HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-01Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
December 1, 2010
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing Piedmont Baptist Church 140th Anniversary.
b. Sally Thomas – VAPA Award.
c. 2010 Virginia Go Green Challenge.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:30 a.m. – Public Hearings:
8. 10-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts – Ordinance to amend Division 2,
Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, to add lands to certain districts and to make corrections to
certain district ordinances to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts, as specified below:
a) AFD-2010-0009. Blue Run AFD – District Additions. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 3-208, Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District, to add
TMPs 50-41A, 50-41Q, 50-42A and 50-43 to the district and to identify TMPs 35-26B1, 49-
24A and 49-24B as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in
the district).
b) AFD-2010-0018. Buck’s Elbow Mountain AFD – District Additions.
The proposed ordinance would amend Section 3-209.5, Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural
and Forestal District, to add TMP 39-21Z to the district.
c) AFD-2010-0015. Fox Mountain AFD – District Additions. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 3-212.5, Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, to
add TMP 14-26B to the district.
d) AFD-2010-0013. Hardware AFD – District Additions. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 3-214, Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, to add
TMPs 86-16 and 86-16H to the district.
e) AFD-2010-0012. High Mowing AFD – District Review. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 3-216, High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District, to
continue the district for all parcels identified in the ordinance, and set the next district review
deadline date of December 1, 2020. It would also remove any parcels for which a request for
withdrawal is received before the Board acts on the proposed ordinance.
f) AFD-2010-0014. Keswick AFD – District Additions. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 3-219, Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District, to add
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101201/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2020 3:39:32 PM]
Tentative
TMPs 65-31C1, 65-31C3, 65-31D and 65-32 to the district, to identify TMP 80-2C as being in
the district (this parcel was created from a parcel already in the district), and to remove the
reference to TMP 64-8 (whose land was added to TMP 64-8A in the district).
g) AFD-2010-0011. South Garden AFD – District Additions. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 3-225.5, South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District, to
add TMPs 99-102 and 110-10 to the district and to identify TMP 119-2 as being in the district
(this parcel was created from a parcel already in the district).
h) AFD-2010-0017. Sugar Hollow AFD – District Additions. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 3-226, Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District, to
add TMPs 26-14F and 26-14H to the district, and to delete TMP 40-12B1 from the district
(this parcel was previously withdrawn but inadvertently left in the ordinance).
9. To consider granting an easement to Central Telephone Company of Virginia, d/b/a
CenturyLink, across property owned by the County known as Boulder’s Road located on Tax Map
Parcel 03200-00-00-00503 necessary for the installation and maintenance of underground cables
across Boulder’s Road.
9:45 a.m. – Presentations Items
10. 9:45 a.m. - Mental Health & Wellness Coalition.
11. 10:15 a.m. - ECC's functions and Emergency Preparedness.
10:45 a.m. – Action Items
12. Clifton Lake PRD – Request to set public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority jurisdictional area boundary to provide water service to Tax Map 79, Parcel 23 and Tax
Map 79C, Parcel 1, located approx 2,100 feet southwest of the intersection of Rt 250 and Shadwell
Road.
11:00 a.m. – Work Sessions:
13. 11:00 a.m. - Solid Waste Services.
14. 11:30 a.m. - CPA-2005-010. Places29 Master Plan – Piney Mountain
Expansion area. (continued from November 10, 2010).
15. Closed Meeting.
Reconvene in Room 241
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
2:00 p.m. - Work Sessions
18. Five Year Financial Plan.
20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
21. Adjourn to December 15, 2010.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101201/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/1/2020 3:39:32 PM]
Tentative
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: March 15(A), August 11 and September 8, 2010.
7.2 Extension of term of the Albemarle County Service Authority to October 17, 2054.
7.3 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
7.4 Authorize the County Executive to sign a license agreement to allow the Church of
Incarnation to erect a sign on County Property.
7.5 Authorize the Department of Fire & Rescue to Overhire Up to Two Full-Time
Firefighter/EMTs.
