFCCC provides an overall framework for international efforts to mitigate climate change. The Kyoto Protocol is a revised version of the UNFCCC. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – Annual vehicle miles traveled in an area. Distance traveled on roads is routinely calculated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 44 REFERENCES Bryant Jr., L. P. (Honorable). 2008. Final Report: A Climate Change Action Plan. Governor’s Commission on Climate Change. Accessed online at <http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/info/documents/climate/CCC_Final_Rep ort-Final_12152008.pdf>. Clean Air-Cool Planet. 2008. Campus Action Toolkit. Accessed online at <http://www.cleanair- coolplanet.org/toolkit/>. Energy Information Administration. 2008. Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy. Brochure #L DOE/EIA-X012. Accessed online at <http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm>. Environment California Research & Policy Center. 2007. When It Rains, It Pours: Global Warming and the Rising Frequency of Extreme Precipitation in the United States. Accessed online at <http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming- reports2/when-it-rains-it-pours-global-warming-and-the-rising-frequency-of-extreme- precipitation-in-the-united-states>. EPA. 2006. High GWP Gases and Climate Change. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed online at <http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html>. EPA (2007 a). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. National Center for Environmental Publications, pp 393. EPA. 2008. Executive Summary. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2006. Accessed online at <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>. Governor’s Commission on Climate Change. 2008. Final Report. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Accessed online at <http://www.deq.virginia.gov/info/climatechange.html>. ICLEI. 2008. About ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. Accessed online at <http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-about-iclei>. IPCC. 2006. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed online at <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html>. Ireland, C. 2008. Gore: Universities have important role in sustainability. Harvard News Office. Accessed online at <http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/10.23/99-gore.html>. Kolbert, Elizabeth. 2006. Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. Bloomsbury Publishing. 225 p. Miller-Rushing, A.J. et al. 2008. Bird migration times, climate change, and changing population sizes. Global Change Biology 14:1959–1972. National Assessment Synthesis Team. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. US Global Change Research Program, Washington DC, 2000. Accessed online at <http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overview.htm>. Personal Communication: Vivian Thomson. EVSC 230: Introduction to Environmental Policymaking Class Notes. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 45 Pew Commission (2008). Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America: A report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. The Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. 2008. Presentations/Reports. Accessed online at <http://www.rivanna.org/documents/rswafiles/report_annualfinancial_fy2008.pdf>. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy. U.S. Cool Counties. 2007. What is the Cool Counties Initiative? King County. Accessed online at <http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/coolcounties.aspx>. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 46 Appendix A: Agriculture Methodology The Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software breaks down greenhouse gas emissions by source into six major sectors (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) A seventh sector was added labeled “Other” to account for emissions not already included by the remaining sectors. Agricultural emissions from the County of Albemarle’s livestock and related waste were included under this seventh sector. The CACP software does not include an agriculture section in the software most likely due to data unavailability and the complexity of calculations. Furthermore, currently, most of the communities that conduct GHG inventories are urban so there has been little need for them to streamline calculation of agriculture emissions (Sonoma County GHG). Agricultural activities contribute directly to emissions of greenhouse gases through a variety of processes (EPA 2008). Animals produce greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide during the digestion process. Other greenhouse gases, primarily nitrous oxide, arise from the microbial degradation of manure. Additional emissions result from degradation processes in uncovered waste lagoons and anaerobic digesters. (Pew Center 2008). Refer to Table 1 below for additional breakdowns of contributing agricultural activities. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the primary greenhouse gases emitted by agricultural activities. CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management represent about 23% and 7% of total CH4 emissions from anthropogenic activities, respectively. Of all domestic animal types, beef and dairy cattle are by far the largest emitters of CH4. Rice cultivation and field burning of agricultural residues are minor sources of CH4. Agricultural soil management activities such as fertilizer application and other cropping practices were the largest source of U.S. N2O emissions, accounting for 72%. Manure management and field burning of agricultural residues were also small sources of N2O emissions (EPA 2008). Table 4. Primary greenhouse gas emissions broken down by agricultural activities. CH4 N2O Enteric Fermentation √ Manure Management √ √ Rice Cultivation √ Agricultural Soil Management √ Field Burning of Agricultural Residues √ √ _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 47 Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from all livestock operations account for 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding those from the transportation sector (Steinfeld et. al., 2006). In the United States, agriculture accounts for 7.4% of the total US release of greenhouse gases (EPA 2007a). At the county level, agriculture emissions account for approximately 1.5% of the County of Albemarle’s baseline emissions. CH4 Enteric Fermentation Background Enteric fermentation is a normal digestive process in animals (EPA 2008). Carbohydrates are broken down by micro-organisms into simple molecules which the animals’ bodies can use more readily (IPCC 2006). CH4 is released as a by-product of this process through either exhalation or eructation1 by the animal. The amount of CH4 released is a function of the animal characteristics (i.e., age, weight, type of digestive tract) and feed characteristics (i.e., quantity and quality). For example, cattle emit more CH4 than swine on a per-animal basis because the former digest coarse plant material in their large “fore-stomach” while the latter digest food in their large intestines (EPA 2008). Methodology The IPCC has outlined three approaches to calculating CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation: Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. These tiers increase in complexity and require more detailed data as they progress from Tiers 1 to 3. Due to the lack of detail in animal population characteristics, the Tier 1 approach was used to determine emissions from enteric fermentation. The steps taken to calculate the emissions are detailed below: Step 1: Determine Animal Population Data Animal population data for the years 20002 and 20063 for the County of Albemarle were determined using the United States Department of Interior’s Census of Agriculture4. The animal populations were broken down into: dairy cattle5, non-dairy cattle, swine6, horses, sheep, and goats. Step 2: Determine Emission Factors Due to lack of state-specific emission factors, countrywide emission factors provided by the IPCC were used. 1 Act of belching. 2 The census is taken at 5-year intervals: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, so on. The average of the 1997 and 2002 population data was calculated to estimate the size of the animal populations for 2000, our baseline year. 3 2007 animal population data was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the 2006 animal data. 4 which was accessed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ 5 Also known as milk cows 6 Also known as hogs and pigs _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 48 Step 3: Calculate Emissions for Each Livestock Category The emissions for each livestock category were calculated by using Equation 10.19 in the IPCC methodology: EQUATION 10.19 ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSIONS FROM A LIVESTOCK CATEGORY Emissions = EF(T)*(N(T)) Where: Emissions = Methane emissions from Enteric Fermentation, Gg C H4 yr-1 EF(T) = Emission factor for the defined livestock population, kg CH4 head-1 yr-1 N(T) = The number of head of livestock species / category T in the county (in millions) T = Species/category of livestock (e.g., swine or dairy cattle) Step 4: Calculate Total Emissions To estimate total emission, the emissions for each livestock category from above were summed together. EQUATION 10.20 TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK ENTERIC FERMENTATION Total CH4,Enteric = ∑Ei Where: Total CH4Enteric = Total methane emissions from Enteric Fermentation, Gg CH4 yr-1 Ei = Emissions for the ith livestock categories and subcategories Table 2 below summarizes the enteric fermentation emissions from livestock contributing to the County of Albemarle’s baseline emissions. Table 5. