HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-5-06
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MAY 6, 2009
9:00 A.M., LAN E AU DITORIU M
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recogniz ing May 9 through May 17, 2009 as National Tourism Week.
b. Proclamation recogniz ing May 10 through May 20, 2009 as N ational Law Enforcement Officer’s
W eek.
c . Proclamation recogniz ing May 4 through May 10, 2009 as Public Serv ice Recognition W eek.
d. Business Appreciation W eek.
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. Action Items:
8. Competitive Pool Update
9. SEEA Grant Proposal Update.
10. Resource Management Review Update.
11. Albemarle County D ebt Financing 2009.
11:00 a.m. Information Items:
12. FY09 Third Quarter Financial Report.
11:15 a.m. – Public H earings:
13. FY09 Annual Plan for the adminis tration of the Housing Choic e Voucher Program.
14. The Field School of C harlottes ville Lease of the Old C rozet Elementary School.
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.
c . Draft U nited Jefferson Area Mobility Plan (U nJam) 2035.
2:45 a.m. Work Sessions:
19. Joint Meeting with Planning C ommission, re: W ind turbines.
20. Stormwater Regulator Considerations.
21. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
22. Adjourn to May 13, 2009, 4:00 p.m.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: May 21, 2009; February 11 and February 25, 2009.
7.2 Set public hearing for June 3, 2009, for proposed lease agreement between the C ounty and the Old Crozet
Sc hool Arts to lease a portion of the former Old Crozet Elementary School.
7.3 To set a public hearing for June 10, 2009, to consider a proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter
3, Sections 3201, 3205, 3301 and 3305 to change the references to the department of c ommunity
development.
7.4 To set a public hearing for June 10, 2009, to consider a proposed ordinance to amend County Code
Appendix A1, Sections A.1103 and A.1104 to c hange the references to the director of community
development.
7.5 ACE Acquisition of D utnell Easement.
7.6 FY 2009 Appropriations.
7.7 Federal LowIncome Housing Tax C redit Applic ations for Treesdale Park and Piedmont Heights.
7.8 County Exec utiv e’s Authorization to Apply for and Accept Grants.
7.9 Resolution to accept road(s) in Tanager W oods Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways .
7.10 FY 2009/10 Appropriations Resolution.
FOR IN FORMATION:
7.11 BoardtoBoard, May 2009, Monthly C ommunic ations Report from School Board, School Board Chairman.
7.12 Comparative Report of Local Government Rev enues and Ex penditures for Year Ended June 30, 2008 (on
file in C lerk's office).
7.13 Proffer Management FY09 Third Quarter Cas h Proffer Report.
7.14 2008 Annual R eport of the C itizens Advisory C ommittee for the Charlottesv illeAlbemarle Public Defender
Office.
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
National Tourism Week
May 9 through May 17, 2009
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry in Albemarle County is vital to our economic stability and growth;
and it contributes significantly to our County’s cultural and social climate; and
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry supports the vital interests of the Albemarle County community,
contributing to our employment, economic prosperity, international travel and relations, peace,
understanding and good will; and
WHEREAS, in 2007 the Virginia Tourism Corporation reported $268.0 million in tourism revenues attributed to
County businesses; and approximately 4,764 people work in fields in Albemarle County directly
related to the hospitality industry, including lodging, food service, and attractions; and
WHEREAS, the Tourism Fund in Albemarle County provides significant monetary support to the County’s
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program which preserves and protects critical rural
resources; and
WHEREAS, every citizen in Albemarle County benefits from the tourism industry; and it is fitting that we
recognize the importance of travel and tourism.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, David Slutzky, Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of
May 9 through May 17, 2009
as
NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
in Albemarle County, and I call upon all citizens to recognize the value of the tourism industry in
our community and to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Signed and sealed this 6th day of May, 2009.
Return to regular agenda
NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S WEEK
WHEREAS, May 15 of each year was proclaimed "Police Officer's Memorial Day" by President John F.
Kennedy on October 1, 1962, in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous
deeds, have lost their lives or become disabled in the performance of duty; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is faithfully served by a professional and committed Police Department
whose men and women are dedicated to providing outstanding service to the community;
and
WHEREAS, these days of increasing fear, rising crime, reckless acts of violence, recall to our minds
President Kennedy's words of praise for these officers as "truly men and women of courage,
judgment and dedication”; and
WHEREAS, we share his sentiments and agree that it is time to remind the public of the daybyday
heroism of our officers, both those on active duty and those who have given their lives in the
line of duty; and
WHEREAS, we will be recognizing Police Memorial Day in Albemarle County with a special ceremony to
be held on May 15, 2009;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David Slutzky, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors, do hereby declare and set aside the week of
May 10 through May 20, 2009, as
NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S WEEK
and call upon all citizens to recognize the significant efforts and accomplishments of these
officers.
Signed and sealed this 6th day of May, 2009.
Return to regular agenda
Public Service Recognition Week 2009
WHEREAS, Americans are served every single day by public servants at the federal, state, county, and
city levels. These unsung heroes do the work that keeps our nation working; and
WHEREAS, public service is among the most demanding and noble of professions; and
WHEREAS, Public Service Recognition Week is observed annually to celebrate and recognize the
valuable service that millions of public servants provide to the nation; and
WHEREAS, over 500 Albemarle County Local Government employees work tirelessly throughout the
year to serve our residents, businesses, and visitors, providing them with the highest level
of customer service and maintaining careful stewardship of the resources with which they
have been entrusted; and
WHEREAS, without these public servants at every level, continuity would be impossible in a democracy
that regularly changes its leaders and elected officials; and
WHEREAS, we appreciate the many accomplishments and contributions made daily by these public
servants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
proclaim
May 4 through May 10, 2009 as
Public Service Recognition Week
and call upon the citizens of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens across the
County to recognize crucial role of public employees.
Signed and sealed this 6th day of May, 2009.
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
The Old Crozet School Arts Lease of the Old
Crozet Elementary School
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize a public hearing for the propos ed lease
agreement between the County and the Old
Crozet Sc hool Arts for a portion of the Old
Crozet Elementary School
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick,
Shadman, Freitas, Shepherd, and Ms. Ragsdale
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Old Crozet Elementary School was built in 1924 and was used as a public school until 1990. From 1991
through 2007 the Charlottesville W aldorf School leased the facility. The Old Crozet Elementary Sc hool has been
vacant sinc e September 2007 when the Charlottesville W aldorf School lease expired. A reuse study w as conducted
and the final report was presented to the Board on September 3, 2008. The Board directed staff to continue to
explore long term uses , as w ell as interim uses of the property, until a long term use of the building is determined. A
public hearing is scheduled on May 6, 2009 to consider leasing a portion of the building and property to the Field
School of Charlottesv ille.
Virginia Code § 15.21800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to leasing Countyowned
property.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage the County ’s Grow th and D evelopment.
Master Planning Direc tional Statement: “Adapts and reuses sites rather than abandoning them.”
DISCU SSION :
In purs uing the Board’s request to explore an interim use of the Old Crozet Elementary School by the private sector,
staff s olicited and received five propos als. Staff evaluated those propos als based on the following criteria:
• use in relation to prox imity to elementary school and residential area
• R2 zoning compatibility
• propos ed space needs (square footage)
• compatibility w ith desires of community per reuse study
• maintenance responsibilities
• utility c osts
• subleasing proposed
• use of grounds
• propos ed term of lease
• propos ed rental fee
• compatibility w ith Crozet Master Plan
• facility upgrade needed/required
• full time vs. part time use
• timeliness to occupy building
Based on these criteria, tw o proposals were deemed potentially suitable and advantageous to the County’s goals:
the Field School of Charlottesville and the Old Crozet School Arts (OCSA). Becaus e neither entity proposes to use
the entire facility, it is pos sible to lease to both, max imiz ing the use of the facility.
After dis cussion with OCSA, staff drafted the attached lease agreement to lease 3,955 square feet of the building for
an annual rent of $15,068.55. That figure is based on an annual square footage rental rate of $2.79 plus a utility rate
share of $1.02 per square foot. This rate is higher than what was submitted in OCSA’s original proposal, w hich w as
free us e of the facility and payment for utilities. This negotiated rental rate is equivalent to the prior C harlottesville
Waldorf School’s lease rate increased by the rental adjus tment formula in that lease. Staff decided to use this
methodology to determine the rental rate for several reas ons:
• consistency w ith previous leasing practice for this fac ility
• the lac k of features ass ociated with a modern school building (e.g., central air conditioning, fire suppression
system)
that would command a higher rate
• the lac k of comparable facilities
Highlights of the lease provisions are:
• one year term with option to renew
• landlord to provide water, sewer, elec tricity, and heating services
• tenant to provide telephone, janitorial, garbage dispos al, snow remov al and all other services
• tenant to provide routine maintenanc e and repairs, not to exceed $2,500.00 in any one year
• tenant may, with County permission, and at the ex pense of the tenant, make minor alterations and aesthetic
improvements to the fac ility
• tenant may deduct from the rent during the first term of the lease c ertain preapproved costs incurred in making
alterations, additions , and improvements
The intended use of the facility will require an amendment to the existing special use permit w hich c urrently prohibits
students from driving themselves to the school. The proposed amendment goes before the Planning Commission
on May 5, 2009. Approval of the leas e w ould be contingent upon obtaining the amendment to the special use
permit.
Consideration of the OC SA lease is not dependent on the proposed Field School of Charlottesville lease.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approval and implementation of this leas e w ould result in a gross inc rease in revenue of $15,068.55. Coupled
with the Field School of Charlottesville proposal, the County would realize gross increase in revenue of
$57,778.65. The County currently spends approximately $29,214.25 annually from the D epartment of General
Servic es operating budget for routine maintenance and utilities.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize a public hearing on June 3, 2009 to receive public comment on the
proposed lease.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Old C rozet School Arts Lease Agreement
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County C ode – Ordinances to make tec hnical
amendments to C ounty Code Chapter 3 and
Appendix A1
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST: Set public
hearings to consider two proposed ordinances to
amend C ounty Code Chapter 3 and Appendix A
1 to rev ise references to County departments
and offic ers
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Graham, Cilimberg
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The phased reorganization of the former D epartment of Planning and C ommunity D evelopment, Department of Zoning
Servic es and Department of Engineering and Public W orks into a single Department of Community Development
began J uly 1, 2003. Since the reorganization, amendments to the C ounty’s Subdiv ision, W ater Protection and Zoning
Ordinanc es have updated references to the former departments and officers as substantive changes w ere made to
those ordinances. The updates to the Subdivision and Water Protection Ordinances are completed. The updates to
the Zoning Ordinance are ongoing as s ections of that ordinance are substantively amended.
Staff has identified two other chapters of the Albemarle C ounty Code whose referenc es to the former development
departments and offic ers require updating – Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Dis tric ts and Appendix A1,
Acquis ition of Conserv ation Easements Program.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents
DISCU SSION :
The tw o proposed ordinances would amend C hapter 3 and Appendix A1 of the Albemarle C ounty Code to revise the
references to County departments and officers so that they conform to c urrent department names, offic er titles and
assignments.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board set June 10, 2009 public hearings for the two attac hed ordinances.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A Proposed Ordinanc e (Chapter 3)
B Proposed Ordinanc e (Appendix A1)
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
OR DINA N CE N O. 0903( )
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, AG RICULTU RA L AN D FORESTAL DISTRICTS, ARTICLE
II, D ISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIG NIFICANCE, AN D ARTICLE III, D ISTRICTS OF LOCAL
SIGN IFICAN CE, OF THE CO DE O F THE CO UNTY OF A LBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 3,
A gricultura l a nd Foresta l Districts, Artic le II, D istric ts of State w ide Signific a nc e, and Artic le III, Districts of
Loc a l Significa nce , a re he re by amende d a nd re orda ine d a s follow s:
By A mending:
Se c. 3201 Crea tion of district
Se c. 3205 Withdrawal of la nd from district
Se c. 3301 Crea tion of district
Se c. 3305 Withdrawal of la nd from district
C hapte r 3. Agr ic ultur al and For e stal Distr icts
Ar ticle II. Districts of Statewide Signific ance
Division 1. Pr oce dur e
Se c. 3201 C r eation of distr ict.
Ea c h a gric ultural and forestal district of state w ide signific anc e shall be c re ate d a s provided he re in:
A. Applic ation. On or before Novembe r 1 of ea c h ye a r, a n owne r or ow ners of land ma y submit an
applica tion to the department of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment for the c rea tion of a distric t. An
applica tion sha ll be signe d by e a ch owne r of la nd to be include d within the district. The a pplic ation sha ll be
ma de on a form develope d a nd provide d by the dire c tor of the de pa rtme nt of planning a nd community
de velopme nt. The a pplic a tion form shall c omply w ith Virginia Code § 15.24303(D ). Ea c h submitte d a pplica tion
sha ll be ac c ompa nie d by: (i) a Unite d Sta te s G e ologic Surve y 7.5 minute topogra phic ma p that c lea rly show s the
boundarie s of the district and e a ch a ddition, a nd the bounda rie s of the propertie s ow ned by ea c h applic ant; (ii) a
V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Transporta tion gene ra l highway ma p for the loca lity that show s the ge ne ra l loc a tion of the
propose d distric t; a nd (iii) the fee required by sec tion 3206.
B. Initiation of application re vie w. Upon re c eipt of a n a pplica tion for a distric t, the planning
commission sha ll:
1. Acc e pt the a pplic a tion a t a re gula rly sc he duled me eting;
2. Direc t the de partment of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment to provide notice of the
applica tion pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.24307(1); and
3. Re fe r the a pplic a tion to the a dvisory c ommitte e for re vie w and c omme nt.
C. Ev aluation criteria. Ea c h a pplic a tion sha ll be e va lua te d a s provide d in Virginia Code
§ 15.24306.
D. Adv isory c om mitte e re vie w. Upon re fe rral of a n a pplic a tion by the planning c ommission, the
advisory c ommitte e shall review a nd ma ke re comme nda tions c onc erning the applica tion a nd a ny propose d
modifica tions to the pla nning commission.
E. Planning c omm ission re vie w. Upon re c eipt of the re port of the a dvisory c ommittee on an
applica tion, the pla nning c ommission sha ll conduc t a public he a ring on the a pplic ation and a ny proposed
modifica tions, a nd therea fte r re port its rec omme nda tions to the board of supe rvisors, a s provide d herein:
1. In c onduc ting its re vie w, the pla nning c ommission shall e va lua te the applica tion a s
provide d in paragra ph (C), a nd a lso sha ll conside r the pote ntial effec t of the distric t a nd a ny propose d
modifica tions on the county’s pla nning polic ie s and obje ctive s.
2. Upon c onc lusion of the public he aring, the planning c ommission sha ll dire ct the
de partme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity de velopment to publish and provide the notic e re quire d by Virginia Code §
15.24307.
F. Hearing by board of superv isors. Afte r re c eiving the re ports of the pla nning commission and the
advisory c ommitte e , the board of supervisors sha ll hold a public he a ring on the a pplic a tion a s provided in V irginia
Code § 15.24307.
G. Ac tion on applic ation. Afte r a public he a ring, the boa rd of supe rvisors ma y by ordina nc e c re ate
a district as a pplie d for or w ith any modific a tions it de e ms appropria te , a s provide d herein.
1. The ordina nc e sha ll be adopted pursua nt to the c onditions a nd proce dure s provide d in
V irginia Code § 15.24309, a nd sha ll be subjec t to se ction 3202(A ).
2. The board of supervisors sha ll ac t to e ither a dopt the ordinanc e c re ating the distric t, or
re je c t the a pplica tion, or a ny modific ation to it, by the Ma y 1 follow ing the Novembe r 1 by whic h the a pplic a tion
w a s re c eived.
(§ 2.12; 6883, §§ 3, 4, 5; 121687; 121191; 7192; Code 1988, § 2.12; Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code §§ 15.24303 through 15.24309.
Se c. 3205 Withdr aw al of land fr om distr ict.
An ow ner of la nd within a n a gric ultura l a nd foresta l district of sta te wide signific a nc e ma y request tha t
his la nd be w ithdra w n from the district, a s provide d herein:
A. Withdrawal by right by owne r. Afte r the planning c ommission initia tes the re view of a distric t
and before the boa rd of supe rvisors ac ts to c ontinue, modify or te rmina te the distric t, a n ow ner of la nd ma y
w ithdraw the land from the distric t by filing a written notic e of withdra w a l with the de pa rtme nt of planning a nd
community de ve lopme nt.
B. Withdrawal by right by c e rtain suc c essors to de ce ased owner. Within two ye ars of the da te of
de a th of a n ow ner of la nd within a distric t, a ny he ir, devisee , surviving cote na nt or pe rsona l repre sentative of a
sole ow ner of a ny fee simple inte re st of la nd ma y, upon the inheritanc e or de sc ent of suc h la nd, withdra w the
la nd from the district by filing a writte n notic e of w ithdrawal w ith the depa rtme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity
de velopme nt a nd the depa rtme nt of financ e.
C. Withdrawal in discre tion of board of supe rv isors. A t a ny time afte r the crea tion of a distric t, a n
owne r of la nd ma y re que st the boa rd of supe rvisors to w ithdra w all or pa rt of the la nd from the district, a s
provide d herein:
1. Filing of written request. The owne r shall file a writte n re que st for withdra w a l with the
de partme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity de velopment. The request sha ll ide ntify the owne r of the land, ide ntify the
la nd or pa rt thereof proposed to be w ithdrawn, sta te the rea son for the request, a nd addre ss the crite ria for re vie w
set forth in pa ra gra ph (C)(2). The re que st shall be a cc ompanied by the fe e require d in se c tion 3206.
2. Crite ria for rev iew. A re que st to withdra w la nd from a distric t may be a pprove d only if
the withdra wa l sa tisfie s a ll of the following c rite ria:
(a ) The propose d ne w la nd use w ill not have a signific ant a dve rse impa ct on
agric ultura l or fore sta l operations on la nd w ithin the distric t;
(b) The propose d ne w la nd use is c onsiste nt w ith the c omprehe nsive pla n;
(c ) The propose d la nd use is consistent with the public inte re st of the c ounty in tha t it
promotes the he a lth, safety or gene ral w e lfare of the c ounty, rathe r tha n only the proprie tary interest of the
owne r; a nd
(d) The propose d la nd use was not antic ipa te d by the owne r a t the time the land wa s
pla ce d in the district, a nd the re ha s bee n a cha nge in c ircumsta nc es sinc e that time .
3. Adv isory c om m itte e re vie w. Upon re c eipt of a re que st to w ithdra w , the advisory
committe e sha ll re view the re que st a nd re port to the pla nning c ommission its re commendations. In c onducting its
re vie w , the committe e sha ll eva lua te the re que st a s provide d in pa ra gra ph (C)(2).
4. Planning com mission rev ie w. U pon re ce ipt of the re port of the advisory c ommitte e on a
re quest, the pla nning commission sha ll c onduc t a public hea ring and e valuate the re que st a s provided in pa ra graph
(C)(2). The planning c ommission shall report to the boa rd of supe rvisors its re c ommendations, toge the r w ith the
advisory c ommitte e ’s rec omme nda tions.
5. Hearing by board. A fte r rec e iving the re ports of the pla nning c ommission a nd the
advisory c ommitte e , the board of supervisors sha ll hold a public he a ring on the re que st.
D. Effe c t of withdrawal. Land that is w ithdra w n from a district sha ll be subjec t to rollba c k taxe s a s
provide d in Virginia Code § 58.13237, a nd subje ct to a ll loc a l laws a nd ordinance s otherw ise prohibited from
applying to la nd w ithin a distric t, as provide d in se ction 3202(C). The w ithdra w al of la nd from a distric t shall
not itse lf te rmina te the distric t.
(Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVir ginia Code §§ 15.24307, 15.24314.
A r ticle III. Distr icts of Loc al Signific anc e
Division 1. Pr oce dur e
Se c. 3301 C r eation of distr ict.
Ea c h a gric ultural and forestal district of loc a l significa nce sha ll be crea te d a s provide d herein:
A. Applic ation. On or before Novembe r 1 of ea c h ye a r, a n owne r or ow ners of land ma y submit an
applica tion to the department of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment for the c rea tion of a distric t. An
applica tion sha ll be signe d by e a ch owne r of la nd to be include d within the district. The a pplic ation sha ll be
ma de on a form develope d a nd provide d by the dire c tor of the de pa rtme nt of planning a nd community
de velopme nt. Ea c h submitte d a pplic a tion shall be a cc ompanied by: (i) a ta x ma p showing the bounda ries of the
propose d distric t a nd ea c h a ddition, a nd the boundarie s of properties ow ned by ea ch applic ant; and (ii) the fe e
re quired by sec tion 3306.
B. Initiation of application re vie w. Upon re c eipt of a n a pplica tion for a distric t, the planning
commission sha ll:
1. Acc e pt the a pplic a tion a t a re gula rly sc he duled me eting;
2. Direc t the de partment of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment to provide notice of the
applica tion pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.24405(C)(1); a nd
3. Re fe r the a pplic a tion to the a dvisory c ommitte e for re vie w and c omme nt.
C. Evaluation c rite ria. Eac h a pplica tion shall be e va lua ted as provide d he re in:
1. All la nd within the district sha ll be de voted to agric ultura l, hortic ultural, fore stal or ope n
spa c e use at the time of the a pplica tion, exc ept that a re asonable amount of re sidentia l or othe r use , not exc ee ding
five (5) a c re s pe r distric t a nd re lated to the a gricultura l, horticultura l, fore sta l or ope n spac e use, ma y be
inc lude d.
2. If the la nd is loc ate d in the rural area s identifie d in the compre hensive plan, then the
owne r sha ll have first attempte d to inc lude the la nd in a new or e xisting a gric ultural and forestal district of
sta tewide significa nc e .
3. If the la nd is loc ate d in a deve lopme nt are a identifie d in the compre hensive plan, then a
distric t sha ll be crea te d only to protec t e ithe r:
(a ) O pe n spa ce re sourc es inc luding stre a m va lle ys, mountains, woode d a re as, buffe r
area s, or civic or c ultural fe ature s, as ide ntifie d on the growth a re as ope n spa ce c omposite ma ps; or
(b) Existing, bona fide agric ultural and/or fore sta l ope ra tions a s evide nc e d by a
history of inve stme nt in farm or fore st improvements, suc h a s the re gula r production a nd sa le of fa rm a nd/or
fore st products from the property during the la st five (5) ye a rs, or other c ommitments to c ontinuing a gricultura l or
fore sta l use in the distric t. In the e ve nt suc h e videnc e of commitme nt is not ava ilable, the owner sha ll submit a
notariz ed affida vit w hic h desc ribes the e xisting, bona fide a gricultura l a nd/or fore stal use of the prope rty. In
addition, if the la nd is use d for a gric ultura l or hortic ultura l purposes, the owne r sha ll ha ve obta ined, or shall ma ke
or ha ve made a re quest for, a current c onse rvation plan w ith the Na tural Re sourc e Conse rva tion Se rvic e . If the
la nd is used for fore stry, the ow ner shall ha ve obtaine d, or sha ll ma ke or ha ve made a re que st for, a current
conserva tion pla n with the V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Forestry or a private c onsulta nt.
4. Whe the r the la nd is c urre ntly enrolle d in the la nduse va lue a sse ssme nt progra m.
D. Adv isory c om mitte e re vie w. Upon re fe rral of a n a pplic a tion by the planning c ommission, the
advisory c ommitte e shall review a nd ma ke re comme nda tions c onc erning the applica tion a nd a ny propose d
modifica tions to the pla nning commission.
E. Planning c omm ission re vie w. Upon re c eipt of the re port of the a dvisory c ommittee on an
applica tion, the pla nning c ommission sha ll conduc t a public he a ring on the a pplic ation and a ny proposed
modifica tions, a nd therea fte r re port its rec omme nda tions to the board of supe rvisors, a s provide d herein:
1. In c onduc ting its re vie w, the pla nning c ommission shall e va lua te the applica tion not only
as provide d in pa ra gra ph (C), but a lso sha ll c onside r the pote ntia l effe ct of the district and a ny proposed
modifica tions on the county’s pla nning polic ie s and obje ctive s.
2. Upon c onc lusion of the public he aring, the planning c ommission sha ll dire ct the
de partme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity de velopment to publish and provide the notic e re quire d by se ction V irginia
Code § 15.24405(E).
F. Hearing by board of superv isors. Afte r re c eiving the re ports of the pla nning commission and the
advisory c ommitte e , the board of supervisors sha ll hold a public he a ring on the a pplic a tion a s provided in V irginia
Code § 15.24405(E).
G. Ac tion on applic ation. Afte r a public he a ring, the boa rd of supe rvisors ma y by ordina nc e c re ate
a district as a pplie d for or w ith any modific a tions it de e ms appropria te , a s provide d herein.
1. The ordina nc e sha ll be adopted pursua nt to the c onditions a nd proce dure s provide d in
V irginia Code § 15.24406, a nd sha ll be subjec t to the conditions provided in sec tion 3302.
2. The board of supervisors sha ll ac t to e ither a dopt the ordinanc e c re ating the distric t, or
re je c t the a pplica tion, or a ny modific ation to it, within one yea r from the N ove mber 1 by w hic h the applic ation
w a s re c eived.
(91593; Code 1988, §§ 2.1.12, 2.1.14; Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.24405.
Se c. 3305 Withdraw al of land from distric t.
After the pla nning commission initia te s the re vie w of a district and be fore the boa rd of supe rvisors a cts to
crea te , c ontinue , modify or te rminate the district, a n ow ner of land ma y withdraw the la nd from the district by
filing a written notic e of w ithdra w al w ith the de pa rtme nt of planning a nd community de ve lopme nt.
(Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
St at e law referenceVa. Code § 15.24407.
G o to next a tta c hment
Re turn to exe c summa ry
ORDIN ANCE NO. 09A.1( )
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND A PPEND IX A1, A CQ UISITIO N O F CO NSERVATION EASEMENTS
PRO G RA M, OF THE CO DE OF THE CO UNTY OF A LBEMARLE, VIRG INIA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Appendix A .1,
A c quisition of Conserva tion Ea se ments Program, is hereby a me nde d a nd re orda ine d a s follows:
By A mending:
Se c. A .1103 D e finitions a nd construc tion
Se c. A .1104 D e signa tion of progra m a dministra tor; powers a nd dutie s
Appe ndix A .1 Acquisition of Conser vation Ease ments Pr ogr am
Se c. A .1103. Definitions and constr uc tion.
A. The following de finitions shall a pply in the interpre tation and imple me nta tion of the ACE
progra m:
(1) Conserv ation ease m e nt. The te rm “c onserva tion e a seme nt” me ans a nonposse ssory
interest in one or more parce ls of one or more qua lified ea se me nt holde rs under se ction A .1109(E) ac quire d
under the O penSpa ce Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.11700 et seq.), whe the r the e ase me nt is a ppurtena nt or in
gross, volunta rily offe re d by a n ow ne r a nd ac quire d by purcha se pursua nt to the ACE progra m, imposing
limitations or a ffirma tive obligations for the purpose of re ta ining or protec ting natura l or ope nspa ce va lue s of the
pa rc el or pa rc els, a ssuring a vailability for agric ultura l, fore stal, re c re ationa l or openspa ce use , prote c ting natural
re sourc es, ma intaining or enhanc ing a ir or wa ter qua lity, or prese rving the historic a l, archite c tura l or
archae ologic a l a spe cts of the parce l or pa rc e ls.
(2) D ivision rights. The term “division rights” mea ns the numbe r of pa rc els into w hic h a
pa rc el could be divided and de ve loped w ith a dw e lling a nd a ll associa te d improve me nts a nd utilitie s, c ounting
both those parce ls less tha n twe ntyone (21) a c re s in size and those twe ntyone (21) a c re s in size or gre a te r tha t
could be c re a te d, by a byright c onventional de velopme nt unde r the rura l a re a s z oning district regula tions sta te d in
Se ction 10 of Cha pte r 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code , w here e ac h pote ntial pa rc e l could comply with
all a pplic a ble require me nts of Cha pter 14, Subdivision of La nd, and Cha pte r 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. Ea ch division right repre se nts the right to build a single dwe lling, re ga rdle ss of whe the r it is a prima ry or
sec ondary dw e lling.
(3) Forc e d sale . The te rm “forc ed sale ” me ans a sa le of a pa rc el w ith unuse d de ve lopme nt
rights in a manner pre scribe d by law tha t is conducte d unde r a judgment, order or the supervision of a c ourt of
compete nt jurisdic tion, other than a sale a rising from a partition a ction; a sale resulting from fore closure unde r the
la ws of the Commonwe a lth of Virginia; or, a sa le tha t is not the volunta ry ac t of the owne r but is c ompelled in
orde r to satisfy a de bt evide nce d by a mortga ge , judgme nt, or a tax lie n.
(4) H ardship. The term “ha rdship” me ans an e c onomic hardship, othe r tha n a c irc umsta nc e
ca using a force d sa le , e xpe rie nc e d by the owne r of the pa rc e l so a s to c ompel him to pla ce a parc e l with unused
de velopme nt rights for sa le or to use suc h deve lopment rights.
(5) Immediate family . The te rm “imme dia te family” me a ns an owne r’s spouse a nd his or
he r offspring re siding in the sa me house hold a s the owne r.
(6) O wne r. The te rm “ow ner” me ans the ow ner or ow ners of the fre ehold inte re st of the
pa rc el.
(7) Program adm inistrator. The te rm “progra m administra tor” me ans the direc tor of the
de partme nt of pla nning a nd c ommunity de velopment.
(8) Parc e l. The term “pa rc el” me a ns a lot or tra c t of la nd, la w fully re corded in the c lerk’s
office of the circ uit c ourt of the County of Albe marle .
(9) Retaine d div ision rights. The te rm “re ta ine d division rights” mea ns the numbe r of
pa rc els into which a pa rc e l subje ct to a conserva tion e ase me nt ma y be divide d a s provide d in sec tion A.1109(A ).
B. Construction. Bec ause a conserva tion e ase me nt ma y c ontain one or more parce ls, for purpose s
of the A CE progra m the term “pa rce l” shall include a ll parce ls c ove re d by, or propose d to be c overed by, the
conserva tion e ase me nt.
(Ord. 00A.1(1), 7500; O rd. 02A.1(1), 121102; O rd. 07A.1(1), 12507)
Se c. A .1104. Designation of pr ogram administr ator; power s and dutie s.
A. D e signation. The dire ctor of the de partment of pla nning and c ommunity deve lopment is he re by
de signate d a s the progra m a dministra tor.
B. Powers and dutie s. The progra m administra tor, or his de signee , shall a dministe r the A CE
progra m and sha ll ha ve the pow e rs a nd duties to:
1. Esta blish re asonable a nd sta nda rd proc edures a nd forms for the proper a dministration a nd
implementation of the progra m.
2. Promote the program, in c oope ra tion with the A CE c ommitte e, by providing educa tiona l
ma te rials to the public and c onducting informa tiona l mee tings.
3. Inve stigate a nd pursue , in conjunction w ith the c ounty exec utive, sta te, fede ra l a nd othe r
progra ms ava ila ble to provide a dditiona l public and priva te re sourc e s to fund the progra m a nd to maximize private
pa rticipa tion.
4. Eva lua te all a pplic a tions to de termine their e ligibility a nd their ra nking score , rank
applica tions ba sed on their ra nking score , a nd ma ke re commendations thereon to the A CE c ommitte e.
5. Dete rmine the number of division rights existing on ea c h pa rc e l subje ct to a n a pplica tion,
afte r obtaining the numbe r of theore tic al de velopme nt rights from the z oning a dministra tor.
6. Coordinate the prepa ra tion of a ppraisa ls.
7. Provide staff support to the a ppra isal re view c ommitte e , the ACE c ommittee and the
boa rd of supe rvisors.
8. Provide e duca tional ma te rials re ga rding othe r land protec tion programs to the public .
9. For e a ch conse rva tion e ase me nt, a ssure tha t the terms and c onditions of the de e d of
ea se ment a re monitore d a nd c omplie d with by c oordina ting a monitoring program with e ac h e a se me nt holder, and
if the other e a sement holders a re eithe r una ble or unwilling to do so, monitor a nd assure complia nc e with the
te rms a nd conditions of the de ed of e ase me nt.
(Ord. 00A.1(1), 7500; O rd. 02A.1(1), 121102)
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Acquisition of Dutnell Eas ement
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Approval to Purchase Dutnell
Easement
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Herrick, Cilimberg, Benish,
Goodall
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Pursuant to prior Board authorizations, the County has completed its purchases of the two highestranked
easements from the Acquisition of Conservation Eas ement (ACE) FY 08 applicant clas s The County completed its
purchas e of the highes tranked Anders on easement (247.8 acres) on J anuary 20, 2009, and of the sec ondranked
Garnett easement (71.5 acres) on December 29, 2008, On N ovember 5, 2008, the Board directed s taff to invite
offers to sell conservation easements from the remaining eligible applicants from the FY 08 class in priority order,
continuing through the applicant pool until available funding w as exhausted. Following the Board’s direction, staff
extended invitations to Mic hael Huds on and Leif Ridderv old, who owned the next highes tranked properties.
However, given the relatively limited funds remaining after the initial tw o purchases , each of them declined to sell an
easement. In response to staff’s invitation to the owner of the next highestranked property, Peter D utnell has
offered to sell an easement over his 152.9acre property (see Attachment “D”).
The role of the Board in inviting and ac cepting offers to sell conservation easements is provided under Albemarle
County Code section A.1111(C )(E). Specifically, under section A.1111(C), the Board is to invite eligible owners to
submit an offer to sell a conservation easement. Under s ection A.1111(D ), each owner who desires to sell and/or
donate a c onservation eas ement shall submit a written offer for consideration. Then, under section A.1111(E), the
Board is authorized to accept these offers to sell. The question presently before the Board is whether to accept the
current offer of Peter Dutnell to sell a conservation easement over his property for the previously approved price of
$118,000.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1 – “Protect and/or preserve the County’s rural c haracter”
Goal 2.2 – “Protect and/or preserve the County’s natural resources”
Objective 2.1: By June 30, 2010, increase the total combined acreage in permanent conservation easements and
qualifying public parkland by 30,000 acres (50%) using public and private means.
DISCU SSION :
The Board allocated $1,627,000 in funds to the ACE Program for FY 08. Following acquisition of the two highest
ranked eas ements, approximately $120,746 was left to fund any remaining, eligible easements. In addition to
County budgeted funds , the County has received a $49,900 grant from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (VDACS), which c an be applied to an easement acquisition. Because the eas ement value for
Hudson was $582,800, the County could offer only a small fraction (21%) of its value. As a result, Hudson rejected
the offer. Following H uds on in the ranking order was Riddervold, the fourth ranking applicant. Ridderv old rejected
the County ’s offer due to his objection to the easement valuation. This left Dutnell, the fifth ranked property in the
FY 08 c lass. With the $120,746 budgeted and the $49,900 available from the VDAC S grant, the County has
adequate funds to purchase the $118,000 D utnell eas ement. Purchase of an easement on the Dutnell property is
consistent with the ACE C ommittee’s ranking/purchas e recommendations and with the Board’s ac tion of November
5.
Acquis ition of the Dutnell easement w ould protect 152.9 acres of farm and forestland, of which 107 ac res is “prime”
farm and forestland, protec t 4,360 feet of common boundary with other protected lands, provide 1,200 feet of riparian
buffer on two perennial streams, and eliminate 12 development lots. This acquisition w ould bring the totals for the
FY 08 AC E easements to:
protection of 472 acres of farm and forestland
elimination of 32 development lots
7,578 feet of state road frontage
2,462 feet of riparian buffer on the Hardware R iver, 5824 feet on the South Fork of the H ardware R iver, and
1200 feet on tw o perennial streams
Natural H eritage resources were found within ¼ mile of tw o properties
Anderson lies in the Southern Albemarle Rural H istoric Dis trict
13,541 feet of common boundary w ith other protected lands
357 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
Anderson has significant tourism value
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of these cons erv ation easements comes from the C IPPlanningConservation budget (line
item 901081010580409) and the CIPTourismConservation budget (lineitem #901072030580416), a budget
previous ly approved by the Board to fund ACE properties with “touris m value.”
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution (Attachment E) to acc ept Mr. Dutnell’s offer to sell
an AC E easement over his property for $118,000.
ATTAC HMENTS
A Rank ing Order of ACE Properties for R ound 8 (FY 200708)
B Easement Values and Acquisition Cos ts for Round 8 (FY 200708)
C ACE Budget for Round 8 (FY 200708)
D Offer to Sell Dutnell Easement to County
E AC E Resolution Ac cepting Offer to Sell Dutnell Easement to County
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment “A”
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 8 (FY 2007-08)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Eligibility
Anderson, Margaret TM 101, Parcel 60 247.800 acres 53.89 points yes eligible
(Carters Bridge)
Garnett, Mercer TM 44, Parcel 4J 21.500 acres 31.59 points no eligible
(Earlysville) TM 44, Parcel 4K 50.000 acres
Total 71.500 acres
Hudson, Michael TM 100, Parcel 1 217.140 acres 31.41 points yes eligible
(North Garden)
Riddervold, Leif TM 118, Parcel 1 270.487 acres 30.09 points yes eligible
(Covesville)
Dutnell, Peter TM 99, Parcel 36C 89.883 acres 29.38 points yes eligible
(North Garden) TM 99, Parcel 38 62.998 acres
Total 152.881 acres
Hudson, Fred TM 29, Parcel 61 83.022 acres 27.76 points no eligible
(Free Union)
Thur man, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no eligible
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes eligible
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71.701 acres
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points yes eligible
(Crozet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roberston, Anna Lee TM 94, Parcel 20 106.400 acres 19.67 points no ineligible
(Milton)
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 18.89 points no ineligible
(North Garden)
Fallon, Marcia TM 119, Parcel 5 78.957 acres 17.30 points yes ineligible
(Schuyler) TM 119, Parcel 5A 5.992 acres
TM 119, Parcel 6A 15.500 acres
Total 100.449 acres
Ford, Barbara TM 6, Parcel 21 40.000 acres 15.68 points yes ineligible
(Brown’s Cove)
Cornwell, Oden TM 134, Parcel 7A 80.000 acres 12.72 points no ineligible
(Howardsville)
Number of New Applications: 10 Applications 1,230.279 acres
Number of Re-enrolled Applications: 4 Applications 498.171 acres
Number of Eligible Applications: 9 Applications 1,309.631 acres
Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria
making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the
following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins
a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop
protection.
Attachment B
Easement Values & Acquisition Costs for Round 8 (FY 2007-08)
Applicant Tax Map (Acreage) Points FMV Easement Value
Anderson, Margaret TM 101, Parcel 60 247.800 acres 53.89 points $2,973,360 $ 735,000
(Carters Bridge)
Garnett, Mercer TM 44, Parcel 4J 21.500 acres 31.59 points $2,000,000 $ 928,000
(Earlysville) TM 44, Parcel 4K 50.000 acres 705,280 (76%)
Total 71.500 acres
Hudson, Michael TM 100, Parcel 1 217.140 acres 31.41 points $2,175,000 $ 620,000
(North Garden) 582,800 (94%)
Riddervold, Leif TM 118, Parcel 1 270.487 acres 30.09 points $ 800,000 $ 40,000
(Covesville) 35,200 (88%)
Dutnell, Peter TM 99, Parcel 36C 89.883 acres 29.38 points $1,070,000 $ 118,000
(North Garden) TM 99, Parcel 38 62.998 acres
Total 152.881 acres
Hudson, Fred TM 29, Parcel 61 83.022 acres 27.76 points $1,121,000 $ 58,000
(Free Union) 2,320 (4%)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points $1,150,000 $ 225,000
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points - NOT APPRAISED -
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres Total 71.701 acres
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points - NOT APPRAISED -
(Crozet)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Totals 7 Properties Appraised (1,151.230 acres) @ $2,724,000
$2,626,320
FMV = Fair Market Value (land only) based on Karen Pape’s appraisals.