7.6 Proposed Redistricting Schedule and Preliminary Redistricting Guidelines.
7.7 Crozet Library Team Recommendations.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.8 FY11 First Quarter Financial Report.
7.9 2010 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Community Development
Department, Office of Geographic Data Services.
7.10 2010 Third Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the Community
Development Department, Office of Geographic Data Services.
7.11 Board-to-Board, December 2010, A Monthly Report from the Albemarle County School
Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101201/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/1/2020 3:39:32 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Term of the Albemarle County Service Authority
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Extension of term of the Albemarle County Service
Authority to October 17, 2054
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, and Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Service Authority (hereafter, “ACSA”) was created in1964 for an original term of fifty (50) years.
On October 17, 1974 the Board of Supervisors extended the term of the ACSA to October 17, 2024. The ACSA Board
of Directors has now requested that the term of the ACSA be extended to October 17, 2054 (See Attachment A).
Virginia Code § 15.2-5114(1) authorizes the Board of Supervisors to extend the term of a service authority by
resolution provided that the term is not extended beyond fifty (50) years from the date of the adoption of such
resolution.
DISCUSSION:
The ACSA Board has adopted a Resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors to extend the term of the ACSA to
October 17, 2054. (See Attachment A) As explained in Attachment A, bond counsel has recommended the extension
to facilitate the issuance of bonds planned to finance current and future ACSA improvement projects. A similar
extension was granted in 1974 for the same reasons. The extension can be authorized by adoption of the attached
Resolution (Attachment B).
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no impact on the County budget. The extension will facilitate the planned issuance of bonds to finance ACSA
projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution to Extend the Term of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
(Attachment B)
ATTACHMENTS
A – ACSA Board request to Albemarle County
Includes Memorandum to ACSA Board and Resolution adopted by ACSA Board
B – Resolution to Extend the Term of the ACSA
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION
TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority was founded in April 1964 for a
term of fifty (50) years; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution adopted on October 17, 1974, the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia extended the term of the Albema rle County Service Authority to
October 17, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority presently is in the process of
issuing bonds for the North Fork Regional Pump Station Project, which bonds will have a term
of payment extending beyond October 17, 2024, thus requiring the extension of the term of the
Albemarle County Service Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority may have to issue in the near
future additional bonds to pay for additional projects; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority on
October 21, 2010 unanimously adopted a Resolution requesting that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia extend the life of the Albemarle County Service Authority to
October 17, 2054.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, pursuant to Section 15.2-5114(1) of the Code of Virginia, hereby extends the term
of the Albemarle County Service Authority to October 17, 2054.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2011052, #2011053, #2011054, #2011055 and
#2011056 for various school and local government
programs and projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below, not counting the appropriation which is a transfer, is
$50,233.67. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of five (5) FY 2011 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011052) totaling $578.67 from donations for Fire Rescue’s Smoke Detector
Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2011053) totaling $27,655.00 for an adjustment to the amount of rent charged in the
Commission on Children and Families (CCF) budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2011054) transferring $33,451.00 from Crozet Meadows Rehabilitation administration
fees to the Office of Housing to fund the housing counselor for the full year;
One (1) appropriation (#2011055) totaling $19,800.00 for various school programs; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011056) totaling $2,200.00 for contributions to the Sheriff Office’s programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $50,233.67 and the approval of Appropriations
#2011052, #2011053, #2011054, #2011055 and #2011056.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011052 $ 578.67
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 578.67
This appropriation request provides $578.67 from donations to support the Fire Rescue Prevention Division’s
programs. The Prevention Division and the Office of the Fire Marshal offer a wide range of services to both the
public and private sectors including providing smoke alarm checking, assistance, and installation. These donated
funds help defray the cost of providing free smoke alarms to citizens.
Appropriation #2011053 $ 27,655.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 5,000.00
CCF Fund Balance $ 22,655.00
This appropriation request funds an adjustment to the rent charged to the Commission on Children and Families
(CCF), which is funded with $5,000 in revenue from Albemarle County’ School’s Safe Schools/Healthy Students
program and $22,655.00 from CCF’s fund balance. This adjustment in necessary because the amount of rent
included in CCF’s Adopted FY 10/11 budget was determined prior to finalizing the recent reorganization of
responsibilities between CCF, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. The revised lease was
approved on September 1 and reflects CCF’s annual space needs on a per square footage basis.