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation of livestock broken down by categories. Animal Type 2000 Estimated Census Emissions Factor (Kg CH4/head/yr) Enteric Emissions (Gg CH4/yr) Milk Cows 658 121 0.079618 Non-dairy cattle 26283 53 1.392999 Hogs and pigs aka swine 235 1.5 0.0003525 Horses and ponies 2669 18 0.048033 Sheep and lambs 2013 8 0.0161 Goats 240 5 0.0011975 Total CH4 Enteric Fermentation Emissions 1.5383 _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 49 Manure Management Background Decomposition of manure7 under anaerobic8 conditions, during storage and treatment, produces CH4. These anaerobic conditions occur most readily when large numbers of animals are managed in a confined area (i.e., beef feedlots, swine farms, etc.), and where manure is disposed of in liquid-based systems. This section of the methodology accounts for CH4 emissions related to manure handling and storage. Similar to enteric fermentation emissions, there are three tiers or approaches to accounting methane emissions from manure management practices. Unlike the previous agricultural activity, there was sufficient data available to use the Tier 2 approach in calculating these emissions. This new approach required the calculation of County of Albemarle specific emission factors through a modified version of Step 2 from the previous section. Thus, a combination of IPCC equations and Virginia-specific emission factors were used to tally methane emissions from manure management. Methodology Tier 2 A more complex method for estimating CH4 emissions from manure management should be used where a particular livestock species/category represents a significant share of a country’s emissions. This method requires detailed information on animal characteristics and manure management practices, which is used to develop emission factors specific to the conditions of the country (IPCC 2006). Step 1: Determine Animal Population Data Animal population data for the years 20009 and 200610 for the County of Albemarle were determined using the United States Department of Interior’s Census of Agriculture11. The animal populations were broken down into: dairy cattle12, non-dairy cattle, swine13, horses, sheep, and goats. Step 2: Calculate Emission Factors for Each Livestock Category Equation 10.23 in the IPCC methodology was used to calculate specific manure management methane emission factors for the County of Albemarle. Due to incompatible units, default VS values provided by IPCC were used. US-specific Bo values were used as listed in the US Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks (EPA 2008). Virginia-specific manure distribution and 7 ‘Manure’ means both dung and urine (solid and liquid) produced by livestock (IPCC). 8 In the absence of oxygen 9 The census is taken at 5-year intervals: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, so on. The average of the 1997 and 2002 population data was calculated to estimate the size of the animal populations for 2000, our baseline year. 10 2007 animal population data was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the 2006 animal data. 11 which was accessed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ 12 Also known as milk cows 13 Also known as hogs and pigs _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 50 corresponding methane conversion factors listed in the EPA’s report were used to determine each manure management system’s MS and MCF values. EQUATION 10.23 METHANE EMISSION FACTOR FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT EF(T)=(VS (T)*365)*[Bo(T)*0.67 kg/m3*∑MCFS,k/100*MS(T,S,k) Where: EF(T) = Annual methane emission factor for livestock category T, kg CH4/animal/year VS (T) = Daily volatile solid excreted by livestock category T, kg dry matter/animal/day 365 = Basis for calculating annual VS production, days/yr Bo(T) = Maximum methane producing capacity for manure produced by livestock category T, m3 CH4/kg of VS excreted 0.67 kg/m3 = Conversion factor of m3 CH4 to kilograms CH4 ∑MCFS,k= Methane conversion factors for each manure management system S by climate region k, % MS(T,S,k) = Fraction of livestock category T’s manure handled using manure management system S in climate region k, dimensionless Step 3: Calculate Emissions for Each Livestock Category Each livestock category emissions factors were multiplied by their corresponding population sizes to estimate subcategory emissions. Refer to Equation 10.22a listed below and in the IPCC methodology: EQUATION 10.22a MANURE MANAGEMENT METHANE EMISSIONS FROM A LIVESTOCK CATEGORY Emissions = EF(T)*(N(T)) Where: Emissions = Methane emissions from Enteric Fermentation, Gg C H4 yr-1 EF(T) = Emission factor for the defined livestock population, kg CH4 head-1 yr-1 N(T) = The number of head of livestock species / category T in the county (in millions) T = Species/category of livestock (e.g., swine or dairy cattle) Step 4: Calculate Total Emissions To estimate total emission, the emissions for each livestock category from above were summed together. EQUATION 10.22b TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK MANURE MANAGEMENT Total CH4,Manure = ∑Ei/106 Where: Total CH4,Manure = Total methane emissions from Enteric Fermentation, Gg CH4 yr-1 Ei = Emissions for the ith livestock categories and subcategories 106 = Conversion factor for methane emissions from kg to Gg. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 51 Table 3 below summarizes methane emissions from manure management systems that contributed to the County of Albemarle’s baseline emissions. Table 6. Methane emissions from manure management of livestock broken down by categories. Animal Type 2000 Estimated Census Emissions Factor (Kg CH4/head/yr) Methane Emissions (Gg CH4/yr) Milk Cows 654.6 21.37738716 0.013993638 Non-dairy cattle 25443.2 1.892817 0.048159321 Hogs and pigs aka marketing swine 208.2 16.49339107 0.003433924 Horses and ponies 2686 0.085947098 0.000230888 Sheep and lambs 2061 0.0176076 3.62857E-05 Goats 215 0.006236025 1.33825E-06 Total CH4 Manure Management Emissions 0.065855395 Agricultural activities such as Rice Cultivation and Field Burning of Agricultural Field Residues are not widely practiced in the County of Albemarle and thus, were not included in the calculations of baseline emissions. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 52 N2O Emissions Agricultural Soil Management Due to lack of detailed information on the types of fertilizers and the locations of their applications within the County of Albemarle, N2O emissions due to agricultural soil management were not calculated. Manure Management Nitrous oxide emissions from manure management can be emitted through both direct and indirect measures. These two methods are further explained below. Direct Emissions Background Direct N2O emissions occur via combined nitrification and denitrification of nitrogen contained in the manure. N2O emissions from manure during storage and treatment depend on the nitrogen and carbon content of manure, and on the duration of the storage and type of treatment. Nitrification (the oxidation of ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen) is a necessary prerequisite for the emission of N2O from stored animal manures. Nitrification is likely to occur in stored animal manures provided there is a sufficient supply of oxygen. Methodology Step 1: Determine Animal Population Data Animal population data for the years 200014 and 200615 for the County of Albemarle were determined using the United States Department of Interior’s Census of Agriculture16. The animal populations were broken down into: dairy cattle17, non-dairy cattle, swine18, horses, sheep, and goats. Step 2: Determine Emission Factors Due to lack of state-specific emission factors, countrywide emission factors provided by the IPCC were used. Step 3: Calculate Emissions for Each Livestock Category Each livestock category’s emissions factors were multiplied by their corresponding population sizes and average nitrogen excretion rates to estimate subcategory emissions. Equation 10.25a in the IPCC methodology was used to calculate specific manure management N2O emission factors for the County of Albemarle. Virginia-specific manure distribution values and nitrogen 14 The census is taken at 5-year intervals: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, so on. The average of the 1997 and 2002 population data was calculated to estimate the size of the animal populations for 2000, our baseline year. 15 2007 animal population data was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the 2006 animal data. 16 which was accessed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ 17 Also known as milk cows 18 Also known as hogs and pigs _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 53 excretion rates listed in the EPA’s annual US Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks were used to determine each manure management system’s MS and livestock’s Nex values. EQUATION 10.25a DIRECT NITROUS OXIDE EMISSION FACTOR FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT E(mm)=∑(N(T)*Nex(T)*MS(T,S))*EF(S) Where: E(mm) = Direct N2O emission from manure management, kg N2O yr-1 N(T) = Number of head of livestock species/category T in the County Nex(T) = Annual average N excretion per head of species/category T in the country, kg N/animal/year MS(T,S) = Fraction of total annual nitrogen excretion for each livestock species/category T that is managed in manure management system S in the country, dimensionless EF(S) = Emissions factor for direct N2O emissions from manure management system S in the country, kg N2O-N/kg N in manure management system S Step 4: Calculate Total Emissions To estimate total emissions, the emissions for each livestock category from above were summed together. The conversion factor, 106, converts methane emissions from kilograms to gigrams (Gg). EQUATION 10.25b TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK MANURE MANAGEMENT N2OD(mm) = ∑Ei*44/28 Where: N2OD(mm) = Total nitrous oxide direct emissions from manure management, kg N2O yr-1 Ei = Emissions for the ith livestock categories and subcategories 44/28 = Conversion of (N2O-N)(mm) emissions to N2O(mm) emissions Indirect Emissions Background Indirect emissions result from volatile nitrogen losses that occur primarily in the forms of ammonia and NOx. The fraction of excreted organic nitrogen that is mineralized to ammonia nitrogen during manure collection and storage depends primarily on time, and to a lesser degree temperature. Simple forms of organic nitrogen such as urea (mammals) and uric acid (poultry) are rapidly mineralized to ammonia nitrogen, which is highly volatile and easily diffused into the surrounding air (Asman et al., 1998; Monteny and Erisman, 1998). Nitrogen losses begin at the point of excretion in houses and other animal production areas (e.g., milk parlors) and continue through on-site management in storage and treatment systems (i.e., manure management systems). Nitrogen is also lost through runoff and leaching into soils from _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 54 the solid storage of manure at outdoor areas, in feedlots and where animals are grazing in pastures. Methodology Step 1: Determine Animal Population Data Animal population data for the years 200019 and 200620 for the County of Albemarle were determined using the United States Department of Interior’s Census of Agriculture21. The animal populations were broken down into: dairy cattle22, non-dairy cattle, swine23, horses, sheep, and goats. Step 2: Determine Emission Factors Due to lack of state-specific emission factors, countrywide emission factors provided by the IPCC were used. Step 3: Calculate Emissions for Each Livestock Category Each livestock category emissions factors were multiplied by their corresponding population sizes and average nitrogen excretion rates to estimate subcategory emissions. These values were then