Easement Value = the fair market value of the easement before adjustments (due to income) are made from the income grid.
The values in bold are the real numbers to consider because they represent the adjusted values after applying the income grid.
Note: The ACE budget for this class is $1,627,000.
Attachment C
ACE Budget for Round 8 (FY 200708) Applicant Pool
Reappropriation for FY 200708 (ACE Program) $ 2,126,026.19
Minus Strawberry Hill Farm Acquisition (FY 200708) 565,000.00
County Funds Available for FY 200708 Easements $ 1,561,026.10
Additional Funds from VDACS Grant 49,900.00
Net Funds Available for FY 200708Easements $ 1,610,926.10
Minus Anderson and Garnett Acquisitions (FY 200708) 1,440,280.00
Net Funds Available for Acquiring Dutnell $ 170,646.10
Minus Dutnell Acquisitions (FY 200708) $ 118,000.00
Net Funds Remaining in Budget from FY 200708 $ 52,646.10
Cost of Dutnell Easement: $118,000
Go to next attac hment
Return to exec s ummary
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the ACE Program
from the owner(s) of the following properties:
Dutnell Property TM 99, Parcel 36C ( 89.883 acres)
TM 99, Parcel 38 ( 62.998 acres)
Total (152.881 acres)
WHEREAS, the owner(s) offered to sell a conservation easement on the respective properties to the
County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement
enclosed with the County’s invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further revisions deemed necessary by the
County Attorney and agreed to by the owner; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the offer to sell
a conservation easement for each of the properties described above, and authorizes the County Executive to
execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Attorney to
send copies of this resolution to the owner(s) of the properties identified herein, or their contact persons.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2009 Appropriations
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of Appropriations #2009057, #2009058,
#2009059, and #2009060 for various sc hool
programs and capital improvements projec ts
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 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 $637,756.57. 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 four (4) new FY 2009 appropriations as follows :
Tw o (2) appropriations (#2009057 and #2009059) totaling $630,756.57 for v arious Education programs and
projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2009058) allocating $7,000.00 in proffer funds receiv ed from W esthall Proffer 1.2 to
fund block mas ter planning services for a portion of Downtow n C rozet; and
One (1) appropriation (#2009060) providing $75,000.00 from the Athletic Field Study and Dev elopment funding
for the Monticello turf field.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the budget amendment in the amount of $637,756.57 and the approval of
Appropriations #2009057, #2009058, #2009059, and #2009060.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation
#2009057
$ 42,536.00
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue $ 1,600.00
Federal Revenue 2,936.00
School Fund Balance 38,000.00
At its meeting on Marc h 26, 2009, the Sc hool Board approved the following appropriations:
Jac k Jouett Middle School receiv ed a donation in the amount of $500.00 from the Jack Jouett PTO.
The donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund a presentation on bullying. John
Harrigan will be presenting information on bullying, cyber bully ing and youth depression.
The mission of the R ace to GED Grant is to allow Albemarle County’s Adult Education Program to
substantially increase the number of students seeking a General Equivalency Diploma (GED ), student
hours, and students passing the GED in support of the Division’s strategic plan. Funding for FY08/09
was increased by $2,936.00 from the original budget amount of $29,876.00. The funds will be used to
pay parttime teacher w ages and benefits.
At its meeting on April 2, 2009, the School Board approved the following appropriations :
The production ex penses for the 200809 publications of the sc hool calendar and School Talk were
incurred in the prior fiscal year; however, the inv oices w ere not received until after the close of the
fisc al year. The use of fund balanc e, totaling $38,000.00, is requested to cover these prior year
expenses.
Stone R obinson Elementary School received donations totaling $1,100.00. Law rence and Michelle
Mc Connell donated $20.00, Jane Barrell donated $60.00 and Topeka’s of Charlottesville donated
$1,020.00. The donors have requested that their contribution be used to help fund the summer camp
scholarships at Stone R obinson Elementary School.
Appropriation #2009058
$ 7,000.00
Revenue Source: Proffer Fund Balance $ 7,000.00
The Office of Facilities Development has requested $7,000.00 in available funds from the Westhall Proffer 1.2
to prov ide block master planning servic es for a portion of D owntown Crozet, including the new Crozet Library,
Tabor Pres byterian Church properties, and the Lawson property. These services will enable priority projects
identified in the Master Plan for Crozet to be accomplished (Streetscapes and Library ) w hile meeting other
goals of the plan for D estination Downtown, including interconnectivity and creating bloc ks in Dow ntown as
established by the Croz et Master Plan. C reation of block s w ill also aid properties to redevelop more easily
consistent with the Dow ntown Crozet D istrict zoning regulations.
Appropriation #2009059
$588,220.57
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue $ 569,531.77
Federal Revenue $ 15,000.00
School Fund Balance $ 3,688.80
Monticello H igh School has received a donation in the amount of $27,116.00 from the Monticello Booster
Club. This donation will be used to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Monticello High School.
Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) has received a grant in the amount of $325,000.00 from The
Community Foundation Serving Richmond and Central Virginia. The purpose of this grant is to match funds
raised by Albemarle C ounty and the Monticello High Sc hool booster club, for the installation of the s ynthetic
turf field at the high schools outdoor athletic stadium. The funds are subject to the following terms and
conditions:
1. The funds are to be used exclus ively for the ins tallation costs of the synthetic field.
2. The grant is conditioned upon the requirement that the balance of funds are to be raised from other
sources.
3. Funds will be av ailable prior to the confirmed s tart date for the ins tallation contrac t upon receipt of all
required certific ations and documents.
4. A final report is due within 30 days of final preparation and cleanup of the field for school and public
use.
5. If ACPS has not c ommitted to proc eed with a firm installation c ontract by Dec ember 31, 2009, with
installation to be completed no later than September 30, 2011, all grant funds must be refunded within
30 days of a final decision not to proceed with ins tallation, but no later than October 30, 2011.
Monticello H igh School has received tw o donations totaling $176,665.77 to help fund the synthetic turf field
project. The Monticello Booster Club donated $174,165.77 and Bea Ellis donated $7,500.00 to be div ided
between each high school. From this donation, Monticello High School w ill receive $2,500.00, Albemarle H igh
School will receive $2,500.00, and W es tern Albemarle H igh School will receive $2,500.00.
The mission of the Families in C risis Grant is to prov ide an effective structure to meet the needs of s tudents,
whose families are in crisis, ensuring they receive equitable access to Division servic es in support of the
Divisions strategic plan. The Families in Crisis Grant is responsible for the following major programs and/or
services : tutoring of identified students, transportation to school of origin, counseling families, collaboration with
schools; and providing gift certificates. Funding for FY08/09 was increas ed by $15,000 from the original budget
amount of $25,000. W e also received a donation from an anonymous donor in the amount of $750.
Western Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00 from an anonymous donor. The
donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund the c ons truction of the boathouse for the W AHS
Rowing C lub.
The mission of the Technology Challenge Grant is to improve student academic achievement through the use of
technology in schools in support of the Division's strategic plan. The Tec hnology C hallenge Grant is responsible
for the following major programs and/or services: Teac her Training and Technology C urriculum Development.
There is a local fund balance in the amount of $3,688.80 from FY07/08 w hich may be reappropriated for FY08/09.
The funds will be used for salaries and benefits.
The mission of the Community Charter School Grant is to provide an alternative and innovative learning
environment, using the arts, to help children in grades s ix through eight learn in way s that match their learning
styles; dev eloping the w hole child intellectually, emotionally, physically and socially . Seeking to serve
students w ho have not succeeded in s chool, the program w ill close their achievement gap by offering a
balance of literacy tutorials and an artsinfused curric ulum in support of the D ivisions strategic plan. The
Community Charter School Grant is res ponsible for the following major programs and/or services: 6th and 7th
Grade Instructional Program, Literacy and Arts Infused Education, Choice Theory School D evelopment; and
Mastery Learning. W e rec eived donations in the amount of $30,000 from anonymous donors to be used for
payroll and benefits.
Appropriation #2009060
$75,000.00
Revenue Source: Athletic Field Study/Dev $ 75,000.00
On December 9, 2008 the Board of Supervisors approv ed funding in the amount of $225,000 from the Parks and
Recreation capital budget to be used towards the synthetic turf projects for all three County high schools contingent
upon a memorandum of understanding betw een the School Superintendent and the County Executiv e.
That MOU has been exec uted and this $75,000 is being released for the Monticello High School projec t now that
adequate funding is in place for the Monticello project to proceed. The remaining $150,000 w ill be released
when Albemarle and W estern Albemarle have accumulated adequate funding for their projects respectiv ely.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Requests to support applications for federal low
income housing tax credits for Treesdale Park
and Piedmont Heights
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliot, Davis, and White
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEWED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
Federal LowIncome H ous ing Tax Credits , administered by the Virginia Housing Dev elopment Authority (VHDA),
can provide a significant amount of equity financing for affordable rental developments. The credits are allocated by
VHDA through a competitive process which is based on a point system that includes project readiness, feasibility ,
and local support. VH DA is required by the Internal R evenue Code to provide localities with an opportunity to
comment on any developments under consideration for tax credits. A C ounty letter of support (Attac hment A)
provides 50 points to an applicant. A letter that does not provide support or opposition provides 25 points. A letter
stating that the development is incons istent with zoning or land use regulations provides no points.
One of the adopted strategies in the County’s Affordable Housing Policy is to support applications for and the
allocation of federal lowincome hous ing tax credits. The County has been notified by VH DA that two applicants
have submitted letters of intent to apply for tax credits for developments in Albemarle County.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: By June 30, 2010, working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for those
who work and/or live in Albemarle County .
DISCU SSION :
Provided below is a brief description of two proposed developments in Albemarle C ounty that have notified VHDA of
their intent to apply for 2009 Federal LowIncome Hous ing Tax Credits . All projects are required to restrict the
occupancy to households w ith incomes at or below 60% of the area median income.
Piedmont Heights: Piedmont Heights is a 96unit rental development proposed by Prestwick Piedmont Heights, LP
from Atlanta, GA. The property is loc ated on Old Lynchburg Road ac ros s from Azalea Park. The applicant has not
contacted the Housing Office and has not provided any information regarding the projec t. No site plan has been
submitted to the County for review. Staff lacks sufficient information to recommend a letter of support for this
project at this time.
Treesdale Park: Treesdale Park is a 4building 88unit development proposed by Treesdale, LP loc ated on East Rio
Road. The Board prev ious ly supported the submission of a tax credit application in 2008 by the Albemarle H ousing
Improv ement Program (AH IP) for this project. AHIP did not receive the tax credits. Subsequently , AH IP has
executed a joint venture agreement w ith Treesdale, LLC of Albemarle County owned by William and Richard Park to
advance the project.
One means by which a County can provide financial support for a project is by providing a commitment of Housing
Choice Vouchers. Last year, the Board approved a resolution to prov ide up to 21 projec tbased vouchers to
Treesdale Park. Becaus e of a reconfiguration of the buildings, Trees dale Park is now eligible for up to 22 project
based v ouc hers. Treesdale, LP is now requesting the County to provide a commitment for 22 projec tbased
vouchers. A Resolution s upporting Treesdale, LP’s application for tax credits, authorizing the County Executive to
sign the Treesdale Park Project Support Letter (Attachment A), and supporting the commitment of up to 22 project
based v ouc hers that meet specific criteria is attached for the Board’s c onsideration and adoption (Attac hment B).
Treesdale, LP has also requested that the site be certified by the County as a “revitalization area” as defined by
VHDA. The site currently consists of tw o vacant deteriorating structures sitting on approximately six ac res of land in
one of the County’s designated growth areas. This certification would qualify the projec t for additional points for
purposes of the tax credit application. A Resolution certifying that the Treesdale Park s ite meets VH DA’s definition
of a revitalization area and authorizing the County Exec utive to sign the R evitalization Area Certification Letter
(Attachment D ) is included as Attachment C for the Board’s consideration and adoption.
In 2008, AH IP had als o received a financ ial commitment for the Treesdale Park Project in the amount of $246,400
from the Crozet Crossings H ousing Trus t Fund. The Trustees recently approved extending that commitment to
Treesdale, LP pending receipt of 2009 tax credits.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impac t in providing support for the allocation of federal low income housing tax credits. The
resolution to commit up to twentytwo H ousing Choice Vouchers to the proposed Trees dale Park dev elopment will
not impact the C ounty ’s general fund budget as the vouchers are funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban D evelopment (HU D). All commitments of Housing C hoice Vouc hers to be used w ith specific projects are
conditioned on continued funding from HUD .
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution (Attachment B) supporting Treesdale, LP’s
application for tax credits, authorizing the County Exec utive to sign the Treesdale Park Project Support Letter
(Attachment A), and supporting the commitment of up to 22 projectbased vouchers that meet specific criteria.
Staff als o recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C ) c ertifying that the Treesdale
Park site meets VHDA’s definition of a revitalization area and authorizing the County Ex ecutive to s ign the
Revitalization Area Certific ation Letter (Attachment D ).
Staff recommends that the Board not support the applic ation for tax c redits for Piedmont Heights until additional
information is received by staff to evaluate the merits of the project.
ATTAC HMENTS
A Locality CEO Certification
B Resolution for Projectbased Vouchers
C Res olution for Certifying as Revitaliz ation Area
D Rev italization Area Certification
Letter
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Locality CEO Support Letter
May 6. 2009
Jim Chandler
Virginia Housing Development Authority
601 South Belvidere Street
Richmond, Virginia 23220
VHDA Tracking Number:2009Z130
Development Name:Treesdale Park
Name of Owner/Applicant:Treesdale, LP
Dear Mr. Chandler:
The construction or rehabilitation of the abovenamed development and the allocation of
federal housing tax credits available under IRC Section 42 for said development will help to
meet the housing needs and priorities of Albemarle County. Accordingly, Albemarle County
supports the allocation of federal housing tax credits requested by Treesdale, LP for this
development.
Yours truly,
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albe ma rle is committe d to ensuring tha t sa fe , dec e nt, afforda ble , a nd
ac c essible housing is a va ila ble for a ll re side nts; and
WHEREAS, the County of A lbe ma rle is committed to improving the liva bility of all ne ighborhoods a nd
ac c ess to support se rvic es by re side nts; a nd
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to pre se rving existing a nd promoting the
de velopme nt of ne w affordable housing stock; a nd
WHEREAS, Tre esda le , LP is applying for Fe deral Housing Ta x Cre dits to de velop 88 units of re nta l
housing loc a te d on Ea st Rio Roa d and known a s Tre e sda le Pa rk; a nd
WHEREAS, all propose d units in the development will be re stricte d to households w ith income s at or
be low 60% of the a re a me dia n income ; a nd
WHEREAS, the A lbe ma rle County Office of H ousing propose s the use of H ousing Choic e Vouche rs to
provide projec tbase d a ssista nc e for up to 22 of the propose d housing units with house hold income s limite d to
those fa milie s a t or be low 40% of the a re a median income ;
NOW, THEREFOR E, BE IT RESOLV ED tha t the County of Albemarle supports Tree sdale , LP’s
applica tion for ta x c re dits a nd authorize s the County Exe c utive to sign the Loca l CEO Support Le tte r. The
County of A lbe ma rle a lso supports the commitme nt of up to 22 projec tba se d vouche rs to provide re nta l
assista nce for households with inc omes at or be low 40% AMI provide d tha t the U .S. De pa rtme nt of H ousing a nd
U rba n D e ve lopme nt (HUD ) c ontinue s to provide suffic ient fina nc ing to mee t the commitme nt.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albe ma rle is committe d to ensuring tha t sa fe , dec e nt, afforda ble , a nd
ac c essible housing is a va ila ble for a ll re side nts; and
WHEREAS, the County of A lbe ma rle is committed to improving the liva bility of all ne ighborhoods a nd
ac c ess to support se rvic es by re side nts; a nd
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to pre se rving existing a nd promoting the
de velopme nt of ne w affordable housing stock; a nd
WHEREAS, the ac c ess to and use of fe de ra l lowincome housing ta x c re dits (LIH TC) a s source of
equity financ ing for a fforda ble housing is c ritic al in e nsuring fina nc ia l fea sibility; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Housing De velopme nt A uthority (VH DA) a dministe rs the LIHTC progra m on
a c ompe titive ba sis; a nd
WHEREAS, applic ants may re ce ive a dditiona l points in the c ompetitive proce ss if the propose d
de velopme nt is in a revita liz a tion a rea as define d by V HDA and c ertifie d by the loca lity; a nd
WHEREAS, the Tre e sda le Park de velopme nt of 88 a fforda ble re nta l units is proposed on a site w hic h
me ets VHD A ’s de finition of “blighte d, de te riora te d, de te riora ting or, if not re ha bilita te d, likely to de te riora te by
re ason that the buildings, improve me nts, or othe r fa cilitie s in suc h a re a a re subje c t to one or more of the
follow ing c onditions – dila pidation, obsole sc ence , ove rc rowding, ina de qua te ve ntila tion, light, or sa nitation,
exc essive la nd c overage , dele te rious la nd use, or faulty or otherw ise inade quate design, quality or c ondition …
and, priva te e nte rprise and investme nt a re not re a sonably expe c te d, without assistanc e, to produc e the
construc tion or reha bilitation of dec e nt, safe a nd sa nitary housing and supporting fa cilities that will me e t the
ne e ds of the low a nd modera te inc ome pe rsons or families in such a re as a nd w ill induc e othe r persons a nd
fa milies to live within such a re a a nd the re by c re a te a de sira ble ec onomic mix of residents in suc h a re a” by virtue
of the e xiste nc e of two vac a nt, de te riora ting struc tures sitting on a pproxima tely six a c re s of land in one of the
County’s de signate d growth area s.
NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED tha t the County of Albema rle c ertifie s tha t the propose d
Tre esdale Pa rk site me e ts VH DA’s de finition of a revita liz a tion a re a rec ognizing tha t equity inve stme nts from
the a c quisition and sa le of tax credits a re ne ce ssa ry to make the de ve lopme nt financ ia lly fe a sible a nd a uthoriz es
the County Exe c utive to sign the Re vitaliza tion Area Ce rtifica tion.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
REVITALIZATION AREA CERTIFICATION
May 6, 2009
Jim Chandler
Virginia Housing Development Authority
601 South Belvidere Street
Richmond, Virginia 23220
VHDA Tracking Number:2009Z130
Development Name:Treesdale Park
Development Jurisdiction:Albemarle County
Name of Owner/Applicant:Treesdale, LP
Dear Mr. Chandler:
I certify that the abovereferenced development is located in a Revitalization Area in my
jurisdiction. A “revitalization area” is any area that is (i) either (1) blighted, deteriorated,
deteriorating or, if not rehabilitated, likely to deteriorate by reason that the buildings,
improvements or other facilities in such area are subject to one or more of the following
conditions dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, light or
sanitation, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use, or faulty otherwise inadequate
design, quality or condition, or (2) the industrial, commercial or other economic development
of such area will benefit the city or county but such area lacks the housing needed to induce
manufacturing, industrial, commercial, governmental, educational, entertainment, community
development, healthcare or nonprofit enterprises or undertakings to locate or remain in such
area; and (ii) private enterprise and investment are not reasonably expected, without
assistance, to produce the construction or rehabilitation of decent, safe and sanitary housing
and supporting facilities that will meet the needs of low and moderate income persons and
families in such area and will induce other persons and families to live within such area and
thereby create a desirable economic mix of residents in such area.
I understand that this Certification will be used by the Virginia Housing Development Authority
to determine whether the development qualifies for points available under VHDA’s Qualified
Allocation Plan.
__________________________________________CEO Signature
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
_County Executive__________
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Ex ecutive Grant Application Authority
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
County Ex ecutive Authorization to Apply for and
Accept Grants
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott, D avis, Letteri and
Ms. Allshouse
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Over the y ears, the C ounty has pursued numerous grant opportunities to diversify revenues and obtain funding for
important County initiatives. At times, funding sources have required the County Exec utive to have explicit authority
from the Board of Supervis ors to submit or accept grant applications or proposals.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Pursing grant opportunities supports the C ounty’s miss ion to enhance the wellbeing and quality of life for all citizens
through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCU SSION :
To ens ure the C ounty is wellpositioned to apply for and accept grants, it is important to have an efficient
administrative process in place to meet the tight timetables associated with these funding opportunities . Because of
potential delays caused by the timing of Board meetings, it is important that the County Executive, or his designee,
retain explicit authority from the Board of Supervisors to prepare applications, submit grant proposals, and accept
grants on behalf of the C ounty. The Board of Superv isors w ill continue to make the final decision regarding the use
of any grant funding by its appropriation of any funding received by the County, as well as the appropriation of any
local matching funds.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Obtaining grant funding assists the County to diversify County revenues and fund important C ounty initiatives.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution to authorize the County Executive, or his designee,
to apply for and accept grant opportunities on behalf of the C ounty.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Resolution
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO MAKE GRANT
APPLICATIONS AND ACCEPT GRANTS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle finds it appropriate that the County pursue grant
opportunities that might provide enhanced funding for important County initiatives; and
WHEREAS, grant application processes generally require that a grant application or proposal,
certifications, and other supporting or related contracts or documents be submitted to complete an
application or to accept grant funding; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that the County is wellpositioned to apply for and receive grants, it is
important to have an efficient process in place to meet the tight timetables often associated with many
requests for proposals for grant funding or the acceptance of such funding; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of government is improved by delegating to the County Executive the
authority to apply for and accept grant funding opportunities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby authorizes the County Executive, or his designee, to act on behalf of the County to execute grant
applications or proposals along with any necessary certifications and supporting or related contracts or
documents required to obtain or accept a grant, provided that such documents are approved as to form
and content by the County Attorney.
Return to exec summary
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on
the 7th day of February 2007, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Tanager Woods Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM4.3 dated May 6, 2009, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Tanager
Woods, as described on the attached Additions Form AM4.3 dated May 6, 2009, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right
ofway, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM4.3 is:
1) Tanager Woods Drive (State Route 1664) from the intersection of Route 664
(Frays Mountain Road) to the intersection of Route 1665 (Tanager Woods Court),
as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2193, page 564, with a 50foot rightofway width, for a
length of 0.11 miles.
2) Tanager Woods Drive (State Route 1664) from the intersection of Route 1665
(Tanager Woods Court) to the culdesac, as shown on plat recorded in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2193, page 564, with
a 50foot rightofway width, for a length of 0.19 miles.
3) Tanager Woods Court (State Route 1665) from the intersection of Route 1664
(Tanager Woods Drive) to the culdesac, as shown on plat recorded in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2193, page 564, with
a 50foot rightofway width, for a length of 0.22 miles
Total Mileage – 0.52
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 09/10 Resolution of Appropriations
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Approval of the Resolution of
Appropriations for the Albemarle County
Operating and C apital Budgets for FY 09/10
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The County’s FY 09/10 Operating and Capital Budgets w ere adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 8, 2009,
for a total estimated amount of $303,723,333. The attached Annual R esolution of Appropriations for the fiscal year
ending on J une 30, 2010 provides the authority from the Board of Supervisors for the County to spend those funds,
effectiv e J uly 1, 2009.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5 – Develop a comprehensive s trategy/plan for funding future needs.
DISCU SSION :
This Resolution is a comprehensive Res olution which appropriates the total County budget, including both operating
and capital funds in a s ingle resolution, and includes many of the initial Special Rev enue Fund appropriations.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the attac hed Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 09/10 that allocates a total of
$304,262,583 to various General Government and School D ivision operating, capital improvement, and debt service
accounts for expenditure in FY 09/10. This appropriation is made up of the following major funds:
General Fund $218,991,472
School Fund 148,978,488
School SelfSustaining 16,948,585
Special Rev enue 14,372,905
Capital Projects 17,564,000
Debt Service 18,242,915
TOTA L $435,098,365
Less Interfund Transfers ($130,835,782)
GRA ND TOTAL $304,262,583
The FY 09/10 total budget recommended for appropriation is $539,250 greater than the budget formally adopted by
the Board on April 8, 2009. This is due to an increase of $444,632 in state funding to the school sy stem as well as
an additional $94,618 in state funding for the Bright Stars program. The appropriated budget reflects the School Fund
that was approved by the School Board at its April 23, 2009 meeting.
Staff als o recommends approval of the attached Res olution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with
Proceeds of a Borrow ing. This would allow the County to use bond proceeds to reimburse the capital budget for
expenditures incurred prior to the future planned issuanc e of bonds.
ATTAC HMENTS
A Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 09/10
B Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditure w ith Proceeds of a Borrowing
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS:
Refunds and Abatements $169,500
Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
Board of Supervisors $587,011
County Attorney $897,522
County Executive $1,229,972
Department of Finance $3,997,875
Department of Human Resources $1,071,197
Department of Information Technology $2,556,948
Voter Registration/ Elections $482,177
$10,822,702
Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL
Circuit Court $104,063
Clerk of the Circuit Court $687,202
Commonwealth's Attorney $899,547
General District Court $22,700
Juvenile Court $133,359
Magistrate $4,800
Sheriff's Office $1,964,669
$3,816,340
Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department $6,624,973
Building Codes and Inspections $1,120,365
Community Attention Home $60,149
Department of Police $12,578,068
Emergency Communications Center $1,975,393
Fire Department Contract (City of Charlottesville)$777,878
Fire/Rescue Credit $50,430
Forest Fire Extinguishment $22,656
Juvenile Detention Center $719,473
Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)$155,382
Regional Jail Authority $3,227,959
SPCA Contract $198,106
Thomas Jefferson EMS Council $21,184
Volunteer Fire Departments $1,251,655
Volunteer Rescue Squads $420,255
$29,203,926
Paragraph Five: GENERAL SERVICES / PUBLIC WORKS
Facilities Development Department $658,002
General Services $350,000
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority $3,585,253
$4,593,255
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Fund 1000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the
purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2010
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2010; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all
previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
Page 1
Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES
AIDS Support Group $4,861
Arc of the Piedmont Infant Development Program $8,970
Boys and Girls Club $13,887
Bright Stars Transfer $647,086
BRMC - Latino Lay Health Promoter $5,445
Charlottesville Free Clinic $114,636
Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS)$97,614
Commission on Children & Families (CCF)$248,936
Comprehensive Services Act Transfer $2,710,747
Computers4Kids $15,617
Department of Social Services $11,257,067
Health Department $551,444
JAUNT $876,442
Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA)$280,478
Jefferson Area CHIP $317,144
Legal Aid Justice Center $38,494
Madison House $10,370
Music Resource Center $6,335
Northwestern Virginia Health Systems $4,723
Piedmont CASA $8,925
Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)$23,475
Piedmont Workforce Network $13,805
Region Ten Community Services $569,531
Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA)$23,690
Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE)$89,974
Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled $1,000,000
United Way $119,507
Urban Vision $24,463
$19,083,666
Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
African American Festival $3,000
Ash-Lawn Highland $10,164
Darden Towe Park Transfer $155,862
Department of Parks & Recreation $2,251,277
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library $3,173,138
Literacy Volunteers $26,355
Municipal Band $18,190
Piedmont Council of the Arts $12,594
Virginia Discovery Museum $11,978
Virginia Festival of the Book $11,960
Virginia Film Festival $16,380
Visitors Bureau $707,044
WVPT Public Television $5,463
$6,403,405
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)$416,328
Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation $6,500
Central Virginia Small Business Development Center $7,800
Charlottesville Transit Service $666,634
Department of Community Development $4,962,988
Housing Office $756,158
Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA)$150,083
Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)$113,396
Planning District Commission (TJPDC)$108,292
Soil and W ater Conservation $96,239
Stream W atch $10,816
VPI Extension Service $201,290
$7,496,524
Page 2
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS
Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund - Recurring $681,958
Transfer to Schools Capital Improvements Fund $1,034,000
Transfer to Storm W ater Fund $250,000
$1,965,958
Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
Revenue Sharing Agreement $18,038,878
Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS
Board Contingency Reserve $96,745
Salary Contingency - Reclassifications $100,000
VERIP One-Time Payout $140,000
Transfer to General Government Debt Service $2,784,935
Transfer to School Division Debt Service $14,956,864
Transfer to School Fund - Recurring $100,150,577
$118,229,121
Paragraph Twelve: ANTICIPATED SAVINGS
Anticipated Salary Savings - Frozen Positions ($831,803)
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$218,991,472
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $189,439,770
Revenue from Local Sources - Transfers $1,780,807
Revenue from the Commonwealth $23,486,237
Revenue from the Federal Government $4,138,383
Revenue from Fund Balance $146,275
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$218,991,472
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
Administration, Attendance & Health $8,661,624
Facilities Construction/ Modification $107,600
Facilities Operation/ Maintenance $14,711,969
Instruction $109,256,919
Pupil Transportation Services $8,717,314
Technology $3,173,993
Other Uses of Funds $4,349,069
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$148,978,488
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)$100,150,577
Revenue from Other Local Sources $675,278
Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carry-Over, Transfers $2,224,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $43,260,327
Revenue from the Federal Government $2,668,306
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$148,978,488
SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND (Fund 2000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as
follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:
Page 3
Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES (Fund 3000)
Maintenance/ Operation of School Cafeterias $4,796,913
Summer Feeding $304,000
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$5,100,913
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $3,519,206
Revenue from the Commonwealth $60,784
Revenue from the Federal Government $1,520,923
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$5,100,913
Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3205)
Special Ed Pre-School Program $67,416
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010: $67,416
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $67,416
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$67,416
Paragraph Three: McINTIRE TRUST FUND (Fund 3501)
Payment to County Schools $10,000
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$10,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust $10,000
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$10,000
Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM
C. B. I. P. Severe (Fund 3201)$1,041,290
E. D. Program (Fund 3202)$826,890
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,868,180
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees $1,868,180
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,868,180
SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:
Page 4
Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Adult Education (Fund 3115)$126,500
Carl Perkins (Fund 3207)$147,231
Chapter I (Fund 3101)$1,235,950
Drug Free Schools (Fund 3107)$40,000
Migrant Education (Fund 3103)$147,050
Title II (Fund 3203)$494,970
English Literacy/Civics (Fund 3221)$166,500
Economically Dislocated W orkers (Fund 3116)$55,000
Title III (Fund 3215)$120,000
21st Century Grant (Fund 3219)$163,177
Technology Challenge Grant (Fund 3131)$13,654
Race to GED (Fund 3309)$32,812
Families in Crisis (Fund 3304)$50,000
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$2,792,844
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $75,050
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$50,000
Revenue from the Federal Government $2,667,794
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year June 30, 2010:$2,792,844
Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3300)
Community Education $1,699,433
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,699,433
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition)$1,699,433
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,699,433
Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL (Fund 3310)
Summer School $550,183
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$550,183
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$239,243
Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition)$171,440
Miscellaneous Revenues $2,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $137,500
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$550,183
Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT (Fund 3905)
School Bus Replacement $500,000
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$500,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$500,000
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$500,000
Page 5
Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND (Fund 3145)
AIMR Summer Rental $446,010
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$446,010
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (rental)$446,010
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$446,010
Paragraph Ten: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND (Fund 3910)
Vehicle Maintenance 799,536
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$799,536
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Charges)$799,536
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$799,536
Paragraph Eleven: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3133)
General Adult Education $19,000
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$19,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $9,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $10,000
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$19,000
Paragraph Twelve: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND (Fund 3305)
Drivers Safety Fund $401,500
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$401,500
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition)$341,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $60,500
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$401,500
Paragraph Thirteen: OPEN DOORS FUND (Fund 3306)
Open Doors Fund $123,000
Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$123,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition)$120,000
Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements)$3,000
Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$123,000
Page 6
Paragraph Fourteen: STATE PROGRAMS
Special Education Jail Program (Fund 3212)$140,408
Algebra Readiness (Fund 3152)$35,000
Individualized Student Alternative Education (Fund 3142)$23,576
Teacher Mentor Program (Fund 3151)$9,586
Total STATE PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$208,570
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth $208,570
Total STATE PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$208,570
Paragraph Fifteen: COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL
Community Charter School $330,000
Total COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$330,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $130,000
Revenue from Federal Sources $200,000
Total TNE PARTNERSHIP GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$330,000
Paragraph Sixteen: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND (Fund 3907)
Computer Equipment Replacement Fund $1,000,000
Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,000,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$1,000,000
Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,000,000
Paragraph Seventeen KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY (Fund 3157)
Kluge-Club Yancey $20,000
Total KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$20,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $20,000
Total KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$20,000
Paragraph Eighteen: FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE (Fund 3502)
Foundation for Excellence $12,000
Total FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE appropriations for fiscal year ending $12,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Miscellaneous)$12,000
Page 7
Total FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$12,000
Paragraph Nineteen: Textbook Replacement Fund
Textbook Replacement $1,000,000
Total TEXTBOOK REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending $1,300,950
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer)$1,000,000
Total TEXTBOOK REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,300,950
GRAND TOTAL - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS $16,948,585
Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND (Fund 1551)
Comprehensive Services Act Program Expenditures $7,250,000
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$7,250,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$2,710,747
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$1,040,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $3,458,840
Revenue from Fund Balance $40,413
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$7,250,000
Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND (Fund 1553)
Bright Stars Program $1,126,621
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,126,621
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$647,086
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund)$95,535
Revenue from the Commonwealth $384,000
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,126,621
Paragraph Three: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND (Fund 4200)
Darden Towe Memorial Park $242,805
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$242,805
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from the General Fund)$155,862
Revenue from Other Local Sources $86,943
SECTION IV: OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER PROGRAM purposes herein specified to be apportioned
as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:
Page 8
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$242,805
Paragraph Four: MJ HEALTH GRANT (Fund 1563)
MJ Health Grant $5,000
TOTAL MJ HEALTH GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$5,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources $5,000
Total MJ HEALTH GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$5,000
Paragraph Five: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND (Fund 9150)
Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund $33,765
TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$33,765
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $33,765
Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$33,765
Paragraph Six: TOURISM FUND (Fund 1810)
Tourism Enhancement (Transfer to General Fund)$849,149
Tourism Projects (Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund)$500,851
Total TOURISM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,350,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $1,350,000
Total TOURISM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$1,350,000
Paragraph Seven: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND (Fund 1520)
Criminal Justice Grant Programs $690,477
Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$690,477
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)$690,477
Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$690,477
Paragraph Eight: VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND (Fund 1225)
Victim-W itness Program $108,272
Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$108,272
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$32,052
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)$76,220
Page 9
Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$108,272
Paragraph Nine: METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND (Fund 1208)
Metropolitan Planning Organization Funding $14,500
Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$14,500
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government (Grant)$11,600
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)$1,450
Local Funds (Transfer from the General Fund)$1,450
Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$14,500
Paragraph Ten: HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND (Fund 1227)
Family Self-Sufficiency Program (Transfer to General Fund)$292,256
Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments $2,642,424
Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$2,934,680
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $2,934,680
Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$2,934,680
Paragraph Eleven: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND (Fund 9200)
Vehicle Replacement $616,785
Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$616,785
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$377,776
Revenue from Other Local Sources $12,000
Revenue from Fund Balance $227,009
Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$616,785
GRAND TOTAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $14,372,905
Paragraph One: COURTS
Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects $100,000
Paragraph Two: PUBLIC SAFETY
VFD Fire & EMS Apparatus Replacement $2,737,000
Police Patrol Video Cameras $125,000
$2,862,000
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:
SECTION V - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9010)
Page 10
Paragraph Three: PUBLIC WORKS
County Facilities - Maintenance/Replacement $610,000
Ivy Landfill Remediation $1,100,000
Keene Landfill Closure $50,000
Moores Creek Septage Receiving $171,000
Storage Facility Lease (Tr to General Fund)$54,000
$1,985,000
Paragraph Four: COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Neighborhood Implementation Plan Program $850,000
Sidewalk Construction Program $263,000
Transportation Improvement Program - Regional $100,000
$1,213,000
Paragraph Five: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
JAUNT (Tr to General Fund)$150,950
Paragraph Six: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
County Athletic Field Development $44,000
Greenway Program $50,000
Paramount Theater $33,000
Park Enhancements $100,000
Parks - Maintenance/Replacement $190,000
River and Lake Access Improvements $35,000
$452,000
Paragraph Seven: LIBRARIES
Central Library Maintenance/Replacement $55,000
Paragraph Eight: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS
County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade $375,000
Paragraph Nine: ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program $950,000
Paragraph Ten: CONTINGENCY FUNDS
Contingency Funds $1,349,050
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$9,492,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tourism Fund Transfer)$500,851
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)$681,958
Other Local Sources (including Proffers)$673,449
Loan Proceeds $3,112,000
Use of Fund Balance $4,523,742
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$9,492,000
Page 12
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
Administrative Technology $175,000
Crozet Elementary Addition/Renovation $395,000
Greer Elementary School Addition/Renovation $80,000
Gymnasium HVAC and Lighting Replacement $1,794,000
Henley Auxiliary PE/Meeting Space $200,000
Instructional Technology $550,000
Maintenance/Replacement $3,789,000
Storage Facility Lease $139,000
Technology Grant $700,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$7,822,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)$1,034,000
Proffers $50,000
Interest Earned $100,000
State Technology Grant $700,000
VPSA Bonds $5,738,000
Fund Balance $200,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$7,822,000
Paragraph One: STORM WATER PROJECTS
Storm W ater Control Program $250,000
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$250,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$250,000
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$250,000
Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9900)
Debt Service Payments - School Division $14,956,864
Debt Service Payments - PREP $217,938
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$15,174,802
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows
from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2010:
SECTION VIII: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for
the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:
SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9000)
SECTION VII: STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9100)
Page 13
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$14,956,864
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)$217,938
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$15,174,802
Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9910)
Emergency Services Radio System Lease/Debt Service Payment $826,556
Debt Service Payments - General Government $2,231,557
Bond Issuance Cost $10,000
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$3,068,113
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $283,178
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund)$2,784,935
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$3,068,113
GRAND TOTAL - DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $18,242,915
Appropriations:
Section I General Fund $218,991,472
Section II School Fund $148,978,488
Section III Other School Funds $16,948,585
Section IV Other Special Revenue Funds $14,372,905
Section V General Government Capital Improvements Fund $9,492,000
Section VI School Division Capital Improvements Fund $7,822,000
Section VII Storm W ater Capital Improvements Fund $250,000
Section VIII Debt Service $18,242,915
$435,098,365
Less Inter-Fund Transfers
General Fund to School Fund ($100,577,992)
General Fund to Special Revenue Funds ($3,919,993)
General Fund to Capital Improvements Funds ($1,965,958)
General Fund to Debt Service Funds ($17,741,799)
Special Revenue Funds to General Fund ($1,141,405)
Special Revenue Funds to Capital Improvements Funds ($534,616)
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds ($2,791,939)
School Fund to Special Revenue Funds ($1,135,535)
School Fund to General Fund ($421,595)
Self-Sustaining Funds to School Fund ($400,000)
Capital Improvements Funds to General Fund ($204,950)
($130,835,782)
GRAND TOTAL - ALBEMARLE COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS $304,262,583
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2010
RECAPITULATION:
Page 14
Paragraph One: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND
Emergency Communications Center $5,059,909
Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$5,059,909
To be provided as follows:
Albemarle County $1,975,393
City of Charlottesville $1,705,008
University of Virginia $527,468
Revenue from Other Local Sources $243,572
Revenue from the Commonwealth $605,822
Revenue from the Federal Government $2,646
Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:$5,059,909
SECTION IX
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through VIII are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and
provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Richard W iggans) and Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors (Ella W . Jordan) are hereby designated as authorized signatories for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
SECTION IX: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND for the
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as
monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation
resolution.