Appropriation #2011054 $33,451.00
Revenue Source: Transfer from Crozet Meadows $ 33,451.00
This request is a transfer of unused performance-based contract administrative fees earned from the Virginia
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), which was received by the County for Crozet Meadows. This
appropriation requests a transfer of these unused fees to support one FTE housing counselor position in the
Housing Office for the time period of January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011. The Board had previously approved
local funding in FY 10/11 for this housing counselor position for the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31,
2010. The housing counselor position responsibilities will be revised to include administration of CDBG projects.
Appropriation #2011055 $19,800.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 19,800.00
Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,500.00 from an anonymous donor. The donor
has requested that this contribution be used to fund the Red Hill Elementary School’s 4th and 5th grade trips to
Jamestown/Yorktown/ Williamsburg.
An appropriation is requested for $17,300.00 in payments from Utopian Wireless. Utopian Wireless has agreed to pay
the Albemarle County Public Schools in monthly installments for the leases of its broadband channel capacity. Two
checks from Utopian Wireless totaling $17,300.00 were received for their September payment. Albemarle County
Public Schools is committed to maximizing student achievement and fostering collaboration amongst professional
learning communities and stakeholders. Funds received from Utopian Wireless will be used to acquire specialized
contracted services needed to migrate the current ACPS Intranet instance to a new, functionally enhanced platform
that will also serve as the foundation for future development. This foundation will serve as an optimized environment
that will allow for increased collaboration and communication. Future development will involve deployment of a
security gateway, single sign-on platform, collaboration environments, social networking and user profiles.
2
Appropriation #2011056 $ 2,200.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 2,200.00
The Sheriff’s Office has recently received contributions in the amount of $2,200.00 and the following appropriations
are requested:
Appropriate a contribution from the Albemarle County Farm Bureau in the amount of $1,200.00 to assist in
the overtime costs for game enforcement in relation to deer decoy operations.
Appropriate a contribution from Walmart in the am ount of $1,000.00 to assist in the purchase of flashlights
and other safety items for senior citizens within the community. This program is administered by the
Sheriff's Reserve Program.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Approval of Sign License Agreement for Off-Premises
Church of Incarnation Sign on County Property
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the County Executive to sign a license
agreement to allow the Church of Incarnation to erect a
sign on County Property
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, and Shadman; and
Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 10, 2010, the Board authorized the County Executive to co-sign an application for a special use permit to
locate an off-premises sign for the Church of Incarnation on County property located at the corner of Hillsdale Drive
and Incarnation Drive(TMP 61Z-03-9, see Attachment A). As set forth in the March 10, 2010 executive summary
(Attachment B), a VDOT engineer evaluated the Church’s two entrances and opined that promoting the use of the
southern-most entrance by placing a sign at that location would create safer conditions. The special use permit was
approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on May 4, 2010.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed location of the sign is on County property where a stormwater detention pond is located that was
scheduled for an extensive upgrade. Although the requested sign is likely to be in the staging area for the stormwater
upgrade project, that project has been deferred, and the license agreement includes a provision that allows the County
to terminate the license and to have the sign removed in the future. When the stormwater project goes forward, if the
sign cannot be accommodated, it may have to be removed or temporarily displaced. In the meantime, this proposed
limited use of public property would serve the general public by improving traffic safety for the travelers on Hillsdale
Drive.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no foreseeable budget impact for granting authorization to the County Executive to sign the sign license.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Executive to sign the license on behalf of the
County to allow an off-premises sign on the County property located at the corner of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation
Drive (Attachment C).