summed across each livestock category, T and each manure management system, S. Equation 10.28 in the IPCC methodology was used to calculate specific manure management N2O emission factors for the County of Albemarle. Virginia-specific manure distribution values and nitrogen excretion rates listed in the EPA’s annual US Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks were used to determine each manure management system’s MS and livestock’s Nex values. IPCC default values listed in Table 10.23 for percentage of managed manure nitrogen losses for each livestock category were used (Fracleach,MS). EQUATION 10.28 N LOSSES DUE TO LEACHING FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Nleaching-MMS=∑S[∑T[(N(T)*Nex(T)*MS(T,S))*(Fracleach,MS/100)(T,S)]] Where: Nleaching-MMS= Amount of manure nitrogen that leached from manure management systems, kg N/yr N(T) = Number of head of livestock species/category T in the County Nex(T) = Annual average N excretion per head of species/category T in the country, kg N/animal/year MS(T,S) = Fraction of total annual nitrogen excretion for each livestock species/category T that is managed in manure management system S in the country, dimensionless 19 The census is taken at 5-year intervals: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, so on. The average of the 1997 and 2002 population data was calculated to estimate the size of the animal populations for 2000, our baseline year. 20 2007 animal population data was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the 2006 animal data. 21 which was accessed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ 22 Also known as milk cows 23 Also known as hogs and pigs _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 55 (Fracleach,MS/100)(T,S) = Percent of managed manure nitrogen losses for livestock category T due to runoff and leaching during solid and liquid storage of manure (typical range 1-20%) Step 4: Calculate Total Emissions Total indirect N2O emissions from leaching and runoff of nitrogen were estimated using Equation 10.29 from the IPCC methodology. The default EF value listed was used. EQUATION 10.29 INDIRECT N2O EMISSIONS DUE TO LEACHING FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT N2OL(mm) = Nleaching-MMS *EF*44/28 Where: N2OL(mm) = Indirect N2O emissions due to leaching and runoff from Manure Management in the county, kg N2O/yr Nleaching-MMS= Amount of manure nitrogen that leached from manure management systems, kg N/yr EF = Emission factor for N2O emissions from nitrogen leaching and runoff, kg N2O-N/kg N leached and runoff; default value 0.0075 kg N2O-N (kg N leaching/runoff)-1 44/28 = Conversion of (N2O-N)(mm) emissions to N2O(mm) emissions Table 4 below summarizes nitrous oxide emissions from manure management systems that contributed to the County of Albemarle’s baseline emissions. The sum of direct and indirect emissions yields total N2O emissions from manure management in the County of Albemarle. Table 7. Nitrous oxide emissions from manure management of livestock broken down by categories. Animal Type Direct N2O Emissions (kg N2O/yr) Indirect N2O Emissions N2O Emissions (kg N2O/yr) Milk Cows 0.470713509 0.528873783 0.999587292 Non-dairy cattle 248.5091865 37.18341943 285.6926059 Hogs and pigs aka marketing swine 0.23634864 0.61938459 0.85573323 Horses and ponies 0 0.781404348 0.781404348 Sheep and lambs 0 0.781404348 0.781404348 Goats 0 0.781404348 0.781404348 Total N2O Manure Management Emissions 289.8921395 _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 56 Appendix B: Employee Commute Methodology Background The employee commute sector calculates emissions associated with travel to and from the work by employees of the government. The employee sector has the same inputs as other transportation-related sectors (i.e., vehicle fleet). The number of total miles traveled by government employees for work each year was calculated for input into the software. Methodology Many institutions have conducted surveys amongst a select portion of their employees to estimate the number of miles traveled by all employees. However, many County of Albemarle employees travel varying distances to work; for example, the average distance traveled by a COB McIntire employee is not the same as the average distance traveled by a school teacher. So the County of Albemarle chose to use GIS software, instead, to better approximate employee commuting distance. A list of employee’s home addresses and corresponding work addresses was obtained from the Human Resources Department. Each employee was assigned a unique ID for reference rather than their names to maintain confidentiality. Once data was obtained, each address was assigned its geographic x-y coordinates through GIS and mapped. Since GIS recognizes only a limited range of abbreviations, certain addresses had to be modified for recognition by the software. For example, “T.J.” was reentered as “Thomas Jefferson” in the database. Some addresses consisting of P.O. Box and route numbers were filtered out since GIS was unable to assign them to specific geographic coordinates. Employees’ unique IDs were used to track the changes made to their addresses through the years. The “Network Analyst” tool was used to calculate the shortest distance on roads for each home address to every potential work address. Every route except the listed home address and corresponding actual work address was then filtered out by Microsoft Access. The remaining entries yielded the number of miles traveled by each employee during a one-way trip to their workplace24. This number was then doubled to reflect a round-trip and multiplied by the number of workdays in a year: 230. The average number of miles driven by an Albemarle County employee for work: 10 miles. Certain employees worked at varying locations throughout the week. In these circumstances, the worst-case scenario or the furthest work address was chosen to best reflect their emissions. 24 For some employees who no longer worked for the county, HR had updated their past home addresses to their current ones. Thus, certain routes yielded a daily commute of more than 100 miles for a single round-trip. To limit the effect of these addresses on total commute, we assumed that no County employee traveled more than 150 miles on any given day to/from their work place. _______________________________________________________ County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 57 Appendix C: Board of Supervisors Resolution ATTACHMENT C  ­ CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION   RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY, CITY AND UNIVERSITY WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO ADDRESS ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CLIMATE CHANGE                 WHEREAS, addressing energy efficiency and climate change will promote a cleaner environment, a more prosperous economy and a higher quality of life; and               WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia have committed to promoting energy efficiency and climate change programs within their respective organizations; and               WHEREAS, the County, City and University desire to work collaboratively to promote energy efficiency and address climate change goals for the community;               NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Charlottesville supports the County, City and University working cooperatively to discuss energy and climate change opportunities, including collaborating on developing a joint proposal for the Southeastern Energy Efficiency Alliance grant; and               BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council will appoint a member of the City Council and a member of the Planning Commission to be the City’s representatives in such discussions and working groups.   Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment D – Mission Statement for Steering Committee     Climate change is a global phenomenon with serious local implications. International scientific bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), have assessed the scientific literature and drawn conclusions that are macro in scale. However, it will take collective actions on a smaller scale to effectively address them. Our local community is also concerned about the effects of anthropogenic climate change, as evidenced by the signing of documents from local leaders1 that commit the constituencies they represent to greenhouse gas reductions. The first step to reduction begins with establishing a baseline of current emissions. The City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia (UVa), and the County of Albemarle have in the past year documented their respective baseline emissions of greenhouse gases. This documentation will be used by the City, University, and County to set reduction goals and to develop the means and methods to meet those goals.   Using Governor Kaine’s strategy of establishing a blue ribbon Commission on Climate Change as a model, the mission of our Steering Committee will be to support our Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP). It is anticipated that outcomes from our LCAPP will shape public policies and programs as we individually and collectively look to reduce our contribution to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Steering Committee will ultimately issue a report outlining strategies that are particular to each entity, as well as those that present regional opportunities. In the end, each participating entity will have to determine what is appropriate for implementation and how that implementation will take place. However, the expectation is that in those areas where cooperation and synergy are needed, Charlottesville, UVa, and Albemarle will share an approach.   Given that the goal is to coordinate and collaborate on opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Steering Committee’s tasks will be to review and approve of Focus Group recommendations. Focus Groups will explore particular issues such as energy efficiency, waste and recycling, renewable energy, etc., and they will be supported by appropriate staff from the City and County. Steering Committee members will meet every two months and Focus Groups every two weeks. The process and range of recommendations will be documented in a report (compiled by staff) and presented to the respective entities by the end of calendar year 2009. It is expected that the Steering Committee will help the City, UVa, and County communicate the substance of this report to the wider community.           