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional, and proportionate appropriations -
the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues
collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all
realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said
fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included or not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of
the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without
the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific
item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items
exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the
issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department,
bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney, and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for
securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the
Board of Supervisors.
Page 15
Paragraph Five
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County
Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not
issue any warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board
of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in
the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to
change from time to time to maintain like rates.
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and nine.
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
Page 16
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WH ER EA S, the Albemarle C ounty Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrow er”), intends to
acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the “Project”);
and
WH ER EA S, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrow er expects to advance its ow n
funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to
receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of taxexempt bonds or taxable debt, or both;
NOW, TH ER EFOR E, BE IT R ESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of taxexempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to incur
other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $30,193,839.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrow er
for Expenditures w ith respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to
the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the
Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherw ise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of
a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in
each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a
nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not
related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition
(directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrow er.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by
the Borrower that evidences the Borrow er’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure,
no later than 18 months after the later of the date on w hich the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed
in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is
paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs
of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance
and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent” within
the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.1502 promulgated under the Internal R evenue Code of
1986, as amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
Exhibit A
C APITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED PROJECTS
FY 2009/10
Schools A mount
1. School Maintenance Projects $3,269,000
2. Gy mnasium HVAC & Lighting Replac ement $1,794,000
4. Greer Elementary School Addition/Renovations $80,000
5. Crozet Elementary School Improvements $395,000
6. Henley Auxiliary PE/Meeting Spac e $200,000
Schools Subtotal $5,738,000
General Fund A mount
1. Fire Rescue Apparatus $2,737,000
2. County IT Infrastructure/Server U pgrade $375,000
General Fund Subtotal $3,112,000
TOTA L DEBT ISSUE – FY 2009/10 PR OJEC TS $8,850,000
PREVIOUSLY A PPROPRIA TED PROJEC TS TO BE BONDED
General Fund A mount
1. Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Renovations $4,000,000
2. Pantops Fire Station $2,735,000
4. Iv y Fire Station $2,201,000
5. Fire Rescue Apparatus $1,431,000
6. Crozet Ladder Truc k $1,138,000
7. Public Safety Training C enter* $1,988,000
8. Crozet Streetscapes Phase II* $1,890,839
9. County Office Building Phase II* $1,800,000
7. Crozet Library* $3,800,000
8. County IT Infrastructure/Server U pgrade $360,000
General Fund Subtotal $21,343,839
TOTA L DEBT ISSUE – A LL PROJECTS $30,193,839
*Project previously antic ipated to be funded or partially funded with cash.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
Board‐to‐Board
May 2009
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Instructional Coaching Update: The School Board gave direction to the School Division on February 3
to continue with the implementation of the Instructional Coaching Model reorganization. Under this
model, division‐ and schools‐based instructional support positions would be reorganized into five
centrally managed coaching teams that 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.
On April 1st and 2nd, Principals and Instructional Coaches worked with to create a common vision and
purpose. In the coming months prior to school starting, instructional coaches will be working with
teachers and principals to gather input and develop protocols for the work that they will be doing next
school year.
Administrative Appointments: The School Board approved the following personnel changes during its
meetings on March 26th and April 2nd:
Billy Haun was named Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning. This position is
currently held by Dr. Bruce Benson, who will assume the role of Assistant Superintendent for
Planning and Operations as of July 1. Mr. Haun is currently the principal of Monticello High
School.
Mr. Dave Francis was appointed as principal of Western Albemarle High School. Mr. Francis
was currently serving as interim principal at Western Albemarle.
Dr. Luvelle Brown was appointed as Chief Information Officer for the School Division. This
shift is part of the reorganization of the division leadership, and represents a lateral job
redefinition for Dr. Brown.
Dr. Matt Haas was named Director of Secondary Education. He will be responsible for
curriculum and instruction for students in grades 6 – 12. Dr. Haas is currently the principal of
Albemarle High School.
The School Division is currently interviewing for the principal positions at Monticello High School,
Albemarle High School and Burley Middle School. These positions are open due to promotions listed
above and a retirement.
Gang Forums: On April 27 th and 28th, Albemarle County Police, Schools and Commonwealth’s
Attorney’s Office presented a free community forum on gangs and gang activity. The presentation was
held to raise public awareness regarding gangs, share prevention strategies that schools have in place,
provide a list of community resources, and highlight how parents and citizens can get involved in
preventing gang activity in our area.
Albemarle High School Band and Chorus: The Albemarle High School Band and Choir programs won
top honors at the Cruise Festivals Music Competition while in Nassau, Bahamas over Spring Break.
The Marching Band, Wind Ensemble, Patriot Singers, All That Jazz, Take Note! and Ladies First Show
Choir each received Superior ratings, the highest possible rating from the panel of music industry
judges. The Symphonic Band and Women’s Ensemble received Excellent ratings.
Greer Elementary School Gym Dedication: Greer Elementary School held a ribbon cutting and
dedication ceremony for the newly constructed gymnasium on Friday, April 17 th. The new gym was
dedicated to former Greer Principal, Fulton Marshall who served the Greer community for over two
decades until 2001.
Destination ImagiNation: Students from Albemarle County Public Schools stole the show at the
Virginia Destination ImagiNation® (DI) Tournament on April 4th, placing in the top three in each of
five competitive categories focusing on theatrical, structural, improvisational, scientific, and technical
skills. Of the 70 participating schools, 10 teams were from Albemarle County; seven of these teams
advanced to the Global Finals, and all won awards. First‐ and second‐place winning teams at the state
tournament will compete with over 900 teams from all 50 states and 40 countries at the DI Global Finals
May 20‐24 in Knoxville, TN.
Destination ImagiNation® is a process‐based program grounded in sound creative problem solving
theory that helps young people build lifelong skills. The Jefferson Region has participated for 10 years
and Albemarle County Public Schools has sent at least one team to the World Championship level since
1998. Up to seven participants work together as a team for eight to 12 weeks to create their unique
solution to a Team Challenge, and participants learn: creativity, problem solving skills, teamwork,
presentation skills, confidence, knowledge application, creative and critical thinking skills, time
management, and research skills. Albemarle County Schools encourages participation in the program,
providing support through Gifted Services and Gifted Resource Teachers at all schools.
School Volunteer Appreciation Week: April 19‐25 was National School Volunteer Appreciation Week.
More than 35,000 volunteer hours have been clocked in Albemarle County Schools to date. Many
schools hosted Volunteer Appreciation breakfasts or gatherings. Each school will nominate a
“Volunteer of the Year” who will be invited to the May 14 th School Board meeting for special
commendation.
On Wednesday, April 22 (Earth Day), volunteers from across the community gathered at Albemarle
County Schools to participate in spring service projects.
May Meetings: The School Board will hold its regular meeting on May 14th and its regular work
session on May 28th.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proffer Management FY09 Third Quarter Cash
Proffer R eport
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report of c ash proffer revenues and
expenditures for January – March of 2009
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Higgins,
Ms. Mc Culley and Ms. Baldw in
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The information provided herein represents all cash proffer activity for the months of J anuary through March of
2009. W hen staff presented the Second Quarter Cas h Proffer Report to the Board on February 4, 2009, the Board
asked s taff to expand the report to inc lude noncash proffers. Noncas h proffers can take many forms, such as land
dedications, specific road improvements, and project dev elopment design improvements . Staff continues to improve
tracking of both cash and noncash proffers through the use of a proffer database and the implementation of
standard operating procedures. Staff is in the process of assessing the best way to report this information and will
try to provide an expanded report to the Board with the next quarter proffer report. Staff is currently w orking with the
various stakeholder groups to update the status of all prior proffers, and will include that information in the expanded
report.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop Infras tructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
Goal 5: Fund the County ’s Future Needs.
DISCU SSION :
A. Proffered: No rezonings were approved during this quarter.
B. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: Since no new rez onings were approved between January and March, the total
anticipated proffer rev enue is $56,758,832, the same as it was for the prior tw o quarters.
C. Revenue: During this quarter, the County received a total of $114,225 in cash proffers. The c ontributions
include $109,000 from Hollymead Town Center Area A1 (ZMA 200515) w hich is allocated as follows : $59,000 for
the Route 29 Traffic Study and $50,000 for a future greenway connec tion and pedestrian access at Hollymead and
Route 29. Wickham Pond (ZMA 200417) contributed $3,225.81 for general CIP funds in the Crozet area. Martha
Jeffers on Hospital (ZMA 200115) contributed $2,000 for transportation improvements in addition to their prior
contribution. The additional MJH funds w ere due to a miscalculation in the amount of their prior contribution.
D. Total Interest Earnings: The total interest earned from cash proffer revenues is $312,867.
E. Expenditure: Although no funds w ere expended this quarter, staff anticipates sev eral requests to appropriate
proffered funds for upcoming C IP projects w ill be pres ented to the Board in the next quarter. County staff is
focusing on utilizing proffered funds where needed and permitted within the context of the proffer.
BUDGET IMPACT:
It is important to note that the C ounty continues to receive cash proffer revenues. This is largely due to
previous ly approved rez onings for which cash proffers were tied to plan approval rather than to building permits.
These funds are designated for specific projects, which offsets the need for County funding.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Proffer management reports are received by the Board on a quarterly bas is for information only. Staff welcomes any
comments or questions.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Proffer Management FY 09 3rd Quarter R eport
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Proffer Management FY 09 Third Quarter !""""!!!!!# !"#!"" "" # $% !# "#!#!##"# !&’# !&’# !&’!($%&’%&()*+*$%&*$&)+))&$%&’’+’$)’&%*+)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SEEA Grant Proposal Update
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Passing of SEEA Grant Resolution
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Shadman,
and Ms. Temple
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
B ACK GROUN D:
On D ecember 5, 2007 the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the U.S. C ool Counties Climate
Stabilization Dec laration committing to reduce the County’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. A
baseline greenhouse gas emis sions inventory has been completed by staff. This inventory data, along with
the City of Charlottesville’s data, reveal that energy consumption by the existing building stock (residential
and commercial) is the major c ontributor to greenhouse gas emissions. As s uch, a clear strategy is needed
to address cost savings, energy s avings and emission reductions by property ow ners in the community.
On January 14, 2009 the Board passed a resolution authoriz ing the County to work collaborativ ely with the
C ity of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia to address energy efficiency and climate change,
including collaboration on the development of a joint proposal for the Southeastern Energy Efficiency
Alliance (SEEA) grant. SEEA is a nonprofit organization that promotes energy efficient policies and
practices by bringing together governments, businesses, environmental organizations, lowincome energy
advocates, large energy consumers, universities and others to promote energy efficient policies and
practices.
This grant opportunity, issued in February 2009, will provide up to $500,000 to a city, county or regional
organization in one of the eleven southeastern states to design and implement a community energy alliance
(the Request for Proposals, or RFP, also refers to this as an “operating company”) that would work to
achieve unprecedented gas, elec tricity, and water savings by retrofitting buildings and installing renewable
technologies in all enduse sec tors. Goals outlined in the RFP include 3050% market penetration, 2040%
c omprehensiv e efficiency gain / conservation, a 57 year performance period, and a replicable model.
Ac cording to the letter of intent sent to SEEA, the proposed local energy allianc e w ould help tie together,
leverage, and ac celerate local efforts in energy efficiency and climate protection, community design, and
w orkforce development. Supporters of the proposal may include the County, the C ity of Charlottesville, the
C harlottesville Community Des ign Center / SPARK! Initiative, Piedmont Virginia Community College, and
the University of Virginia. The grant proposal deadline is May 15, 2009.
The RFP sugges ts that this community energy alliance could be modeled after the Cambridge Energy
Alliance (CEA), a nonprofit c orporation that provides financ ing and assistance for Cambridge,
Massachusetts residents and businesses in the form of loans to make energy efficiency improvements, the
c osts of whic h are anticipated to be offset by utility bill savings .
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1 Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens
Goal 2 – Protect the County’s Natural Resources
D ISCU SSION:
Enabling Legislation Issue
The overall purpose of the SEEA grant is for a locality to use the aw arded funds to establish a community
energy alliance or “operating company” to implement the program. Currently the C ounty and the City do not
have the enabling authority from the State to establish an “operating company” as part of a c ommunity
energy alliance as envisioned by the RFP and as demonstrated by model programs such as the Cambridge
Energy Allianc e. The goals of a community energy alliance, however, are compatible with exis ting City and
C ounty environmental sustainability goals, therefore the approach the City and County will take in respect to
the RFP will be unique.
The current approach the County and C ity plan to undertake is to identify in the proposal the legislative
c onstraints and barriers to establishing an operating company as described in the RFP, identify strategies
towards address ing these roadblocks, and c ontinue the dev elopment of partners hip opportunities and links
betw een the range of local and regional interests involved with this proposal.
Although the C ity and County are not currently authorized to establish an operating company as described in
the RFP, the recent passing of SB 1212 by the Commonwealth of Virginia enables the County and C ity to
authorize and iss ue, by ordinanc e, contracts to provide loans for the initial ac quisition and installation of
c lean energy improvements. It enables Virginia localities to establish public private financing initiatives to
help property ow ners to make energy efficienc y and renewable energy improv ements to their homes and
businesses.
Therefore, if awarded the grant, the C ity and C ounty’s approac h may include:
Using of a portion of the awarded funds to draft model legislation and obtain enabling
authority so that cities and counties in Virginia are able to form independent local entities or
“operating companies” to act as local energy alliances and undertake activ ities currently
prohibited by the State. This w ould also help make this a replic able effort (one of the goals
identified in the RFP).
Using the authority granted to localities in SB 1212, enter into a “joint exercise of powers”
agreement with the C ity to es tablish a unified loan program that could financ e the private
acquisition and installation of clean energy improvements in the commercial and residential
sectors.
Designating a temporary “operating company” (i.e. the State of Virginia itself or the grantor,
SEEA) until the C ounty and C ity have the enabling authority to form an operating company
for this endeav or.
Evaluating a range of other administrative and logistical steps necessary to implement this
type of program.
Benefits and Opportunities
The proposal team, consisting of a consultant hired by the State, State representatives, City and County
elected leaders and staff, and University of Virginia representatives and staff, believes this is a timely
v enture given all of the recent national attention regarding energy efficiency and climate protection.
Significant efforts are underw ay to analyze the energy characteristics of the community’s building stock.
The team has been in discussions with Dominion Virginia Pow er in order to gage their support, and
Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) is interested in being the local sponsor for the home
performance as sessment program, building in quality assuranc e and work credibility. They see this effort as
one that would c reate and support “good green jobs,” and could help to revitalize the area’s construction
s ector. At this moment, there is significant public and private interest regarding the development of a local
energy alliance (s ee Attachment A for a nonexhaustive listing).
C ompelling cas es have been made that an effort of this kind and magnitude can be extremely effective in
order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the residential and commercial s ectors on an 80% by 2050
pace. An additional, practical reas on to pursue this grant is that the work, analyses, and initiatives
undertaken for the development of the SEEA application are relevant to the preparation of applications for
Federal Stimulus funds from other sources, s uch as the Department of Energy .
R esolution
The RFP calls for a Resolution addressing the localities’ support tow ards submission of this proposal. (See
Attachment C ).
If the Board chooses to apply for the SEEA Grant, staff agrees that it would strengthen the application to
include a reference in the Resolution that the C ounty would consider using a portion of the formula Energy
Efficiency Block Grant (EEC BG) funds (additional information regarding the County’s EECBG funds is
included in Attachment B) the County expects to receive in s timulus funding in support of applicable energy
efficiencyrelated programs in the residential and commercial s ectors, whic h are efforts consistent with the
SEEA grant goals. Given that a resolution is c alled for in the RFP, this would help demons trate the
C ounty’s commitment to the establishment of a communitywide energy efficiency effort, and ensure that
the SEEA grant proposal is as competitive as possible. Staff further recommends that, while it is listed as
an eligible activ ity, the County ’s federal stimulus funds should not be included in a revolving loan fund or
other activity that will result in longterm monitoring and compliance requirements. In addition, the County’s
EEC BG funds would need to be allocated to activities that meet all federal, state and local requirements,
including applicable procurement laws.
Timeline
Ac cording to the RFP, the County and City w ill be informed by May 30th as to w hether they have been
s elected as a finalist for the SEEA grant, and the grant will be awarded by June 20th. Sinc e the County is
not required to submit an applic ation and strategy for its EECBG funds until J une 25th, staff will still have
time to make adjustments, if des ired, to its strategy included in our EECBG application, if the SEEA grant is
not obtained.
B UDGET IMPAC T:
If awarded the $500,000 SEEA grant, the County would use its share of thes e funds in accordance with the
potential uses described abov e.
R ECOMMEND ATION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution (Attachment C).
A TTAC HMENTS:
Attachment A List of organizations with whic h local energy alliance discuss ions and planning have
occurred
Attachment B EEC GB Fund Information
Attachment C Resolution
R eturn to regular agenda
Attachment A: List of organizations with which local energy alliance discussions and
planning have occurred
Charlottesville City C ouncil members
Albemarle Board of Supervisors
Virginia D epartment of Mines, Minerals and Energy
Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR (R esidential and C ommercial)
Dominion Virginia Pow er
Piedmont Virginia C ommunity C ollege (PVCC )
Charlottesville Community D esign Center (CCD C)/SPARK
Piedmont Housing Alliance
Community Energy Conservation Program
City Neighborhood Development Services (N DS)
Director of Planning for County of Albemarle
Charlottesville Redevelopment and H ousing Authority (CRH A)
Jefferson Area Board for the Aging (JABA)
United Way
Charlottesville Community D evelopment Block Grant (CDBG) Task Force
City's Housing Advisory Committee and C ounty's Chief of Housing
TJPDC , Economic D evelopment D epartments, Charlottesville and Albemarle C ounty
Principal, Hearthwood Apartments
Charlottesville Quality Community Council (QCC )
Habitat for Humanity
Building Performance Institute (BPI)
Earth Craft
Blue Ridge Building Council
US Green Building Council, James River chapter
Virginia Sustainable Building Netw ork (VSBN)
Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors
Virginia H ousing Development Authority
Virginia R esource Authority
VML/VACO Finance C ompany
University of Virginia
Provost/Academic Community Engagement
Office of the Architect
Miller C enter
Architecture, Curry, Darden, McIntire, Engineering, Environmental Studies,
Public Policy and Leadership
Numerous local construction firms, architects, energy consultancies, H VAC companies and other
trade partners.
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
Attachment B Energy Efficiency and Conservation B lock Grant (EECB G) Information
Due to its population siz e and other factors, the County has been notified of its eligibility to received a $406,000
appropriation from the American Recov ery and Reinves tment Act of 2009 (AR RA) Energy Efficiency and
Conserv ation Block Grant (EEC BG) Program from the D epartment of Energy (DOE).. According to the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), EECBG funds can be used communityw ide, not only for government owned facilities
and infrastructure.
The following activities are eligible to be funded with EECBG stimulus funds, however, the County may or may not
have enabling authority to undertake all of them:
Development of an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and Tec hnical C onsultant Services to
assist in the development of s uch a strategy .
Residential and C ommerc ial Building Energy Audits.
Financial Inc entive Programs and Mechanisms for energy efficiency improvements such as energy savings
performance c ontracting, onbill financing, and revolving loan funds.
Grants to nonprofit organiz ations and governmental agenc ies for the purpos e of performing Energy
Efficiency Retrofits.
Energy Efficiency and Cons ervation Programs for Buildings and Facilities.
Development and Implementation of Transportation Programs to conserve energy.
Building Codes and Inspections to promote building energy efficiency.
Energy Dis tribution Technologies that significantly increase energy efficiency, including distributed
resources, combined heat and power, and dis trict heating and cooling sys tems.
Material Conservation Programs including source reduction, recycling, and recycled content procurement
programs that lead to increas es in energy efficiency.
Reduction and C apture of Methane and Greenhouse Gases generated by landfills or similar wasterelated
sources.
Energy efficient Traffic Signals and Street Lighting.
Renewable Energy Technologies on Gov ernment Buildings .
Any Other Appropriate Activ ity that meets the purposes of the program and is approved by DOE.
The DOE emphasizes that this onetime s timulusfunded EECBG funding w ill have a maximum impact if they create
and/or retain jobs and stimulate the economy in the short term while also establishing a foundation for a longterm
and sus tainable clean energy economy. While localities can expend their formula bloc k grant funds on any eligible
activity bes t meets the locality’s needs , D OE encourages recipients to prioritize programs and projects that will:
Leverage other public and private resources.
Enhance w ork force development.
Persist beyond the funding period.
Promote energy market trans formation s uch as revolving loans, lowcost loans, energy sav ings performance
contracting, advanced building c odes, building and home retrofit incentives and policies, and transportation
programs and policies.
The County w ill be required to report regularly to the DOE on: 1) Jobs c reated and/or retained , 2) Energy savings on
a per dollar invested basis (ROI), 3) R enewable energy capacity ins talled, 4) Greenhouse gas emis sions reduced
and 5) funds leveraged.
The County may also be eligible to submit competitive applications for additional EECBG grant funding.
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
R ESOLU TION TO SUPPORT THE SEEA GR ANT APPLICA TION
WH ER EA S, on January 14, 2009, the County of Albemarle passed a resolution to support the
C ounty, City and University w orking collaboratively to address energy efficiency and climate change; and
WH ER EA S, on January 14, 2009, the County of Albemarle passed a resolution requesting
enabling legislation to implement a clean energy financing program, w hich has been realized in the
passing of the State of Virginia’s Senate Bill 1212; and
WH ER EA S, a clean energy financing program is a key component of an effective local energy
alliance, as described in the SEEA grant R FP; and
WH ER EA S, the establishment of a local energy alliance or “operating company” as described in
the SEEA grant RFP by localities is dependent upon enabling legislation and can only be developed if
permitted by the C ommonw ealth of Virginia; and
WH ER EA S, w ith the acknow ledgement of Virginia local governments’ current limitations, the
C ounty is pleased to support a SEEA grant proposal; and
WH ER EA S, the creation and implementation of a local energy alliance or operating company
w ould assist the community in achieving important goals and underscores our commitment to energy
efficiency, affordable housing, renew able technologies, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction; and
WH ER EA S, the C ounty may request that SEEA or the State of Virginia act as a temporary
operating company for the purposes of the grant, until enabling legislation can be obtained; and
WH ER EA S, the County would collaborate with the operating company to develop the capabilities,
programs, and services our community needs with respect to its energy use – education, conservation,
energy efficiency, and renew able generation; and
WH ER EA S, the C ounty intends to w ork closely with the local energy alliance, if established, and
operating company to promote a variety of energy efficiency campaigns and programs (e.g., for owner
occupied residences, the business/commercial sector, rental properties, neighborhood campaigns, etc.),
and to incorporate workforce and economic development into these campaigns, as w ell as into the overall
regional effort, through both systemic and episodic strategies; and
WH ER EA S, the County will continue to implement an aggressive internal energy conservation
program towards our goal of 30% energy reduction from County buildings by 2012, which includes a goal
of increased use of renewable energy such as solar panels, and the continuation of maintaining our
community demonstration green roof and rain garden projects; and
WH ER EA S, the County intends to consider using a portion of the Energy Efficiency and
C onservation Block Grant (EEC BG) funds in support of applicable energy efficiencyrelated programs in
the residential and commercial sectors; and
WH ER EA S, the C ounty plans to demonstrate financial support in the near term by pursuit of
competitive energyrelated grants, and w ill continue to contribute staff time, information and resources
tow ards this overall effort; and
WH ER EA S, the C ounty w ill continue to evaluate opportunities for future financial support of this
effort on a regular basis; and
WH ER EA S, the C ounty looks forw ard to working with our partners on the continued development
and implementation of this effort, and are hopeful for the successful aw ard of the SEEA grant.
NOW THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
supports the C ounty, jointly with the C ity of C harlottesville, applying for SEEA grant funds and will provide
support, in all of the ways described above, helping establish a model community energy efficiency
program so that other localities in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as throughout the southeastern
U .S., will be able to replicate this effort.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resource Management Review Update
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on review and implementation of the
recommendations of the R esource Management
Review
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott, D avis, Bowman
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On May 7, 2008, the Board directed s taff to initiate an external assess ment of the C ounty’s resourc e management in
conjunction with the County’s ongoing continuous improv ement efforts . On July 2, 2008, the Board approved the
County entering into an agreement with Virginia Commonwealth University’s Commonwealth Educational Policy
Institute (CEPI) to conduct this assess ment. C EPI deliv ered its final report to the Board on February 11, 2009. This
item is intended to provide the Board information on s taff’s current progress and planned actions in ev aluating and
implementing the recommendations of CEPI’s assess ment. Staff has identified priority recommendations for
analysis and implementation (Attachment A) and will prov ide quarterly updates on all of the report’s
recommendations beginning in July.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the wellbeing and quality of life for all citizens through the prov ision of the highest level
of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCU SSION :
The Resource Management Review inc luded 148 recommendations for local government departments and selected
community agencies that have been c ategorized by s taff as follows (a list of the recommendations included in eac h
category is available in Attachment B). In future updates, staff will combine duplicative or closely related
recommendations to allow for greater focus and clarity in reporting.
24 recommendations affirmed existing County processes or practices that will be continued.
5 recommendations have been implemented or resolved.
60 recommendations are in the process of being implemented.
18 recommendations are related to prov iding additional resources. Thes e w ill be reviewed in the context of
the County’s annual FiveYear Financial Plan and budget processes.
41 rec ommendations will require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered for
implementation. Staff will proceed with thes e evaluations as soon as possible recognizing that existing
s taffing levels in some departments and the scope of organiz ational change required by certain
recommendations w ill determine their timing for implementation.
Additionally , staff has identified several recommendations as a priority for analysis and implementation (Attachment
A). The recommendations in Attachment A are further c ategorized by recommendations that are polic yoriented and
will require Board cons ideration and other recommendations that can be analyzed and implemented administratively .
Staff will provide quarterly updates to the Board beginning in July on the status and results of all of the Resource
Management Review’s recommendations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impac t in analyzing the report’s recommendations at this time. Recommendations that will
require additional resources to analyze or implement beyond the reallocation of existing resources will be brought
to the Board for discus sion and action.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This update is presented for the Board’s information. Staff requests direction from the Board if there is input on the
recommendations in Attachment A.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – List of Priority Recommendations Identified by Staff
B – Status of R esource Management R eview R ecommendations
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A - List of Priority Recommendations Identified by Staff
Policy-oriented Recommendations:
Department Recommendation Status/Comments
Board of
Supervisors
Approve a strategic plan that could make economic
development a priority and identify this area as a
potential major generator of revenue.
The Economic Development section of Comprehensive Plan was recently revised.
Board of Supervisors direction is needed regarding whether this issue should be
addressed in the Strategic Plan as a new priority.
Board of
Supervisors
Streamline the planning process to make it a more
cost-effective operation (other related
recommendations included in Resource Mgt.
Review)
The Development Review Process Task Force recently completed work in this area.
Board of Supervisors direction is needed if additional actions are to be evaluated or
pursued.
Board of
Supervisors
Allocate school system debt beginning with the FY
09/10 budget process as part of the transfer to
schools budget. Adjust annually based on
population, enrollment, and other considerations.
A joint work session between the Board of Supervisors and School Board has been
set for mid-June to begin consideration of this proposed change. The Resource
Management Review was delivered to the Board of Supervisors in February 2009
and a change was not able to be implemented in the FY 09/10 budget process due
to this timing.
Board of
Supervisors
Begin in the FY 09/10 budget process adjusting the
60% funding allocation up or down for the schools
based on the previous year's change in population
v. school enrollment and other considerations.
Local government and school staff will propose a process to both Boards for
considering this issue before the FY 10/11 budget cycle. The Resource Management
Review was delivered to the Board of Supervisors in February 2009 and a change
was not able to be implemented in the FY 09/10 budget process due to this timing.
Board of
Supervisors
Negotiate between the County and the schools an
appropriate fund balance for schools to maintain.
Local government and school staff will propose a process to both Boards to consider
this issue before the FY 10/11 budget process.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Consider reorganization of CSA administration to
streamline system.
The City of Charlottesville's Resource Management Study contains a similar
recommendation. City Council is scheduled to hold a work session on their plan in
June with an intent to reach consensus on priorities. If the City also views this
recommendation as a priority, a City/County staff workgroup will convene to develop
alternative models with specific means for achieving efficiencies.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Explore whether housing CSA staff within Social
Services would improve communication,
coordination and accountability for fund
expenditures while retaining regional focus. This
may allow for State reimbursement of portion of
CSA Director's salary.
The City of Charlottesville's Resource Management Study contains a similar
recommendation. City Council is scheduled to hold a work session on their plan in
June with an intent to reach consensus on priorities. If the City also views this
recommendation as a priority, a City/County staff workgroup will convene to develop
alternative models with specific means for achieving efficiencies.
Attachment A - List of Priority Recommendations Identified by Staff
Policy-oriented Recommendations:
Department Recommendation Status/Comments
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Redefine CSA Coordinator's role through a regional
body such as CCF. Strengthen link between CSA
Office, leadership and staff. Consider changing
CSA Coordinator to a higher level position to
convey leadership, influence and increase access
and engagement.
The City of Charlottesville's Resource Management Study contains a similar
recommendation. City Council is scheduled to hold a work session on their plan in
June with an intent to reach consensus on priorities. If the City also views this
recommendation as a priority, a City/County staff workgroup will convene to develop
alternative models with specific means for achieving efficiencies.
Fire Rescue Implement as soon as practical a revenue recovery
program for medical transports.
Direction from the Board of Supervisors is needed for consideration of this matter.
Fire Rescue Utilize the career department with the volunteer
departments as one cohesive professional agency.
Direction from the Board of Supervisors is needed for consideration of this matter.
Human
Resources
Analyze the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive
Program (VERIP) and determine (1) whether it
serves its designated purpose and (2) include an
evaluation of part-time employee benefits as a part
of this analysis.
Staff has developed an action plan to assess VERIP and the Longevity Incentive for
full and part-time employees as follows:
1) February-March: Current market data collected.
2) May-September: HR will work with a cross-organizational team to develop
recommendations. These recommendations will be shared with local business
leaders for their feedback.
3) Recommendations will be presented to Board of Supervisors and School Board
for the FY 10/11 budget process.
4) Ongoing communication to all School Division and Local Government employees
around the work of the cross-organizational team will occur throughout this process.
Attachment A - List of Priority Recommendations Identified by Staff
Administrative-oriented Recommendations:
Department Recommendation Status/Comments
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Make it a top priority to reduce costs to localities and focus on at-
risk children to reduce the overall number in CSA immediately.
This recommendation has been made a priority due to financial
implications of a recent change in state match rates and evidence-
based practices that show best results when children remain in their
home communities. To this end, the County, City and its CSA partners
are working to implement a broad-based community approach (Systems
of Care) for at-risk children.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Work to reduce number of CSA administration meetings.The City of Charlottesville's Resource Management Study contains a
similar recommendation. City Council is scheduled to hold a work
session on their plan in June with an intent to reach consensus on
priorities. If the City also views this recommendation as a priority, a
City/County staff workgroup will convene to develop alternative models
with specific means for achieving efficiencies.
County
Executive's
Office
Reconsider the frozen auditor position in the Finance Department.This position is planned to be filled as a part of the County's
current staffing reallocation efforts.
County
Executive's
Office
Request and review quarterly progress reports from agencies on
outcome measures.
Staff will work in collaboration with the City of Charlottesville to develop
outcome based contracts and quarterly progress reports for community
agencies.
County
Executive's
Office
Request outcome-based information from external human
services agencies.
Staff will work in collaboration with the City of Charlottesville to develop
outcome based contracts and quarterly progress reports for community
agencies.
Finance Increase efforts to determine whether or not County businesses
with Charlottesville zip codes are making payments to the proper
localities.
Staff is planning to fill the frozen Business Auditor position that will work
with current GIS resources to move this effort forward.
Finance Ensure that adequate resources are applied to the successful
completion of the "Access Albemarle" project. A champion
should be designated to run the project and ensure success.
Adequate funding is currently set aside for the project and project
management assistance is in place. Staff will continue to monitor
resource needs as the project proceeds. The County Executive's Office
is the primary "champion" for the project, with strong support from key
Finance and IT management staff.
Office of
Housing
Develop a strategic plan to guide investment and partnership
decisions of the Office of Housing and affordable housing policy.
The Housing Committee is moving towards the development of a
strategic plan.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that affirm existing County processes or practices that will be continued
Department Recommendation
Community
Development
Ensure the team that addresses organizational realignment includes a person from OMB or HR to guide discussions affecting personnel.
Community
Development
Explore adjustments to reduce the number of Planning Commission meetings from weekly to no more than twice a month. Pilot this
change to gauge effectiveness.
Community
Development
Eliminate the backlog of old incomplete inspection permits. Consult State's Record Retention Policy and Attorney's Office regarding
options.
Community
Development
Continue cross-training inspectors to assist with other code enforcement activities.
County
Executive's
Office
Continue refinement of the Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) and the reporting structure - make KPIs more robust and routinely review.
Finance Ensure that adequate resources are applied to the successful completion of the "Access Albemarle" project. A champion should be
designated to run the project and ensure success.
Finance Monitor whether local-only funds diverted from the Health Department to non-profits are going to direct and needed services.
Fire Rescue Continue to require independent annual audits of all volunteer departments to which County contributes public funds.
Human
Resources
Continue to utilize an employee benefits consultant to gather comprehensive health care benefit data to make recommendations about
the competitiveness of the County's plan and to keep costs from escalating while retaining reasonable employee rates.
Human
Resources
Continue the succession planning component and develop a plan of action to identify and prepare qualified employees who demonstrate
leadership potential.
Human
Resources
Revisit collaborative efforts in training to ensure that the needs of all schools and local government employees are met. Work towards
more collaborative means to address training needs for all employees.
Human
Resources
Continue to work with the IT department to develop a comprehensive Human Resource Information System (HRIS) to enable more
efficient management and analysis of employee information and integration with payroll.
Human
Resources
Project the short-term and long-term costs associated with the pay-for-performance plan.
Human
Resources
Continue efforts to increase diversity at all levels of the organization.
Human
Resources
Continue to monitor and analyze scores in the County's performance evaluation system and its impact on the pay-for-performance
program to ensure consistency in application of merit scores.
Human
Resources
Continue to provide the opportunity for feedback from employees on their satisfaction with the pay-for-performance plan and measure
longitudinally.
Information
Technology
Continue to work with vendor partner to find creative ways to approach server consolidation.
Office of
Facilities
Development
Enlist the assistance of architects, engineers, and building contractors to review design and architectural plans before they are put to bid
to advise the County about design elements that might save costs.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that affirm existing County processes or practices that will be continued
Department Recommendation
Office of
Housing
Include outcome measures for Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) applications.
Review annually by an intergovernmental team to supplement the review by Housing Director and OMB.
Parks and
Recreation
Consider increasing the use of inmate labor for maintenance at school grounds when schools are not in session.
Parks and
Recreation
Train staff in the collection and utilization of key performance indicators to improve performance and management.
Parks and
Recreation
Legal Department should review all proffer deeds prior to sending them to Parks and Recreation Department.
Police Continue efforts with other jurisdictions to staff the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement (JADE) Task Force.
Social Services Work to improve outcomes of Adult Services and Child Protective Services.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations have been implemented or resolved
Department Recommendation Comments
Community
Development
Evaluate areas where staff work may be reduced
while still meeting state code requirements. Site
plans and subdivision plans could be approved by
staff, instead of Planning Commission.
This issue has been considered by both the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors, but a change was not approved.
Community
Development
Shorten Planning Commission minutes. Consider
action minutes, eliminate individual comments.
This issue has been considered by both the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors, but a change was not approved.
Community
Development
Invite the County Engineer to the employee team
that defines transfer of Water Resources personnel
to Community Development.
In 2004, there was a deliberate effort to separate the enforcement of the Water
Protection Ordinance from the stormwater program. This was done in recognition
that long-term objectives were often sacrificed by ongoing enforcement demands.
To assure the County maintained its commitment to its objectives, the water
resources staff was separated from Community Development’s enforcement
efforts. The County has revisited this issue within the past year, where a cross-
departmental staff team considered possible restructuring and determined that the
current organizational structure should be maintained.
Human
Resources
Identify steps to address the areas in the 2007 HR
Satisfaction Survey that show opportunities for
improvement.
Human Resources has implemented improvements in the areas identified by the
Satisfaction Survey, including creating and distributing contact cards to clarify the
appropriate contacts in HR for particular issues.
Parks and
Recreation
Consider collapsing the reporting relationships for
maintenance staff with ratios of 1:8 instead of
current 1:1 reporting relationships.
A recently frozen Parks Foreman position has required the department to revise its
maintenance staffing structure by combining park maintenance and athletic field
crews. Due to the large size of the County, parks system and limited number of
staff, park maintenance is regionalized within the County. While this does not allow
the ability to collapse reporting relationships, it does provide benefits such as
reducing travel time and associated costs. It should be noted that the supervisory
employee in this reporting relationship is also completing maintenance duties in the
park and furthermore, the reporting ratio increases to 1:4 when seasonal
employees are added.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
Department Recommendation
Board of
Supervisors
Allocate school system debt beginning with the FY 09/10 budget process as part of the transfer to schools budget. Adjust annually based
on population, enrollment, and other considerations.
Board of
Supervisors
Begin in the FY 09/10 budget process adjusting the 60% funding allocation up or down for the schools based on the previous year's
change in population v. school enrollment and other considerations.
Board of
Supervisors
Negotiate between the County and the schools an appropriate fund balance for schools to maintain.
Community
Development
Consider adjusting the number of supervisory titles and positions in Zoning Administration. Flatten supervisory structure.
Community
Development
Establish completion deadlines and status reporting schedules to prevent backlogs of permits.
Community
Development
Implement small teams to review this report's Community Development recommendations and draft implementation plans.
Community
Development
Reduce backlog of old bonds being carried on the books which carry costs to developers. They should be released if requirements are
satisfied.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Consider reorganization of CSA administration to streamline system.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Explore whether housing CSA staff within Social Services would improve communication, coordination and accountability for fund
expenditures while retaining regional focus. This may allow for State reimbursement of portion of CSA Director's salary.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Redefine CSA Coordinator's role through a regional body such as CCF. Strengthen link between CSA Office, leadership and staff.
Consider changing CSA Coordinator to a higher level position to convey leadership, influence and increase access and engagement.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Make it a top priority to reduce costs to localities and focus on at-risk children to reduce the overall number in CSA immediately.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Reduce or eliminate the "threshold" category as recommended by CSA process improvement report.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Work to reduce number of CSA administration meetings.
County
Executive's
Office
Reconsider the frozen auditor position in the Finance Department.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
Department Recommendation
County
Executive's
Office
Legislative: Bring the disadvantageous effects of the 2006 telecommunications tax reform legislation that was passed in the Virginia
General Assembly to the attention of the Assembly in order to benefit the County in future legislation.
County
Executive's
Office
Legislative: Promote a legislative agenda within the Virginia General Assembly to educate members about the unique circumstances that
their actions regarding annexation policy have placed upon the County.
County
Executive's
Office
Strengthen the existing performance management system and make it a more formal part of the management structure. Make
performance management "the" priority.
County
Executive's
Office
Request and review quarterly progress reports from agencies on outcome measures.