ATTACHMENTS
A – March 10, 2010 Executive Summary
B – Map of County and Church Properties
C – Sign License
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Church of Incarnation sign
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize County Executive to co-sign an application
for a special use permit to locate an off-premises
sign for the Church of Incarnation on County
property
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and
Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 10, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2008, the Church of the Incarnation on Hillsdale Drive requested that the County allow it to install an off -premises
sign on County property at the corner of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive (TMP 61Z-03-9, see Attachment A).
This property currently contains a stormwater detention pond that in 2008 was scheduled in the CIP for an extensive
upgrade. The requested sign is likely to be in the staging area for the proposed stormwater upgrade project.
However, due to a strong VDOT recommendation for the sign installation at this location, and the County’s deferral of
the stormwater upgrade project, staff can support the sign request, provided that the approval is contingent upon the
future removal of the sign by the Church at the County’s request.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance Quality of Life: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs
DISCUSSION:
During ongoing discussions between the County and the Church, County staff’s main concern was that the proposed
site for the sign would conflict with planned improvements to a major stormwater facility. The Church is requesting use
of an area 10’ x 10’ for an eleven square foot post mounted sign (see Attachment B). It is anticipated that the County
will need this area for the staging, construction or modification of the stormwater facility. After considering possible
alternative locations for this sign, including in the VDOT right-of-way, the Church’s preference remains to locate the
sign on the County’s property at the corner of Hillsdale Drive and Incarnation Drive. The principle purpose of the sign is
to redirect the primary entrance of the Church. VDOT staff engineer Joel Denunzio, wrote: “I evaluated both entrances
and have determined that the southernmost entrance has better sight distance and better geometry than the northern
entrance. Promoting the use of the southernmost entrance by placing a sign at that location could potentially cause
fewer conflicts with users of either entrance and will be an overall safer condition. I would recommend that the County
approve this request to move the sign to this location for safety reasons.” Because County staff agrees that the
County property is the best location for the sign when considering the safety of vehicle travel on this portion of Hillsdale
Drive and because the proposed stormwater detention pond project has been removed from the current five-year CIP,
County staff supports the conditional location of the sign.
Before an off-site sign may be erected at this location:
1. The Church and the property owner (in this case, the County) must apply for and receive a special use permit
for an off-premises sign from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA); and
2. The Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing and approve the conveyance of an easement to the
Church to authorize the placement of the sign.
The limited question before this Board at this time is whether to authorize the County Executive to co-sign the special
use permit application on behalf of the County. If this Board so authorizes this SP application, and if the BZA grants a
special use permit for the proposed sign, the request for the approval of the easement would come back before this
Board for separate consideration. This Board need not consider the specific terms of the easement at this time,
however, staff’s recommendation will be that the easement be contingent upon a condition that the sign shall be
removed by the Church at any time it is deemed necessary or convenient by the County. In addition, as required by
law, the Church will have to compensate the County for the fair market value of the easement.
AGENDA TITLE: Church of Incarnation sign
March 10, 2010
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no foreseeable budget impact for granting authorization to the County Executive to co-sign the special use
permit application on behalf of the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County Executive to co-sign the application for a
special use permit for an off-premises sign on the County property located at the corner of Hillsdale Drive and
Incarnation Drive.
ATTACHMENTS
A-Survey
B-Sign Design
Return to exec summary
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Other Streams
Major Streams
Ponds
Lakes and Reservoirs
Parcels
Driveways
Buildings - City
Buildings
Roads - City
Roads
Road Centerlines
Road Bridges
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Tax Map Grid
Sign for Church of Incarnation Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery from Commonwealth of Virginia December 22, 2008
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Fire/Rescue Personnel Over-hires
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the Department of Fire & Rescue to Over-hire
Up to Two Full-Time Firefighter/EMTs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Mr. Eggleston; and Ms. Kim
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
During the Board’s October work session on local government’s base line budget, core services and future funding
challenges, the Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue (ACFR) indicated that it has been experiencing
significant overtime expenditures due to its inability to meet minimum daytime staffing levels for the six volunteer
stations located throughout the county that have previously requested County staff coverage. These overtime
expenditures are driven by a lack of a sufficient number of trained personnel available to provide this requested
coverage thereby forcing the Department to “call-back” personnel and pay significant overtime wages. The challenge
of maintaining daily staffing is mainly due to factors such as: light duty, vacation, illness, family medical leave (FML),
and regular vacancies.