1 US Mayor’s Clima te  A gre ement (Charlotte sville), the  Ta lloire s De c la ra tion (U V a ), a nd the  U S Cool Counties Climate  Sta biliza tion De c la ra tion (A lbe ma rle)   Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment E – Steps and Timeline for Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP) Steering Committee Establishment: Introductory phone call/conversation and follow up interview by staff or other known person. Invitation to apply and official background information sent to potential member describing LCAPP and Steering Committee. Appointment Letter signed and sent by Gary O’Connel, Leonard Sandridge, and Bob Tucker. Invitee signs and sends Appointment Letter back to staff. Completed 3/09 City Council and Board of Supervisors approve (if necessary) of Steering Committee membership. Focus Group Establishment: Steering Committee meets to discuss Focus Groups: topics, participants, and expectations. Introductory phone call/conversation and follow up interview by staff or Steering Committee member. Focus Groups begin meeting Completed 4/09 Invitation to apply and official background information sent to potential member describing Focus Group and guidelines. Focus Groups issue a collection of smaller reports and recommendations. Completed 9/09 Steering Committee discusses Focus Groups’ reports and recommendations. Completed 10/09 Staff write and present Steering Committee Recommendations in Final Report. Completed 12/09 Steering Committee makes recommendations for their report based on discussion outcomes. Completed 11/09 1MEMBERTERM EXPIRESNEW TERMEXPIRESWISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED?DISTRICT IFMAGISTERIALAPPOINTMENTAdvisory Council on Aging M. Waltine Eubanks 5/31/20095/31/2011Eligible No Action Required Advisory Council on Aging William B. Harvey 5/31/20095/31/2011Eligible No Action Required Agricltural and Forestal District Advisory CommRobin Mellen 4/17/20094/17/2013Eligible No Action Required Agricltural and Forestal District Advisory CommDavid vanRoijen4/17/20094/17/2013Eligible No Action Required Commission on Children and FamiliesChelsea Henderson 6/30/20096/30/2010YesAction Required Crozet Community Advisory CouncilBverly Ergenbright 3/31/20093/31/2011NoAdvertised, 11 recv'dCrozet Community Advisory CouncilRussell Lafferty 3/31/20093/31/2011NoAdvertised, 11 recv'dCrozet Community Advisory CouncilDavid Wayland 3/31/20093/31/2011NoAdvertised, 11 recv'dEqualization Board C. Marshall Thompson12/31/200812/31/2009NoRio, Advertised, none received Housing Committee Helen Flamini 12/31/200812/31/2011Eligible PHA Rep.(PHA to submit rec.) Housing Committee Michael Peoples12/31/200812/31/2011Eligible AHIP Rep.JABARichard Lindsay 3/31/20093/31/2011Yes Action Required JABAShirley Copeland 3/31/20093/31/2011Eligible No Action Required Planning CommissionJon Cannon 12/31/2009ResignedRio, Advertised, 2 recv'd Region Ten Community Services BoardConstance Samuels6/30/2009Resigned November 2008 Advertised, 4 recv'd Revised 2/25/09 Page 1 of 4 Allan D. Sumpter Virginia Department of Transportation Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REPORT MARCH 4, 2009 MONTHLY MEETING ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS ACTION ITEMS David Slutzky • Prohibition of U-Turns on Route 29/Rio Road – Signs will be installed in early March that will prohibit U-Turns traveling south on Route 29 at Rio Road. It is believed this change will assist traffic flow for left turns onto Rio Road along with turning conflicts between vehicles making the U-turn and those making right turns off Rio Road onto Route 29 North. Ken Boyd • Safety Implementations on Route 29 at Forest Lakes - The controller actuated beacons have been activated. Work continues to review other possible safety measures including grading of the median and installation of additional rumble strips. • Traffic Calming in Ashcroft Subdivision - Implementation of traffic calming measures, including installation of a traffic circle on Lego Drive is scheduled to being this month. Dennis Rooker • Broomley Road Bridge – Buckingham Branch Railroad has made repairs to the abutment on the Route 250 side of the bridge. Surface repairs have been made to the deck that has improved its rideability. Further discussions are ongoing with the Railroad on ways to partner in making more permanent repairs. • Vegetation Work at Barracks Road Interchange – Work is near completion to make aesthetic improvements on the south side of the Barracks Road interchange. Traffic Engineering is reviewing a citizen request to address noise concerns related to engine braking by trucks approaching the City limits. • Concrete Repairs – Sidewalk repairs are scheduled to begin this month on Route 1460, Georgetown Green. Other concrete work to address pedestrian improvements previously discussed will be performed at the intersection of Georgetown/Hydraulic Roads while this crew is in the area. Ann Mallek • Walnut Level Rural Rustic – Placement of base stone has been completed. The tar and chip surface will be applied in the spring. Sally Thomas • Litter Removal on Route 250 – A request was made by the Route 250 Task Force for a litter pick up on this route. This has been scheduled to begin the week of March 2, 2009. • Speed Study, Rosemont Drive, Route 1660 – A request for an expedited speed study on this route has been made to Traffic Engineering. Lindsay Dorrier • Rural Rustic on Route 722, Old Green Mountain Road – Work as started on this project with the installation of pipes. Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Page 2 of 4 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Albemarle County • Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501 A public hearing date has been scheduled for March 24, 2009 in the cafeteria at Albemarle High School. The time will be from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM. • Route 743 Advance Mills Bridge, 0743-002-282 P101, R201, C501, B658 (Permanent Replacement Project) Bids were received on this project Wednesday, February 25, 2009. There were eight (8) bidders. The apparent low bidder is Fielders Choice Enterprises, a Charlottesville area contractor, at $1,934,457.50. Next steps will include a review of all bids to ensure the low bidder is responsive to all aspects of the request for bids and that the firm is a responsible bidder. Responsive means the bid is complete and includes all bonds, declarations and other information required by state and federal law. Responsible means the firm is pre-qualified with VDOT and in good standing with the State Corporation Commission. The bids are also analyzed for conformance with the Engineer’s Estimate. This analysis may take several days. Once the department decides that the above requirements have been met and has determined that the bid represents good value to the commonwealth, the bid will be presented for award to Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner David S. Ekern. If the contract is awarded as scheduled construction is expected to begin in April and be completed in the fall. • Route 691, Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-258, P101, R201, C501 Final administrative steps are underway to obtain approval to obtain right-of-way for this project. Once received, it is expected that this phase will begin in late spring/early summer. Assuming funding is available, this project is expected to be under construction in spring 2011. CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projects (NFO) PM07-002-351, N501 I-64 Pavement Overlay and Guardrail Upgrades Guardrail installation left of centerline is ongoing. This work will require a lane closure of one half mile or less during the hours between 9:00am and 3:00pm and after 5:00 pm. 0631-002-128, C502, 612, B657 Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and Bridges Contractor in process of setting up staging areas and field offices and mobilizing equipment. Contractor has begun clearing operations. Waterline work at Railroad Bridge may commence toward the end of this month. PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT Land Development Items Total This Month Total This Fiscal Year Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review 0 33 Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions 1 59 New Entrance Plan Reviews 2 37 Total Permits Processed 52 427 Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted 20 152 Inspection of new entrance conducted 101 809 Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 1.87 5.86 Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Page 3 of 4 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Completed RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS Patterson Mill Ln (Rt 824) Northfields Rd Intersection Rt 250 to 688 Safety review Field modifications complete Being reviewed RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS Richmond Rd (Rt 250) Pantops Two way left turn lane (Safety, access and pavement marking review) Field modifications being reviewed Intersection of Rio and Hydraulic Rt 631/743 Pedestrian study Field modifications being drafted Intersection of Hydraulic & Commonwealth Rts 743/1315 Pedestrian study Installation plans being developed, utilizing the Regional Signal Contract. Intersection of Rio & Berkmar Rts 631/1403 Pedestrian study Installation plans being developed, utilizing the Regional Signal Contract. Intersection of Hydraulic & Lambs Rts 743/667 Pedestrian study Developing logistics for installation Scottsville Rd (Rt 20) I-64 to Scottsville Corridor safety study Field review underway Owensville Rd (Rt 676) Rt 614 to Rt 250 Safety review Field recommendations under review Greentree Park Rd (Rt 1490) Greentree Park Rd cul- de-sac Parking review Field review complete. Recommendations under review. Irish Rd (Rt 6) Rt 20 to Nelson County line Safety review Field modifications underway Rosemont Dr. (Rt 1660) Entire length Speed study Field review underway Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Page 4 of 4 MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED Patching operations completed on Routes 20, 620 (Rolling), 631 (5th St Extd), 664 (Fray Mtn) and 727 (Blenheim) • Graded and replaced stone on Routes 22, 600 (Stony Point Pass), 627 (Frys Path), 637 (Dick Woods), 638 (Blacks), 640 (Gilbert Station), 641 (Echo Valley), 673 (Slam Gate/Blufton), 678 (Ridge), 687 (Shiffletts Mill), 688 (Midway), 701 (Alberene Church), 711 (Burton), 712 (Coles Rolling), 713 (Glendower), 716 (Forsyth), 717 (Old Sand), 728 (Ed Jones), 745 (Arrowhead Valley), 747 (Preddy Creek), 761 (Briery Creek), 774 (Bear Creek), 784 (Doctors Xing), 787 (Gillums Ridge), 795 (Blenheim), 825 (Yancey Mill), and 856 (Burton) Mowing on Routes 22, 20 and 53 Cleared pipes and ditch work on Routes 53, 600 (Watts Passage), 606 (Dickerson), 729 (Milton), 731 (Keswick), 732 (Milton), 810 (Browns Gap), 854 (Carrsbrook), and 1445 (Key West) • Tree cleanup on Routes 6, 29, 53, 250, 600 (Stony Point Pass), 608 (Happy Creek), 614 (Sugar Hollow), 623 (Woods Edge), 631 (Rio), 643 (Polo Grounds), 645 (Wildon Grove), 646 (Lovers Ln), 673 (Breakheart), 687 (Shiffletts Mill), 708 (Taylors Gap), 712 (Coles Rolling), 721 (Old Dominion), 731 (Keswick), 742 (Avon St Extd), 743 (Earlysville), 1208 (York) Trash pickup to include adopt-a highway pickups on Routes on 6, 20, 29, 622 (Albevanna Springs), 631 (Old Lynchburg), 635 (Miller School), 708 (Secretarys/Red Hill), 712 (Plank), 717 (Sand) and 782 (Stribling) • Bridge work performed on Routes 600 (Stony Point Pass) and 784 (Millwood Ln). PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK – MARCH 2009 • Maintenance activities are continuing on various routes. They include: o Pavement patching o Machining gravel roads o Cleaning drop inlets and storm drains o Tree trimming and removal MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 0 5 10 15 20 Jul-08 Aug -08 Sep-08 Oct-0 8 Nov-08 Dec-08 J an-09 Feb-09 M ar-09 Apr-0 9 M ay-0 9 Jun-09 MillionsMonths TOTAL MAINT BUDGET FORECASTED EXPENDITURES CUMULATIVE ACTUAL COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     AGENDA  TITLE: Crozet Library Update   SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on the status of the Crozet Library and community input   STAFF CON TA CT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Letteri, and Ms. Catlin   LEGAL R EVIEW:  Yes   AGENDA  DA TE: March 4, 2009   ACTION:                INFORMATION:  X   CON SENT A GEND A:   A CTION:              INFORMATION:      ATTACH MEN TS:   Yes   REVIEW ED BY:   BACK GROUND : I n D ec ember of  2004, t he Board adopt ed t he C roz et  Mas t er Plan, w hic h inc luded a new  C roz et  Library  t o prov ide enhanc ed library  s erv ic es  t o t he c ommunit y  and t o s erv e as  a c at aly s t  f or redev elopment  in dow nt ow n C roz et .  