County
Executive's
Office
Request outcome-based information from external human services agencies.
Finance Increase efforts to determine whether or not County businesses with Charlottesville zip codes are making payments to the proper
localities.
Finance Ensure citizens understand the nuances of state funding formulas that make the County's operations more dependent upon local revenue
sources.
Fire Rescue Implement as soon as practical a revenue recovery program for medical transports.
Fire Rescue Utilize the career department with the volunteer departments as one cohesive professional agency.
Human
Resources
Create a systematic plan for safety audits to assess current and potential health and safety problems for schools and local government.
Human
Resources
Analyze the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (VERIP) and determine (1) whether it serves its designated purpose and (2)
include an evaluation of part-time employee benefits as a part of this analysis.
Human
Resources
Add performance evaluation and pay-for-performance plan questions on the Climate Surveys.
Human
Resources
Develop employee handbooks to serve as a quick reference for questions related to policies and guidelines.
Human
Resources
Encourage non-participating departments to develop standards for the Total Rewards program.
Human
Resources
Extend the HR Satisfaction and Employee Climate Surveys to school employees to receive feedback from all segments of County.
Human
Resources
Reevaluate the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (VERIP) and the Longevity Incentive Program for part-time employees and
determine future program cost, both short-term and long-term.
Information
Technology
Consider creating a County-wide IT Steering Committee to prioritize and assign funding to projects.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
Department Recommendation
Information
Technology
Create metrics (indicators) for project success such as "on time," "within cost," etc.
Information
Technology
Incrementally create a "dashboard" of projects so the community and Executive Management can see entire portfolio of projects that IT is
working on as well as the projects' status.
Information
Technology
Implement formal Security Architecture Review (SAR) process to ensure all new applications and infrastructure are reviewed by
committee for potential security risks prior to migration.
Information
Technology
Implement formalized reporting structure to document vendor management cost savings. Negotiate with existing vendors for lower
maintenance costs.
Information
Technology
Update and test the IT Disaster Recovery Plan and store a printed copy offsite.
Information
Technology
Update documentation (Network diagrams, Mainframe, Change control, Disaster Recovery Plan and IT Strategic Plan).
Information
Technology
Implement more formal security and awareness training for County employees (training can be purchased from Virginia Interactive for $5
per user per year).
Information
Technology
Implement a more effective communications plan regarding Access Albemarle progress.
Information
Technology
Institute load and integration testing prior to migrating Access Albemarle into production to help ensure applications are functioning
properly and system can handle the user load.
Information
Technology
Allocate and train at least two positions as Systems Administrators for Access Albemarle.
Information
Technology
Hire a full time PMI Certified Project Management Professional to provide direct leadership to the Access Albemarle project to provide a
single point of contact and structure to project.
Office of
Facilities
Development
Implement "value engineering" as a matter of policy in every building project, and regularly track and report the savings.
Office of
Housing
Consider establishing a regional consortium for allocation of Section 8 vouchers.
Office of
Housing
Clarify role of Housing Committee and their deliverables.
Office of
Housing
Develop a strategic plan to guide investment and partnership decisions of the Office of Housing and affordable housing policy.
Parks and
Recreation
Evaluate the shared responsibilities between the Director and the Deputy Director and clarify job descriptions. Consider adding
partnership development and revenue generation to Deputy Director's role.
Parks and
Recreation
Develop mechanisms for recording and tracking performance data for park maintenance, trails, ball fields and facilities.
Parks and
Recreation
Make it a priority to develop a web-based registration system for parks and recreation activities to reduce the burden on administrative
staff and increase revenues.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
Department Recommendation
Parks and
Recreation
Make it a regular practice to collect, analyze and use customer satisfaction surveys on web, at program sites and comment boxes.
Parks and
Recreation
Identify one person to serve as the coordinator for volunteer programming. Consider jointly hiring or funding this position with the City of
Charlottesville.
Police Expand the departments key performance indicators and set goals where practical. They should be shared with all employees and
available to public on the web.
Police Schedule both detectives and traffic officers for both day and evening shifts on weekdays and at least one on weekends within existing
staffing levels.
Police Within existing staff, assign resources to expand the Volunteers in Police Services Program (VIPS).
Region Ten Assess cost savings from Community Services Board (CSB) Diagnostic Center, and if positive, encourage local usage.
Sheriff's Office Coordinate traffic and speed enforcement between the Sheriff's and Police Departments to help avoid duplication of efforts. Also, Sheriff
should report to the Police Department the number of traffic tickets issued.
Sheriff's Office Use Sheriff's Deputies and Reserves for traffic control at designated intersections to free up County Police for extreme emergencies and
power outages.
Social Services Collect data on usage and benefits of Career Center in Social Services, then seek grant support and encourage Workforce Investment
Board (WIB) to pay for this function.
Social Services Encourage use of performance-based memorandums for partners.
Social Services Work with the University of Virginia to provide Department of Social Services staff ability to conduct Medicaid enrollment in all localities.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that will be reviewed during the Five-Year Financial Plan and budget processes
Department Recommendation
Commonwealth
Attorney's Office
Provide local funding (1/2) for an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Position if other 1/2 can be approved by State Compensation
Board.
County
Executive's
Office
Set strategic priorities and request that the Health Department and Region Ten respond to those areas as part of annual application
forms. Request these agencies provide outcome data and the numbers served.
Finance Review all fees on an annual basis to keep the appropriate costs in discretionary services up to date.
Finance Ensure that employees remain current on all aspects of operations and compliance; address the aging Computer Assisted Mass
Appraisal system (CAMA) in order to ensure timely and fair appraisals in the future.
Finance Ensure that training and personal development opportunities continue for Finance Department personnel.
Fire Rescue Evaluate the need for hiring another Battalion Chief for better coverage and more reasonable span of control.
Human
Resources
Maintain the employee wellness program and expand its range of activities as funding permits.
Information
Technology
Provide funding for a "hot site" or recovery service that is located at least 100 miles away from the County that could restore County
systems within 2-5 days instead of within 3-4 weeks.
Information
Technology
Implement Intrusion Detection/Protection Systems (IDS/IPS) to better provide IT security.
Information
Technology
Consider allocating one additional "desktop support" staff member.
Office of
Housing
Evaluate Office of Housing contracts and consider modifying them to be performance-based with key performance indicators and
benchmarks.
Police Continue and fully fund the Regional Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Pilot Program.
Police Consider hiring a forensic (lab) technician, part-time, if necessary.
Police Evaluate the need for Deputy Chief Position when resources are available.
Police Consider during the budget process, purchasing a Total Station optical instrument for modern accident reconstruction and crime scene
diagrams.
Police Consider during the budget process, purchasing Ballistic Shields for School Resource Officers.
Police Consider during the budget process, the development of a secure garage for vehicles or large evidence items for processing.
Regional Jail
Authority
Offer IT services to help review the feasibility of automating medical records to support the Regional Jail Authority.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered for implementation
Department Recommendation
Board of
Supervisors
Approve a strategic plan that could make economic development a priority and identify this area as a potential major generator of
revenue.
Board of
Supervisors
Streamline the planning process to make it a more cost-effective operation (other related recommendations included in Resource Mgt.
Review)
Community
Development
Consider transforming the inspection process into an enterprise operation with fees to recover costs.
Community
Development
Revisit County Code regarding preliminary plat review. Amend Code so that Planning Commission reviews the more serious issues.
Community
Development
Consider higher level sign-off on deferring follow-up actions on minor code violation complaints.
Community
Development
Define "critical paths" for plan initiatives to include labor and material cost estimates. For example, develop critical path for Crozet Master
Plan or Rivanna Plan and analyze for time and cost savings.
Community
Development
Designate a team leader outside of Community Development to encourage the use of process management tools to analyze current
processes and procedures to identify efficiencies.
Community
Development
Incorporate a commitment to cost control to the existing commitment to quality service. Cost should be part of the criteria when selecting
projects. Demands for public hearings, reports, work sessions and revisions may be reduced.
Community
Development
Geographic Data Services should document the anticipated and actual cost savings to the County of their services.
Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA)
Advocate for the inclusion of small group homes as "community-based" care rather than "congregate care." Work with local group homes
to change their service delivery model.
County
Executive's
Office
Enhance areas of opportunity to further cooperate or consider consolidating with the City of Charlottesville for benefit of the region and to
realize efficiencies.
County
Executive's
Office
Establish an internal operational "County Calendar" that lists all the key dates for the coming year as part of an internal communications
strategy.
County
Executive's
Office
Conduct a citizen review of the performance management system to increase transparency and improve the significance of key
performance indicators.
County
Executive's
Office
Develop changes and improvements for the performance management system with the input of Board and County citizens
Emergency
Communications
Center
Plan for the expansion of the Emergency Communications Center and its Emergency Management Office.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered for implementation
Department Recommendation
Emergency
Communications
Center
Replace and/or update Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system since it is unable to provide all statistical needs for supervisors.
Finance Re-examine the need to have a separate and distinct set of procurement regulations and revisit the policy of not issuing key employees
purchasing cards.
Finance Develop "memorandums of understanding" with entities that the County routinely provides services to and "project agreements" for free
standing projects that the County is asked to manage on behalf of other governmental agencies.
Finance Undertake a study of the staffing needs for the financial operations of the County while moving forward with "Access Albemarle."
Finance Establish a proactive risk management and internal control function and consider holding a "table top" disaster drill associated with
recovery of a major disaster impacting County financial operations.
Finance Formalize the roles and responsibilities associated with the shared services that are provided by the County to the Schools.
Fire Rescue Consider painting all fire and rescue vehicles (both paid and volunteer) the same color with the same markings so vehicles can be
transferred between stations for better management of apparatus' life cycles.
Fire Rescue Work towards requirement that all first responders (both volunteers and County staff) adhere to standards of Incident Command, all radio
standard operating procedures and discipline.
Fire Rescue Develop a central automated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) reporting system.
Information
Technology
Consider allocating staff positions from other departments to IT or allocate additional funding for part-time or contract staff for critical
system support. If not a possibility, consider partnering with neighboring localities to share technical support.
Information
Technology
Conduct an independent analysis to determine the potential cost savings and benefits of moving Geographic Data Services (GDS) within
IT.
Information
Technology
Implement regular (2 times per year) external and internal penetration testing for IT networks.
Information
Technology
Create a Project Management Office (PMO) within IT to manage large projects in the County. Staff it with Project Management
Professional (PMP's).
Office of
Housing
Consider developing an oversight body for the regional administration of Section 8 vouchers. The Office of Housing could administer the
program and build capacity to serve residents regionally.
Office of
Housing
Reevaluate the time used by four different housing committees in the region and explore opportunities for regional consolidation.
Office of
Housing
Reevaluate the use of formula funding for agencies and support investments based on the impact to community, quality of services, and
strategic housing priorities.
Office of
Housing
Develop key performance indicators that measure the Office's role in increasing the stock of affordable housing for residents.
Parks and
Recreation
Evaluate whether the joint operation of Albemarle and Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Departments will improve efficiencies and
enhance resources.
Parks and
Recreation
Revise all contracts to have clear performance measures and deliverables.
Attachment B - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered for implementation
Department Recommendation
Parks and
Recreation
Develop a more comprehensive strategic plan that includes longer term master planning for parks and recreational programming.
Police Expand the use of volunteers in Animal Control.
Region Ten Discontinue the use of formulas for allocations to public agencies. Base allocations on agencies' ability to provide needed results.
Regional Jail
Authority
Study and support options for jail expansion.
Regional Jail
Authority
Support a review of the current gate/pass system with a biometric system.
Regional Jail
Authority
Support efforts to repair locator system as soon as possible.
Social Services Assess the benefits of consolidation with Head Start including an assessment of costs and savings.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Debt Financing 2009
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Provide financing for the reimbursement of costs for
the (a) Hollymead Fire Station and related equipment
and (b) replacement of certain fire and EMS vehicles.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Board of Supervisors, on April 8, 2009, adopted the C ounty’s Operating Budget for FY 10 and Capital
Improv ements Program (CIP) for FY 10 – FY 14. The CIP assumes the borrowing of approximately $7.0 million to
reimburse the County for expenses related to the design, construction, and equipping of the Hollymead Fire Station
and the replacement of c ertain fire and EMS vehicles. This Executive Summary provides details on the financing
process .
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal Fiv e: Fund the County’s future needs
DISCU SSION :
Christopher Kulp of H unton & Williams LLP, the County’s bond couns el, has prepared Attachment A detailing the
County’s proposal to finance the costs of the (a) Hollymead fire station and related equipment and (b) replacement of
certain fire and EMS vehicles. The financing is proposed through a lease financing with the Economic D evelopment
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (EDA), which has enabling authority to assist the County in financing local
government facilities and equipment. The C ounty paid for these capital costs using cash with the expectation that
the cos ts would be reimbursed after a financing pack age was completed. The reimbursement of County funds
previous ly expended is permissible if the Board of Superv isors has adopted a reimbursement resolution. Because the
reimbursement w as anticipated, a reimbursement Resolution was adopted w hen the funding for these capital projec ts
was appropriated. The financing is struc tured based on the ED A issuing a lease revenue Note to a Bank and giving
the proceeds to the C ounty for the reimbursement of these costs.
Under the lease structure, the County w ill initially lease the Monticello Fire Station to the EDA pursuant to the terms
of a ground lease. The Hollymead Fire Station cannot be used as the collateral for the financing because the property
remains titled to the U niversity of Virginia Foundation (“UVF”) and is being leased to the County until such time as
sewer s erv ice is extended to the property. At that time, the property w ill be deeded to the County. (The ground lease
will substitute the Hollymead Fire Station for the Monticello Fire Station once the C ounty obtains fee simple title from
the UVF.) The EDA w ill lease the Monticello Fire Station back to the County, with terms requiring the County to
make s ufficient lease payments to the ED A to enable it to pay the debt service on the Note.
The County Financial Advisor, Davenport & Company LLC (Davenport), has submitted a Request for Proposals to
various banks for this financing. The bids w ill be returned to D avenport and reviewed w ith the Board at its meeting
on May 6, 2009.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s FY 10 Budget includes $856,284 in Princ ipal and Interes t c ost for this financing, which as sumed an
interest rate of 5.0%.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution (Attachment B) authorizing the propos ed plan of
lease financing with the Economic Dev elopment Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia for the acquisition,
construction and equipping of the Hollymead Fire Station and the replacement of certain fire and EMS vehicles.
Courtney R ogers from Davenport and County staff will be available at the Board’s meeting on May 6, 2009 to review
the bids from the banks for the lease financing, distribute a completed Resolution w ith the winning bid, and answer
Board questions.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Leas e Finance Summary
B Resolution
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Lease Financing Summary
1. The County has determined to finance the costs of (a) the Hollymead fire station and related
equipment and (b) the replacement of certain fire and EMS apparatus, through a lease financing with the
EDA. The EDA is authorized under provisions of the Industrial Development Authority and Revenue Bond
Act to assist the County in financing local government facilities and equipment.
2. The fact that the financing of the Project costs is really in the form of a reimbursement to the County
of previously expended funds is permissible. The IRS regulations applicable to taxexempt financings
contemplate that a locality may decide to commence construction of a project (and perhaps complete the
project) utilizing other funds, with the expectation that at a later date the locality will reimburse itself with
proceeds of a taxexempt financing. The only prerequisite is to have adopted a reimbursement resolution,
which the Board has done. This sequence of project expenditures and then reimbursement through a
subsequent taxexempt financing is utilized frequently by Virginia localities.
3. The financing structure contemplates that the EDA will issue a lease revenue Note to the Bank and
give the proceeds to the County (which will use the Note proceeds to reimburse itself for previously expended
Project costs). The Note will be secured by the lease structure described below.
4. Under the lease structure, the County will initially lease the Monticello fire station to the EDA
pursuant to the terms of a ground lease. As such, the County will never give up fee simple title to the
property. The term of the ground lease will end upon payment in full of the Note. The ground lease will
provide for a release of the Monticello fire station property and a substitution of the Hollymead fire station
property once the County obtains fee simple title from the UVA Foundation.
5. The EDA will lease the property back to the County for its use pursuant to the terms of the Note
Purchase and Lease Agreement. The County will then make lease payments to the EDA in amounts and at
times sufficient to enable the EDA to pay debt service on the Note. The County’s payment obligations under
the Note Purchase and Lease Agreement will be subject to appropriation from time to time by the Board of
Supervisors of sufficient monies for such purpose. In the unlikely event of nonappropriation, the Noteholder
(through the EDA) will be allowed to evict the County from the property and release to other parties, but
only for the term of the ground lease.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAN OF LEASE FINANCING
WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FOR THE ACQUISITION,
CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF A FIRE STATION AND
THE REPLACEMENT OF FIRE AND EMS APPARATUS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
“County”), desires to finance and refinance the costs of (a) acquiring, constructing and equipping a fire
station to be known as the Hollymead Fire Station and (b) replacing certain fire and EMS apparatus
(collectively, the “Project”);
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County (the “Authority”) is
authorized under the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (the “Act”) to exercise all the
powers set forth in the Act, which include, among other things, the power (i) to make loans to, among
others, a county in furtherance of the Act, (ii) to finance or refinance and lease facilities for use by,
among others, a county, (iii) to issue its revenue bonds, notes and other obligations from time to time for
such purposes and (iv) to pledge all or any part of its revenues and receipts derived from payments
received by the Authority in connection with its loans or from the leasing by the Authority of such
facilities or from any source, as security for the payment of principal of and interest on any such
obligations;
WHEREAS, the Board desires to undertake the financing and refinancing of the Project through
a lease structure with the Authority, pursuant to which the County would lease certain property to the
Authority pursuant to the terms of a Ground Lease (as hereinafter defined) and the Authority would lease
such property back to the County pursuant to the terms of a Lease Agreement (as hereinafter defined);
WHEREAS, until the County acquires fee simple title to the Hollymead Fire Station and can
substitute such property as leased collateral, the Board desires to secure the financing through a lease of
its Monticello Fire Station located on land in the County (with such land, together with all improvements
now or hereafter located thereon being, collectively, the “Property”);
WHEREAS, the Board desires that the Authority (a) issue a taxexempt bank qualified revenue
note in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,000,000 (the “Note”) pursuant to the terms of the
Lease Agreement between the Authority, the County and the Noteholder (as hereinafter defined) and
(b) lease the Property to the County at a rent sufficient to pay when due the principal of and interest on
the Note;
WHEREAS, the County Executive has requested Davenport & Company LLC, as the County’s
financial advisor (the “Financial Advisor”), to solicit bids from banking institutions for the purchase of
the Note;
WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting drafts of the following documents
(collectively, the “Documents”) that the County proposes to execute to carry out the transactions
described above, copies of which shall be filed with the records of the County:
(a) Ground Lease to be dated the date of its delivery (the “Ground Lease”), between the
Authority and the County pursuant to which the County will lease the Property to the Authority;
(b) Note Purchase Agreement and Lease Agreement to be dated the date of its delivery (the
“Lease Agreement”), between the Authority, the County and the banking institution selected by the
Authority and the County (the “Noteholder”) pursuant to which the Authority will (1) issue and sell the
Note, (2) use the proceeds of the Note to finance the Project, and (3) lease the Property to the County.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA:
1. The following plan for financing the Project is approved. The Authority is hereby
requested to issue the Note in a maximum principal amount not to exceed $7,000,000 and use the
proceeds to finance the Project. The County will lease the Property to the Authority pursuant to the
terms of the Ground Lease. Thereafter, the Authority will lease the Property to the County pursuant to
the terms of the Lease Agreement. The County will undertake to make payments to the Authority of
basic rent (“Basic Rent”) and additional rent (“Additional Rent”) under the terms of the Lease Agreement
in amounts sufficient to amortize the Note and to pay the fees and expenses of the Authority. The
obligation of the Authority to pay principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Note will be
limited to payments of Basic Rent and Additional Rent received from the County. The undertaking by
the County to make payments of Basic Rent and Additional Rent will be subject to appropriations from
time to time by the Board of sufficient amounts for such purposes. If the County exercises its right not to
appropriate money for such payments, the Authority shall have the right to exercise any remedies
provided in the Lease Agreement upon an event of nonappropriation, including the right to terminate the
Lease Agreement and exclude the County from possession of the Property. The Note will be secured by
an assignment to the Noteholder of the Authority’s rights to receive payments of Basic Rent. The plan of
financing for the Project shall contain such additional requirements and provisions as the County
Executive may approve and determine to be in the best interest of the County.
2. Subject to the pricing parameters of the Note described below, the Board hereby
authorizes the County Executive, in consultation with the Financial Advisor and the Authority, to review
the bids from the banking institutions and to select the bid that the County Executive determines to be in
the best interests of the County. The banking institution submitting such winning bid shall be selected as
the Noteholder.
3. The County Executive is authorized and directed to execute the Documents, which shall
be in substantially the forms submitted to this meeting, which are hereby approved, with such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved
by the County Executive, his execution to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes. In making completions to the Lease Agreement, the
County Executive shall provide for payments of Basic Rent on terms equivalent to a Note that (a)
matures in installments ending no later than December 31, 2029; (b) has an aggregate principal amount
not exceeding $7,000,000; (c) has a “true” or “Canadian” interest cost not exceeding 5.0% per year; (d) is
subject to optional redemption, if at all, at a premium not exceeding 1.0% of the principal amount
thereof; and (e) is sold to the Noteholder at a price not less than 99.0% of the aggregate principal amount
thereof. Following the sale of the Note, the County Executive shall file a certificate with the records of
the Board of Supervisors setting forth the final terms of the Note and the Lease Agreement. The actions
of the County Executive in approving the terms of the Note and the Lease Agreement shall be
conclusive, and no further action shall be necessary on the part of the County. As set forth in the Lease
Agreement, the County undertakes to pay from legally available funds such “late charges” and other
charges as described therein.
4. The officers of the County are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all
certificates and instruments and to take all actions necessary or desirable in connection with the
execution and delivery of the Documents and the completion of the financing.
5. The undertaking by the County to pay any amounts under the Lease Agreement shall be
limited obligations payable solely from funds to be appropriated by the Board for such purpose and shall
not constitute a debt of the County within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or a
pledge of the faith and credit of the County beyond any fiscal year for which the Board has lawfully
appropriated from time to time. Nothing herein or in the Lease Agreement shall constitute a debt of the
County within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or a pledge of the faith and credit
or taxing power of the County.
6. The Board believes that funds sufficient to make payment of all amounts payable under
the Lease Agreement can be obtained. While recognizing that it is not empowered to make any binding
commitment to make such payments beyond the current fiscal year, the Board hereby states its intent to
make annual appropriations for future fiscal years in amounts sufficient to make all such payments and
hereby recommends that future Boards do likewise during the term of the Lease Agreement. The Board
directs the County Executive or Director of Finance, or such other officer who may be charged with the
responsibility for preparing the County’s annual budget, to include in the budget request for each fiscal
year during the term of the Lease Agreement an amount sufficient to make the payment of all amounts
payable under the Lease Agreement. Within 10 days after adoption of the County’s annual budget and
related appropriation resolution, but not later than 10 days after the beginning of each fiscal year, the
County Executive is authorized and directed to deliver to the Authority and the Noteholder a certificate
stating whether an amount equal to or credited to the payment of Basic Rent and Additional Rent which
will be due during such fiscal year has been budgeted and appropriated by the Board. So long as the
Note is outstanding, if at any time during any fiscal year of the County, the amount appropriated in the
County’s annual budget in such fiscal year is insufficient to pay when due the amounts payable under the
Lease Agreement, the Board directs the County Executive or Director of Finance, or such other officer
who may be charged with the responsibility for preparing the County’s annual budget, to submit to the
Board at its next scheduled meeting, or as promptly as practicable (but in any event within 45 days), a
request for a supplemental appropriation sufficient to cover the deficit.
7. LISTNUM (a) The County covenants that it will not take or omit to take any action
the taking or omission of which will cause the Note to be an “arbitrage bond” within the meaning of
Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations issued pursuant thereto
(the “Code”), or otherwise cause the interest due on the Note to be includable in the gross income of the
holder thereof under existing statutes. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the County shall
comply with any provision of law that may require the County at any time to rebate to the United States
any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the funds received under the Lease Agreement,
unless the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not
required to prevent interest on the Note from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax
purposes of the holder thereof under existing law.
(b) The County covenants that during the term of the Lease Agreement it shall not
permit the Project or the proceeds of the Note to be used in any manner that would result in (a) 10% or
more of such proceeds or the facilities financed with such proceeds being used in a trade or business
carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(b) of the Code,
provided that no more than 5% of such proceeds may be used in a trade or business unrelated to the
County’s use of the Project, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds being used with respect to any “output
facility” (other than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the
Code, or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to
any persons other than a governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided,
however, that if the County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such
covenants need not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Note from being includable in the
gross income for Federal income tax purposes of the holder thereof under existing law, the County need
not comply with such covenants.
8. Such officers of the County as may be requested are authorized and directed to execute an
appropriate certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Note, and any
elections such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States, for purposes of
complying with Section 148 of the Code. Such certificate and elections shall be in such form as may be
requested by bond counsel for the County.
9. All costs and expenses in connection with the undertaking of the Project and the issuance
of the Note, including the Authority’s fees and expenses and expenses of bond counsel, counsel for the
Authority, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Note or other legally available funds of the County. If
for any reason the Note is not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the County
from its legally available funds and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor.
10. Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to deliver it to
the other parties thereto and to record such document where appropriate.
11. All other actions of the officers of the County that are in conformity with the purposes and
intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of this financing and the undertaking of the Project are
approved and ratified.
12. The Board requests the Authority to designate the Note as a “qualified taxexempt
obligation” under Section 265(b)(3)(B) of the Code, and, to the extent required by law, concurs with such
designation. The Board acknowledges that, for purposes of such designation, the County will not issue,
nor approve the issuance of, any taxexempt obligations which, taking into account the Note, will result
in more than $30,000,000 in taxexempt obligations being issued in calendar year 2009, unless the
County obtains an opinion of bond counsel to the effect that such issuance will not adversely affect the
statue of the Note as a “qualified taxexempt obligation.”
13. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY09 Third Quarter Financ ial R eport
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of the Third Quarter Financial Report
for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2009
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans, Walters,
and Ms. Vinzant
LEGAL R EVIEW:
A GENDA DATE:
May 06, 2009
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
C ONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION : INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEW ED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
The attac hed Third Quarter Financial Report provides information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund
Balanc e as of Marc h 31, 2009. The financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fisc al year revenue
and expenditure data w ith data from the previous fiscal year.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County’s future needs.
DISCU SSION :
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
The D epartment of Finance estimates that General Fund revenues, transfers, and use of fund
balance
will be $7.609 million (3.4%) less than appropriations of $225.967 million; a decrease of $2.112
million from the previous estimate presented with the FY09 Sec ond Quarter Financial Report. The
decrease is a result of the ongoing economic downturn.
The latest indicators show that the US and Virginia economies are continuing to struggle. Most
current indicators are at recession lev els, with some at historic al low s. Tight c onsumer and
corporate credit, a flagging labor market, and a slowing global ec onomy continue to be a drag on
growth. In Virginia, payroll employ ment fell by 2.2 percent in February. The Virginia unemployment
rate ros e from 6.4 percent to 7.0 perc ent in February ; 8.5 percent nationally. The Virginia Leading
Index fell 0.1 percent in February; the sixth consecutive monthly decline. All three components –
auto registrations, building permits, and initial unemployment claims – c ontributed to the decline.
The leading index fell in eight of the eleven metro areas. On a yeartodate basis, total Virginia
revenue collections have declined 6.8 percent, slightly ahead of the revised annual forecast of a 7.3
percent decline. Many economists expect the economic recovery and positive growth to return late
this year.
Following is a brief rev enue analysis for the FY09 fisc al year:
Real Estate Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.250 million (1.1%) greater than
appropriations; a $0.053 million improvement from the previous projection. The increase
beyond the amount appropriated is due to the adoption of a 3.2 cent tax rate increase for
calendar year 2009 that w ill increase the amount of tax rev enue to be collected in the last
half of FY 09.
Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to be $1.552 million (6.6%) less than
appropriations; a $0.470 million decrease from the previous projection. Assessments for
2009 have s ignificantly dropped due to market conditions, particularly for large vehicles .
Delinquent Property Taxes are estimated to be $0.313 million (36.6%) greater than
appropriations; a $0.083 million increase from the previous projection. New delinquent
fees have resulted in improved collections.
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to be $2.140 million (15.2%) less than appropriations;
a $0.275 million decrease from the prev ious projection. Revenue projections were
prepared anticipating the start of an economic recovery in mid FY09. Unfortunately, that
has not materialized. Collections will be less than FY08. The Commonw ealth as a
whole has also experienced less than prior y ear collections attributed to current economic
conditions . Housingrelated, grocery store, department store and restaurants were flat to
negative compared to FY08.
Business License, BPOL, revenues are estimated to be $1.165 million (11.0%) less than
appropriations; a $0.554 million decrease from the previous projection. BPOL revenues
typically lag behind current revenues and are significantly affected by the rec ession.
U tility Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.631 million (6.6%) less than appropriations; a
$0.163 million decrease from the previous projection. Overall mild weather for the first six
months of the fiscal year, combined w ith reduced consumption by businesses due to
current economic conditions , has generated less tax revenue.
Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.600 million (10.3%) less than
appropriations; a $0.550 million decreas e from the previous projection. Reduc ed
discretionary spending has resulted in more meals being prepared and eaten at home.
Other Local Tax rev enues are estimated to be $0.895 million (7.3%) les s than
appropriations; a $0.026 million decrease from the prev ious projection. Public Serv ice
revenues and local Clerk of the C ourt fees, particularly recordation, have significantly
declined due to the recession.
Other Local Rev enues are estimated to be $2.036 million (32.3%) less than
appropriations; a $0.234 million decrease from the prev ious projection. The decrease is
primarily due to reduced interest earnings, development fees, agency leases, and other
Clerk fees.
Categories with variances of less than $0.100 million have not been analyzed for this
report.
b. Expenditures :
The Division of Management and Budget estimates that total expenditures, including transfers, will
be $8.684 million (3.8%) less than appropriations. The reduction includes releas e of the 2008 tax
year lockbox, frozen positions, operational savings, and reduced transfers including sc hools and
capital.
i. D epartmental ex penditures are ex pec ted to total $79.677 million; a 4.5% savings of $3.746
million from Budget:
Administration expenditures are ex pec ted to total $10.536 million; a savings of $0.732
million.
Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.667 million; a savings of $0.217 million.
Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $28.677 million; a s avings of $0.782
million.
Public Works expenditures are ex pec ted to total $4.937 million, a s avings of $0.348
million.
Human Services expenditures total $17.924 million; a savings of $0.937 million.
Parks, R ec., and Culture expenditures total $6.172 million; a savings of $0.214 million.
Community Development expenditures total $7.764 million; a savings of $0.516 million.
ii. NonDepartment expenditures c onsisting of the revenue sharing payment, reserves, and
refunds are expected to total $14.574 million; a 10.0% s avings of $1.627 million from
Budget. The lockbox releas e to fund local gov ernment operations generates $1.614 million.
iii. Transfers are expected to total $123.032 million; a 2.6% sav ings of $3.311 million from
Budget:
Transfers to the Sc hool Division are expected to total $98.305 million, a 2.9% savings of
$2.920
million.
Trans fers to the Capital and Debt funds are expected to total $24.727 million; a 1.6%
savings of $0.391 million.
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report indicates that the FY will end with $1.075 million of revenues in excess of expenditures:
Revenues and transfers are projected to ex perience a $7.609 million shortfall which
should be offset by $8.684 million in expenditure savings and reductions .
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison R eport:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
Real Estate Tax, Pers onal Property Tax, and Other Local Taxes s how positive grow th
over FY08.
Sales Tax, Busines s Licenses, Utility Taxes, Food and Beverage Tax, Other Local
Revenue, State R evenues, Federal Revenues, Transfers, and U se of Fund Balance
show decreases from FY08.
Expenditures:
Public Safety, Public W orks, H uman Services, Parks & Culture, N onDepartmental, and
Education show increases over FY08.
Administration, Judicial, and Community Development are flat compared to FY08.
NonSchool Transfers s how a decrease from FY08.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance R eport:
The report indicates that the County:
Had an Audited FY08 Fund Balance of $20.440 million as of June 30, 2008,
Appropriated $1.816 million for FY09 projects,
Resulting in a remaining June 30, 2008 Fund Balance of $18.623 million,
Subsequently has not approved any FY09 projects, and
Has Projected FY08 U nobligated Funds of $18.623 million as of May 06, 2009.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial R eport is based on audited FY08 financial data and the first nine months of financial data for
FY09.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This report has been prepared for y our information. No action is required.
ATTAC HMENTS;
A – General Fund Quarterly Financial Report
B – General Fund Budget Comparison Report
C – General Fund Balanc e R eport
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment AFull YearActual03/31/08YTD ActualYTD Actualas % ofFull Year07/01/08Adopted (1)03/31/09Appropriations03/31/09YTD ActualYTD Actualas % ofAppropriationsRevenueEstimate (2)$VariancesEst-AppropVariancesas % ofAppropriationsRevenues:Real Estate Taxes, Current$108.364$53.24849.1%$112.414$112.414$56.60850.4%$113.664$1.2501.1%Personal Property Taxes, Current19.9739.47847.5%23.00023.00011.88151.7%21.478(1.522)-6.6%Delinquent Property Taxes0.7250.65890.7%0.8560.8560.864101.0%1.1690.31336.6%Sales Taxes13.1447.73458.8%14.04014.0407.20351.3%11.900(2.140)-15.2%Business Licenses10.1966.05959.4%10.59710.5975.19349.0%9.432(1.165)-11.0%Utility Taxes9.3895.82162.0%9.5859.5855.66459.1%8.955(0.631)-6.6%Food and Beverage Taxes6.0594.14668.4%5.8005.8003.55461.3%5.200(0.600)-10.3%Other Local Taxes10.8674.32739.8%12.25112.2514.79839.2%11.356(0.895)-7.3%Other Local Revenue5.3854.13676.8%6.1786.3103.15049.9%4.274(2.036)-32.3%State Revenue23.70914.15659.7%23.53123.53114.02259.6%23.436(0.094)-0.4%Federal Revenue4.3002.87366.8%4.2544.2882.79365.1%4.207(0.082)-1.9%Total Revenues212.111112.63653.1%222.506222.671115.73152.0%215.070(7.601)-3.4%Use of Other Funds1.7690.41623.5%1.4741.4790.1349.1%1.472(0.007)-0.5%Use of Fund Balance2.8031.77763.4%0.4121.8161.36275.0%1.8160.0000.0%Total$216.683$114.83053.0%$224.391$225.967$117.22751.9%$218.358($7.609)-3.4%Full YearActual03/31/08YTD ActualYTD Actualas % ofFull Year07/01/08Adopted (1)03/31/09Appropriations03/31/09YTD ActualYTD Actualas % ofAppropriationsExpenditureEstimate (3)$VariancesEst-AppropVariancesas % ofAppropriationsExpenditures:Administration$10.455$7.58272.5%$11.044$11.268$7.71068.4%$10.536($0.732)-6.5%Judicial3.6742.80676.4%3.8613.8842.75671.0%3.667(0.217)-5.6%Public Safety28.37621.65676.3%29.37129.45921.30972.3%28.677(0.782)-2.7%Public Works4.4963.70082.3%4.6735.2853.46265.5%4.937(0.348)-6.6%Human Services17.28310.76962.3%18.85818.86111.24059.6%17.924(0.937)-5.0%Parks, Rec. & Culture6.0275.42790.0%6.3236.3875.62388.0%6.172(0.214)-3.4%Community Development7.7506.24480.6%7.8358.2805.95671.9%7.764(0.516)-6.2% Subtotal Operations78.06058.18474.5%81.96683.42458.05769.6%79.677(3.746)-4.5%Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)13.34313.31999.8%16.12916.20013.74484.8%14.574(1.627)-10.0%Transfers:Transfer to School Division96.37273.00675.8%101.225101.22559.04858.3%98.305(2.920)-2.9%Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds25.66019.21574.9%25.07225.11815.33761.1%24.727(0.391)-1.6% Subtotal transfers122.03292.22175.6%126.297126.34374.38558.9%123.032(3.311)-2.6%Total$213.435$163.72476.7%$224.391$225.967$146.18664.7%$217.283($8.684)-3.8%7/1/08 > 03/31/09 = 75% of yearRevised Revenues less Expenditures$1.075(1) July 01, 2008 Appropriated General Fund FY08/09 Budget.(2) Revised Revenue Estimate as of April 23, 2009Projected Unobligated Funds Available$18.623(3) Revised Expenditure Estimate as of April 23, 2009Projected End-of-Year Available Funds$19.698Current FY 08/09Current FY 08/09County of AlbemarleGeneral Fund Financial ReportYear-to-Date for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2009($ in millions)FY 07/08FY 07/08Revenues with black variances are positive, red variances in ( ) are shortfallsExpenditures with red variances in ( ) are positive, black variances are overexpenditures
Attachment BCounty of AlbemarleGeneral Fund Budget Comparison ReportYear-to-Date for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2009($ in millions)Expenditures10.53.728.44.517.36.07.813.325.711.03.929.44.718.96.37.816.125.111.33.929.55.318.96.48.316.225.1 10.5 3.7 28.7 4.9 17.9 6.2 7.8 14.6 24.7 -5.010.015.020.025.030.035.0AdministrationJudicialPublic SafetyPublic WorksHuman ServicesParks, Rec &CultureCommunityDevelopmentNon-departmentalNon-SchoolTransfers$ in millions07/08 ActualJuly 1 Adopted08/09 Appropriations08/09 EstimateRevenues108.420.013.110.29.46.110.95.423.74.31.82.8112.423.014.010.69.65.812.36.223.54.31.50.4112.423.014.010.69.65.812.36.323.54.31.51.8 113.7 21.5 11.9 9.4 9.0 5.2 11.4 4.3 23.4 4.2 1.5 1.8 -20.040.060.080.0100.0120.0Real Estate TaxPersonalProperty TaxSales TaxBusinessLicensesUtility TaxMeals TaxOther LocalTaxesOther LocalRevenueState RevenueFederalRevenueTransfers OtherFundsFund Balance$ in millions07/08 ActualJuly 1 Adopted08/09 Appropriations08/09 Estimate96.4101.2101.298.393.094.095.096.097.098.099.0100.0101.0102.01Transfer to School Division$ in millions
Attachm ent C
June 30, 2008 Audited Fund Balance $20.440
Less FY09 Appropriations Approved to Date:
Budgeted FY09 Local Gov ernm ent Initiativ es (approv ed in budget process)0.412
Reappropriation of FY08 outstanding purchase orders 0.218
Reappropriation of FY08 uncom pleted projects 1.169
New projects FY08 sav ings 0.019
Total Approved FY09 Appropriations T o Date 1.816
Preliminary June 30, 2008 Fund Balance 18.623
Total Appropriations Approved or Proposed Subsequent to December 31, 2008 0.000
Projected Unobligated Funds Available $18.623
General Fund Balance Report
Year-to-Date for the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2009
County of Albemarle
($ in m illions)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Housing C hoice Voucher Program Annual Plan
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public H earing and Approval of the Hous ing
Choice Voucher Program FY09 Annual Plan
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and W hite
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
AC TION: X IN FORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Albemarle County Office of Housing (“Office”) is the designated local agency for the administration of the
Housing Choice Voucher Program (“Program”), formerly known as the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. The
Office is considered a part of the executive branch of local government and not a public housing authority. Although
not a hous ing authority , the Office must comply with U.S. D epartment of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)
requirements for Public Housing Agenc y (“PHA”) activities, including the development and implementation of annual
and 5Year PHA Plans . In 2005, the Office obtained HU D approval for its current 5Year Plan and for its annual
FY20052007 plans. In ac cordance with H UD guidelines revised in 2008, the Office is required to prepare and
present its FY2009 plan at this time, make it available for a 45day public review period, and hold a public hearing.
HUD no longer requires submission of the Plan for its approval if the PH A has fewer than 550 vouchers and is not a
troubled agency. Accordingly, the County’s program does not require HU D approval.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Objective 1.2: By June 30, 2010, work ing in partnership w ith others, increase affordable housing opportunities for
those w ho work and/or live in Albemarle County.
DISCU SSION :
Pursuant to HU D guidelines, the County is authorized to administer a total of 429 vouchers through its Program.
The Program is currently operating at approximately 98% of its authorized budget, prov iding assistance to
approximately 390 families. Fortysix of the authorized vouchers have been designated as projectbased vouchers
that are designated to specific units rather than indiv iduals. Tw entyfour of these vouchers are reserved for Park’s
Edge Apartments and tw entytwo are designated for Park View Apartments on South Pantops. In addition, up to
thirty projectbased vouchers have been committed to proposed developments at Trees dale Park (22) and Crozet
Meadow (8).
HUD regulations allow a PH A to set aside a maximum of twenty perc ent (20%) of authorized vouchers as project
based. C ounting the commitments for Treesdale Park and C rozet Meadows, the Office is allocating 17.7% of its
total to specific identified c omplexes/developments.
As required by HUD, the proposed FY09 Annual Plan (Attachment A) has been made available to a Resident
Advisory Board (RAB) consisting of families participating in the Program for review and comment. No comments
have been received to date. The Plan’s av ailability was advertised on March 18, 2009 with the 45day public review
period c ommencing on March 25, 2009 and ending May 9, 2009.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no additional budget impacts beyond current FY09 and proposed FY10 appropriations for staffing and
operations of the Offic e of H ousing. Administrative fees from HUD c over most of the operations for this Program.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After the Board receives public comment on the proposed FY09 Annual Plan, staff recommends approval of the
FY09 Annual Plan without any changes. In addition, s taff requests that the Board authorize the County Executive to
execute the required C ivil R ights Certific ation and the PH A Certifications of C ompliance, attached hereto.
ATTAC HMENTS
A 2009 Annual Plan
B – Civil R ights Certific ation
C – PHA C ertifications of Complianc e
Ret urn t o regular agenda
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2 form HUD-50075 (4/2008)
PHA 5-Year and
Annual Plan
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
OMB No. 2577-0226
Expires 4/30/2011
1.0
PHA Information
PHA Name: ______County of Albemarle________________________________________________ PHA Code: __VA036________
PHA Type: Small High Performing Standard X HCV (Section 8)
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: (MM/YYYY): _07/2009______
2.0
Inventory (based on ACC units at time of FY beginning in 1.0 above)
Number of PH units: _________________ Number of HCV units: __429________
3.0
Submission Type
5-Year and Annual Plan X Annual Plan Only 5-Year Plan Only
4.0
PHA Consortia PHA Consortia: (Check box if submitting a joint Plan and complete table below.)
No. of Units in Each
Program Participating PHAs PHA
Code
Program(s) Included in the
Consortia
Programs Not in the
Consortia PH HCV
PHA 1:
PHA 2:
PHA 3:
5.0
5-Year Plan. Complete items 5.1 and 5.2 only at 5-Year Plan update.
5.1 Mission. State the PHA’s Mission for serving the needs of low-income, very low-income, and extremely low income families in the PHA’s
jurisdiction for the next five years:
To promote opportunities for all county citizens to secure and maintain safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing with emphasis given to
those least able to obtain it.
5.2
Goals and Objectives. Identify the PHA’s quantifiable goals and objectives that will enable the PHA to serve the needs of low-income and very
low-income, and extremely low-income families for the next five years. Include a report on the progress the PHA has made in meeting the goals
and objectives described in the previous 5-Year Plan.
Maintaining 98% utilization of budgeting funding serving approximately 92% of allocated vouchers
Maximize use of project-based vouchers to promote projects providing new affordable units including those for the elderly and the homeless
6.0
PHA Plan Update
(a) Identify all PHA Plan elements that have been revised by the PHA since its last Annual Plan submission: NONE
(b) Identify the specific location(s) where the public may obtain copies of the 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan. For a complete list of PHA Plan
elements, see Section 6.0 of the instructions. Albemarle County Office of Housing
1600 5th Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
7.0
Hope VI, Mixed Finance Modernization or Development, Demolition and/or Disposition, Conversion of Public Housing, Homeownership
Programs, and Project-based Vouchers. Include statements related to these programs as applicable.
8.0
Capital Improvements. Please complete Parts 8.1 through 8.3, as applicable.
8.1
Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report. As part of the PHA 5-Year and Annual Plan, annually
complete and submit the Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report, form HUD-50075.1, for each current and
open CFP grant and CFFP financing.
8.2
Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan. As part of the submission of the Annual Plan, PHAs must complete and submit the Capital Fund
Program Five-Year Action Plan, form HUD-50075.2, and subsequent annual updates (on a rolling basis, e.g., drop current year, and add latest year
for a five year period). Large capital items must be included in the Five-Year Action Plan.
8.3
Capital Fund Financing Program (CFFP).
Check if the PHA proposes to use any portion of its Capital Fund Program (CFP)/Replacement Housing Factor (RHF) to repay debt incurred to
finance capital improvements.
9.0
Housing Needs. Based on information provided by the applicable Consolidated Plan, information provided by HUD, and other generally available
data, make a reasonable effort to identify the housing needs of the low-income, very low-income, and extremely low-income families who reside in
the jurisdiction served by the PHA, including elderly families, families with disabilities, and households of various races and ethnic groups, and
other families who are on the public housing and Section 8 tenant-based assistance waiting lists. The identification of housing needs must address
issues of affordability, supply, quality, accessibility, size of units, and location.
Not required – high performing
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 2 form HUD-50075 (4/2008)
9.1
Strategy for Addressing Housing Needs. Provide a brief description of the PHA’s strategy for addressing the housing needs of families in the
jurisdiction and on the waiting list in the upcoming year. Note: Small, Section 8 only, and High Performing PHAs complete only for Annual
Plan submission with the 5-Year Plan.
Not required – high performing
10.0
Additional Information. Describe the following, as well as any additional information HUD has requested.
Not required – high performing
(a) Progress in Meeting Mission and Goals. Provide a brief statement of the PHA’s progress in meeting the mission and goals described in the 5-
Year Plan.
(b) Significant Amendment and Substantial Deviation/Modification. Provide the PHA’s definition of “significant amendment” and “substantial
deviation/modification”
11.0
Required Submission for HUD Field Office Review. In addition to the PHA Plan template (HUD-50075), PHAs must submit the following
documents. Items (a) through (g) may be submitted with signature by mail or electronically with scanned signatures, but electronic submission is
encouraged. Items (h) through (i) must be attached electronically with the PHA Plan. Note: Faxed copies of these documents will not be accepted
by the Field Office.
(a) Form HUD-50077, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations (which includes all certifications relating
to Civil Rights)
(b) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(c) Form HUD-50071, Certification of Payments to Influence Federal Transactions (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(d) Form SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(e) Form SF-LLL-A, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Continuation Sheet (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(f) Resident Advisory Board (RAB) comments. Comments received from the RAB must be submitted by the PHA as an attachment to the PHA
Plan. PHAs must also include a narrative describing their analysis of the recommendations and the decisions made on these recommendations.
(g) Challenged Elements
(h) Form HUD-50075.1, Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(i) Form HUD-50075.2, Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
Civil Rights Certification U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Expires 4/30/2011
form HUD-50077-CR (1/2009)
OMB Approval No. 2577-0226
Civil Rights Certification
Annual Certification and Board Resolution
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its Chairman or other
authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioner, I approve the submission of the Plan for the PHA of which this
document is a part and make the following certification and agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in connection with the submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
The PHA certifies that it will carry out the public housing program of the agency in conformity with title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and will affirmatively further fair housing.
________________________________________ __________________________________________
PHA Name PHA Number/HA Code
I hereby certify that all the information stated herein, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will
prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802)
Name of Authorized Official
Title
Signature
Date
Previous version is obsolete Page 1 of 2 form HUD-50077 (4/2008)
PHA Certifications of Compliance
with PHA Plans and Related
Regulations
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Expires 4/30/2011
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations:
Board Resolution to Accompany the PHA 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its Chairman or other
authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioners, I approve the submission of the___ 5-Year and/or___ Annual PHA
Plan for the PHA fiscal year beginning ________, hereinafter referred to as” the Plan”, of which this document is a part and make
the following certifications and agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with the
submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
1. The Plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or any plan incorporating such
strategy) for the jurisdiction in which the PHA is located.
2. The Plan contains a certification by the appropriate State or local officials that the Plan is consistent with the applicable
Consolidated Plan, which includes a certification that requires the preparation of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice, for the PHA's jurisdiction and a description of the manner in which the PHA Plan is consistent with the applicable
Consolidated Plan.
3. The PHA certifies that there has been no change, significant or otherwise, to the Capital Fund Program (and Capital Fund
Program/Replacement Housing Factor) Annual Statement(s), since submission of its last approved Annual Plan. The Capital
Fund Program Annual Statement/Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report must be submitted annually even if
there is no change.
4. The PHA has established a Resident Advisory Board or Boards, the membership of which represents the residents assisted by
the PHA, consulted with this Board or Boards in developing the Plan, and considered the recommendations of the Board or
Boards (24 CFR 903.13). The PHA has included in the Plan submission a copy of the recommendations made by the
Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the Plan addresses these recommendations.
5. The PHA made the proposed Plan and all information relevant to the public hearing available for public inspection at least 45
days before the hearing, published a notice that a hearing would be held and conducted a hearing to discuss the Plan and
invited public comment.
6. The PHA certifies that it will carry out the Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing
Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
7. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining their programs or proposed programs, identify any
impediments to fair housing choice within those programs, address those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the
resources available and work with local jurisdictions to implement any of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further
fair housing that require the PHA's involvement and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
8. For PHA Plan that includes a policy for site based waiting lists:
• The PHA regularly submits required data to HUD's 50058 PIC/IMS Module in an accurate, complete and timely manner
(as specified in PIH Notice 2006-24);
• The system of site-based waiting lists provides for full disclosure to each applicant in the selection of the development in
which to reside, including basic information about available sites; and an estimate of the period of time the applicant
would likely have to wait to be admitted to units of different sizes and types at each site;
• Adoption of site-based waiting list would not violate any court order or settlement agreement or be inconsistent with a
pending complaint brought by HUD;
• The PHA shall take reasonable measures to assure that such waiting list is consistent with affirmatively furthering fair
housing;
• The PHA provides for review of its site-based waiting list policy to determine if it is consistent with civil rights laws and
certifications, as specified in 24 CFR part 903.7(c)(1).
9. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to the Age Discrimination Act
of 1975.
10. The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41, Policies and Procedures for the
Enforcement of Standards and Requirements for Accessibility by the Physically Handicapped.
11. The PHA will comply with the requirements of section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Employment
Opportunities for Low-or Very-Low Income Persons, and with its implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 135.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Previous version is obsolete Page 2 of 2 form HUD-50077 (4/2008)
12. The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 as applicable.
13. The PHA will take appropriate affirmative action to award contracts to minority and women's business enterprises under 24
CFR 5.105(a).
14. The PHA will provide the responsible entity or HUD any documentation that the responsible entity or HUD needs to carry
out its review under the National Environmental Policy Act and other related authorities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 58
or Part 50, respectively.
15. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis-Bacon or HUD determined wage rate requirements under
Section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
16. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85.20 and facilitate an effective audit to determine compliance with
program requirements.
17. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, and 24 CFR Part 35.
18. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87 (Cost Principles for State,
Local and Indian Tribal Governments), 2 CFR Part 225, and 24 CFR Part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments).
19. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the Plan in a manner consistent with its Plan and will utilize
covered grant funds only for activities that are approvable under the regulations and included in its Plan.
20. All attachments to the Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times and all locations that the PHA Plan is
available for public inspection. All required supporting documents have been made available for public inspection along with
the Plan and additional requirements at the primary business office of the PHA and at all other times and locations identified
by the PHA in its PHA Plan and will continue to be made available at least at the primary business office of the PHA.
21. The PHA provides assurance as part of this certification that:
(i) The Resident Advisory Board had an opportunity to review and comment on the changes to the policies and programs
before implementation by the PHA;
(ii) The changes were duly approved by the PHA Board of Directors (or similar governing body); and
(iii) The revised policies and programs are available for review and inspection, at the principal office of the PHA during
normal business hours.
22. The PHA certifies that it is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements.
_________________________________________ __________________________________________
PHA Name PHA Number/HA Code
_____ 5-Year PHA Plan for Fiscal Years 20____ - 20____
_____ Annual PHA Plan for Fiscal Years 20____ - 20____
I hereby certify that all the information stated herein, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will
prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802)
Name of Authorized Official Title
Signature Date
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
The Field School of Charlottesville Lease of the
Old Crozet School
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing for proposed lease agreement
between the County and the Field School of
Charlottesville for a portion of the Old C rozet
Elementary School
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick,
Shadman, Freitas, Shepherd, and Ms. Ragsdale
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Old Crozet Elementary School was built in 1924 and was used as a public school until 1990. From 1991
through 2007 the Charlottesville W aldorf School leased the facility. The Old Crozet Elementary Sc hool has been
vacant sinc e September 2007 when the Charlottesville W aldorf School lease expired. A reuse study w as conducted
and the final report was presented to the Board on September 3, 2008. The Board directed staff to continue to
explore long term uses , as w ell as interim uses of the property, until a long term use of the building is determined.
Virginia Code § 15.21800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to leasing Countyowned
property.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage the County ’s Grow th and D evelopment.
Master Planning Direc tional Statement: “Adapts and reuses sites rather than abandoning them.”
DISCU SSION :
In purs uing the Board’s request to explore an interim use of the Old Crozet Elementary School by the private sector,
staff s olicited and received five propos als. Staff evaluated those propos als based on the following criteria:
• use in relation to prox imity to elementary school and residential area
• R2 zoning compatibility
• propos ed space needs (square footage)
• compatibility w ith desires of community per reuse study
• maintenance responsibilities
• utility c osts
• subleasing proposed
• use of grounds
• propos ed term of lease
• propos ed rental fee
• compatibility w ith Crozet Master Plan
• facility upgrade needed/required
• full time vs. part time use
• timeliness to occupy building
Based on these criteria, tw o proposals were deemed potentially suitable and advantageous to the County’s goals:
the
Field School of Charlottesville and the Old Crozet School Arts (OCSA). Because neither entity propos es to use the
entire facility, it may be possible to lease to both, maximizing the us e of the facility .
After dis cussions with the Field School, s taff drafted the attached lease agreement to lease 11,210 square feet of
the building space and the use of the lower athletic field for an annual rent of $42,710.10. That figure is based on an
annual s quare footage rental rate of $2.79 plus a utility rate share of $1.02 per square foot. This rate is higher than
what was s ubmitted in the Field School’s original proposal, w hich w as $1.61 plus utility costs. This negotiated
rental rate is equivalent to the prior C harlottesville W aldorf School’s lease rate increased by the rental adjustment
formula in that lease. Staff decided to use this methodology to determine the rental rate for several reasons:
• consistency w ith previous leasing practice for this fac ility
• the lac k of features ass ociated with a modern school building (e.g., central air conditioning, fire suppression
system) that would command a higher rate
• the lac k of comparable facilities
Highlights of the lease provisions are:
• one year term with option to renew
• landlord to provide water, sewer, elec tricity, and heating services
• tenant to provide telephone, janitorial, garbage dispos al, snow remov al and all other services
• tenant to provide routine maintenanc e and repairs, not to exceed $2,500.00 in any one year
• tenant may, with County permission, and at the ex pense of the tenant, make minor alterations and aesthetic
improvements to the fac ility
• tenant may deduct from the rent during the first term of the lease c ertain preapproved costs incurred in making
alterations, additions, and improvements
The intended use of the facility is consistent with exis ting zoning.
The proposed lease with the OSCA is on the May 6, 2009 consent agenda for the Board’s consideration.
Consideration of the Field School leas e is not dependent on the OSCA lease.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approval and implementation of this leas e w ould result in a gross inc rease in revenue of $42,710.10. Coupled
with the OC SA proposal, the County w ould realize a gross increase in revenue of $57,778.65. The County
currently s pends approximately $29,214.25 annually from the D epartment of General Services operating budget
for routine maintenanc e and utilities.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the lease with the Field School of C harlottesville
and authorized the County Executive to sign the lease on behalf of the C ounty.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Field School Lease Agreement
Ret urn t o regular agenda
1MEMBERTERM EXPIRESNEW TERMEXPIRESWISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED?DISTRICT IFMAGISTERIALAPPOINTMENTACE CommitteeSherry Buttrick 8/1/20098/1/2012Eligible No Action Required ACE CommitteeMr. Jean Lorber8/1/20098/1/2012Eligible No Action Required ACE CommitteeDavid Callihan 8/1/20098/1/2012Eligible No Action Required ACE CommitteeBill Edgerton 8/1/20098/1/2012Eligible No Action Required Advisory 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 Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory CommDavid vanRoijen4/17/20094/17/2013Yes Action Required Community Mobility CommitteeSteve Ashby12/31/2010ResignedAdvertised Equalization Board C. Marshall Thompson12/31/200812/31/2009NoRio, Advertised, none received Fiscal Impact Advisory CommitteeJim Duncan7/8/20097/8/2011Eligible No Action Required Fiscal Impact Advisory CommitteeJeff Werner 7/8/20097/8/2011Eligible No Action Required Historic Preservation CommitteeSara Lee Barns6/4/20096/4/2012Eligible No Action Required Historic Preservation CommitteeChristine Devine 6/4/20096/4/2012Eligible No Action Required Historic Preservation CommitteeDavid Phillips 6/4/20096/4/2012No No Action Required, Advertised Historic Preservation CommitteeJennifer Hallock 6/4/20096/4/2012No No Action Required, Advertised Historic Preservation CommitteeGarth Anderson6/4/2010Resigned No Action Required, Advertised Housing Committee Michael Peoples12/31/200812/31/2011Eligible AHIP Rep.JABAShirley Copeland 3/31/20093/31/2011No Advertised,1 received Jeff. Area Community Criminal Justice BoardCapt. John Parrent 6/30/20096/30/2012Eligible No Action Required Jordan Development Corporation Scott Huang 8/13/20098/13/2010Eligible No Action Required Jordan Development Corporation Rosa Hudson 8/13/20098/13/2010Eligible No Action Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Dan Maupin9/1/20099/1/2011Eligible No Action Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Fred Shields9/1/20099/1/2011Eligible No Action Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Montie Pace 9/1/20099/1/2011Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteeRick Odom9/30/2012Resigned Advertised, 1 received Natural Heritage CommitteeMichael Erwin 9/30/20099/30/2013Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteeRochelle Garwood 9/30/20099/30/2013Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteePeter Warren9/30/20099/30/2013Eligible No Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteeJason Woodfin 9/30/20099/30/2013Eligible No Action Required PVCC BoardDr. Donna Plasket 6/30/20096/30/2013Eligible No Action Required Planning Commission Julia Monteith12/31/200812/31/2010YesAction Required, UVA Rep.Rivanna River Basin Commission John Martin4/30/20094/30/2013Yes Action RequiredRoute 250 West Task Force Barbara Franko9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Robert Bakalian 9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required
Route 250 West Task Force Bonnie Samuel 9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Margaret DeMallie9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Dr. Martin Schulman 9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Route 250 West Task Force Richard Kast 9/5/20099/5/2012Eligible No Action Required Workforce Investment BoardRod Gentry 6/30/20096/30/2010Eligible No Action Required Workforce Investment BoardSue Goldman 6/30/20096/30/2012Eligible No Action Required Workforce Investment BoardEmily Bardeen 6/30/20096/30/2010Eligible No Action Required Revised 4/29/09
Page 1 of 5
Allan D. Sumpter Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REPORT
MAY 6, 2009
MONTHLY MEETING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS ACTION ITEMS
David Slutzky
• Sight Distance Issue, Route 743, Earlysville Road – a request to review the safety of a private
entrance at 3000 Earlysville Road is under review.
Ken Boyd
• Traffic Calming in Ashcroft Subdivision - Implementation of traffic calming measures,
including installation of a traffic circle on Lego Drive has been completed.
• Route 250 Pantops – Pavement markings and delineators have been installed along the center
lane of Route 250 across Pantops. Some motorists have been attempted to use the center lane as
a through lane which has caused safety issues. The measures taken were done to discourage this
movement and allow police to ticket violators.
Dennis Rooker
• Broomley Road Bridge – VDOT and Buckingham Branch will be working together over the
summer months to perform repairs to improve rideability of the deck surface.
• Concrete Repairs – Sidewalk repairs on Route 1460, Georgetown Green are nearing completion
Pedestrian curb cut at Georgetown/Hydraulic Road were scheduled to be completed the week
of April 27th.
Ann Mallek
• Rural Rustic on Route 668/765, Walnut Level Road – Application of the tar and gravel surface
for this project is expected in mid-May. Traffic calming measures will be installed during the
summer after the surface has cured.
Sally Thomas
• Railroad Crossing Repairs – Buckingham Branch has completed crossing repairs on Route
1641, West Leigh Drive and Route 679, Grassmere Road. Work on Route 684, Lanetown Road
is scheduled the week of May 11, 2009.
Lindsay Dorrier
• Rural Rustic on Route 722, Old Green Mountain Road – Application of the tar and gravel
surface for this project is expected in late May.
• Bridge Repairs, Route 712, Plank Road – The timber deck structure located over Ammonett
Branch was replaced with a concrete structure in early April. While the old structure was
restricted to an 11 ton weight limit, the new structure will carry legal loads.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Albemarle County
• Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501
The public comment period following the public hearing ended April 3, 2009. Overall,
feedback about the project design was very positive. Design modifications are being made to
allow an additional crosswalk to serve Hessian Hills traffic. Additionally, all crosswalks will
include pedestrian actuated signals.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 2 of 5
• Route 743 Advance Mills Bridge, 0743-002-282 P101, R201, C501, B658 (Permanent
Replacement Project) A pre-construction conference was held with the Fielders Choice, the
contractor, on Friday, April 24, 2009. Project personnel advised at that time they intended to
start mobilizing equipment the week of April 27, 2009. Initially, the plan is to start work by
removing the smaller truss structure, which will take a couple of weeks. The next step will be
to remove the larger truss which is estimated to take approximately a month.
• Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-258 P101, R201, C501
Plans have been submitted to VDOT’s Central Office for right of way acquisition approval.
ROW approval is expected in mid-May.
CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projects
0631-002-128, C502, B612, B613, B657 Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and
Bridges
• Contractor is continuing work on pier foundation and installing slope protection for proposed
bridge over Meadow Creek.
• Contractor continues to bring in the borrow excavation to the project.
• Contractor continues excavating for the SWMP.
• Contractor plans to start box culvert installation next week.
• Contractor plans to begin jack and bore for waterline next week.
• Contractor plans to begin storm sewer with in two weeks.
• Project Risks: Failure of RWSA to execute permit with Norfolk Southern Railroad.
(NFO)BR07-002-391, C501 I-64 WBL Bridge over Rivanna River Deck Repairs and Latex Overlay
• Contractor plans to begin installing signs next week.
(NFO)BR07-002-392, C501 I-64 EBL Bridge over Stockton Creek Deck Repairs and Latex Overlay
• Contractor has mobilized to staging area and should complete sign installation early next week.
(NFO) 0064-002-794, N501 I-64 EBL Guardrail Upgrade from Rte. 637 to Rte. 781.
• Preconstruction held on April 20th. Contractor plans to start work on Monday.
(NFO) 0743-002-282, B658 Advance Mills Bridge Replacement.
• Preconstruction held on April 24th. Contractor plans to begin work on May 4th.
SS7B-002-F009, P401 Asphalt Slurry Seal Schedule
• Contractor plans to begin work in June.
PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Land Development Items Total This
Month
Total This
Fiscal
Year
Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review 0 34
Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions 6 68
New Entrance Plan Reviews 1 43
Total Permits Processed 59 525
Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted 24 197
Inspection of new entrance conducted 123 1041
Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 0 5.86
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 3 of 5
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED
Patching operations performed on Routes. 1025 (Ipswich Pl), 657 (Lamb Rd), 1641 (West Leigh
Dr) at RR crossing, 692 (Plank Rd). 1015 (Iv y Farm Rd), 606 (Dickerson), 671 (Millington), 614
(Garth), 601 (Old Garth), 250/29 Bypass, F-178 (Golden Eagle Drive), 693 (Burnt Mtn Rd), 691
(Ortman Rd), 240 (Three Notch'd Rd), 769 (Rocky Hollow Rd), 747 (Preddy Creek Rd), 731
(Keswick Rd), 600 (Stoney Point Pass), 795 (Presidents Rd), 618 (Jefferson Mill Rd), 856
(Burton Ln), 20 (Scottsville Rd), 708 (Secretarys Rd), 712 (Plank Rd), 723 (Sharon Rd), 717
(Secretarys Sand Rd), 716 (Forsyth Rd), 767 (Rabbit Valley Rd), 655 (Christmas Hill Ln), 737
(Mountain Vista Rd), 704 (Fortune Ln), 627 (Carters Mtn Rd), 727 (Blenhiem Rd), 631 (Old
Lynchburg Rd), and 625 (Hatton Ferry Rd).
• Graded and added stone on Routes 678 (Fox Ridge), 606 (Dickerson), 673 (BreakHeart), 672
(Via Ln), 629 (Brown's Gap), 764 (Link Evans), 671 (Wesley Chapel), 821 (Bluffton Mill), 674
(Clark Rd), 776 (Buck Mtn. Rd), 829 (Horseshoe Bend), 636 (Batesville Rd), 814 (Drovers Lane),
Completed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Richmond Rd
(Rt 250) Pantops
Two way left turn lane
(Safety, access and
pavement marking review)
Modifications complete.
Old Ballard Rd
(Rt 677) Entire route Speed study
Review determined the posted 35
mph speed limit to be appropriate.
Additional curve warning signs are
being added to make spot
improvement.
Greentree Park
Rd (Rt 1490)
Greentree Park Rd cul-
de-sac Parking review Sign installation scheduled
Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
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.
Irish Rd (Rt 6) Rt 20 to Nelson County
line Safety review Field modifications underway
Saint George
Ave (Rt 1202) Entire Route Traffic calming
Preliminary review underway to
determine if traffic calming is
warranted.
Richmond Rd
(Rt 250)
Between Peter Jefferson
Parkway and Worrell Dr.
Request from ACPD to
review the crossover due to
the high accident rate
Under review
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 4 of 5
736 (White Mtn Rd), 682 (Broad Axe), 689 (Burchs Creek Rd), 637 (Dickwoods Rd), 758 (Smith
Rd), 694 (Miller Lake Rd), 684 (Mint Springs Rd), 611 (Jarmans Gap Rd), 769 (Rocky Hollow Rd),
747 (Preddy Creek Rd), 784 (Burnt Mill Rd), 731 (Keswick Rd), 600 (Stoney Point Pass), 617
(Rockfish River Rd), 630 (Green Creek Rd), 723 (Sharon Rd), 722 (Old Green Mtn. Rd), 712
North Garden Ln), 735 (Mt. Alto Rd), 760 (Redhill School Rd), 717 (Secretarys Sand Rd), 633
(Covegarden Rd), 713 (Glendower Rd), 704 (Fortune Ln), 712 (Coles Rolling Rd), 761 (Briery
Creek Rd), 795 (Blenhiem Rd), 627 (Fry's Path), 774 (Bear Creek Rd), 630 (Green Creek Rd),
711 (Burton Rd), 631 (Appleberry Mtn Rd), 627 (Green Mtn Rd), and 725 (Dawsons Mill Rd).
Cleared pipes and ditch work on Routes 1412 (Bennington), 1430 (Solomon), 1413 (Smithfield
Rd), 824 (Patterson Mill Lane), 668 (Fox Mtn), 1409 (Woodstock), 1410 (Guilford Ln), 1411
(Inglewood Dr), 637 (Dickwoods Rd), 681 (Ragged Mtn Rd), 682 (Broad Axe Rd), 688 (Midway
Rd), 747 (Preddy Creek Rd), 621 (Wolf Trap Rd), 819 (Judge Ln), 785 (Pritchett Ln), 769 (Rocky
Hollow Rd), 831 (Tompkins Dr), 1505 (Terrybrook Dr), 641 (Burnley Station Rd), 600 (Stoney
Point Pass), 746 (Fosters Branch Rd), 830 (Colonial Dr), 722 (Old Green Mtn Rd), 713 (Glendower
Rd), 20 (Scottsville Rd), 708 (Redhill Rd), 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd), 715 (Chestnut Grove Rd),
and 627 (Green Mtn Rd).
Dust Control applied on Routes 606 (Dickerson), 629 (Brown's Gap), 668 (Chapel Spring Ln).
643 (Rio Mills), 829 (Horseshoe Bend), 674 (Clark), 678 (Fox Ridge/Decca), 671 (Wesley Chapel),
612 (Hammocks Gap Rd), 784 (Burnt Mill Rd), and 747 (Preddy Creek Rd).
• Tree cleanup on Routes 708 (Secretarys Rd), 633 (Cove Garden Rd), 627 (Porters Rd), 717
(Secretarys Sand Rd), 824 (Patterson Mill Ln), 689 (Burchs Creek Rd), 687 (Shiffletts Mill Rd).and
614 (Sugar Hollow).
Trash pickup to include adopt-a highway pickups on Routes 665 (Millington), 671 (Davis Shop),
668 (Fox Mtn), 675 (Lake Albemarle), 614 (Garth Rd), 689 (Burchs Creek Rd), 692 (Plank Rd), 29
250 (Ivy Rd), 654 (Barracks Rd), 601 (Free Union Rd), F-174 (Green Hill Lane), 635 (Miller
School Rd), 634 (Spring Valley Rd), 29 (Monacan Trail Rd), 774 (Bear Creek Rd), 632 (Faber
Rd), 627 (Carters Mountain Rd), 795 (Presidents Rd), 6 (Irish Rd), 717 (Secretarys Sand Rd),
708 (Redhill Rd), 712 (Plank Rd), 792 (Stump Town Ln) and, 715 (Esmont Rd).
• Cleaned bridge decks on Routes 689 (Burchs Creek Rd), 680 (Browns Gap Trnpke), 637
(Dickwoods Rd), 683 (Shelton Mill Rd), 635 (Craigs Store Rd), 636 (Batesville Rd), 824
(Patterson Mill Ln), 693 (2 bridges Stillhouse Creek Rd), and 745 (5 bridges Arrowhead Valley Rd).
• Traffic control for Bridge Inspection I64 Afton Mtn. and F182 (Castle Bridge).
• Rural Rustic Road work on Route 722 (Old Green Mtn Rd).
• Traffic Control for Foxfield Races.
• Assisting Railroad with work on railroad crossing Route 679 (Grassmere Road).
PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK – MAY 2009
• Maintenance activities are continuing on various routes. They include:
o Pavement patching
o Machining gravel roads
o Mowing primary Routes
o Cleaning drop inlets and storm drains
o Tree trimming and removal
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 5 of 5
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 M AINT BUDGET
FORECASTED EXPENDIT URES
CUM ULATIVE ACTUAL
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
POB 1505, 401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org
(434) 979-7310 phone ● (434) 979-1597 fax ● info@tjpdc.org email
Memorandum
To: City of Cha rlotte sville Pla nning Commission
Charlotte sville City Counc il
Albemarle County Pla nning Commission
Albemarle County Boa rd of Supe rvisors
From: Me lissa Barlow, D irec tor of Tra nsportation Programs
D a te : April 3, 2009
Re : Draft U nite d Je ffe rson Area Mobility Pla n 2035
Pur pose : To brie f the Cha rlotte sville and A lbe ma rle Planning Commissions, the Cha rlotte sville City Counc il a nd
the Albe ma rle County Board of Supe rvisors on the dra ft long range tra nsportation pla n for the Charlotte sville
A lbe ma rle Me tropolita n Planning A re a a nd the Thoma s Je fferson Planning D istric t, the United Je ffe rson A re a
Mobility Pla n (U nJA M) 2035.
Bac kgr ound: For the past ye a r and a half, the Thoma s Je fferson Planning Distric t Commission a nd the
Cha rlotte svilleA lbe ma rle Metropolita n Planning Orga niz a tion (MPO) have be en e nga ged in the fiveye a r upda te
of the re gion’s long range tra nsportation pla n, U nJA M 2035. The MPO portion of the united urba n and rura l pla n
addresse s future tra nsporta tion projec ts in the City of Charlotte sville a nd urbaniz e d Albe ma rle County. U nJA M
2035 prese nts a re gional vision for our future transporta tion system a nd sugge sts impleme nta tion stra tegies to
attain the vision.
City a nd County pla nning a nd e ngine ering staff have worke d toge the r w ith reside nts of both loc alitie s a nd MPO
sta ff to de ve lop the docume nt. Public involve me nt be ga n in spring 2008 w ith the la unc h of the w ww.unja m.org
w e bsite a nd a Re giona l Tra nsportation Summit. TJPDC a lso hoste d a n UnJAM O pen H ouse at CitySpa c e on
Ma rc h 12, 2009 to sha re the draft Pla n with the public . The dra ft doc ume nt a nd inte ra c tive maps illustra ting the
propose d tra nsporta tion proje cts ha ve be e n a va ila ble via www .unja m.org since Ma rc h 12th.
Issues: While the UnJAM 2035 plan w ill ultima te ly be approve d by the MPO ’s Polic y Boa rd, on w hic h tw o City
Counc ilors a nd two County Supe rvisors sit, ve tting the docume nt through the Cha rlotte sville and A lbe ma rle
Planning Commissions a nd ele cte d bodie s is nec e ssa ry to build support for its adoption.
A prelimina ry public he a ring w ill be he ld at the April 22, 2009 MPO Polic y Board Me e ting. Comme nts from both
Planning Commissions, City Council a nd the Board of Supe rvisors, a s w e ll as comments from membe rs of the
public will be inc orpora ted into the docume nt before the a ntic ipa te d final public hea ring on May 27, 2009.
In orde r to remain c omplia nt with the re quire ments of the fede ra l transporta tion a ct, SA FETEALU , the long
ra nge pla n must be a pproved in May 2009. This a doption is pa rtic ula rly importa nt in light of re ce iving funding
through the Americ an Re c ove ry a nd Re inve stme nt Ac t (A RRA), a s a la pse in long ra nge pla n c omplianc e
effe ctive ly “fre ez e s” the MPO’s Transporta tion Improvement Progra m (TIP). Proje c ts for which a loca lity
de sires to use ARRA funds must first be in the TIP.
A c tion Ne e de d: The Thoma s Jefferson Planning District Commission and the Cha rlottesville A lbe ma rle MPO
re quest forma l e ndorse me nt of the U nJA M 2035 Pla n by both the Cha rlotte sville a nd Albemarle Pla nning
Commissions, a nd re solutions of support from the Charlotte sville City Council a nd the Albe ma rle Boa rd of
Supe rvisors.
V iew Draft Unite d Je ffe rson Are a Mobility Plan 2035
V iew re solution
Re turn to re gular a ge nda
Resolution Endorsing the UnJA M 2035 Plan
WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that each urbanized
area over 50,000 population update its long range plan every five years; and
WHEREAS, the CharlottesvilleAlbemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
last adopted its long range plan, UnJAM 2025 in May 2004; and
WHEREAS, the urban and rural area transportation plans are again combined in UnJAM
2035 to stress the effects transportation networks have on the entire region and to develop
effective regional solutions; and
WHEREAS, the major goal of the UnJAM 2035 Plan is to create and advance a
balanced, regional multimodal transportation network; and
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) and the
CharlottesvilleAlbemarle MPO have led the efforts to complete UnJAM 2035 with an extensive
public outreach campaign conducted to solicit input from the community; and
WHEREAS, the UnJAM 2035 addresses future planned transportation projects in the
City of Charlottesville and the urbanized portion of Albemarle County over the next 20 years;
and
WHEREAS, the MPO Policy Board seeks to approve the urban portion of the plan in
May 2009; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors endorses the UnJAM 2035 Plan and supports MPO adoption.
Return to memo
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Wind Turbines
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review Staff’s and the Planning Commis sion’s
recommendation on wind turbines
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Graham, Fritz, C lark
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Staff and the Planning Commission have been working on a possible Zoning Ordinance amendment that would
permit wind turbines within the County. Examples of the types of wind turbines being considered w ill be included in
the presentation at the Board meeting. C urrently, wind turbines are neither permitted as a primary use nor as an
accessory use in any of the County’s zoning districts. The purpose of this worksess ion is for the Board to receive
a brief presentation on the complexities of w ind energy in Albemarle County, review the draft propos al outline as it
currently s tands (Attac hment A), and provide an opportunity to comment and give direction.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Protect the County's Natural R esources
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development
DISCU SSION :
Staff and the Planning Commission have not considered large commerc ial /industrial wind turbines , but have limited
their considerations to small w ind turbines. Small wind turbines have been defined as those that are used to provide
electricity for uses on the property rather than those used primarily for the sale of elec tricity (i.e., commercial “wind
farms”).
Small W ind Turbine Issues
Based on its review of the literature, s taff believes the follow ing are important considerations for loc ating small wind
turbines in Albemarle County:
1. The visibility of monopoles and towers is one of the most common and usually the most controversial land
use issue, and s mall wind turbines may be v isible. While mos t of the concern is w ith large commercial
w ind turbines, concerns have als o been noted w ith small wind turbines, especially when they are proposed
in areas of high aesthetic value, such as mountain tops and land in or near a conservation easement.
Another visual fac tor with small w ind turbines has been shadow flicker, resulting from the s un behind the
rotating blades. This primarily is a concern with small wind turbines in close proximity to other uses.
2. Small w ind turbines create noise. It appears that the technology has signific antly reduced the noise levels
w ith new er wind turbines, but noise concerns are still an issue w hen the turbines are in clos e proximity to
other uses. A whirring noise is often identified as an annoy anc e in places w here w ind turbines are placed
near residenc es.
3. Albemarle County has very limited areas where wind power will be cost effectiv e, as most of the C ounty is
c onsidered poor for wind energy production. With this in mind, staff believes that if wind turbines are to be
encouraged in the C ounty, it will be necessary to keep County regulation of the use to a minimum and
provide as much flexibility as pos sible. Due to the marginal ec onomic benefit that might be realized in low
w ind areas and the fact that turbine technology and design are evolving, staff believes a rigid ordinance
c ould exclude some promising new technologies.
4. Turbine efficiency increases w ith height, and this is especially true w hen height is necessary to provide w ind
c learance from nearby obstruc tions. Given the challenging economics of wind turbines in this area, flexibility
on the height of structures will be a critical consideration. The literature indicates that turbine blades should
be a minimum of thirty feet abov e any obstruction within three hundred feet of the turbine. For example, if
nearby trees are s eventy feet tall and the wind turbine blades are twenty six feet in diameter, the turbine
s haft should be at least one hundred thirteen feet above the ground to be considered effectiv e. This height
c an be reduced based on the local conditions .