In N ov ember of  2006, t he B oard aut horiz ed the des ign and c ons t ruc t ion of  the library , w hic h is  now  in t he f ormal des ign s t age and s c heduled t o be under c ons t ruc t ion by  the s ummer of  2011.    I n May  of  2008, t he Board approv ed t he f ormation of  t he C roz et  Library  St eering C ommitt ee t o f ac ilit at e t he engagement  of  s t ak eholders  and t he public , t o ev aluat e and balanc e the v arious  needs  and objec t iv es , and t o ov ers ee t he s c hemat ic  des ign phas e of  t he projec t .  The C ommit tee’s  ult imat e c harge is  t o dev elop a pref erred des ign opt ion f or rec ommendat ion t o t he Planning C ommis s ion and t he Board of  Superv is ors .   The C ommit tee began it s  w ork  in J uly  of  2008 and, w it h t he as s is t anc e of  s taf f  and t he des ign t eam of  Grimm and Park er, has  dev eloped guiding princ iples  and a building program and has  c ons idered s ev eral s it e and building des ign s c hemes  f or t he Library .  Planning s t af f  has  prov ided guidanc e on mas ter plan and z oning is s ues  and t he Arc hit ec t ural R ev iew  Board and Planning C ommis s ion w ere als o c ons ult ed during t he proc es s .    Sum m ary of Maj or Mi l estones Date Mi l estone September 2006 Sec ured Architec t/Engineering firm N ovember 2006 Board approved library site selection August 2008 Committee established Guiding Principles as outlined in Attachment A September 2008 Community Information Session held September 24, 2008 at W es tern Albemarle H igh School October 2008 Arc hit ec t ural R ev iew  B oard f eedbac k  at  meet ing held Oc t ober 20, 2008 N ovember 2008 C ommunit y  D ev elopment S t af f  Feedbac k February  2009 Planning Commis sion Feedback from the meeting held February  10, 2009 February  2009 Citizen feedbac k received at a Community Information Session held February 19, 2009   STRA TEGIC PLAN: Goal 1 ­ Enhanc e Qualit y  of  Lif e f or All C i t iz ens Goal 4 ­ Ef f ec t iv ely  Manage Grow t h and D ev el opment   DISCU SSION : The purpose of this Agenda item is to provide a status report on the work of the Steering C ommittee and to provide an opportunity for feedback and guidance from the Board on the Committee’s most recent design options. The presentation w ill include information obtained from public  presentations as well as from work sessions with the Planning C ommission and Architectural Review Board.   BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impact is anticipated.   RECOMMENDA TION S: The presentation is for the Board’s information.  Staff requests that the Board provide feedback and guidance on the Committee’s most recent design options.   ATTAC HMENTS A – Guiding Principles February 10, 2009 PC minutes Ret urn t o regular agenda Crozet Library Steering Committee   Guiding Principles     1. Create a library that helps enhance and develop a sense of community identity.   2. The new library should be a focal point and destination for downtown Crozet and the region.   3. The design should bridge the past, present and future of Crozet and help foster a relationship between “old timers” and those new to the area.   4. Design should be consistent with the JMRL Crozet Library Program and the approved MasterPlan.   5. The new Crozet Library needs to meet all of the State standards for a Virginia Library to support the educational, informational, and recreational needs of the community.   6. Design should employ sustainable design principles with objective of achieving at least LEED Certification.   7. Design should be compatible with the surrounding architecture, character, and heritage of Crozet.   8. Project must be completed within budget and in accordance with project schedule.   9. Library design should be practical, economical, accessible, flexible and efficient so as to minimize initial cost outlay and future operational costs.   10. The library should be a welcoming and great place for children, teens, adults, the elderly and staff.   Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Albemarle County Planning Commission February 10, 2009   The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on Tuesday, February 10, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.   Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman.  Bill Edgerton was absent.  Julia Monteith, AICP, non­voting representative for the University of Virginia was present.    Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Ron Lilley, Project Manager Department of Office of Facilities Development; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Bill Letteri, Director of Office of Facilities Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.    Call to Order and Establish Quorum:   Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.   Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:   Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.   Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting – February 3, 2009   Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on February 3, 2009.                Work Sessions:   Crozet Library Design Concepts Planning Commission held a work session to gather input on work to date on the Crozet Library Design. (Bill Letteri)   Bill Letteri, Director of Office of Facilities Development, was present on behalf of the Crozet Library Steering Committee, which had been formed to oversee the schematic design process for the Library.  He presented a PowerPoint Presentation.  (Attachment A – Crozet Library Design Concepts Executive Summary and Attachment B – Planning Commission Meeting Progress Work Session February 10, 2009 PowerPoint Presentation)           They are all enthusiastic and excited about the work that has occurred to date and the way in which the project is coming forward.  He was excited about sharing that with the Commission this evening.  He recognized Ron Lilley as project manager for the project.  He introduced the design team Melanie Hennigan and her associate Todd Willoughby both representing the firm Grimm + Parker.  They are most fortunate to have a team with their caliber and experience in library projects in particular.  They are from Maryland and have had experience in doing very notable projects all along the east coast.  He acknowledged the members of the Steering Committee present tonight, including John Halliday, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Regional Library system and Wendy Saz, Manager of Crozet Library are also present.  There are many people present tonight that are part of this process.  It has been a tremendous process.          This presentation is to highlight the principle goals of the project; describe the composition of the Steering Committee and what its functions are; and lastly, he would bring them up­to­date on where they are in the process.  This is a work session to obtain feedback since they are in the process of developing their final schematic. They are very appreciative of the opportunity to present this as a way of checking in and getting the Commission’s comments, thoughts and further guidance.           The design team will talk a little bit about the development of their guiding principles.  As a team they identified what were the core issues and important objectives in developing this library.  They came to a consensus about what they were and frequently referred to them as they debated the various issues.  There were a number of site considerations and studies about how the building would be configured on the two pieces of property that they now own in Crozet.  Their designers will walk them through some of the options, constraints and opportunities that they saw as related to those sites.  They will then talk about the various building scenarios that were developed.  There were a number of different objectives about how this building would best sit on this site, how it best interfaces with the Crozet community and the street and how it best works as an operational facility.          They believe they have a project that is very well balanced.  It serves a purpose of creating a wonderful public building for downtown Crozet, but also a world­class library.  They will talk about the evolution of how they have arrived to where they are today.  Then at the end they would talk about what the next steps are.  There will be a process of having continued public presentations on the project.  They will be back to the Planning Commission and later to the Board with a recommendation.         The Crozet Master Planning process identified a library in downtown Crozet as one of the key priorities for the community in downtown.  It was an important and needed asset for the downtown community.  There was strong feedback that this kind of facility would create a focal point for downtown and perhaps serve as a catalyst for activity and become a place of destination where people would come and want to be.  Hopefully that will create opportunities for further economic expansion downtown and for new businesses to occur. Of course, this is first and foremost a library.  They are trying to create a facility that will adequately serve the whole western Albemarle community as well as the town of Crozet.  This has been one of their core design objectives and guiding principles and that in the end they really need to have a world class functioning library for the community.         The Board of Supervisors recognized that there were a great number of stakeholders in this process with perhaps differing interests and perspectives.  They felt that it was critical that all of those perspectives be heard, so they created a venue for doing that through the committee.  The Committee could hear the different perspectives and weigh them for everyone to hear in the same room and consider them in the context of the overall goals.  The function of the committee was to facilitate the public engagement process and to analyze and consider the various design schemes that were recommended by the architects and in the end to develop a preferred option that would then be presented to the Planning Commission and Board.  The Committee would conclude its work at the end of schematic design, which it is believed is not too far off.         He presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the various members on the committee and the process. Board members Sally Thomas and Anne Mallek both served on the committee as a link to the Board through the process.  Tom Loach served on the committee to represent the Planning Commission. There were fourteen members on the committee that helped them through the process.          In the summer they had developed the guiding principles.  They have reviewed a number of concept plans, which have been shared through Planning and Zoning for feedback.  There is a letter in the packet from Wayne Cilimberg that describes the Community Development perspectives.  They have shared the designs and options with the public on at least two occasions.  They have checked in with the Architectural Review Board as well to give them a sense of where they are going.  In all cases they received very positive feedback.          There were opportunities and constraints as relate to the site. The two most significant ones had to do with having the street presence.  They had a balancing act in trying to create a library that very well connects to the streetscape, downtown and Crozet Avenue, but also functions well for the library by allowing patrons to park their cars in the parking lot and enter the library in that fashion.  They also wanted to maximize parking.  Their current configuration now provides three times the number of spaces required by zoning.          Operational constraints that needed to be balanced also included things like staffing.  There are a number of models that they could have come forward with as it relates to a good library building, but some of them would involve significantly more staffing then others.  They had to be mindful of that as well as visual surveillance, adequate delivery and access for trucks and a drop off function for library users.        Ms. Melanie Hennigan, architect, continued the PowerPoint presentation and explained the process.  She started with the aerial photo of Crozet and gave an overview of the design process for the Crozet Library.  (See PowerPoint Presentation)         The constraints on the site had to do with accessibility and the slope of the topography.  The site is actually quite steep.  From along Crozet up to the eastern end the site falls probably more than 30’.  Under the building itself the site is going to fall about 10’ to 15’ depending on where they stop and start the building.  She explained the proposed building plan schemes they looked at in August and why some schemes were selected for further development. There were staffing issues associated with the schemes involving two levels due to book deliveries and the need to construct two elevators.          The library has expressed a desire to put as much of the library on one level as possible from day one.  To do their due­diligence as designers, they also looked at two­floor schemes, including the idea of designing 10,000 square feet over 10,000 square feet because that could be a very economical way to approach the construction of the building.  While one could argue that it would be a cost effective way to construct the building, it created a very challenging solution for operating and organizing the library.  So again they would have needed workspaces on two levels that would have doubled the staff         At the time they got the survey back they could understand what the actual grades of the site were.  It is a very challenging site since the site has a tremendous amount of grade change going up the hill.  One of the things that they had to figure out is where people and cars enter the site if they have a two­story building.  Everyone is acknowledging that they need to come in from Crozet Avenue and also from the upper parking level.  They have to leave enough space in the section to make that lower level the appropriate height whether it has library spaces or community spaces.  It has to be the right height, which is between 15’ and 20’.          When they met with Planning staff there were four possible entrances that they studied.  One would line up directly across from the proposed alley in the Master Plan.  If they were to enter the site there they would not be able to make a building that was the size that they would like it to be on that upper level.  If they do enter there they would not be entering at a high enough elevation to get an appropriate height at the lower level.  Another option would move the entrance eastward (up Main Street) to 64.  Good site design requires that they line up entrances across from each other so that drivers can make eye contact with each other.  If they were to enter at entrance one they would have to relocate the alley.  That was deemed undesirable with respect to the Master Plan.          A third option was entering still further west (slightly east of option 1) but they would actually lose some parking spaces and not have as efficient a parking lot flow.  The fourth option would continue Main Street to almost the eastern end of the site and enter there, which allows the appropriate handicap accessible fall to the parking area, an accessible entrance into the library, and a high enough elevation for the second floor to have a usable height for the lower level.  So that entrance location was chosen for future development.          She explained the concept plan they chose. In September they started organizing the library on one major level.  They did look at a split­level scheme.  But, the split­level scheme would enter on both levels with library space on both levels.  But it would require two major entrances for the library and would double the staffing.  That was the deal breaker.  They had to find a way to have the library engage Crozet Avenue and Main Street, engage the parking, and work for all directions.          She explained the vision for the library which had the majority of its space on the upper level.  The Master Plan calls for at least a two­story building.   From Crozet Avenue with the lower level and the taller one­story above it will look like it is two to three stories tall.  She explained the proposed layout as displayed on the slides and study model.  She presented a photo simulation of how the library would look like from the street. The corner would be very glassy and would draw people in. The tower elements act like small pavilions that break up the mass of what would otherwise be a very large building.  They introduce vertical proportions that are far more residential in character and help reduce the scale of the building.    Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commission.   Mr. Morris asked for further review of the interior and where things are going to be since the outside looks good.   Ms. Hennigan presented slides of the interior area or the floor plan of the library on the upper level.  They want a gracious entrance on the site plan so that they can receive buses, vans, cars and bicycles.  There is also a delivery function that the library engages in as many times as twice a day when a van arrives to deliver and pick up books.    Mr. Morris said that the space seems grossly inadequate for young adults and the children’s programs, which are extremely popular at the Jefferson Madison Regional Library.  He thought the amount of space needs to be beefed up tremendously.  In talking with librarians in the area they would say another 10,000 square feet would do very nicely.   Ms. Hennigan said that she could not comment.    Mr. Morris said on the lower level they have another almost 12,000 square feet.  He did not know how that could be incorporated with the upper area.   Ms. Hennigan said that the upper level is 18,000 square feet.  The lower level is about one­third of the upper level.  So it is not 12,000 square feet.  It is about 6,000 or 7,000 square feet downstairs.     Mr. Morris noted that from what he had seen there was a very active young adult population out in Crozet that will eat up what is proposed right away.  They have a growing population that will increase the number of children that again will eat up the space.  They are talking about a retirement community that is very active.  He thought that they were building a structure that is obsolete before the first person gets in it.   Ms. Strucko invited the librarians to come forward and address this issue.   John Halliday, Director of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library, said that they have been pleased with the way this process has moved along.  As Mr. Letteri said they have top­rate architects working on this.  Also Mr. Letteri has done a good job of bringing them to this point.  To address Mr. Morris’ concern about the size of the library he noted that the footprint is about 18,000 square feet.  It is about 3,000 square feet larger than Northside Library.  The square footage does meet State standards for the size of the public library based on the population that it would be serving through about 2026.  He thought that they have sufficient square footage.  But, they do agree with the comment about the young adult area and he would let Wendy Saz address that.   Wendy Saz, manager of Crozet Library, noted that Mr. Morris was really on the ball and in tune with the community.  These are issues that they struggled with.  Todd Willoughby at their last meeting said that he was going to work on the teen section, between the children’s and the adults’ sections. They are envisioning bistro seating for teen computer stations, which will take up a little less space.  She hoped to put in some shelving that would designate it as a teen area rather than just different carpeting.  Another thing they wanted was a group study room that could be used for a conference room for adults or a small group study room for teens who like to get together and work on projects or to socialize keeping it quiet.  So they located the group study room in the adult area and the teen area would be very close to that glassed­in group study room.  