5. The consequences of a tower c ollapse, ice throws, and nois e s hould be tak en into account when
c onsidering the required clear zone and setback distances. The literature suggests that most localities
require a clear z one somewhere between one to three times the structure height. For stand alone turbines ,
this would effectively limit wind turbines to spars ely developed areas.
6. The telecommunications indus try may seek to colocate personal wireless s erv ice facilities (cell phone
antennas) on wind turbines. Bec ause most wireless facilities in the County are either attac hed to an
existing struc ture (Tier I) or are limited to a height not exceeding 10 feet about the nearest tree (Tier II), the
additional height required for a w ind turbine c ould provide a tremendous incentiv e to colocate these
antennas on wind turbines. There are still some technical issues with antenna colocation, such as vibration
c reated by the turbine’s rotor blades, but those issues may be resolved in the future. Because a wind turbine
w ould likely be considered an existing facility under the County ’s w ireless regulations, the c urrent Zoning
Ordinance could allow an antenna to be coloc ated as a “Tier 1 Facility”, which would be considered through
an administrative process.
Comprehensive Plan
Staff notes that the mos t desirable location for wind energy production will be the mountain ridges, and this appears
to conflict with existing policies in the Comprehensive Plan. In partic ular, elements of the Natural Res ources and
Cultural Assets section and the Land Us e section of the C omprehensiv e Plan have policies regarding the siting of
structures in order to protect the natural beauty of the mountains. Thes e policies disc ourage structures that alter the
continuity of the ridgeline, that are loc ated so that the structure is sk ylighted against the horizon, or that are taller
than the natural tree canopy.
Current Proposal
The current proposal outline is provided as Attachment A. This propos al attempts to balance the policy issues
through a tiered approach, similar to the way the County regulates and permits wireles s facilities. Tier I would be
reserved for those small wind turbines that are anticipated to have very low visual impact and be limited to the Rural
Areas outside of the Entrance Corridors and designated mountain areas. Tier II would require a modification of the
regulations by the Planning C ommission in order to locate a small wind turbine in either the Entrance Corridors or the
mountain areas, but w ould not allow struc tures taller than otherwise allow ed in the underlying zoning district
(typically thirtyfive feet). Tier III would require a special use permit in order to build a small w ind turbine taller than
otherwis e allowed in the zoning distric t. This provides the Board the opportunity to mak e discretionary decisions on
those w ind turbines anticipated to have the most significant visual impact, particularly those in the Entrance
Corridors or in the mountains.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget analysis has been prepared at this point.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff requests that the Board provide direction to staff as to how to proc eed with this proposal.
ATTAC HMENTS
A Planning C ommission April 21, 2009 report with attached proposal outline
B – Planning C ommission April 21, 2009 Action Memo Work Session Summary
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Wind Turbines
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to consider possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
allow wind turbines
STAFF CONTACT(S): Graham, Fritz, Clark
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE:
April 21, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
This is the fourth Planning Commission worksession on wind turbines. As previously noted, it will be very difficult for wind turbines in this area to be cost
effective without creating significant visual impacts. This has made it difficult for staff and the Planning Commission to find an acceptable balance. At the
last worksession, it was agreed that two of the Planning Commissioners would work with staff to develop a proposal that attempts to find this balance point.
This worksession is to review that proposal in advance of a planned County Board worksession on May 6th.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Protect the County's Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources
Effectively Manage Growth and Development
DISCUSSION:
The attached outline summarizes a proposed ordinance amendment that would allow wind turbines in the County. This proposal has limited wind turbines to
being allowed to support other uses on the same property. Effectively, this eliminates commercial/industrial wind turbines that generate power for profit.
The proposal attempts to balance the County’s interest in promoting sustainable energy with that of protecting its natural resources and vistas. This is done
by a tiered approach very similar to what the Board and Planning Commission have seen with personal wireless antenna. Tier I are those wind turbines that
would have the lowest impact on the community. Tier I facilities are intended to be a simple administrative matter. Tier II facilities are those that have a
higher potential for impacting surrounding properties and/or the community. As such, a Tier II requires the Planning Commission to consider a waiver or
modification of the Supplemental Regulations that allow wind turbines. This process increases the turbine owner’s cost and uncertainty, but attempts to
balance their interest against the County’s interest of avoiding undesired impacts. Tier III facilities are those that are anticipated to result in significant
concerns with visual impact. As such, those facilities require a Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit will significantly increase the applicant’s cost of
obtaining permits and may prove cost prohibitive for some applicants, but this process provides the highest level of County oversight for those uses likely to
prove controversial.
Recommendation:
Staff requests the Planning Commission provide comments they would like shared with the County Board with respect to this proposal.
Attachments:
Attachment A – Wind Turbine Outline
Attachment A
Wind Turbine Outline
10 April 2009 Draft
Definitions:
Small Wind Turbine A wind energy conversion system used for the generation of power to support an allowed activity on the property. This includes all
components of the system such as the tower, guy wires, wiring, rotors and turbine blades, generators, and control systems. The small wind turbine may be
connected to a public utility and sell power to that utility provided the power sold is not in excess of that typically used for the primary use on that property.
This definition effectively restricts small wind turbines to an accessory use of the property. For those turbines that are an accessory to a single family
residence or agricultural use, no site plan is required per 1832.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. For other uses (e.g. power for a commercial greenhouse), there
would still be a site plan requirement to satisfy before a building permit for the small wind turbine could be issued.
Tier I
A small wind turbine located on property zoned Rural Areas that is not within the Entrance Corridors or the Mountain Contour List as defined in the County’s
Comprehensive Plan.
A Tier I system would be considered a “by right” use, subject to the conditions in the Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance but administratively
handled with minimal cost to applicants. These facilities are anticipated to result in very little or no impact to the community and would have minimal costs
associated with County requirements.
Tier II
A small wind turbine that does not qualify as a Tier I, but still fits conforms to the height restrictions in the underlying zoning district. This would include
situations such as a system within the Entrance Corridor, reduced setbacks, or located within the Development Areas.
This would require the Planning Commission waiving a condition of the Supplemental Regulations. The administrative cost for such a system would be
considerably higher than a Tier I but less than the Special Use Permit required for a Tier III.
Tier III
A small wind turbine that does not conform to the height restrictions of the underlying zoning district.
This system would require a Special Use Permit in order to be permitted.
Supplemental Regulations for Small Wind Turbines
Within Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance (Supplementary Regulations), establish conditions for wind turbines. As a Supplementary Regulation, the Planning
Commission may waive or modify these conditions, for a Tier II facility. This provides the simplest oversight for situations where project specific conditions
may require special consideration. The following are the recommended conditions:
1. Small wind turbines are an allowed use within the Rural Areas Zoning District.
This makes wind turbines a “by right” use within the RA zoning district and allows the Planning Commission to decide if the use is appropriately
sited in other zoning districts where the potential for conflicts between uses are higher.
2. Require a minimum setback from property lines of the height of the structure, plus twenty feet. It is recommended this include a provision for
an administrative waiver where the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agent and County Attorney that the adjoining property
owner has agreed to restrict development within that part of their property that would be within this setback distance.
This allows a margin of safety for structure collapse and ice throws from turbines.
3. Prohibit collocation of personal wireless service antenna.
This avoids situations where wind turbines might be constructed to circumvent wireless facility ordinance requirements rather than being
primarily intended for generation of wind energy.
4. Prohibit all lighting of the wind turbine and tower.
This restriction recognizes the dark skies provisions in the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Prohibit wind turbines within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District or within the Mountain Contour List as defined by the Comprehensive Plan .
This assures oversight by the Planning Commission for visual impacts within the Entrance Corridors and mountains. Within the EC, the
Planning Commission may also request input from the Architectural Review Board before considering a request.
Height Restrictions
Under Section 4.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, add a provision for small wind turbines to meet the height limits within the underlying zoning district, but allow
this to be modified by Special Use Permit. Application requirements for this Special Use Permit would be similar to those for personal wireless towers.
This would require those wind turbines that will have the highest potential impacts to be considered as a Special Use Permit where conditions could be used
to mitigate impacts. For example, this could consider locations that minimize skylighting, colors for the wind turbine, or sensitivity to bird migration paths.
Administration
A building permit is required prior to the County permitting construction of a small wind turbine. A site plan may be required before a building permit
application is submitted per 1832.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for those uses that are not exempted from the site plan requirements. . The following
information must be provided with the building permit application.
1. A plat of the property that clearly shows the boundary lines, location of the proposed small wind turbine, and setbacks to the property line.
2. Plans that clearly show the total height of the proposed structure and satisfy all provisions of the Building Code.
3. A signed and notarized affidavit using a County form that demonstrates the small wind turbine will be used to support an allowed use of the
property and assures the small wind turbine shall be removed if the supported use is ended.
Tier I
A Tier I small wind turbine is a “by right” use and will typically only require a building permit.
Recognizing administrative costs can be a significant deterrent to use of small wind turbines, this provision attempts to keep that cost to a minimum.
Tier II
A Tier II small wind turbine shall require Planning Commission approval of a waiver or modification of the conditions in the Supplemental Regulations prior
to approval of a building permit or site plan. As part of approving a waiver or modification, the Planning Commission may establish reasonable conditions
to assure the ordinance intent is maintained. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform
the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement.
Recognizing site specific considerations may suggest a small wind turbine should be allowed, the Planning Commission can waive or modify the
requirements as related to setbacks, zoning districts and overlay districts, collocation of antenna, and lighting. Depending on the submission
requirements, the cost of this application may be a significant deterrent to applicants constructing small wind turbines.
Tier III
A Tier III small wind turbine shall require Board of Supervisors approval of a Special Use Permit prior to submission of a building permit or site plan.
This provision is used for those turbines that present the most significant visual impact. Anticipating submission requirements similar to those used for
personal wireless facilities, the cost of this application is anticipated to be a significant deterrent to applicants constructing small wind turbines. It is
anticipated the County will see very few of these applications.
Go to nex t attachment
Return to exec summary
Planning C ommission Wind Turbines Work Session
In summary, the Planning Commission held a w ork ses sion on ZTA200900001 Wind Turbines. Jeremy Hayes,
President of Skyline Turbine, presented a brief PowerPoint presentation to help the C ommission understand what
sort of turbines might be available in Albemarle. Mark Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained
the propos ed ordinance amendment and responded to the questions raised by the Commission. The Commiss ion
took public comment, asked questions and provided comments and suggestions. The Planning C ommission ask ed
staff to c onsider their suggestions and to pass their c omments on to the Board of Supervis ors before the joint May 6
work session, as follows :
Mr. Franco felt to answ er the c oncerns he was hearing from Mr. Loach and Ms. Porterfield that as was said this
was part of a process and he would hope that public input and concerns would come out during this proc ess so
that they could include the byright components. H e asked that they keep that in mind. On page 2 of the
attachment under the definitions under Tier 1 he was not sure if it was a definition or a commentary that is in
italics w here it says these facilities are antic ipated to result in very little or not impac t to the community. He
might change that to say “negativ e impact” because one of the reasons they are exploring this is because of the
potential positive impacts that this brings. He felt that they need to stress that as part of the reas on why they
are pursuing this.
Mr. H aynes should be invited to the joint Board meeting.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out on based on what she had been saying, which Mr. Loach supported, she would like
to see if he had a different way of going at Tier 1. If it is not going to come in as a special use permit then is
there a different way of going at it. Does there have to be a minimum acreage before one can have this? Do
thes e have to be kept X number of feet from any property line? There are some things if they want to go w ith
the less for the applicant to do she felt that they need to solve a few of the problems going in, w hich are number
one the v isual part of it and the noise. They know from the past that nois e is going to be an issue on this. If
they come up with saying that Tier 1 is not going to be a special use permit then they are going to allow it by
right, but byright for which properties. D o they have to have a minimum of 5 or 10 ac res ? Do they have to
keep the apparatus at least 1500’ from any property line? There are some things that they could probably do to
mak e sure that whatever comes in is going to work . The one thing that has come up in this disc ussion is how
to handle Tier 1. Are there any other ideas that could be ready in two weeks if the Board w ants to hear any
other ideas that come from some of the things that they have talked about? She ques tioned whether staff could
come back with something.
Mr. Loach understood what Ms. Porterfield was saying was that she wanted a process that was easy, but also
accessible. She did not want to mak e it to be an onerous cos t so the public c an get in to make their opinion.
The c omparison of the turbine and balloon test c omes with the upper tiers with the 30’ abov e the tree line. At
that tier it is distinct. He asked how do they say to a c ompany that you spend X number of tens of thousands
of dollars to go 3’ to 7’, but that an individual w hat do w e hold them to go 30’ above the tree line. H is question
was what w ould be the criteria for that.
There are different gradations here. A Tier 1 is by right. A Tier 2 requires a waiver. A Tier 3 requires a special
use permit. So could a Tier 1 require les s of a waiver; a Tier 2 a waiver and a Tier 3 a special use permit. That
was Ms. Porterfield’s point. The lesser w aiver might not be so c ost onerous because one would not have to hire
a $12,000 attorney to take them through the special use permit process. But they could meet some more basic
standards that are not as onerous or costly to get the Tier 1 instead of going directly by right. It s hould be
something that the Board of Superv isors should hear as part of the discussion there.
The C ommission wrestled with this particular issue and there are merits on both sides. By right makes it very
simple and it achieves some of the public good. That deals w ith a lot of the environmental concerns and
issues. But, going through a public process does protec t some of the neighbors from something that is quite
new. They could debate that on both sides. Certainly the Supervisors should hear if they have not considered
that already that thes e are issues that are worthy of debating or disc ussion.
The Planning Commission plans to participate with the Board of Supervisors in the w ind turbine w ork sess ion on
May 6. Several Commissioners ask ed for the following changes to the staff report:
o An addendum could be added to the staff report to clarify what was being s uggested for the by right in that it
be limited to whatever the current zoning regulations are in height. This does not deal with the sound. But it
s hould be limited in height to what accessory structures are limited to. That does not really jump out in the
s taff report. That is a very important consideration.
o There should be a reminder to everybody that they do have a noise ordinance. Staff s hould remind the
Board what the N oise Ordinance states and what the acceptable dec ibel levels are. There are a lot of
things already on the books that c an be used for this.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 21, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting
on Tuesday, April 21, 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, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton, Thomas
Loach and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Cal Morris and Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting
representative for the University of Virginia, were absent.
Other officials present were Steward Wright, Permit Planner; Sherri Proctor, Permit Planner;
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current
Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration;
Mark Graham, Director of Community 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.
Work Session:
ZTA200900001 Wind Turbines
Consider possible Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow wind turbines. (Mark Graham)
Mr. Strucko noted that prior to receiving the staff report that Jeremy Hayes, of Skyline Turbine,
would provide some background information. He invited Mr. Hayes to come forward and
address the Commission.
Jeremy Hayes, President of Skyline Turbine, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled “The
Future Is Wind Power”. (Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation and Related Information) The
presentation outline included their mission statement and the motivation for small wind power in
Albemarle County specifically. He worked the outline towards what he heard in previous work
sessions about the three tiered system that the Commission has been working towards. The
photos, in his opinion, show how turbines or more appropriately the installations themselves fit
inside those tiers as he understands them. At the end of the presentation he would open the
floor for questions from the Commissioners.
Mission Statement: Skyline Turbine is a renewable energy supplier for residential and small
business customers. Skyline Turbine’s mission is to research, implement, and install wind
power appliances to meet the specific requirements of each customer. We envision a day
when all aspects of wind, solar, and energy efficiencies will be brought together to make our
structures selfsupporting and contributing to the community. Skyline Turbine is committed to
supporting local governments and its citizens by fostering open communication and utilizing all
available means to successfully accomplish each installation.
Motivation: Dispelling the Image of Wind Power
•Large wind farms define the common thought of wind power
•Most people envision:
Large loud objects
Threat to wildlife
•Detachment from the natural environment and daily life
•Obstruction of view
Motivation: Small Wind Power
•Schmidte Installation
Several of advantages include:
Generation of power at the homestead
Revenue incentives to sell back to the grid
Affordability
Energy cost reduction
•Blends into environment:
Blades closer together
Can be seen by wildlife and acts as deterrent
Reduced decibel levels
Most commonly what people are familiar with when thinking of wind power is large looming
objects 300’ in height that are commonly a threat to wildlife with migratory birds primarily. A
large portion of things that may be against wind turbines in this area would be something to do
with view sheds. The reason to use small wind power is that they are much smaller
apparatuses. The diameter of the spinning blades themselves is a very small blade disc about
12’ in diameter. In the Skystream 3.7 model the 12’ blade diameter is very easy for wildlife and
birds to see. Typically a large portion of bird death problems happen when migratory birds fly
between two of the very large blades that have a long distance apart and are not privy to the
blades even coming their way.
There are many reasons to look at small wind power for residences and small businesses. One
reason would be to have each individual have the opportunity to generate some portion or even
all of their own power by using a wind power device and/or coupling it with a solar device to
reduce or entirely eliminate energy consumption by an individual. Typically these can be done
through installing a very small appliance. In the photograph the turbine shown in front of the
White House is one of the largest that is used for residences. Those turbines are put in place in
front of people’s homes to reduce the overall cost and in some cases contribute their power
back to the grid for people in their community.
Ms. Joseph asked if the turbine was actually installed in front of the White House.
Mr. Hayes replied that the turbine was installed only for a short time for demonstration
purposes. Other motivations to use wind power include:
Motivation: Tax Incentives and Energy Independence
•30 % Federal Tax Rebate.
•Grid InterConnection Possible In Virginia.
•Visualize Free Electricity.
Ms. Joseph asked if the 30 percent federal tax rebate was for the total cost.
Mr. Hayes replied that for the equipment and installation currently the federal government will
rebate on your taxes 30 percent of that installation at the end of the year.
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any state tax rebate.
Mr. Hayes replied that currently in the state of Virginia there is none. There are incentives in a
tax rebate fashion very much like the federal government in both Maryland and North Carolina.
In Virginia they have the federal rebate to count on and the interconnection agreement. The
interconnection agreement is a big portion of it because it does allow people to get credit back
for power that they put on the grid. That is a very efficient way to afford one of these
appliances.
Tier I: Turbines by Right
In side of what the Commissioners have spoken previously in the tiered system for an
ordinance for Albemarle County it is his understanding that Tier 1 Turbines would be by right,
which would mean that someone would apply for a building permit prior to installation. These
turbines would in most cases solve all of the common issues that pop up around turbines. Fall
zones for the actual towers for turbines are commonly an issue.
For some of the newer types of turbines, such as the Helix which is a vertical access turbine,
they have very short towers and the fall distances are negligible and in some cases not worth
mentioning. The Helix turbine operation is very quiet in the 5db decibel range. They generally
don’t require much of a footprint to install at all. Generally it takes about a 10’ diameter circle.
They can provide power for a home in the nature of 2.5kw to 5kw of power given that they have
the wind resource. In Albemarle County he would estimate that 60 percent of the people have
some resource or some percentage of their power they could provide with wind power. Another
product that is a very small turbine, an Air Breeze, has a 2’ blade diameter and creates very
much a smaller amount of power. There is a similar type of turbine on Rio Road currently.
These are two turbines that could be examples of a Tier 1 installation
Tier II: Dinardo Installation
In a Tier II installation would be turbines that have some sort of a tower and need to be looked
at overall for view shed or other concerns. The primary concerns would be noise and view
shed concerns. The footer and foundation for this particular piece of equipment is rather
small. It is a 6’ X 6’ X 3’ deep cube. The photos show the apparatus in the center, which is the
bolt diagram for the tower itself, and the pole installation itself for scale. That installation was
done about a month again in Rockbridge County. Most of the 60’ monopole is above the
trees. They had to get a special use permit in order to put the monopole in, which included
review by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and State Park Service. The State
Park Service cleared this turbine for view shed reasons.
Tier III: Large Residential and Small Business
The Tier III would be anything that qualified for residential or small business use. But typically
these are appliances that are quite a bit louder and generate quite a bit more electricity in the
nature of 10kw. These particular turbines do have applications in Albemarle County and are
generally looked at as large residential or small commercial business use. He would suggest
that this type of application be looked at through a full special use permit application. As he
previously said there could be applications where people have properties larger than 2 acres
and are far enough from other homes and view sheds where they could be employed and really
not be noticed by most people and be very effective for their owners. This could be an example
of a Tier III. He offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commissioners.
Ms. Joseph asked when he went before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in
Rockbridge was there public input and if so what kind of concerns were expressed by the
Planning Commission, the Board and the public.
Mr. Hayes replied yes there was public comment. The comments were really exactly about the
same concerns, which would have to do either with the safety measures of the fall zones of the
tower, which is typically the height of the tower or a diameter or circle around it, and the noise
levels of the particular equipment. The noise levels of everything that he had showed the
Commission today had a maximum level of 110 decibels judged at a distance of 500. That is
for the noisiest of the equipment. Many of the other models, such as the Helix, are a 5 decibel
rating and it really makes about as much noise as a laptop. The Skystream 3.7 has a 45 to 50
decibel level rating and from 150’ away someone can have a conversation with somebody and
overcome the noise of the turbine and a 12 mile an hour wind.
Ms. Joseph asked if the turbine that went up in Rockbridge had a 110 decibel level.
Mr. Hayes replied that the turbine in Rockbridge has a 45 decibel rating, which was the
Skystream 3.7. It is mounted in the front parking lot. With a 12 to 15 mile wind inside the home
one cannot hear it. The decibel level of 45 decibels is monitored at 150’.
Ms. Porterfield asked what would be the distance for the ice throws for the turbines he was
showing that might fit in the Tier I.
Mr. Hayes replied that on that particular model there are no ice throws. Ice throws are typically
ice that is gathered on blades and then thrown from it when they spin. There are things that are
done to prevent that. For a vertical access turbine, as the one shown in the photo, they actually
prevent ice from forming on them because the whole mechanism is spinning vertically. There
are no ice throws on that model.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there is any amount of setback from other buildings or other things like
that for this type.
Mr. Hayes replied that it was not brought up in any of the other conversations. He was not privy
to information that could tell them that.
Ms. Porterfield noted that he did not know if it does need a setback or not.
Mr. Hayes replied that he did not know, but would be more than happy to find that out and
provide that information.
Mr. Loach noted on the Helix power output it is 2.5kw or 5kw. He asked what that means for an
average family use.
Mr. Hayes relied that an average family of 4 in the United States consumes 2,600 watts per
month or 2.6 kilowatts. They will find a very wide range on both sides of what people actually
use.
Mr. Loach asked if in using it are there peaks and valleys depending on the wind. He asked if
there is any way to store the power.
Mr. Hayes replied that there is no way to store the power effectively beyond battery use. At this
time, in his opinion, battery use can be hazardous for the average person to hold in their
household. That is why he strongly advocates when power is generated in excess of the use
by the residential owner that it flows freely back onto the grid to be used by others when it is
connected with the grid. That person receives a monetary credit. He refers to that as a
“monetary battery”.
Mr. Loach asked on the accepted 60’ tower besides the safety concerns and the noise was
there much concern about the visual impact of the tower itself.
Mr. Hayes replied that the visual impact was studied by the State Park Service from a distance
of a quarter mile away and they determined that at no point on the Skyline Drive could they see
that appliance and have it affect them. They actually rented a lift, went out to the site and
elevated it to a height of 60’ and used a 4’ X 4’ target card painted bright pink for them to
photograph.
Ms. Porterfield asked what kind of equipment is needed to send power back to the grid.
Mr. Hayes replied that a disconnect is needed at the meter. It freely flows into a 20 amp breaker
in the panel box. There is a physical disconnect at the meter that is required for UL listings
nationwide because they are capable of producing enough power to hurt a lineman. That is
there so that the power companies themselves can come shut that appliance off themselves
even though there is a double redundant electronic relay on the inside of each one of these
units to stop that power from going back onto the grid during times when it is down.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it is traveling through conduit of some type to that box.
Mr. Hayes replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they don’t have any other structures or anything like that if it is just
literally going to the breaker box.
Mr. Hayes replied that is correct.
Mr. Strucko asked in the case of a general power outage during a storm if his turbine is
humming away does he have power.
Mr. Hayes relied no that he would not. The UL listing in the United States requires that there
are redundant safety switches on inside of these turbines so that if the power grid goes down
they also turn themselves off for protection of the linemen themselves for every interconnected
turbine. It is not the case with nongrid connected turbines.
Mr. Loach asked what the cost range is.
Mr. Hayes replied that the cost range currently is between $12,000 and $25,000 in typical
installations, which can be reduced by the 30 percent federal rebate.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it is not connected to the gird and Mr. Strucko’s power goes out does he
still have power.
Mr. Hayes replied yes because he is entirely independent.
Ms. Porterfield asked if there is much upkeep.
Mr. Hayes replied that there is very little upkeep except for the waxing of the blades in the first
five years. They have not had anyone take that one on yet.
Mr. Strucko thanked Mr. Hayes for taking the time to come and give the presentation.
Mr. Loach asked if in any other areas they have colocated cell towers of any other type.
Mr. Hayes replied that there was not anything that he is aware of in the state of Virginia. But
there is precedence for that in many other states.
Mr. Strucko noted that he assumed that flushmounted antenna would have to be used.
Mr. Hayes replied that he was not familiar with that whole conversation yet. He was interested
himself in what the vibrations of the turbines will actually do to those antennas. He wondered if
it was even possible to colocate them.
Mr. Graham noted that staff has been working with two Commissioners and would like to
extend thanks to Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton for providing the guidance that they need to get
something going here. It is a threetiered approach as referred to by Mr. Hayes. He walked
through the three tiers in a PowerPoint Presentation. (Attachment – PowerPoint Presentation)
Tier I Wind Turbines –
• Only in Rural Areas zoning district
• Meets building height requirements (35’ Maximum, measured to highest point)
• Supplementary Regulations:
– Not allowed in either Entrance Corridors or within Mountain Contour List (MOD)
– Setback from property lines = height of structure plus 20’ (That is the fall zone
staff is looking for to make sure the structure does not go onto an adjacent
property.)
– No lighting on structure
– No collocation of personal wireless antenna
Tier II Wind Turbines
• Possible waivers or modifications of Supplementary Regulations:
– Locating within Entrance Corridors or within Mountain Contour List (MOD)
– Locating within other zoning districts, with height not to exceed allowed building
height
– Reduced setback from property lines
– Lighting on structure
– Collocation of personal wireless antenna
Tier III Wind Turbines
• Special Use Permit
– Allow height to exceed maximum building height in zoning district
• Consider Tier II waivers or modifications simultaneously with Special Use Permit.
Remaining Issues
• Establish considerations for approving a Tier II or Tier III (e.g. visual impact from
entrance corridor)
• Establish application requirements for Tier II and Tier III
• Establish administrative process for processing of applications (e.g. building permits,
fees)
Mr. Graham pointed out that the Tier II proposal noted by Mr. Hayes in Rockingham County
would actually be a Tier III proposal under this proposal.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment.
Morgan Butler, speaking on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, asked to make
one general point, add one suggestion and then just ask a couple of clarifying questions of
staff.
The general point is that they think that the tiered approach is a good idea and commend
both staff as well as Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton for their work in coming up with this.
They realize that this is just a basic framework with some specifics yet to be filled in, but
support the overall strategy of trying to rank proposals by the potential impacts and then
adjusting the level of review accordingly. They think that the main point here is it needs
to make sure that they are not stifling residents from putting a reasonably sized wind
turbine on their property, but to also have a system in place to provide some case
specific analysis when the potential impacts of a proposed turbine passes a certain
threshold. The general framework set forth in the executive summary seems to do just
that.
As a suggestion under the administrative section of the staff report where it talks about
Tier II turbines the staff report says, “As part of approving a waiver or modification for a
particular turbine application the Planning Commission may establish reasonable
conditions to assure the ordinance intent is maintained. He emphasized “ordinance
intent”. Similarly the Board of Supervisors might establish conditions for a turbine that
requires a special use permit and those conditions would also need to have some
relation to the intent of the ordinance. Because conditions need to have some type of
nexus to the intent of the ordinance they would urge the Commission to set forth a wide
range of intent in the preamble to the section of the supplemental regulations that will
address wind turbines. The intent should probably note that the purpose of the
ordinance is to find the right balance between allowing and encouraging renewable
energy sources and protecting against the potential visual, noise, environmental, safety
and property noise concerns. By specifically referencing those visual, environmental,
safety and property noise concerns it helps them ensure that future site specific
conditions that are crafted to protect those concerns are deemed within the authority of
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
He noted several questions that he would like addressed:
o He questioned why the byright aspect of this is focusing just within the rural
areas. It seems that a lot of the impacts they are trying to protect against are now
as applicable in the developable areas.
o With respect to the Comprehensive Plan’s Mountain Contour list, he noticed those
were categorized by different contours. There is a 700’, 800’ up to 1,200’
contour. He was curious if the restriction would only apply to the portions of those
named mountains that are above that contour line. It also mentions unnamed
mountains and references a concept map to find them. He questioned how the
unnamed mountains would be dealt with.
o He questioned how the underlying noise restrictions within each zoning category
would be dealt with. He asked if those would also be a byright consideration.
Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, noted that they have been
working on this for over two years. He talked with Ms. Joseph sometime last fall and bounced
some ideas off of some folks within PEC. There are a lot of people in the county struggling with
wind turbine issues in order to make it happen, which includes the following.
There are some aesthetic issues that will create some problems. There was overall
consensus among the folks he talked to that this tier approach is the way to do it. He
had some discussions on how it is different from the cell tower industry versus this
private homeowner use, which don’t get into problems with discrepancies with cell
towers.
He thought that Mr. Butler hit on the good questions that the Planning Commission
should bring up in their discussions. He was surprised with the noise issue that the
gentleman brought up from Skyline. He did not know that turbines got that big and
became that loud. He remembered when the Commission talked about the grinders and
the noise issues were a big deal. He questioned if they need to address that in this
regulation. It would be nice if someone in the growth area could come in with some way
to be able to do this. He asked if there are models out there that might encourage it.
The last part that they might have to contemplate on is in regards to the accessory
structure issue. There are a lot of people who have conservation easements in the rural
areas who have restrictions on these sorts of structures. He did not know if there has to
be some notice that it might be byright in the zoning, but it may not be allowed by the
provisions of a conservation easement. It is just something to contemplate on whether
that is just in there as a note for staff to make sure they check this to make sure that a
landowner does not end up in a dispute that they don’t need to be in.
This is a wonderful idea and he was glad staff was bringing it to the floor. He hoped that
they have a positive discussion and they get this proposal approved.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment to bring the
matter back to the Commission for discussion.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that there was one small point that jumped out on the top of page 2
under the definition for the small wind turbines. The definition was fine, but he did not
understand why they had to include the last line, “provided the power sold is not in excess of
that typically used for the primary use of the property.” He knows currently that the net
metering system in Virginia has a provision in there that protects the utilities from having to pay
someone who is producing more energy than they are using. They very successfully lobbied
this through the General Assembly as the way for the net metering system. But he did not know
why they needed to get involved in that. If somebody is producing more electricity than they
are using they should not be punished for that. The General Assembly has already locked that
up a little bit. He was hoping that some day soon they will have a true net metering system
where anybody producing electricity through renewable energy will be treated the same way a
power producer is in that capacity. He knew in Colorado that the utility company has to accept
the power and credit people at the rates they charge. They have different rates for different
times of day and night. That is a true net metering system. There are actually facilities in
Colorado that have been there for quite some time been producing more solar energy than they
are using at their facilities. The ultimate dream is that they can get to the point where they can
be providing all of the energy they need with renewable energy. They are a ways away from
that. But he would hate to have that in the ordinance unless there is some overriding legal
reason that they have to include it in there.
Mr. Graham noted that he could speak to what the idea was in crafting that. It was that the
wind turbines were an accessory use and not a primary use on the property. For example, if
someone does not have one turbine on there that is supplying the power for their property but
30 wind turbines along the ridge line on their property for the purpose of selling it is not
consistent in what they envision for these small wind turbines.
Ms. Joseph noted that when she and Mr. Edgerton worked on the ordinance language one of
the things they looked at was the tier process. If someone was putting in more than one that is
when they would go to special use permit. That is when it became apparent. What they are
hearing from Mr. Hayes also is that these things the way they are designed are going to limit
themselves anyways. Maybe that is something within the language that it could not be anything
more than 2.5 kilowatts and if it produces anything more than that then that is when they start
getting a little bit questionable. If that is all a family needs, then why would they need more
than that? Or maybe the ordinance says if there is more than one of these on the property they
get a special use permit so that there is a little more regulation. The way these things are
defined and manufactured may actually limit the output of the, but she really did not know the
specifics.
Mr. Graham said that the reality is that unless they are requiring the property owner to give us
their electric bills they are not going to know how much electricity they are generating or how
much they are using.
Ms. Joseph noted that she did not want to have to hire another person to have to look at
somebody’s electric bill.
Mr. Edgerton said that if they are worried about someone trying to do a commercial application
he would love to figure out another way to restrict that.
Mr. Graham suggested limiting the number on the property or one per primary use for example.
Mr. Edgerton said that he thought that would be preferable. He was optimistic that with some
increased acceptance of the use of renewable energy that in a very short order there will be a
more standardized net metering system in this country. It will probably come down on the
federal level. He would hate for our ordinance to be more restrictive than what should actually
be happening. But it has not made it in Virginia yet.
Mr. Joseph asked to talk to something that Mr. Butler brought up. When they were talking
about the Tier I, Tier II and Tier III it was contemplated in the rural areas because one
anticipates the acreage to be greater per parcel and that it would have less of an impact than it
might on adjacent neighbors then maybe the Tier II that would be allowed within the
development area. It would be allowed in zoning other than RA so that the adjacent owners
would be notified that this was happening and if they did not care then it could go ahead and be
approved administratively. But it was because the lots are smaller. When talking to other
localities somebody brought up the fact that it would be good to allow them in other zoning
districts. Circumstances like a home owners association might have a larger piece of land and
might want to put up something to run the pool house or pump. It was contemplated that in a
Tier II or beyond it would be allowed in other zoning districts, but with a little more regulatory
action on it. It would affect neighbors more. Now that they are hearing the noise aspects it
would just make more sense.
Mr. Loach agreed that he would like to see the development areas included in this. He was just
thinking back to his neighbor’s first satellite dish, which was 15’ to 20’ across. The technology
has gotten better. He assumed that this technology is going to continue that way, too. So he
would like to at least have the development areas included in the discussion and get public
feedback at a time later.
Mr. Edgerton noted that Mr. Graham, Ms. Joseph and he agree that there should be an
opportunity for it to be in all zoning districts. One of the ideas they started with was just treating
it as an accessory structure and then allowing the current height restrictions in the different
districts to determine how high it could be in different districts. If they needed to go higher than
that then it would have an impact. If he put up a shed in his back yard he could make it 35’ high
as an accessory structure. The argument was why this couldn’t be treated like an accessory
structure. One of the issues is the sound issue that they have to worry about. As Mr. Hayes
was explaining there are sounds, but they do have a Noise Ordinance in the county.
Mr. Graham noted that the noise level is 60 decibels during the day and 55 decibels at night.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the noise is measured at the property line. Therefore, it depends
on how far away you are. The ones that Mr. Hayes was suggesting as possible Tier I units
were both less than that and he thought would not be a problem. As Ms. Joseph pointed out in
the rural areas that hopefully the noise would not impact anybody if it was a byright situation.
Mr. Strucko asked if they considered the impact on a conservation easement.
Ms. Joseph noted that there are a lot of things that are not allowed in some conservation
easements. They are all different. Some owners have agreed to not have any kind of a
commercial enterprise when receiving conservation easements. But they can have a winery.
There are other things that are allowed within our ordinance that the covenants or the
conservation easements speaks to specifically for that parcel. She thought what Mr. Werner
was asking was as people come in just as general knowledge when staff is talking with them to
just say that they better check their conservation easement to see whether they can do this or
not. She questioned whether it was up to the county’s responsibility to determine that.
Mr. Edgerton noted that different conservation easements have different standards right now.
Mr. Graham noted that when talking about conservation easements they are still talking about a
building permit being required for these. Over the last few years they have taken the
development tracking system in County View and modified it and listed all the properties that
have conservation easements. When somebody applies for a building permit a flag pops up if
that property happens to have a conservation easement on it. If it is one that PFRA takes care
of they research the easement agreement. Otherwise, they notify the easement holder that this
building permit has been applied for.
Mr. Kamptner noted that there are some existing conservation easements that have expressly
authorized wireless facilities. If the county determines under its zoning regulation that the small
wind turbines are accessory to a residential use very likely without amending their conservation
easement they may fall within the scope of a permitted use on the property.
Ms. Porterfield felt that it was a good idea, but would like to see them go into the process in a
gentler way. She was very concerned about making these by right to start out with since they
should wait to should see what happens in terms of the number of applications received in the
next two to four years Glenmore is in the development area but abuts a lot of rural area
zoning. With the 35’ height limitation adding 20’ and being set back 55’ off the lot lines she felt
that many people would be affected in Glenmore in the development area. Even in the rural
area mulching proposal there was a lot of concern about the noise. She asked that they not
create problems visually. If they had that turbine sitting on top of a house at 55’ it would be an
eyesore for a lot of people who cherish what things look like around here. She noted that Mr.
Loach’s district also has a lot of land that abuts up against a lot of rural area. This particular
ordinance also needs something in it about what happen when a structure becomes derelict so
that if the county has to take it down they can send them a bill. Including the enforcement of
some of these things would make it easier to administer.
Ms. Joseph suggested that some of the language can be replicated from the cell tower
ordinance. She felt that it should be made easy for people to do since it is an accessory use.
When people live next door to rural areas there are things that happen. She felt that it should
be allowed in other zoning districts since there are other mechanisms to be used.
Mr. Porterfield said that with larger parcels there needs to be some wording that the turbine has
to be located X # of ft from lot lines. She felt that they need to know the concerns of that
particular application.
Mr. Graham asked if she was saying there should be a special use permit required for all
cases.
Ms. Porterfield replied yes at this time so they can try it to see and then revisit it in a few years
after they have some history.
Mr. Loach wondered how onerous it would be someone to go through the special use permit
process. He would love to hear feedback from the public on whether it will be visually
obtrusive, which he felt was Ms. Porterfield’s point.
Mr. Edgerton agreed that some of Ms. Porterfield’s thoughts have merits in that this should be
considered carefully. It is the reality of the expense in the cost of the special use permit that is
scary. Just to get the application in would cost. The compromise suggested has been through
lots and lots of suggestions and should be considered. The compromise is that by right would
only allow the turbines to be treated as accessory and be limited in height. There is no 55’
tower in a by right situation the way it was described. It would be limited to 35’ to the top of the
blade. If go higher they would have to go through the special use permit process. That is a way
seeing the type of interest to get it achievable in the rural area if people want to do it.
Ms. Porterfield questioned that it would double the cost in the process to require a special use
permit.
Mr. Graham noted that when staff went out to the community they were told that their cost of
the special use permit was running $25,000 to $35,000 for cell towers, which includes
engineering plans, attorney fees, balloon test, etc.
Ms. Porterfield suggested coming up with a very simple process, but that it be still be a public
process with neighbor involvement. She was not saying to have everyone fly a balloon.
Mr. Graham emphasized wind energy and explained the cost benefit. But there is a potential
that the applicant will want to go higher to get up above the trees. There will be lots of
situations for measuring visual impact, which is what staff has seen in the process with cell
towers. The higher the height proposed the more material needs to be submitted.
Mr. Loach agreed with Ms. Porterfield’s approach to go slow until they get more comfortable.
He did not know what they would do when the height starts to go up. They have had people
complaining about the 7’ to 10’ above the trees for cell towers.
Mr. Edgerton supported the proposed compromise for the by right turbines at the 35’ height
limitation as suggested.