It will be used by teens and adults.  She assumed that persons would sign up for its use.  They compromised on that.    Ms. Saz continued that their dream for the children’s programming was to have a whole separate story time room for children.  While they could not fit that into the plan and have room for their stacks, regular meeting rooms, and work space, they located the general meeting room close to the lobby with two entrances.  For storytime purposes parents can enter from the children’s area or from an entrance closer to the lobby area.  There is going to be a wall that can be pulled out so the room can be separated into two rooms.  Actually they will have two spaces that can be used for children programs.  There will be a kitchen off of the area in case there is a children’s program that uses art so there will be a sink.  Adult programs will be able to utilize the kitchen for snacks.  It would be nice to have a children’s computer area separated from the teen and adult computer area.  They worked with the architects to get as much visibility as they can from their single service desk.  The stacks have been angled so that they can have visibility to all areas. There is a beautiful reading lounge that will have a fire place.    Mr. Morris asked in the design stage how tall the stacks will be.  He was thinking about noise compression and so forth.    Ms. Saz replied that it would be 42” for adults and 42” and 66” for the children.   Ms. Porterfield noted that as a follow­up to the size that it was stated that it is going to be okay until 2026. She asked if this was one of the projects that are going to be delayed due to the current economics.  She asked how long it is going to be delayed.   Mr. Letteri replied that it was about a two year delay.  It would commence July 1, 2011.   Ms. Porterfield assumed that it would take a couple of years to build it moving it to 2013.  She asked if now they were only to have 12 years and it is going to be too small.   Mr. Halliday replied that part of the plan is to have this expandable to 20,000 square feet so potentially the downstairs area could be used in the future.  Perhaps the meeting room upstairs could be moved downstairs in 2026.  There will be room downstairs for expansion, but he was not quite sure how that would be handled.  There is a hope to have more space downstairs than just the 2,000 square feet.  That all depends on what is downstairs and how much space will be there.  But, there is space for some expansion in this plan.   Ms. Porterfield asked if the current economic situation and the decisions of the Board of Supervisors could be taken into account with this particular design or can it be worked on a little bit to give it some more life at the end of 2026 in just knowing that it is not going to happen tomorrow.    Mr. Strucko asked if the constraint was the terrain or budget.   Mr. Halliday replied that it was really the site.  To have parking and the library on the site he felt that they have the best plan that they can come up with.  The only way he knew to get more square footage with this plan would be to have more square footage downstairs.    Ms. Hennigan said if the library floor (2nd floor) expanded, parking would be lost.   Mr. Strucko asked if there was a minimum parking requirement.   Mr. Letteri said that the plan provides for approximately 60 spaces, or about three times the required amount required by zoning.   Mr. Strucko asked if the intent is to use the parking for something other than the library or maybe a downtown overflow parking area.   Mr. Halliday replied that the parking will be shared.  They feel that most of the 60 spaces will be used for library purposes especially if there is a meeting going on.  From the library standpoint they would not want to see the parking given up for square footage.  However, maybe cars will be a lot smaller in 2026 and they won’t need as much.  At this point they feel that this is the best plan they could come up with this particular site.    Ms. Monteith said that when they looked at the section that showed the building from Crozet Avenue back to the parking lot it looked like the grades were pretty high.  She assumed that the dashed line is the grade.   Ms. Hennigan said that is actually the Main Street grade.   Ms. Monteith asked if she was saying that in the future they would propose to have building expansion by going behind the meeting room area in the first floor and excavate.  She felt that is pretty unconventional.   Ms. Hennigan replied that they would not come back later and dig a bigger basement. What Mr. Halliday was saying is that the greatest opportunity for expansion right now with 60 parking spaces and with an 18,000 square foot upper level footprint is at the lower level.   Ms. Monteith said that basically it was a core and shell for a portion of the front level.   Ms. Hennigan said that if the question was if they had done 25,000 on the upper level and still does 6,000 or 7,000 square feet below or a partial basement that they could do a larger upper level, but it would reduce the parking.  It would be the idea of a bigger building, but fewer parking spaces.   Mr. Loach agreed with the other Commissioners that he could see the need to expand that lower level area.  The Steering Committee has talked about it. He sees the Planning Commission reinforcing what the committee has said ­ that it should be expanded.  He thought that the original intent of the library was 20,000 square feet.  To expand it would fall within the original parameters.   Ms. Hennigan said that it was actually in reverse.  The original library was 15,000 square feet and then it got expanded to 20,000 square feet when they signed their contract.   Mr. Halliday said that they would like to have the largest library they can afford.  He thought that the plan was to have an alternative in the bid to have a larger downstairs.  They would like to see as much downstairs space as possible.  Again, that is future library expansion space.   Mr. Loach noted that they will only get one shot at this.   Mr. Letteri said that the overriding objective of the Board was to construct a library based upon the studies that were done and the population growth which would provide adequate space for the foreseeable future and expansion space for the future.  That was what really governed the budget and how they came about it.  There were offers from the Crozet Library Fund Raising Community to raise additional funds so that they can expand the shell size that would allow for this expansion space.  One of the things that the committee is really looking at right now is that, given that this configuration for the one floor that wants to be 18,000 square feet is to make for a functional operational library, there is an opportunity in that lower level to excavate further into the building, create shell space at a lower cost that could be later expanded and used by the library exceeding even some of the original estimates for what the library might need in the long term.   Mr., Strucko asked how many people this proposed library would serve.   Ms. Hennigan replied that it was 0.7 square foot per person. She noted that there are options for the lower level for 2,500, 4,700 and 7,700 square feet.  The current picture shows the middle number, or the 4,700 square feet.  If they build a 20,000 square foot total, with 18,300 upstairs, the lower level would only go to where the dashed line is, which is too skinny and not enough useable space.  So they went out to the next structural bay, which is 4,700 square feet.  If they go to the next structural bay they could get a lower level that is 7,700 square feet.  They are all saying that it is worth on bid day asking the contractor to price out the lower level to several of these different structural bays just to see how much they can afford.   Mr. Loach asked if the 4,700 square feet is being proposed with the potential on bid day for 7,000 square feet and not the lower 2,500 square feet.   Ms. Hennigan replied that is the thing they are recommending.  She could not say that it is being proposed yet because it would take the base square footage of the building over the 20,000 square feet that has been approved.  It would be 18,000 plus 4,000 square feet, which is 22,000 square feet.  But, it is the direction they are recommending.   Mr. Strucko said that the functional library space is the upper floor, which is 18,000 square feet.   Ms. Hennigan replied that it was the 18,300 square feet.   Mr. Strucko noted that if the metric is correct 0.7 citizens per square foot is about 25,000 people.   Mr. Morris noted that a lot of the 18,000 square feet is staff area, which is needed.  But, it takes away from patron space.  It is not really 18,300 square feet for patrons, which is what the 0.7/person should provide.  It is a lot less than that.   Mr. Halliday noted that the 0.7 square foot per person, which is the State standard, does include the staff area.   Ms. Joseph asked why some of the space on the lower level was designated tenant space.  She asked if the space would be rented out to different commercial entities to have revenue, possibly to use for books.   Ms. Hennigan replied that is something the county has been studying.  It is not their domain.   Mr. Letteri noted that it was expansion space.  They are entertaining any number of possible uses.  Their objective is to make for an attractive and active space downstairs so that on opening day it can make for an active two­story library.  It may be meeting rooms.  It could be possible offices for various government type or non­profit type arrangements.  It might be a tenant arrangement.  They have not explored that fully yet.   Ms. Joseph noted that was a possibility.   Mr. Letteri agreed.  In whatever use is decided it would certainly want to be such that it could be quickly rendered library space if indeed they need that space and could afford to expand to it.   Ms. Joseph said that it also says that they are building Main Street back to the entrance to the parking area.  She asked what standards they are building Main Street to.  Is it going to be more like a driveway and access way or a full blown Main Street?   Mr. Letteri replied that it would be built to State specifications.   Ms. Joseph asked if it would be up to that point and then whoever comes behind us will finish up.   Mr. Strucko asked if the budget includes developing Main Street and stubbing it out to the entrance to the parking lot.   Mr. Letteri replied that it does.   Mr. Cilimberg commented that because of our understanding that operationally the library would prefer using one floor or the 18,000 square feet planning staff has been concerned that they would have a first floor on Crozet Avenue that would essentially just be space and nothing more and not a connected piece to the library on the main floor.  