Mr. Cilimberg said that he heard that there might be interest by one commissioner that all of the
tiers be special use permit. That is just one comment for tonight that could be taken forward to
the Board of Supervisors. At this point it is just a work session for the Commission’s input to
take forward to the Board.
Ms. Joseph asked what the work session would be with the Board. She asked if staff planned
on taking this and amending the documents with Planning Commission diverse comments. Mr.
Graham replied frankly he did not have time for that now because the staff report for the Board
was due today. All he would do is verbally communicate whatever comments the Commission
wanted to pass along to the Board.
Ms. Joseph asked if they would have the ability to do those themselves. She suggested
instead of trying to unravel or package this that they concentrate on whether there are any
questions that could be cleared up before they go to the Board.
Mr. Strucko said that he hoped that the public comments that happened tonight and the rest of
the comments since this is in the work session category of our agenda that if the timing is such
that this is the report that gets submitted to the Board of Supervisors he would think that there
would be a supplement that says here is the result of the work session by the Planning
Commission on this evening. He felt that they would want to include some of the comments
they heard from Morgan Butler and Jeff Werner as well as some of the Commission’s
discussion here. It sounds like Ms. Porterfield, perhaps with the support of Mr. Loach, that they
are supportive of a more go slow approach where this is a new entity in our community and that
perhaps every one of these tiers should be under a special use permit. He was hearing from
Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton, which he would add himself to that as well, did not think that
there was a real issue with the Tier 1 small wind turbine going by right. Of course, they have
not heard from Mr. Franco at all.
Mr. Franco made the following comments.
Mr. Loach referred to the 35’ height and the 4’ to 7’ height above the trees for the cell
towers. This is 35’ above the ground is his understanding and not above the tree line.
So it is a completely different impact. He wanted to make sure that his understood was
correct.
He liked the tier approach and the byright component of a tiered approach. He felt that
was important in order to move this technology forward.
With respect to the noise component he questioned the following:
o Is that up wind or down wind the 145’ or that distance?
o He asked how loud a 12 mile per hour wind is.
Jeremy Hayes replied that it was also important to note that was also along with the wind. If
they hear a 45 decibel noise coming from a turbine with a 20 mile per hour wind that is traveling
along with it the maximum velocity of the wind and decibel level of the machine. At that same
time there is an incredible amount of other noises caused by the trees themselves, people’s
wind chimes, etc. He has a video of a 12 mile per hour wind and a conversation between two
people about 5 feet apart is largely louder than the turbine at 75 feet away.
Mr. Franco felt to answer the concerns he was hearing from Mr. Loach and Ms. Porterfield that
as he said this was part of a process and he would hope that public input and concerns would
come out during this process so that they could include the byright components. He asked
that they keep that in mind. The last comment is that on page 2 of the attachment under the
definitions under tier 1 he was not sure if it was a definition or a commentary that is in italics
where it says these facilities are anticipated to result in very little or not impact to the
community. He might change to say “negative impact” because one of the reasons they are
exploring this is because of the potential positive impacts that this brings. He felt that they need
to stress that as part of the reason why they are pursuing this.
Ms. Joseph asked that Mr. Hayes be invited to the joint meeting.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he already has been invited.
Ms. Porterfield said that if they are not going to give them any information from this meeting she
did not see that they have achieved a lot. She really thinks that they are going to have to pull
together something that the Board of Supervisors gets based on the comments that were made
here. She did not say that because she has a negative feeling about one of the items. She just
thinks it makes sense.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed noting that at a minimum the Board will get the Commission’s action
memo which outlines the points that were made. If possible they will also have the draft
minutes for the Board. But it is a short turn around. Therefore, he could not guarantee that.
What he could guarantee is that they would get the action memo that the Commission reviews.
That action memo would include all of the comments noted tonight.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to tell the Commission the date and time of the meeting. She
suggested that in the future that staff allow enough turn around time to get the materials to the
Board.
Mr. Graham noted that the Board would hear it on May 6, but that the time has not been
scheduled yet. Typically these types of work sessions are held in the late afternoon. But they
have been scheduled in the morning. It depends on how the schedule is going. He noted that
this is a little bit different for everybody. Typically if the Board says this is something that they
want staff and the Planning Commission to work on they go work on it. In this case as part of
the discussion on the department’s work program they ask just to see what is going on or to
check in. He was not sure what the Board is hoping to accomplish. He was assuming that
what the idea is was to just look at the direction this seems to be going and see if they are
comfortable with that direction before they go to the next step of actually drafting an ordinance.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that they need to remember that they are still at work session stage. It
is okay because all of this is going to come out at the work session also. So they are not going
to them with anything other than this document and some ideas at this point.
Mr. Graham noted that they don’t even have a resolution of intent to amend an ordinance at this
point.
Ms. Joseph said that at that a point she would expect that some parameters would be set.
Then from that point on then they can start. She asked that this not be rescheduled from May 6
because she really wanted it to go forward.
Mr. Graham said that he was very interested to find out if this is what people are going to be
comfortable moving forward with. In January he was saying that it looked like this was too
complicated and was suggesting perhaps that they put it on the shelf. Ms. Joseph and Mr.
Edgerton graciously volunteered to assist staff. He was at the point that he felt that they need
to decide is this something that they can reach an agreement and move forward or not.
Ms. Porterfield pointed on based on what she had been saying with Mr. Loach’s support she
would like to see if he had a different way of going at Tier One. If it is not going to come in as a
special use permit is there a different way of going at it. Does there have to be a minimum
acreage before one can have this. Do these have to be kept X number of feet from any
property line. There are some things if they want to go with the less for the applicant to do she
felt that they need to solve a few of the problems going in, which are number one the visual part
of it and the noise. They know from a past thing that noise is going to be an issue on this. If
they come up with saying that Tier One is not going to be a special use permit then they are
going to be allow it byright, but byright for which properties. Do they have to have a minimum
of 5 or 10 acres? Do they have to keep the apparatus at least 1500’ from any property line?
There are some things that they could probably do to make sure that whatever comes in is
going to work.
Ms. Joseph noted that would be ordinance language and Mr. Graham does not want to do that
right now.
Mr. Graham noted that he wanted to do what the Planning Commission and Board want to do.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out the one thing that has come up in this discussion is how to handle
Tier One. She asked if there are any other ideas that could be ready in two weeks if the Board
wants to hear any other ideas that come from some of the things that they have talked about.
She questioned whether staff could come back with something.
Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Graham if he was going to the seminar on Friday at James Madison
University on writing an ordinance.
Mr. Graham replied that he was going to try to attend the seminar.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he and Ms. Joseph were going to attend the seminar.
Ms. Joseph noted that she was not sure.
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that there is a seminar that is being put on by James Madison
University by the Shenandoah Planning District Commission in Staunton on Friday. It is an all
day event and the whole experience is that they are going to hear how other counties have
addressed this and what they have done. They will come back with a model ordinance which
he intends to share with everybody. He got some literature on it today. There is an outline of a
model ordinance which has a tier system in it that he thinks will give us the benefit of some of
the experience that some of these counties have had. There has been a varying degree of
responses from other counties. The ones that have been the most negative, as Mr. Hayes
pointed out, were for these large turbines that have to be on mountain top ridges. He did not
think that was something that any of us would advocate.
Ms. Joseph noted that they were not even considering that at this point. This ordinance does
not even contemplate that. What they were thinking about was all about the personal turbine.
It is not about producing all kinds of energy for New York City.
Ms. Porterfield asked to clear up one thing. What is the cost of a type of turbine that they are
talking about? Is it $12,000 to $25,000? She needed to understand that because of what Mr.
Edgerton said about the cost of making application to the county. She asked if they are talking
about a minimum of $12,000.
Mr. Hayes replied that the minimum level to buy one of these turbines with full installation is
$12,000 and reduced by the 30 percent tax credit.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it costs that much to apply to the county.
Mr. Strucko noted that the expense for going through the special use permit process they are
looking at an expense of about $12,000 for the applicant.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was worried that the cost would put it out of the market.
Mr. Loach understood what Ms. Porterfield was saying was that she wanted a process that was
easy, but also accessible. She did not want to make it to be an onerous cost so the public can
get in to make their opinion. The comparison of the turbine and balloon test comes with the
upper tiers with the 30’ above the tree line. At that tier it is distinct. He asked how do they say
to a company that you spend X number of tens of thousands of dollars to go 3’ to 7’, but that an
individual what do we hold them to go 30’ above the tree line. That was his question.
Mr. Franco noted that does require per this going through that process.
Mr. Loach noted that was his point in what would be the criteria for that.
Mr. Strucko said that there are different gradations here. A Tier One is by right. A Tier Two
requires a waiver. A Tier Three requires a special use permit. So could a Tier One require less
of a waiver; a Tier Two a waiver and a Tier Three a special use permit? That is Ms.
Porterfield’s point. The less of a waiver might not be so cost onerous because one would not
have to hire a $12,000 attorney to take you through the special use permits process. But they
could meet some more basic standards that are not as onerous or costly to get the Tier One
instead of going directly by right. That is the sentiment. That is a legitimate point. It should be
something that the Board of Supervisors should hear as part of the discussion there. But they
have spent over an hour discussing this here. They had a presentation by Mr. Hayes. It is a
little baffling why they would have to have this entire thing all over again in front of the Board of
Supervisors. Perhaps a report could maybe inform that later discussion and may be cut right to
some of these issues. He did not know. He felt that they need to communicate this to the
Board that the Commission did wrestle with this particular issue and that there were merits on
both sides. By right makes it very simple and it achieves some of the public good. That is that
a lot of the environmental concerns and issues, but going through a public process does protect
some of the neighbors from something that is quite new. They could debate that on both
sides. Certainly the Supervisors should hear if they have not considered that already that these
are issues that are worthy of debating or discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg asked that the Commissioners pay attention to the action memo in the appendix
where it will note all of the comments they have heard so that they have all of that right. If that
is all they are able to get to the Board at least that will be a very important piece.
Mr. Strucko said that the Commission would not decide anything here tonight. Staff just wanted
to gauge their reactions and see what they are going to take to the Board. He felt that they got
a pretty rich set of comments.
Mr. Edgerton suggested that an addendum could be added to the staff report to clarify what
was being suggested for the by right in that it be limited to whatever the current zoning
regulations is in height. This does not deal with the sound. But it should be limited in height to
what accessory structures are limited to if he understood what they had been talking about. But
that does not really jump out at you in the staff report. He felt that it was a very important
consideration.
Ms. Joseph noted that there should be a reminder to everybody that they do have a noise
ordinance. She suggested that staff remind the Board what the Noise Ordinance states and
what the acceptable decibel levels are. There are a lot of things already on the books that can
be used for this.
Mr. Strucko asked for the sake of time he would like to move along. He asked if all of the
concerns been aired on this issue. He thanked Mr. Hayes for coming.
The Planning Commission plans to participate with the Board of Supervisors in the wind
turbine work session on May 6.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Stormwater Regulatory C onsiderations
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Response to August 2008 report entitled “Before
the Storm: Reducing the Damage from Polluted
Stormwater Runoff”
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Brooks,
Harper
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
May 6, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On Augus t 6, 2008, the County Board received a report on w ays to reduce the impacts from polluted stormwater
runoff. The report is entitled “Before the Storm: Reducing the Damage from Polluted Stormw ater Runoff” (“Before
the Storm”) and was prepared by the Southern Environmental Law Center, R ivanna Conservation Society, and the
University of Virginia Sc hool of Law’s Env ironmental Law and Cons erv ation C linic. The report is provided as
Attachment A. Following the presentation of this report, the Board directed staff to consider how the report’s
recommendations could be incorporated into the County’s ordinances. In response, s taff has been working with the
report’s authors to develop a set of rec ommendations for the Board’s consideration. The purpose of today’s work
session is to review those recommendations and determine if staff should proceed to preparing ordinance
amendments for any of them.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Protect the County 's N atural, Sc enic and Historic Resources
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development
DISCU SSION :
The authors of the “Before the Storm” report will provide a presentation to the Board on the recommendations.
Staff and the report’s authors reviewed the report and the County’s ordinances to determine where opportunities for
improvement existed. As a result of those meetings , a set of recommendations was developed and forwarded to the
Board. Those recommendations are outlined in Attachment B and hav e been further defined in Attac hment C. The
five changes are summarized below.
1) Reduce the minimum parking s pace requirement for profess ional office spac e.
2) Require stronger onsite stormwater protections when surface parking lots will exceed the C ounty’s
maximum limit on parking spaces.
3) Inc rease the perc entage of park ing lot area that must be landscaped with vegetation, while granting
developers the flexibility to us e onsite stormwater facilities to: (1) meet the landscaping requirement, and
(2) satisfy a Code provision that allows developers to reduc e the length of individual parking spaces (and
thereby reduce the size of the ov erall parking lot).
4) Create a firmer time limit on how long large areas of earth on construction sites may be left denuded and
destabilized.
5) Provide more detail about the protective meas ures developers and landowners must take when they opt to
enter into an erosion control agreement with the County instead of submitting a formal erosion and sediment
c ontrol plan.
Of the five recommendations, the time limit for disturbanc e (#4) is the only one that staff believes will result in a
significant reduction of stream pollution. The remaining recommendations provide s ome benefits and staff agrees
they are improvements over the current ordinance, but the effects will remain small. The last recommendation (#5)
is an administrative change and will not require an ordinance amendment.
Prior to bringing this to the Board for discussion, staff and the report’s authors held a roundtable discussion on
March 24th to provide the public an opportunity to rev iew the recommendations and ask questions. Staff noted the
following comments on the above recommendations:
1) Office parking No conc erns w ere noted w ith reducing the parking requirement for profess ional office
space. It w as noted this relaxes the current ordinance requirements.
2) Expanded parking No concerns were noted, though there was clarification that this required
stormwater addition only applied to the additional parking, not the total parking.
3) Parking Lot Landscaping There w ere c onc erns w ith raising this from 5% to 10% of the parking area,
primarily w ith understanding the net effect. It w as noted that this did not truly double the parking
landscaping as it allowed vehicle overhang and double counting of best management prac tices in
parking lots s uch as biosw ales. In some circumstances , this might result in no reduction in the building
area, where in other situations, it could pos sibly reduce the building area.
4) Limit time of disturbance This was the rec ommendation w ith the mos t c oncern. In pres enting this
recommendation, it was noted this requirement w as intended to match w hat has been proffered in
recent rezonings and effectively put all development on a level playing field. Several members of the
development community expressed conc ern with the complexity and cost of complianc e w ith large
sites, sugges ting this would be very diffic ult with large multiphase developments. In response to the
roundtable input, this rec ommendation w as revised to allow a disturbanc e for 12 months and provide an
administrative modification for an additional 6 months. Denial of an extens ion request or a request for
time beyond this could be appealed to the Board. Staff anticipates the dev elopment community will
continue to have strong objections to this recommendation.
5) Agreements in lieu of a plan There were no concerns noted at the roundtable with res pec t to an
enhanced Agreement in Lieu of a Plan. Basic ally, this is providing better information to potential permit
holders.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff does not believe any of the recommendations c reate a need for additional staff or expanded budgets. The
recommendations simply refine existing requirements rather than create new programs. A budget analysis and
associated fee recommendation will be prepared for any ordinance amendment that is brought forward.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff requests that the Board identify the recommendations it is interes ted in considering to adopt. If there is
interest in proceeding to ordinance amendments, staff will program this into the work program and antic ipates
bringing the ordinance amendments forward by late Summer. As previously noted to the Board in February, some
unassigned capacity was reserved in the C ommunity D evelopment work program for new initiatives s uch as this.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A “Before the Storm: ..”
Attachment B – Stormwater Recommendations
Attachment C – Proposed R egulatory Changes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Prepared by the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Rivanna Conservation Society,
and the University of Virginia School of Law s Env ironmental Law and
Conservation Clinic
Before the Storm:
Reducing the Damage from
Polluted Stormwater Runoff
Recommendations for
Albemarle County
Recommendations for Albemarle County
Before the Storm:
Reducing the Damage from
Polluted Stormwater Runoff
Acknowledgements
e University of Virginia School of Law s Environmental Law and Conservation Clinic, the Rivanna Conser-
vation Society, and the Southern Environmental Law Center are grateful to the many people and organizations
who contributed information to this report, including sta members of Albemarle Count y s Department of
Community Development and the omas Jeerson Soil and Water Conservation District. e report was
supported in part by funding SELC received from the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation and the
Virginia Environmental Endowment.
Photographs: ' Bill Sublette (cover, pages 4, 8, 9, 12); Charles Shoner (pages 1, 13, 17); Albemarle County
(pages 6, 10); Casey Williams (pages 9, 16); Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (page 7); Robert
Llewellyn (page 14). e illustration on page 2 was adapted f rom an original obtained from the Maryland
Department of the Environment.
Morgan Butler, Director of SELC s Charlottesville/Albemarle Project, was the principal author of this report.
Peter Robinson, Jim Joyce, and Zach Carter provided research assistance. Ami Somers was responsible for
graphic design.
Copyright ' Southern Environmental Law Center, Rivanna Conservation Society
e Ri vanna Conservation Society is a nonprot
organization located in Charlottesville. e mission
of the RCS is to develop public support to safeguard
the ecological, recreational, cultural, scenic, and
historic resources of the Rivanna River Watershed.
3PCCJ4BWBHF
&YFDVUJWF%JSFDUPSt
e Environmental Law and Conservation Clinic is an
academic program of the University of Virginia School
of Law. e clinic and its students represent and counsel
environmental nonprots, citi zen groups, and other com-
munity organizations seeking to protect and restore the
environment of Virginia and other parts of the country.
-FPO4[FQUZDLJ
%JSFDUPSt
e Southern Environmental Law Center is a nonprot, regional organization
dedicated to protecting the South s environment and outstanding natural areas.
Headquartered in Charlottesville, SELC works with local, state, and national
groups, providing legal and policy expertise on issues relating to transportation
and land use, forests, coasts and wetlands, and air and water quality. SELC s
work on this report is part of its Charlottesville/Albemarle Project, which pro-
motes smarter growth, more responsible development practices, and sensible
transportation choices in our hometown.
.PSHBO#VUMFS
%JSFDUPS
$IBSMPUUFTWJMMF"MCFNBSMF1SPKFDUt
Introduction
Water has long been a dening featu re of Albemarle County. e a rea s abundant supply of freshwater
streams and rivers oers a wide range of health, recreational, economic, and environmental benets,
contributing signicantly to the st rong quality of life County residents enjoy. However, more than twenty
stretches of waterways owing within or along the County s borders are now included on the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality s (DEQ) list of impai red waters.1 While the causes of the damage
to aected segments can vary considerably, stormwater runo is an all-too-common denominato r, acting
as an underlying cause of many of the water pollution problems that are aecting the Count y s rural areas
as well as its more suburbanized sections. Indeed, DEQ recently analyzed seven of Albemarle s impaired
stretches of water, and the results show that stormwater runo is a major contributor to the pollution
problems in every single one.2
Recognizing that the stormwater problem is likely to increase in magnitude as the County s population
continues to grow, Albemarle s Comprehensive Plan sets a goal of minimizing the negative impacts of
increased stormwater discharges from new land development.3 is report a joint eo rt of the Univer-
sity of Virginia School of Law s Environmental Law and Conservation Clinic, the Rivanna Conservation
Society, and the Southern Environmental Law Center puts fo rward a set of recommendations to help
the County achieve this critical goal. We identify a number of straightforward changes the County could
make to die rent ordinances and policies to promote better choices about the way land is developed and
managed. ese choices, in turn, can help reduce the damage from polluted stormwater runo and the reby
ensure healthier streams and rivers throughout the County.
To be sure, these recommendations, if implemented, will not eliminate stormwater runo in the Coun -
ty or solve all the myriad problems it poses. For one thing, our recommendations focus primarily on limit-
ing runo f rom new land development, but retrotting some existing de velopments and land uses with
better stormwater protections is an equally important piece of the larger stormwater puzzle. In addition,
further scientic e valuation and research to be undertaken over the next several years by the Rivanna River
Basin Commission may demonstrate that a wholesale shift in the way our region approaches stormwater
runo is necessa ry if we are ever to solve the problem fully. Our objective with this report is to highlight
several near-term changes that could expediently be made to existing County provisions and programs.
1
Albemarle s Comprehensive Plan recognizes the County s responsibility to protect the
beautiful water resources with which it is blessed.
The Challenges of Stormwater Runoff
e Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has recognized stormwater runo as a primary
contributor to water quality impairments th roughout the state.4 It aects urban as well as rural watersheds,
inicting damage in two principal ways. Both forms of damage result from changes humans make to the
landscape, and both are occurring in Albemarle County.
First, stormwater runo can cause e xcessive erosion and sedimentation of the waterways into which it
ows. In natural and forested conditions, much of the precipitation from rainstorms is absorbed back into
the ground close to where it falls, nourishing plant life and helping to recharge groundwater aquifers. Typi-
cally, any excess rainwater will ow gradually over the terrain and slowly drain into nearby streams and riv-
ers. But as we replace our forests with pavement, buildings, and manicured lawns, less of the precipitation is
able to seep back into the soil. Instead, the rainwater quickly collects on these compacted surfaces and forms
sheet runo that ows o the site at a much higher volume and speed. It has been estimated, for example,
that a one-acre parking lot creates 16 times more runo than a mead ow of the same size.5
Often, the accumulated runo forms rivulets that pour di rectly into the nearest stream or tributary. Or it
might rst ow into a storm sewer that simply pipes it directly to a nearby waterway. e result is the same
in either case: stream ows in the receiving waters increase signicantl y. As the higher ows rush through
stream channels unaccustomed to such volumes and speeds of water, a massive amount of sediment is carved
away from the streambanks.6 e e roded sediment eventually settles to the streambed, where it smothers
aquatic habitat and alters the waterway s ecology. e sediment can also be s wept into drinking water reser-
voirs like the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir in Albemarle County, reducing capacity over time and increas-
ing water treatment costs.
e second principal way in which stormwater runo damages local wate rways is by washing pollutants
directly into rivers and streams. As rainfall collects on and washes over paved surfaces, construction sites,
lawns, and pastures, it picks up some of the oil, sediment, fertilizers, and bacteria present on those surfaces.7
When the runo then empties into near by waters it can carry those pollutants along with it, often causing
harm to sh and wildlife and e ven making rivers and streams unt for recreation. In addition, pollutants
contained in the runo f rom areas like Albemarle County are signicant contributors to water quality p rob-
lems in the Chesapeake Bay.
ese p roblems have been
made worse by the high number
of large construction projects in
the County over the past several
years. Typically, construction
activities remove the stabilizing
layer of topsoil on a site. When
the underlying soil layers are
exposed directly to the elements,
the rate at which those soils erode
accelerates dramatically. Storm-
water runo then captu res the
eroded sediment and can convey
it directly into streams, polluting
water in the immediate vicinity
of the site and often miles down-
stream. e longer these con -
struction sites leave large expanses
of soil exposed, the greater the
damage.
2
By replacing natural terrain with pavement and rooftops, new land development often
OLPLWVWKHRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUSUHFLSLWDWLRQWREHDEVRUEHGE\SODQWVRULQÀOWUDWHLQWRWKH
ground. As a result, a much higher percentage of precipitation becomes surface runoff
DIWHUODQGLVGHYHORSHGSRVLQJVLJQLÀFDQWWKUHDWVWRQHDUE\ZDWHUZD\V
For example, many County residents have raised concerns about the extended period of time the earth
around the Hollymead Town Center has been in some state of disturbance, and what impact that is having on
nearby waterways. Two citizen groups recently commissioned a sediment survey of the bottom of Lake Hol-
lymead, a man-made water body that lies a few thousand feet downstream of the Town Center. e su rvey
found that the rate at which sediment has collected on the lakebed has increased dramatically in the past four
to ve years8 a period that cor responds to intense construction activity at the Town Center and some other
sites upstream of the lake.
Fortunately, making certain choices about how we develop and manage our land can reduce stormwater
runo and limit the damage it inicts. Just as poor decisions can lead to serious pollution problems in our
local waterways, the proper decisions can help protect them. By simply removing some unnecessary regula-
tory obstacles to smarter development patterns, encouraging more responsible site design and construction
practices, and providing incentives for better land management strategies, Albemarle County can much more
eecti vely promote the type of land use decisions that will lead to cleaner, healthier waters.
e recommendations discussed below are the result of an extensive analysis of the County s development
ordinances and policies jointly conducted by the Rivanna Conservation Society, the Southern Environmental
Law Center, and the University of Virginia School of Law s Environmental Law and Conservation Clinic. e
project was designed to build on a wider review the James River Association conducted in 2006 with guid-
ance from the Center for Watershed Protection. eir review looked more broadly at the 45 major localities
that make up the James River watershed.9
e Center for Watershed Protection has developed a Code and Ordinance Worksheet (Worksheet) that
we used as the starting point for our analysis. e Worksheet contains a number of benchmarks that can be
used to determine how well a locality s ordinances promote development practices that reduce stormwater
runo.10 We used the Worksheet in combination with the collective stormwater knowledge and experience of
our own organizations to identify certain County practices and specic p rovisions of the County Code that
showed potential for improvement.
We then spent several months expanding and rening our p reliminary ndings based on nume rous discus-
sions with County sta and members of Albemarl e s development and environmental communities. e rec-
ommendations presented below are the culmination of this eo rt, and we believe they represent a manageable
set of practical, common-sense steps the County could take to reduce the damage that polluted stormwater
runo is causing to our local wate rways.
Background
3
As described above, the amount of stormwater runo that a ce rtain area generates can increase consid-
erably when its trees and meadows are replaced with buildings and pavement. In recent years, however,
innovative approaches to the design and layout of new development sites have emerged that seek to mini-
mize this eect. ese app roaches focus on two goals: (1) avoiding the construction of excessive impervious
surfaces; and (2) using small-scale, natural landscape features to help absorb and treat rainwater close to
where it falls and before it forms fast-moving sheets of runo. (is usage of natural landscape featu res to
minimize and treat runo is commonly referred to as l ow-impact development, or LID .)
e rst catego ry of recommendations included in this report oers specic ways in which die rent
County Code provisions can be improved, and the County s development policies rened, to better ad -
vance both goals. e recommendations contained in Category 2 are related, but focus on ways to promote
LID practices more generally.
A.Parking Lots
Large surface parking lots can generate massive volumes of stormwater runo. For example, a one-acre
paved parking lot (43,560 square feet) will produce roughly 27,000 gallons of runo during a one-inch
rain.11 Some of the large commercial parking lots in the area are nearly 10 acres in size. With one inch of
rain, that much pavement will generate over a quarter of a million gallons of runo enough to ll a
swimming pool the size of the basketball court in the John Paul Jones Arena to a depth of 7.3 feet. Worse,
the runo collects many of the various pollutants
that have accumulated on the parking lot and can
ush them into local wate rways.
e recommendations in this subsection focus
on reducing the stormwater impact of new surface
parking lots by reducing lot size and incorporating
LID features into the design. However, it must be
noted that one of the best ways to minimize the
amount of runo generated by a large surface lot
is to build instead a structured or underground
parking facility. Developers often dismiss these
options because of their higher construction costs,
but the economics are changing and the County is
beginning to see large Development Area propos-
als include some structured parking. In addition to
the recommendations below, we urge the County
to seek a higher percentage of underground or
structured parking in all appropriate rezoning
proposals in the designated Development Areas.
1.Require that 20% of spaces within larger parking lots be designed to compact car
dimensions (8 feet by 16 feet).
e amount of land pa ved to build a new surface parking lot depends on several factors. One is the size
of the individual parking spaces within the lot. Regrettably, parking lots are often congu red so that every
parking space can accommodate the largest class of automobile, even though roughly 20% of the auto-
mobiles on the road today are smaller, compact cars,12 and the percentage of large vehicles being sold is
rapidly decreasing.
4
Category 1: Promote Better Design and Layout of New Development Sites
There are still many untapped opportunities for reducing polluted
runoff from new parking lots built in the County.
A requirement that an appropriate percentage of the parking spaces within large parking lots be designed
to compact dimensions can reduce the size of the parking lot while accommodating the same number of
vehicles. It can also increase the space available within the lot for LID stormwater management practices.
We recommend that section 18-4.12 of the Albemarle County Code be amended to require that 20%
of the parking spaces within parking lots of 10 or more spaces be designed to a compact car set of di -
mensions (8 feet by 16 feet), and be marked for use by compact cars only.
/RZHU WKH PLQLPXP SDUNLQJ VSDFH UHTXLUHPHQW IRU SURIHVVLRQDO RIÀFH EXLOGLQJV
Another major factor in the size of a surface parking lot is, of course, the overall number of parking
spaces. Often, local ordinances specify a minimum number of parking spaces that must be built for vari-
ous types of land uses, such as business oces and retail space. When these minimum parking requirements
exceed what a new development is likely to require, it results in unnecessary pavement. Not only does this
increase the amount of stormwater the site generates, but it can also increase construction costs for the
developer. To help localities avoid these results, the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) has developed a
recommended minimum number of parking spaces for major uses such as professional oce buildings and
shopping centers.
Albemarle s minimum parking space requirements are contained in section 18-4.12.6 of the Albemarle
County Code. While the requirements for shopping centers and single family homes fall within the CWP s
recommendations for those classes of uses, the County s parking requirement for professional oce build -
ings exceeds the mark. e CWP recommends a minimum of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross oor
area of oce space. Albemarle requires, in eect, 4 pa rking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross oor a rea.13
Not only does the County s requirement exceed the CWP s recommendation, but we understand that de-
velopers of professional oce space in Albemarle f requently request permission to build fewer parking spaces
because they feel the County s minimum is set too high. Reducing the minimum parking space require-
ments for oce space is an easy way for the County to all ow developers to reduce unnecessary impervious
surface in new commercial developments without jumping through extra hoops. Notably, this change would
not require developers of oce space to build f ewer parking spaces; it would simply allow them to do so.
We recommend that section 18-4.12.6 of the County Code be amended to reduce the minimum
parking ratio for professional oce space to 3 spaces per 1,000 squa re feet of gross oor a rea (or, using
net oce oor a rea, 3.75 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of net oce oor a rea).
3.Require a special use permit for exceeding the maximum limit on parking spaces.
In addition to requiring a minimum number of parking spaces for various uses, the County also limits
the maximum number of spaces that may be built to accommodate each use. Under section 18-4.12.4(a) of
the County Code, the number of parking spaces built for a particular use may not exceed the required mini-
mum number of spaces for that use by more than 20%. Setting a reasonable maximum limit helps ensure
that lots are not built to sizes that greatly exceed the anticipated demand for parking.
Although the County Code contains parking maximums, developers may ask County sta to inc rease
or simply waive the limit, and the Code currently requires little in the way of justication or mitigation for
such a request. If the Code were amended to require developers to obtain a special use permit before they
may exceed the parking maximums, these shortcomings could be remedied.
As a starting point, the County could require developers to submit with their special use permit applica-
tion an ocial pa rking study demonstrating the need for the additional spaces. When a developer requests
permission to build fewer parking spaces than the County s minimum requirement, the Code requires the
developer to submit a parking study from a professional transportation planner or licensed engineer provid-
ing several categories of data that justify the request.14 Yet no such study is currently required when develop-
ers ask to exceed the maximum limit.
5
6
Beyond simply providing justication, de velopers should also be expected to install enhanced stormwater
protections in return for permission to exceed the maximum parking requirements. For example, to be
eligible to exceed the parking space limit, the County could require that a minimum percentage of the over-
all parking spaces within the lot must be incorporated into a spillover pa rking area in which pervious pave-
ment options (as will be discussed in more detail later in this report) are required. Alternately, the County
might require either a rainwater harvesting system or a green roof on the building(s) that will be served by
the parking lot to reduce the runo f rom those structures.
Requiring that a special use permit be obtained before parking maximums may be exceeded would give
the County the necessary authority to both require parking studies and incorporate more progressive storm-
water mitigation practices into approved permits.
We recommend that section 18-4.12 of the County Code be amended to require a special use permit
before maximum parking requirements may be exceeded. We further recommend that a parking study be
required as part of the special use permit application, and that the County require enhanced stormwater
protections on the site as a necessary condition of any such special use permit.
4.Increase landscaping in new parking lots, and require the landscaped areas be
GHVL JQHG WR FROOHFW DQG ÀOWHU UXQRII
It is fairly common for local ordinances to require that some small percentage of the total area of a new
surface parking lot be set aside for trees and shrubs. Albemarle has this type of requirement in its Zoning
Ordinance: for parking lots of 5 or more spaces, an area equal to 5% of the total paved area must be set aside
and landscaped with plants.15
Although parking lot landscaping requirements have traditionally been based on the desire to provide
safe pedestrian havens as well as shade, the planted landscape areas also pose signicant potential for t reating
stormwater. However, the plants are often contained in islands that are raised above adjacent portions of the
parking lot and bordered by impenetrable curbs. With runo f rom the paved portion of the parking lot thus
unable to inltrate the landscaped a reas, the stormwater benet they p rovide is limited to the rain that falls
directly on top of them.
Better landscape design approaches exist and are already being used in a few projects in our area. For ex-
ample, if landscaped areas are built at a slightly lower grade than the adjacent portions of the parking lot and
are not completely surrounded by a curb, some runo f rom the paved portion of the lot will drain into them
where it can be lte red and absorbed. Incorporating back-up drainage systems into the landscaped areas, as
the examples on the prior page illustrate, can address over ow and help ensure that the plants are not ood -
ed during heavy rainstorms.
6WRUPZDWHUWKDWFROOHFWVRQWKHVHSDUNLQJORWVDW0RQWLFHOOR+LJK6FKRRODQGWKH6KRSSHUV:RUOG6KRSSLQJ&HQWHUÁRZVLQWRYHJHWDWHG
´ELRÀOWHUVµWKDWDEVRUEVRPHRIWKHUXQRIIDQGKHOSÀOWHURXWSROOXWDQWV'XULQJODUJHUDLQVWRUPVDQ\H[FHVVUXQRIIFDQVSLOOLQWRRYHUÁRZ
drains that usually connect to the storm sewer network.
We recommend that section 18-32.7.9.7 of the County Code be amended to increase the parking lot
landscaping requirement to 10%, and to require that the landscaped areas be designed to lter a portion of
the runo f rom the paved parking surface.
B.Streets and Driveways
Streets and driveways are major contributors to the impervious surfaces generated by residential develop-
ment. Streets are often the largest single component of pavement in a residential subdivision, accounting for
roughly half of the impervious cover in the overall road network in traditional neighborhoods.16 Driveways
are usually responsible for another 20% to 30%, and cul-de-sacs and other turn-arounds represent approxi-
mately 7%.17 Because these features can be such major sources of impervious surface, it is important to
encourage developers to build street networks that incorporate LID measures into their design.
Most counties in Virginia, including Albemarle, have fairly limited discretion over the design of streets
in new developments if they want the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to bear the expense
of maintaining them. is is because the state has p rescribed a set of design standards that new streets must
meet before VDOT can agree to maintain them. However, the Virginia General Assembly recently passed
legislation requiring that these secondary street acceptance requirements be updated, specically requir-
ing that provisions to minimize stormwater runo f rom the secondary streets be included in the revised
requirements.
Although the new regulations have not yet been nali zed, recent drafts indicate that localities will be
granted increased exibility to p romote new street designs that incorporate LID measures into the right-of-
ways and within cul-de-sacs.18 Once the new regulations have been nali zed and adopted, it will be impor-
tant for the County to respond by more actively promoting such roadway designs in its Subdivision Ordi-
nance and by providing guidance on acceptable approaches. e recommendations below oer some specic
design suggestions.
1.Explicitly allow perforated curbs along roadsides in the Development Areas, and
publish guidance demonstrating acceptable designs.
Under the County Code, all new streets in the Development Areas must be constructed with either curbs
or curbs and gutter (although an applicant may ask the Planning Commission to waive the curb and gutter
requirement altogether).19 Conventional curb
and gutter systems simply collect all the storm-
water runo f rom the roadbed and channel it
directly to the storm sewer system. is app roach
is often advocated in areas of dense development
because there is typically less natural terrain on
adjacent lots to help absorb the runo. However,
a few simple design changes to the traditional
roadside curb and gutter system can safely allow
for the treatment and on-site absorption of some
portion of the stormwater the street generates.
Specicall y, instead of being designed as one
long, uninterrupted channel, roadside curbs can
be perforated with periodic curb cuts. ese
breaks in the curb allow some runo f rom the
road to spill into the planting strips that are al-
ready required along new streets in the Develop-
ment Areas and that oer a natural oppo rtunity
for slowing, ltering, and absorbing runo. As
7
Periodic curb cuts allow some street runoff to drain into planting areas
OLNHWKHRQHVSLFWXUHGLQWKHH[DPSOHDERYH
with landscaped areas in parking lots, back-up drainage features can be utilized to address potential over ow
in the planting areas during heavy rainstorms.
In step with the adoption of the new secondary street acceptance requirements, a new sentence could be
added to the County s Subdivision Ordinance to make clear that properly designed perforated curb systems
that allow runo to drain into adjacent planting strips or other a reas of natural terrain are acceptable along
new streets in the Development Areas. To further encourage the practice, the County could publish a guid-
ance document demonstrating designs that are acceptable to both the County and VDOT.
We recommend that the Subdivision Ordinance be amended to expressly allow perforated curb designs
for both public and private streets, and that the County publish a guidance document demonstrating
acceptable designs.
2.Explicitly allow landscaped islands in the middle of cul-de-sacs, and publish guidance
demonstrating how the islands can be equipped with LID stormwater practices.
For a variety of reasons, cul-de-sacs are generally not a preferred street design element in new neighbor-
hoods and developments. Where they must be used, however, these large circles of pavement can be designed
in ways that help reduce their
stormwater impact. Fortunately,
this appears to be another area
in which the revised version
of the state s secondary street
regulations will grant localities
increased exibilit y.
For example, creating land-
scaped islands in the middle of
cul-de-sacs, rather than paving
the entire surface, can help cut
down on pavement. A 40-foot-
diameter island in the middle of
an 80-foot-diameter cul-de-sac
will reduce the impervious sur-
face of the cul-de-sac by 25%.
Further, if the island is built at a
lower elevation than the sur-
rounding roadway and surrounded by a perforated curb rather than an impenetrable one, it can capture and
treat runo f rom the adjacent roadway. Installing other LID stormwater features in the island can increase
the amount of runo that can be eciently t reated without over ow.
We recommend that the Subdivision Ordinance be amended to expressly allow landscaped islands in
the middle of cul-de-sacs, and that the County publish a guidance document demonstrating how LID
stormwater features can be installed within the islands.
3.Promote the use of perv ious pavements for residential driveways.
Driveways can account for approximately 20% to 30% of the impervious cover in traditional residential
street networks.20 However, there are many options available for creating driveways with pervious materials
that allow stormwater to be absorbed into the ground. One option increasingly being used in our region is
porous pavers. ese a re usually interlocking blocks of concrete that are designed to create small voids, or
empty spaces within and between the blocks. Stormwater is able to ow through the voids into grass, soil, or
some other underlying material that can absorb and lter it.
8
Building landscaped islands in the middle of new cul-de-sacs can help reduce pavement,
as seen in this photo of the new Brookwood development currently under construction
RQ5D\PRQG$YHQXHLQ&KDUORWWHVYLOOH$GGLWLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUEHQHÀWVFDQEHSURYLGHG
if the islands are designed to absorb some runoff from the surrounding street.
We recommend that a sentence be added to the
County s Zoning Ordinance to make clear that pervious
materials may be used for driveways, and that guidance
on using the die rent types of pervious pavement that
have proved successful in this region be published and
made easily available.
C.Site Layout
Our recommendations to this point have focused
on standards and designs that mitigate the stormwater
impact of two major sources of pavement in new develop-
ments: parking lots and roads. Runo can also be reduced
by promoting a more thoughtful layout of the develop-
ment on the overall site one that a voids valuable natu-
ral resources and limits disturbance to soils. is is the
focus of the recommendations outlined in this subsection.
1.Explore incentives to developers to preserve existing trees at development sites.
In addition to the aesthetic, economic, and air quality benets
that healthy trees provide to a development site, they also help pro-
tect nearby waterways. Specicall y, a leafy tree canopy provides an
initial barrier to rainfall, reducing the erosive force with which rain-
drops hit the earth. In addition, the leaves and the roots of trees ab-
sorb and lter some of the rainwater that falls on and a round them,
decreasing the amount of rainfall that becomes stormwater runo.
ese se rvices of slowing rainfall and reducing runo a re especially
valuable during the critical stages of high erosion that occur during
and after construction.
Albemarle County has a tree canopy provision in its Zoning Or-
dinance requiring that new development sites have at least a few trees
on them within ten years of the completion of construction on the
site.21 In accordance with the state enabling legislation, however, the
County s tree canopy requirement may be met entirely by planting
new trees. is means de velopers can satisfy the requirement even if
they completely strip a new development site of all vegetation during
the construction process.
Although the County currently allows mature trees that are
preserved on a site throughout the construction process to count
extra t oward the canopy requirement,22 it is unclear how often
developers take advantage of this bonus. If most developers are
ignoring the bonus and primarily using newly planted trees to fulll
the canopy requirement, additional incentives for preserving exist-
ing trees on development sites should be explored. ese incenti ves
should incorporate measures to ensure that the designated trees are
adequately protected during the entire construction process.
We recommend that the County explore additional incentives to preserve existing trees on new devel-
opment sites.
9
'HYHORSPHQWVLWHVLQWKH&RXQW\WRRRIWHQ
UHVHPEOHEDUUHQ´PRRQVFDSHVµFRPSOHWHO\
stripped of trees and plants that could help
VORZDQGÀOWHUUXQRII
Porous pavers allow rainwater to percolate be absorbed into
the ground below. A few recent projects in our area have
incorporated them for parking areas and driveways, like the
RiverBluff development in Charlottesville.
$GRSW D WUHH FRQVHUYDWLRQ RUGLQDQFH DQG GHVLJQDWH VSHFLÀF WUHHV IRU SURWHFWLRQ
Another option at the County s disposal for preserving existing trees on development sites is to adopt a
tree conservation ordinance pursuant to the enabling authority provided in the Code of Virginia.23 Although
the County has adopted other ordinance provisions that relate to the preservation of trees,24 there is no rm
requirement that exceptional trees or wooded areas on a development site be avoided. As discussed in the
previous recommendation, entire sites can be razed with no mature trees left standing t rees that would
have helped to slow and lter runo during and after const ruction.
Although its reach would be limited to specic t rees the County designates, a tree protection ordinance
would provide those trees with a strong layer of protection. It would help ensure that the stormwater benet
provided by the County s most outstanding trees would be insulated against future development activity.
Notably, other Virginia localities, including Fairfax City25Notably, other Virginia localities, including Fairfax CityNotably, other Virginia localities, including Fairfax City and Arlington County26 and Arlington County and Arlington County have adopted tree conser-
vation ordinances to protect the trees those localities have deemed worthy of protection.
We recommend the County adopt a tree protection ordinance and designate specic t rees deemed
worthy of preservation.
As discussed throughout this report, a new approach to stormwater management has emerged in recent
years. It uses a set of techniques collectively known as l ow impact development (LID) that manage rainwa -
ter close to where it falls. e LID app roach incorporates small-scale natural landscape features into the
designs for new development sites. ese featu res emulate the way the site naturally absorbs and lters runo
in its predevelopment state. is is in contrast to traditional stormwater strategies that con vey runo away
from the site and into large holding basins, the storm sewer system, or directly into local waterways as quickly
as possible. Because LID practices use natural systems to lter out pollutants and all ow runo to be absorbed
into the ground, they can reduce the overall volume of runo that ows o a de velopment site, as well as the
amount of pollutants in that runo.
e County is to be commended for incorporating many
LID stormwater features into its own public construction
projects over the past several years, such as the rain gardens
installed in the Monticello High School parking lot, and the
green roof and porous pavers at the County oce building
on McIntire Road. ese p rojects help to demonstrate to
the public the feasibility, eecti veness, and aesthetic benets
of these practices. In addition, the Board of Supervisors has
recently increased its eo rts to obtain better stormwater
and erosion control measures from developers proposing
rezonings, and we urge the Board to continue to raise the
bar with each new proposal that comes before it. Below we
discuss two additional strategies the County could adopt to
actively encourage LID stormwater techniques.
1.Offer incentives to utilize low-impact development features.
An abundance of recent research demonstrates that incorporating LID practices usually reduces the overall
cost of a development project while increasing environmental performance.27 Nonetheless, fears about the
amount of time it could take to get these features approved, as well as the potential for higher costs incurred
in installing and maintaining them, appear to be limiting their use.
10
Category 2: Actively Encourage Low-Impact Development Stormwater Practices
$QH[FHOOHQWH[DPSOHRIDJUHHQURRIFDQEHIRXQGRQWKH
$OEHPDUOH&RXQW\RIÀFHEXLOGLQJORFDWHGRQ0F,QWLUH5RDG
e County can help add ress these barriers and jump-start the use of these new practices by oering in -
centives to incorporate certain LID features into new and existing developments. For example, inducements
to developers such as height or density bonuses and reduced or waived application fees could provide the
necessary enticement to build green roofs or use porous pavers for driveways in lieu of asphalt. In addition,
the Charlottesville City Council has recently endorsed the idea of a real estate tax reduction for owners of
energy ecient homes and businesses; the County could pursue enabling authority to c reate similar incen-
tives for homeowners and developers who install LID features such as rainwater harvesting systems.
We recommend the County explore incentives to utilize green roofs, porous pavers, rainwater harvest-
ing systems, and other low-impact development practices.
2.Develop and publish guidance on low-impact development options.
While some landowners and developers might be waiting for the type of short-term economic incentive
discussed in the above recommendation before they consider installing LID features, others likely have the
desire already and simply lack the requisite knowledge. It is therefore important to have written guidance
available explaining when certain LID practices may be appropriate, as well as instructions on how to design
and implement those practices.
Many types of stormwater practices are already detailed in the Virginia Stormwater Management Hand-Virginia Stormwater Management HandVirginia Stormwater Management Hand
book and associated technical bulletins, but the County could supplement these materials by publishing its bookbook
own guidance materials that detail some of the specic LID practices we discuss in this report. ese ma -
terials could be appended to the County s Design Standards Manual or form the basis of the County s own Design Standards ManualDesign Standards Manual
stormwater guidance document, which could be made readily available to interested landowners and devel-
opers. By educating not only the public about new LID options but also the County sta members respon-
sible for putting the guidance documents together, this eo rt would help ensure that Albemarle County
remains at the forefront of innovation in stormwater management.
We recommend that the County make guidance available that details the acceptable design and instal-
lation of some of the LID stormwater management practices we recommend in this report, including:
t1 FSJPEJD DVSC DVUT BMPOH SPBETJEFT TP UIBU TUPSNXBUFS ESBJOT JOUP BEKBDFOU WFHFUBUFE BSFBT
t-BOETDBQFE BSFBT JO QBSLJOH MPUT BOE DVMEFTBDT UIBU mMUFS BOE BCTPSC SVOPĊ GSPN UIF TVSSPVOEJOH
pavement
t1 PSPVT QBWFST GPS QBSLJOH MPUT BOE ESJWFXBZT
t3BJOXBUFS IBSWFTUJOH TZTUFNT PO OFX BOE FYJTUJOH CVJMEJOHT
11
When clearing, grading, and other construction activities expose bare
earth and soil to the elements, the rate at which the soil is broken down into
smaller, erodible sediments increases dramatically. According to the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, erosion associated with con-
struction activities can be 200 times greater than that from cropland and
2,000 times greater than that naturally occurring in woodlands.28 Similarly, a
guidance document published by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency notes that erosion rates from natural areas such as undisturbed for-
ested lands are typically less than 1 ton per acre per year, whereas erosion rates
from construction sites range from 7 to 500 tons per acre per year.29
Stormwater runo can then s weep much of the eroded sediment from
construction sites into nearby waterways. For example, in just one week in
2002, monitoring stations showed that rainfall washed 1.4 million pounds (or
700 tons) of sediment o of const ruction sites for Route 288 into the Swift
Creek Reservoir, a primary drinking water source for Chestereld Count y.30
e prima ry regulatory mechanism in Virginia for dealing with this prob-
lem is the Erosion and Sediment Control program (E&S p rogram). e
E&S program requires developers to submit and implement a plan (E&S pla n) containing the sediment-
reduction measures they will undertake on a construction site. At the heart of the E&S program regula-
tions are nineteen guidelines the state law refers to them as minimum standards that all E&S plans
must meet.31 As their name implies, the state s minimum standards act only as a baselin e set of p rotec-
tions. A signicant amount of sediment-laden runo can still escape a const ruction site even when an
E&S plan fully complies with the state s standards and is properly implemented by the contractors on the
site. Further, some of the minimum standards are vaguely worded and contain loopholes that can be easily
exploited, minimizing what protection they are meant to oe r.
Fortunately, local governments have the explicit authority to require stronger erosion protections than
those contained in the minimum standards,32 and below we identify several upgrades Albemarle County
could make to its local erosion control program to limit the amount of sediment that gets washed from
construction sites into local waterways.
1.Require all erosion and sediment control plans to include a time limit by which
denuded terrain must be permanently revegetated.
Erosion occurs much less rapidly when soil is protected by a permanent vegetative cover than when it
is left bare and exposed to the elements. As a result, a key factor in reducing the amount of sediment that
gets washed from a development site into nearby waterways is limiting the amount of time that the site is
denuded.
Although Virginia regulations require that denuded terrain at construction sites be revegetated once
grading is complete or if grading will not occur for a specied amount of time,33 those regulations have
a built-in loophole: by simply doing some marginal grading work on the site whenever the deadline for
revegetation approaches, developers are able to restart the clock and lea ve large portions of construction
sites in a denuded condition almost indenitel y. e most noticeable manifestations of this regulatory
loophole in our area are the muddy moonscapes that sometimes persist for years at a time along the
Route 29 corridor.
In a few recent rezonings, the County has begun accepting a proer f rom developers that reduces the
potential for this type of abuse. e p roer requires that permanent vegetation must be in place on all
12
Category 3: Limit Sediment-Laden Runoff from Construction Sites
6WRUPZDWHUUXQRIIFDQVZHHSVLJQLÀ-
cant amounts of sediment from con-
struction sites into local waterways.
denuded areas of a construction site within
a certain number of months after grad-
ing begins (except for any areas of the site
where construction of roads or structures
is already under way at that time).34 is
requirement provides needed clarity in
determining the deadline for revegetation
of a construction site.
Rather than limit this important
safeguard to a few rezonings, we urge the
County to codify the requirement in its
Water Protection Ordinance so that it
applies to all new construction activities
covered by the County s E&S program.
is change would help limit one way the
existing erosion protections can be severely
abused.
8F SFDPNNFOE UIF $PVOUZ BNFOE JUT 8BUFS 1SPUFDUJPO 0SEJOBODF UP SFRVJSF UIBU BMM FSPTJPO BOE
sediment control plans include a time limit by which denuded terrain must be permanently revegetated.
2.Expand the list of erosion control measures explicitly referenced in the form contract
the County uses for agreements-in-lieu-of-a-plan.
When a land-disturbing activity results from the construction of a single-family residence, Virginia law and
the County s E&S program allow the property owner to enter into an agreement-in-lieu-of-a-plan rather
than submit a full erosion and sediment control plan.35 In contrast to a detailed, site-specic E&S plan, an
agreement-in-lieu-of-a-plan is usually just a short form contract in which the landowner pledges to comply
with any applicable erosion control requirements. e option is meant to st reamline the construction plan-
ning and permitting process for landowners or developers proposing only to build a single house (as opposed
to the larger disturbance necessary for a new subdivision or shopping center).
Because the agreements are broadly worded and often lack detail, their eecti veness and enforceability can
be hampered. However, some localities append to the agreements a list of specic e rosion protections that
must be undertaken on any site covered by an agreement-in-lieu-of-a-plan. e City of Norfolk, for example,
expressly incorporates twelve of the state s minimum standards into its agreements. ese conditions include,
among other things, a requirement to stabilize all stockpiles of soil on the site during construction and a
reminder that the contractor must inspect all erosion control measures after rainstorms to make sure they are
working properly.36 By explicitly spelling out the most critical requirements, Norfolk helps ensure that prop-
erty owners and contractors know the specic e rosion control requirements to which they must adhere. is,
in turn, likely leads to more consistent compliance with those requirements.
e form contract Albemarle County uses for ag reements-in-lieu-of-a-plan lists only three specic condi -
tions. At a minimum, some of the other erosion control requirements that Norfolk spells out could be added
to the County s form contract. Further, the overarching time limit by which all denuded areas of construction
sites must be permanently revegetated, as recommended above, could also be added to the list.
We recommend that the County expand the list of erosion control measures explicitly referenced in the
form contract it uses for agreements-in-lieu-of-a-plan. We further recommend that one of the measures
referenced be the overarching time limit for permanent revegetation discussed in our previous recommen-
dation.
13
Limiting the amount of time that construction sites leave the terrain denuded
DQGH[SRVHGWRWKHHOHPHQWVLVFULWLFDOWRSURWHFWLQJQHDUE\VWUHDPVDQGULYHUV
3.Lower the threshold for compliance with the County s erosion and sediment control
program to 2,500 square feet of land disturbance in the Development Areas.
Under the County s Water Protection Ordinance, most land disturbances of less than 10,000 square feet
in size are exempt from the erosion and sediment control requirements. As a result, no E&S plan or even an
agreement-in-lieu-of-a-plan is required for these disturbances.
While most land disturbances for new houses in the County s Rural Areas exceed 10,000 square feet and
therefore fall under the E&S program, there will occasionally be smaller inl l p rojects in the County s
denser Development Areas that do not meet the threshold. As a result, these projects are not required to
put erosion controls in place during construction. Because sedimentation tends to be a larger problem in
waterways that ow through more urban zones, there is a water quality benet to ensuring that smaller land
disturbances in the Development Areas are brought within the purview of the County s erosion control
program.
Notably, Virginia already requires 46 of the localities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to use a
2,500-square-foot threshold for their E&S programs. If the County adopted the more protective
2,500-square-foot threshold for land disturbances in its Development Areas, it could help reduce the adverse
water quality impact that future inll const ruction projects will have in these areas.
We recommend the County lower the threshold for compliance with the erosion and sediment control
program to 2,500 square feet of land disturbance in the Development Areas.
4.Prepare and publish guidance on effectively preserving topsoil during construction.
Establishing a robust vegetative cover on de-
nuded soil helps limit the amount of sediment
that erodes from a development site during and
after construction, and a healthy layer of topsoil is
crucial to establishing that vegetative cover quickly.
Topsoil is a biologically active system that contains
the necessary combination of minerals, organic
matter, air, water, and microorganisms that allows
plants to grow and ourish. It can take thousands
of years for a rich layer of topsoil to form.
During construction disturbances, the topsoil is
frequently damaged or removed and discarded, and
subsoils emerge to form the new surface of the de-
velopment site. e subsoils lack the ideal mixtu re
of components that nourishes plant growth. As a
result, it often becomes necessary to supplement
or amend these subsoils with fe rtilizers in areas of the site that are to be revegetated once construction is
complete, and this process can be an expensive undertaking for developers. It can also increase environmental
damage, as runo often collects some of the nutrients and other harmful pollutants that a re contained in the
fertilizers and washes them into nearby waterways.
It is therefore important to minimize damage to a site s topsoil during construction. On those areas of the
site that will be disturbed, the topsoil should be removed, stockpiled, and stored in a protective way when-
ever possible. Once grading of the area is complete, the topsoil should be replaced quickly to areas that are to
be revegetated to provide the necessary foundation for plant growth.
By educating citizens and developers on the ecological value of topsoil and by explaining eecti ve ways to
preserve it, the County could encourage these valuable practices and reduce the amount of topsoil lost during
construction.
14
+HDOWK\WRSVRLOLVDQH[WUHPHO\YDOXDEOHUHVRXUFHDQGVKRXOGEH
preserved during construction whenever possible.
We recommend that the County publish a guidance document explaining the importance of preserving
topsoil and detailing ways of safely removing and preserving it so that it can be replaced after construction.
5.Support County staff s efforts to administer and enforce the Water Protection Ordinance.
e Count y s recent budget challenges are making it even harder for a stretched Community Development
sta to administer and enfo rce the stormwater runo and e rosion control provisions in the County s Water Pro-
tection Ordinance. Specicall y, there are seven positions currently frozen within the Department of Community
Development, including two inspectors and one engineer. ese empty sta positions make it ext remely dicult
for the County to adequately review and ensure proper implementation of the stormwater and erosion control
plans that developers must submit.
Community Development sta recently presented to the Board of Supervisors a proposed revision of the
fees the County charges to administer certain programs under the Water Protection Ordinance. e p roposal
was necessitated in part by the fact that the fees the County currently charges are well below the cost of provid-
ing the services the fees are supposed to cover. e n ew proposal would adjust the fee amounts to levels that are
comparable to the fees that many neighboring localities charge, providing a more adequate recovery of County
costs. What is even more important, the proposed fee increases would generate enough revenue to support two
of the positions within the Community Development department that are currently frozen. With no funding
coming from the County budget to ll any of the f rozen positions in the near future, the fee increases are an es-
sential step toward better implementation and stronger enforcement of the County s water protections.
We recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt County sta s proposal for updating the fees the
$PVOUZ DIBSHFT UP BENJOJTUFS UIF 8BUFS 1SPUFDUJPO 0SEJOBODF
Reducing impervious surfaces, encouraging LID stormwater management practices, and reducing erosion
from construction sites are all essential to limiting the sedimentation problems aecting a number of local wa -
terways. However, several of the County s impaired stream and river segments are failing to meet federal clean
water standards because of high levels of a die rent pollutant E. coli bacteria. Stormwater runo is one of the E. coliE. coli
primary ways that E. coli gets washed into our local waterways, and below we discuss ways the County could E. coliE. coli
augment its eo rts to address this threat.
1.Provide supplemental funding for the Virginia Agricultural Best Management Practices
Cost-Share program, and urge the General Assembly to provide a dedicated source of
funding for the program.
e E. coli bacterium is commonly found in the intestinal tracts of many warm-blooded animals. While rare E. coliE. coli
variations of the bacteria can be harmful or even lethal to humans if ingested, nding high le vels of E. coli in a E. coliE. coli
waterway is more of a concern because it often indicates the presence of other disease-causing bacteria that are
much more dicult to detect on their own. Elevated levels of E. coli are not uncommon in waterways owing E. coliE. coli
through agricultural areas because two main sources of the bacteria are manure-based fertilizer applications and
livestock waste. However, several rural streams and rivers in Albemarle County have such high concentrations
of the bacteria that they are generally deemed unsafe for swimming and qualify as impai red under state and
federal standards.
As part of a study required by the Clean Water Act, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
recently examined ve stretches of rivers and streams in Albemarle that are impaired by high levels of E. coli. In
all ve, pasture land for livestock grazing was determined to be by far the largest sou rce.37 is means that
Category 4: Support Riparian Protection on Pasture Land
15
stormwater runo is collecting the bacteria when it ows over the pasture land
and then washing it into these waterways.
Livestock farming is an important component of the area s strong rural heri-
tage, and Albemarle s farmers are often some of the County s best land stewards.
It is therefore important to ensure that the local agricultural industry is not
subject to unreasonable constraints that threaten its viability. At the same time,
more clearly needs to be done to reduce the damage that runo inicts on local
rivers and streams when it ows across pastures.
Encouraging
livestock farmers to
plant and maintain
vegetated buers
along rural streams
and tributaries is
one area where
current eo rts can
be strengthened.
Establishing an
eecti ve riparian
buer on land used
for livestock graz-
ing is both dicult
and costly, and this
helps explain why
the County s stream
buer requirements
specically e xempt
livestock farmers. First, establishing a buer requires the installation of fencing
to keep livestock from trampling the vegetation that would otherwise grow to
establish the bue r. At the same time, alternative drinking water systems must be
installed for the animals because they will no longer be able to access the stream.
However, fencing and new water systems can be an expensive proposition for
many local farmers. While the state has created a cost-share program that can
pay up to 75% of the cost of fencing and undertaking other land management
practices on pasture land, it is often the case that the remaining expenses are still
too high for many farmers to ao rd.
e County could help by supplementing the state s cost-share program with
the County s own dedicated source of funding, focusing attention on those local
waterways that are impaired by E. coli. e supplemental funding could be used
to cover the remaining share of the costs of taking needed land management
steps on pasture lands located near impaired waterways.
In addition to setting aside some of its own funding, the County could
include among the annual legislative priorities it sends to the General Assembly
a request for increased state monies to support the cost-share program and the
administrative and technical sta members who implement it. Although a n ew
state law creates a specic fund that can only be used for the cost-sha re program,
no money has yet been set aside for the fund. e County could voice its sup-
port to the state for establishing a dedicated revenue source for the new fund.38
16
SOURCES OF E.COLI BACTERIA
IN COUNTY WATERWAYS
Rivanna River
North Fork Rivanna
Beaver Creek
Mechums River
Preddy Creek
Pasture Lands Other
Pasture lands are by far the predominant
source of bacteria in several impaired
river and stream segments in the county.
6RXUFH 9LUJLQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\ 6HH
Note 37.)
More must be done to encourage livestock farmers to establish
stream buffers and other effective riparian protections.
63%
67%
69%
56%
62%
We recommend the County set aside funding to supplement the state cost-share program for under-
taking protective agricultural land management practices in watersheds impaired by E. coli. We further
recommend that the County request the General Assembly to establish a dedicated source of revenue
GPS UIF OFX 7JSHJOJB /BUVSBM 3FTPVSDFT $PNNJUNFOU 'VOE
Albemarle County is experiencing rsthand the harm that stormwater runo can cause to ri vers and
streams in rapidly developing areas as well as more rural locations. One of the most promising ways we
can eecti vely respond to this threat is by making better choices about how we manage and develop
our land. is report highlights a number of ways in which the County s ordinances and policies can be
rened to foster management and de velopment decisions that go further to protect our local waterways.
By removing unnecessary regulatory obstacles to smarter development patterns, strengthening water
protections where there are currently loopholes, and providing stronger incentives for more sensitive land
stewardship, we can ensure cleaner and healthier rivers and streams throughout the County.
Making Better Choices
17
1 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Final 2006 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report (approved by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency on Oct. 16, 2006).
2 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Results of the Rivanna River Total Maximum Daily Load Study, PowerPoint presentation delivered
at February 11, 2008 public meeting (http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pptpdf/rivp2deq.pdf ).
3 Albemarle County, Va. 1996-2016 Comprehensive Plan (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component), p. 28 (adopted March 3, 1999)
(http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=planning&relpage=3000).
4 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, note 1, p. 3.1-3.
5 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, A Better Way to Grow: For More Livable Communities and a Healthier Chesapeake Bay (1996), p. 4.
6 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Stormwater Management Program (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_&_water/
stormwat.shtml).
7 Ibid.
8 TEC Inc., Hollymead Lake Sediment Survey, prepared for Forest Lakes Community Association and Hollymead Citizens Association (Aug. 2007)
(http://www.hollymead.org/sediment_survey.pdf ).
9 Working with students from the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and Virginia Commonwealth University, the James River Association pub-
lished its ndings in an informati ve report entitled Building a Cleaner James River: Improving Local Building Codes & Ordinances to Protect the James
River & Its Tributaries (January 2007) (http://www.jamesriverassociation.org/watershed_scores.html).
10 Further information on the Code and Ordinance Worksheet, the model development principles on which it is based, and the process used to
develop those principles may be found on e Center for Watershed Protection s Site Planning and Model Development Principles webpage:
(http://www.cwp.org/22_principles.htm).
11 Calculation available at North Carolina Clean Water Education Partnership web site: (http://www.nccwep.org/involvement/kids/slobber.php).
12 Mary Smith, Vehicle Sizes Inch Down . . . Literally!, Walker Parking Consultants (2007) (copy available from author).
13 Albemarle requires 1 space per 200 ft of net oce oor a rea, which section 18-4.12.6 of the County Code denes as 80% of the g ross oce
oor a rea. is translates to 4 spaces per 1,000 squa re feet of gross oor a rea.
14 Albemarle County Code § 18-4.12.2(c)(1) (2008).
15 Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.7 (2008).
16 omas R. Schuele r, Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection (Ch. 6, Headwater Streets), p. 147 (1995).
17 Ibid.
18 More information on the proposed regulations, including the most recent draft, is available on the Virginia Department of Transportation s web
site (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/ssar/default.asp).
19 Albemarle County Code § 14-410(H) (2008).
20 Schueler, note 16.
21 Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.9 (2008).
22 Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.9(d) (2008).
23 Specicall y, § 10.1-1127.1 of the Virginia Code gives localities the authority to adopt tree conservation ordinances.
24 See, for instance, section 18-32.7.9.4(c) of the County Code, which gives the County the authority to require that site development plans spare
small groups of trees or individual trees that contribute signicantly to the character of Albemarle Count y. See also section 18-4.3 for the County s
tree cutting ordinance, which limits the cutting of trees of a certain size but does not apply outside the County s Rural Areas and is largely inap-
plicable during the development of land.
25 Fairfax City Code § 110-257 (2008).
26 Arlington County Code § 67-3 (2008).
27 For example, a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report analyzes seventeen case studies of developments and compares the costs of
applying LID stormwater controls to the costs of traditional stormwater controls on the same developments. e report concludes that in the vast
majority of cases, signicant savings were realized and environmental performance was improved when LID methods were used. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development Strategies and Practices, Publication Number EPA 841-F-07-006
(December 2007) (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/).
28 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia s Erosion and Sediment Control Program (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/
soil_&_water/e&s.shtml).
Endnotes
18
19
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas, Management
Measure 8: Construction Site Erosion, Sediment, and Chemical Control, Publication Number EPA 841-B-05-004 (Nov. 2005) (available for
download at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps.urbanmm).
30 Tom Pakurar, Hands Across the Lake, Impact of Runo Pollution 8/25/02-9/2/02 on Swift Creek Reservoir, November 12, 2002.
31 4 Va. Admin. Code 50-30-40 (2008).
32 Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-570 (2008).
33 4 Va. Admin. Code 50-30-40(1) (2008).
34 For example, the developers of the Biscuit Run project recently proe red the following as part of the rezoning for that project: Within nine
(9) months after the start of grading under any erosion and sediment control permit, permanent vegetation shall be installed on all denuded
areas, except for areas the Program Authority determines are otherwise permanently stabilized or are under construction with an approved
building permit. A three (3) month extension for installation of permanent vegetation may be granted by the Program Authority due to special
circumstances including but not limited to weather conditions.
35 Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-563 (2008); Albemarle County Code § 17-205 (2008).
36 A copy of Norfolk s agreement-in-lieu-of-a-plan is available at http://norfolk.gov/Planning/Applications/Erosion_Sediment.pdf.
37 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Results of the Rivanna River Total Maximum Daily Load Study, PowerPoint presentation
delivered at February 11, 2008 public meeting (http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/tmdl/pptpdf/rivp2deq.pdf ).
38 For example, ten Virginia environmental and agricultural groups co-authored a letter to Governor Kaine dated August 29, 2007, requesting
that 1/10th of 1 cent of the state sales tax revenue be dedicated to the fund.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Morgan Butler, Southern Environmental Law Center
Robbi Savage, Rivanna Conservation Society
Leon Szeptycki, UVA Environmental Law and Conservation Clinic
DATE: March 5, 2009
RE: Recommendations for Reducing Damage from Stormwater Runoff
Last summer we published and presented to you a report entitled, Before the Storm: Reducing the
Damage from Polluted Stormwater Runoff. As you may recall, our report details the ways in which
stormwater runoff is harming County waterways, and it then outlines a number of straightforward
changes to County ordinances and policies that would help address this growing problem. At the
conclusion of our presentation, the Board invited us to work with County staff to refine and finalize a set
of priority recommendations for your consideration. This memo provides a status update for your
review; we look forward to bringing our final recommendations back to you in the near future.
Summary of Meetings
We presented an overview of the report and recommendations to you at your day meeting on
August 6, 2008. Since then, we have met on three separate occasions with Mark Graham (Director of
Community Development), Glenn Brooks (County Engineer), and Greg Harper (Water Resources
Manager), to develop a subset of priority recommendations and to think through their implementation.
Those meetings occurred on August 29, October 29 and January 13. We also met with the Government
Affairs Committee of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce in October to present and
discuss our report. These meetings are in addition to a large number of formal and informal discussions
we have held throughout the course of this project with representatives of our area’s environmental and
development communities.
Priority Recommendations
Having incorporated the helpful feedback we have received from County staff and the many
community representatives with whom we have met, we have now refined a set of priority
recommendations that we believe would offer the greatest water quality benefit without administratively
burdening County staff or imposing an unreasonable financial cost on the development community.
Indeed, in line with one of the goals of our project, we believe our recommendations will facilitate and
enhance the efforts of many local developers who are looking for ways to help minimize the impacts of
their projects on local waterways and the environment generally.
Our five priority recommendations are:
1) Reduce the minimum parking space requirement for professional office space.
2) Require stronger onsite stormwater protections when surface parking lots will exceed the
County’s maximum limit on parking spaces.
3) Increase the percentage of parking lot area that must be landscaped with vegetation, while
granting developers the flexibility to use onsite stormwater facilities to: (1) meet the landscaping
requirement, and (2) satisfy a Code provision that allows developers to reduce the length of
individual parking spaces (and thereby reduce the size of the overall parking lot).
4) Create a firmer time limit on how long large areas of earth on construction sites may be left
denuded and destabilized.
5) Provide more detail about the protective measures developers and landowners must take when
they opt to enter into an erosion control agreement with the County instead of submitting a formal
erosion and sediment control plan.
Next Steps
Looking forward, we would like to work with County staff to schedule a presentation and
discussion of the revised priority recommendations to the Government Affairs Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce, representatives of the Free Enterprise Forum and the Blue Ridge Homebuilders,
and other interested members of the business and development communities. We would then like to
return to the Board for a work session to present and explain the recommendations to you. We have
asked staff to set aside time for this work session during your day meeting on May 6. The final step
would be a formal public hearing later in the spring or early summer.
Please let us or County staff know if you have any questions or suggestions. Again, we look
forward to presenting the final results of our work to you in the coming months.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Suggested Changes to Albemarle County Code
4/07/09
Category 1: Promote Better Design and Layout of New Development Sites
A2. Minimum parking ratio for professional office space.
Proposed change to County Code § 184.12.6 (“Minimum Number of Required Parking
Spaces for Scheduled Uses”):
Offices, business, administrative and professional (including medical offices but not dental
clinics): One (1) space per two hundred (200) two hundred seventy (270) square feet of net
office floor area. The term “net office floor area” shall be deemed to be: (1) eighty (80)
percent of the gross floor area; or (2) at the request of the applicant, the actual net office floor
area as shown on floor plans submitted by the applicant, delineating the actual net office floor
area, which plans shall be binding as to the maximum net floor area used.
A3. Condition permission to exceed parking maximums on lot designs that limit runoff.
Insert new section as § 184.12.2(c)(2):
For each request to modify or waive the maximum number of parking spaces allowed by
subsection 4.12.4(a), the developer shall either:
(i) Locate a minimum of onethird of the total number of proposed parking spaces within
structured or underground parking facilities; or
(ii) Utilize enhanced stormwater best management practices, as defined in the Design
Standards Manual, to capture and treat runoff from the entire parking lot. Enhanced
stormwater best management practices incorporated into interior parking lot
landscaping areas pursuant to §32.7.9.7 of this ordinance may count toward this
requirement. In addition, a volume of water equal to oneinch over the portion of the
parking lot surface attributable to the parking spaces that exceed the maximum must
not run off the site.
A4. Expand landscaping areas to promote onsite infiltration of runoff in new parking lots.
Proposed changes to § 1832.7.9.7 (“Parking Lot Landscaping”)
b. Interior landscaping: Exclusive of the requirements of section 32.7.9.7 (a) and (c), an area
equal to five (5) ten (10) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation area shall be
landscaped with trees or shrubs. This shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten
(10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. Interior landscaping shall
be located in reasonably dispersed planting islands or perimeter areas. Shrub planting
adjacent to a building shall not be counted as interior landscaping. With the approval of the
agent, enhanced stormwater best management practices, as defined in the Design Standards
Manual, may be used within parking lots in lieu of trees and shrubs to satisfy the interior
landscaping requirement. The land area occupied by the enhanced stormwater best
management practices shall count double toward the ten (10) percent interior landscaping
requirement.
Proposed changes to § 184.12.16(c)(6) (to complement landscaping expansion):
Minimum length reduction: Perpendicular and curvilinear parking space minimum length
requirements may be reduced by not more than two (2) feet when any of the following
conditions are satisfied: (i) one or more rows of parking are separated by planting islands or
interior landscaping areas (including enhanced stormwater best management practices, as
defined in the Design Standards Manual), median, or other such features (other than
sidewalks) and allow for an unobstructed overhang, from each row, equivalent to the
reduction; or (ii) one or more rows of parking adjacent to a building are separated from the
building by planting islands or interior landscaping areas (including enhanced stormwater best
management practices), or other such features (other than sidewalks) and allow for an
unobstructed overhang, from each row, equivalent to the reduction.
Category 3: Limit SedimentLaden Runoff from Construction Sites
1. Require all erosion and sediment control plans to include a time limit by which denuded terrain must
be permanently revegetated.
Insert new subsection (C) of §17203 (“Erosion and Sediment Control Plan”):
C. In addition to all requirements incorporated above, a permanent vegetative cover shall be
installed on all denuded areas not otherwise permanently stabilized or under construction with
an approved building permit, as determined by the Program Authority, within twelve months
of the start of clearing or grading under any erosion and sediment control permit or agreement
in lieu of a plan. The owner must provide written notification to the Program Authority of the
date on which clearing and grading work begins within one week of the commencement of
such work. Upon the written request of the owner demonstrating that factors beyond the
owner’s control necessitate an extension of the twelve month time limit, the Program
Authority may extend the time limit for a maximum of six months. Any further extensions
may only be granted by the Board of Supervisors.
(The existing subsection (C) would become subsection (D)).
2. Expand the list of erosion control measures explicitly referenced in the form contract the County uses
for agreementsinlieuofplans.
Albemarle County
Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement for
Single Family Residence Construction
In lieu of submitting a formal erosion and sediment control plan for development of this single family
residence and/or appurtenant structure, I agree to comply with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook, latest edition, and provide erosion control measures in accordance with
the Handbook standards and specifications in order to protect against the transport of soil and sediment
off of the property. I further agree to comply with additional requirements determined necessary by the
Department of Engineering & Public Works Program Administrator. Such requirements shall be based
on established conservation standards and shall represent the minimum practices Albemarle County
deems necessary to provide adequate control of erosion and sedimentation on or resulting from this
development.
At a minimum:
1. Silt fences, sediment basins and traps, and other protective measures shall be provided in areas
where sediment from disturbed areas may leave the site. Protective measures must be properly
installed before significant land disturbing activity may proceed. These measures must remain
installed and maintained until adequate stabilization is achieved as determined by the Program
Authority.
2. All erosion measures shall be inspected periodically and after each runoffproducing rainfall
event. Any necessary repairs to maintain the effectiveness of the erosion control devices and cleanup
of sedimentation shall be made immediately. If a county inspector finds the erosion control measures
are found to be inadequate or in need of repair, you will be notified. A fee of $150 will be charged
for each reinspection that is necessary.
2.3. A temporary stone construction entrance shall be provided wherever traffic will be leaving a
construction site and there exists the possibility of transporting mud directly onto a public or private
road or other paved area.
3. 4. All denuded areas on the site shall be stabilized within seven (7) days of final grading with
permanent vegetation or a protective ground cover suitable for the time of year. Temporary soil
stabilization shall be applied within seven (7) days to denuded areas that may not be at final grade but
will remain dormant (undisturbed) for longer than thirty (30) days.
5. A permanent vegetative cover shall be established on all denuded areas not otherwise permanently
stabilized or under construction with an approved building permit, as determined by the Program
Administrator, within ten months of the start of clearing or grading. Written notification of the date
on which clearing and grading work begins must be provided to the Program Authority within one
week of the commencement of such work. Upon the written request of the responsible land disturber
or landowner demonstrating that factors beyond their control necessitate an extension of the ten
month time limit, the Program Authority may extend the time limit for a maximum of two months. If
construction extends for more than a year, the County may initiate any authorized enforcement action
as it deems appropriate, and a permit renewal fee of $150 will be required.
6. During construction of the project, soil stock piles and borrow areas shall be stabilized, covered,
or protected with sediment trapping measures.
7. All storm sewer inlets that are operable during construction shall be protected so that sediment
laden water cannot enter the conveyance system without first being filtered or otherwise treated to
remove sediment.
8. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall not be removed until disturbed areas
are stabilized. After stabilization is complete, all measures shall be removed within 30 days, unless
otherwise authorized by the Program Administrator. Trapped sediment and the disturbed soil areas
resulting from the disposition of temporary measures shall be permanently stabilized to prevent
further erosion and sedimentation.
I further understand that failure to comply with such requirements within three (3) working days,
following notice by the Department of Engineering & Public Works a County official, could result in a
citation for violation and may require the submission and approval of a formal erosion control plan with
an appropriate performance bond as provided in Sections 17204 and 17207 of the Albemarle County
Water Protection Ordinance. I hereby agree to be responsible for carrying out each of the duties and
responsibilities enumerated above, as well as all other requirements of Albemarle County’s erosion
and sediment control program. I also hereby agree to maintain responsibility for this permit
regardless of the sale of the property prior to completion of the work covered by this permit.
Design Manual Additions:
Section 3.B (with other items to be relettered) Additional Permit Requirements
Albemarle County has a time limit for construction disturbances, as given in Water Protection Ordinance
section (per anticipated amendment). In addition, some properties may have additional requirements
imposed or proffered in a rezoning or special use permit approval.
Section 5.D Enhanced Stormwater Management
Enhanced Stormwater Management, or Enhanced Best Management Practices, are those facilities or
practices which provide more water quality treatment, or more volume retention, than would be required
by the current ordinances and policies.
Enhanced water quality treatment will be those practices which provide removal rates at least 10% better
than required by ordinance. (Often this increase is a target specified in a proffer or condition of zoning,
like 20% better than otherwise required.) In cases where required removal rates are above 65%, this will
not be possible with current technologies. In these cases, enhanced quality must take the form of runoff
reduction practices. Runoff reduction practices are those which collect and infiltrate or utilize
stormwater, such that it does not run off the site. Marginal (usually <15%) addition treatment can also be
attributed to a treatment train, or treatment redundancy. This means runoff is routed through two or more
facilities before discharge. A common train is treatment at the source, such as with a parking lot
biofilter, in addition to treatment at the discharge, as with an extended detention facility. Should none of
these practices prove feasible, reduction to a site’s impervious areas may improve results. Examples
would be pervious pavers, or smaller parking areas.
Return to exec summary