So that is one of the reasons why investigating potential uses of the space should include engaging Crozet Avenue.  It ought not to be a wall or an open and vacant space.   Ms. Joseph felt that was very important.  She had heard statement upon statement that they had to design it this way because they have a small staff.  They can’t have the downstairs because their staff is too small.  In essence the building itself is almost designed around the fact that they have a very lean staff.  She kept thinking how much more it would cost to utilize this bottom by hiring a number of staff people that they might need to actually use this building.   Mr. Halliday said that it does cost a lot, which was part of the Steering Committee’s discussion, especially with the split level arrangement that they all liked.  That was their top choice.  But, it would have driven up the operating cost over $100,000 a year.  That really adds up over the life of the building.  Maybe by the year 2026 the county will have a lot more money for the library staff and they can have two floors.   Ms. Joseph noted that they were doing LEED Certification.  She asked if they were doing anything with solar panels or anything else on the side of the building.   Ms. Hennigan replied that solar panels are a good idea, but was an expensive first cost.  They can leave space on the roof for them.  There are grants out there that the county and library could apply for.  They have other libraries like in Howard County, Maryland that have actually received the grants to get the solar panels.   Ms. Porterfield asked if they use the lower level as non­related business will they secure the library itself.   Ms. Hennigan referred to the plan that they could operate the library from in the first several years.  If the county has more money to staff the library, then they could afford to connect to the lower level. When they do connect to the lower level they are going to design a knock­out panel in the floor so that they can create a stair that connects down.  They are going to design a shaft that will exist from day one.  But they are not going to necessarily pay for or buy the elevator on day one. An elevator is going to be $60,000 to $70,000.  The idea is that right now in the short term the lower level would operate fairly distinct and separate from the library.  It is not like there is no connection.  There is a connection with a fire stair, which the staff could easily use in order to use the lower level.  If the county envisions a use for downstairs that user group could connect to the library through the fire stair.  If there is money in the budget they could easily put the elevator in the contract as an alternative to be added.  She felt if they could afford it on day one that would be terrific.  There are a lot of things that are competing for the same dollars.   Mr. Strucko asked if there were additional questions for the presenters.   Ms. Monteith said she was trying to understand what would be the primary entrance in the first phase of the library.   Ms. Hennigan replied that the primary entrance would be accessed from a sidewalk connection to Main Street for pedestrians, going to the doorway in the middle of the east side of the building.  The parking lot would use the same doorway. The entrance to the lower level is another entity which the library can’t control right now, but is envisioned at the Crozet Avenue site of the building.   Ms. Monteith asked if she was saying if you entered from Crozet Avenue as a pedestrian that you would not be able to get to the second floor.   Ms. Hennigan replied that right now that is the idea.  What they are seeing is a future stair and a future elevator.   Ms. Monteith expressed concern about that since it does not seem very pedestrian friendly.  To make the primary entrance serviceable mainly to cars just seems like it is not going to serve the building very well.    Mr. Halliday said that was a major topic of discussion by the Steering Committee.  There were a number of reasons why they decided on this configuration.  One was that actually they think that in this plan Main Street is the main entrance.  The future plans for Crozet plan to have Main Street as the main street.  It is not a very far walk from the corner of Crozet Avenue and Main Street to the stairway that leads to the main entrance.  From that standpoint they think that it is pedestrian friendly. Probably the main reason for not having the connection between the Crozet entrance and the library is because the Committee looked at studies that were done nationwide on library buildings, listened to expert opinions on how libraries should be designed and found that really the general rule for libraries is that there should be one entrance.  If you think of libraries you have been in probably 99 percent of them did have just one entrance.  There are a number of reasons for that.  One is for security.   Ms. Monteith noted that she knew that well because she had been involved with the design of many libraries.  Her concern was that they were saying that Main Street is the main entrance of the building, but they don’t have a main entrance of the building on Main Street.  Secondly, she felt that it was a missed opportunity to put the primary entrance for the building against the parking lot.   Ms. Hennigan said that there was a canopy that comes out along the library. There will be an entry canopy right there with the words “LIBRARY” on it.  They believe that will be a main entrance off of Main Street.    Ms. Joseph asked if they had an elevation of the east side of this where the actual entrance is off the parking area.      Ms. Hennigan replied that they have not developed that elevation yet – only thru street elevations.   Mr. Strucko reiterated that the Commission collectively has a concern about where this entrance is.   He invited public comment.   Bill Schrader said that he serves on the Crozet Community Advisory Council and the Library Steering Committee.  He has been involved with the library since they did the site selection and the architect selection. He had sat through a lot of meetings and listened to a lot of discussion about the library.  He would like to reinforce the idea that the concept seen tonight presents the best opportunity to give us a world­class library in Crozet considering the elevations and topography that they had to work with.  The Steering Committee spent several meetings regarding what to do with the lower level and how they invite people into the library with an entrance off the parking lot versus an entrance off Crozet Avenue.  Even though Crozet Avenue is the main street as opposed to the new Main Street there will be no parking in front of that building.  There will be no turn offs.  It is just a two lane road with a new streetscape.  There will be no temporary parking area.  People will either be walking from the post office, restaurants or other shopping areas to get to the library coming up Crozet Avenue and turning onto Main Street or they will be parking in the parking lot.  His feeling is that most people will be parking in the parking lot as they do their work and shopping around town.   In their minds that will be the main entrance to the library.  He would hope that the Commission would support the concept they have seen tonight so that they can deliver this library without delay, hopefully even getting some (Federal) stimulus money in order to get it sooner than 2013 and to meet their concerns.   There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment and asked the Planning Commission to provide feedback and comment.  He asked how they should proceed.   Mr. Letteri said that they will proceed by considering the general feedback.  They welcome other comments.  Staff will bring the comments back to Steering Committee for further discussion and evaluation and try to incorporate them to the degree that they can into their preferred option. They would also be sharing the information with the community in Crozet in an Open House on February 19 at which time they will have an opportunity to received public comments.  This will also be shared with the Board of Supervisors on March 4 to gain their insight and feedback. Then perhaps in March or April they will be back with the final recommended plan to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.    Mr. Strucko noted that Mr. Morris’ concern was the adequacy of space particularly in serving a community that could potentially expand to the full build­out capacity of Crozet.  Also, there was some concern about the entrance or pedestrian access from the rear parking lot versus more from Main Street.  He asked if there were other concerns expressed.   Ms. Joseph added the following comments on the proposed library design:           Bike racks should be located somewhere on the site.         Acknowledging the problem with money and the site constraints, it was a disappointment not to see the main entrance off of Crozet Avenue.  One of the elevations along Crozet Avenue makes it look like the entrance where the pedestrian would want to walk in to see the library, particularly with the glass.  It was a disappointment and not very pedestrian­friendly to have to go around to the back door to get into the library entrance.          She agreed with Mr. Cilimberg’s written comments, which speak to activity on the street.  For a fully functional two­story building design at a minimum, the building should provide two functioning, accessible floors as viewed from Crozet Avenue with visible, accessible and usable space on the Crozet Avenue level.    The Planning Commission provided input on the design concepts to date, as summarized below:         There was a concern about the adequacy of the space being proposed, especially considering the potential full build­out capacity of Crozet.          Acknowledging the problem with funding and the site constraints, the Commission was disappointed not to see the main library entrance off of Crozet Avenue.  It was noted that one of the elevations along Crozet Avenue makes it look like the entrance where the pedestrian would want to walk into the library, particularly with the glass.   It was not very pedestrian friendly to have to go around to the back of the building to a more vehicular­ oriented entrance from a parking lot off of Main Street.          Bike racks should be located somewhere on the site.         A fully functional two­story building design is preferable.  At a minimum, the building should provide two functioning, connecting and accessible floors as viewed from Crozet Avenue with visible, accessible and usable space on the Crozet Avenue level.            Staff will take the Commission comments back to Library Design Steering Committee for their consideration in the continuing design work.   The Planning Commission took a break at 7:19 p.m.     Return to exec summary