ACFR indicated to the Board during this work session that it was working in conjunction with the Department of
Human Resources to identify a method for alleviating the excessive overtime worked by firefighters /EMTs in order to
maintain required minimum staffing levels. Staff’s research determined that “over-hiring” additional FTEs would
reduce excessive overtime and could be accomplished in a cost-neutral manner. Staff briefly shared the concept of
over-hiring with the Board during last month’s work session and is now bringing the issue before the Board to seek
approval to over-hire up to two additional FTEs.
DISCUSSION:
ACFR has been challenged for several years to maintain required minimum staffing levels without routinely “calling-
back” employees who are not scheduled to work. Call-back work must be compensated at time and a half of the
employee’s regular hourly rate. Excessive reliance on call-back staffing results in employee fatigue, causing concerns
for their safety and the safety and quality of ACFR’s service to the community. Routine call-backs also lower
employee morale and reduce the department’s ability to forecast expenditures. The lack of predictability and
scope/magnitude of actual overtime costs is demonstrated in “Attachment A” from the County’s Performance
Management data. These data reveal that periods of excessive overtime are directly related to a lack of trained
personnel available to fill daily assignments.
Over-hiring is a common method for addressing staffing shortage issues. Fire and Rescue proposes to hire 1-2 more
staff than needed to normally staff operations with the expectation that the normal attrition rate will offset the
additional hires so that generally there will only be the number of staff employed that are needed to cover operations
without having to program overtime. Roanoke County began its over-hiring process soon after the events of
September 11, 2001 when the department lost employees due to military leave, and continues to over-hire as a
means to address daily staffing needs.
The designated and budgeted FTE count for the department is expected to remain the same because the number of
new hires will be offset by new vacancies. The approval to over-hire would mean that, when necessary and
appropriate, and able to be accomplished within budget, ACFR would hire one or two additional employees beyond its
designated head count. Staff believes this can be done in a cost-neutral manner through surplus in salary lag and the
reduction in overtime expenditures.
AGENDA TITLE: Fire/Rescue Personnel Over-hires
December 1, 2010
Page 2
Salary Lag:
ACFR has experienced an average of three employee vacancies (separations from employment) each month for the
last three years. It should be noted that the issue is not excessive turnover, as the department’s annual turnover rate
is normal for the public safety sector.
Salary/benefits lag due to these vacancies for the last three fiscal years was approximately:
FY08 $ 155,000 salary + 30% benefits = $201,500
FY09 $ 62,000 salary + 30% benefits = $80,600
FY10 $ 63,000 salary + 30% benefits = $81,900
The cost of a new firefighter, including an Advance Life Support (ALS) stipend and benefits, is roughly $60,000
annually.
Overtime Reduction:
Based on ACFR’s history of overtime data for the past two years, one additional FTE would have reduced enough of
the department’s call-back/overtime costs to be cost-neutral.
The highest amount of minimum-staffing-driven overtime occurs during Monday through Friday, daylight
hours.
Over the past two years there were 347 day shifts (83% of the total day shifts) with an overtime call-back of at
least one firefighter to maintain minimum staffing needs. Sometimes two or three were needed and were
called -back.
This averages out to 174 days, or 2,082 hours per year, where at least one additional firefighter was required.
The average department firefighter overtime rate is $28.63 per hour.
2082 hours x $28.63 = $59,608 per year for the last two years required to cover one minimum staffing
position with overtime from hire-back.
The addition of a new firefighter for roughly $60,000 a year should reduce the department’s overtime costs by an
equal amount.
Summary:
Should the Board approve ACFR to over-hire by up to two FTEs, it would greatly reduce the use of call-back and the
associated overtime costs to cover minimum staffing positions and do so in a cost-neutral manner.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact anticipated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize ACFR to over-hire up to two additional firefighters over the current FTE
staffing level.
ATTACHMENT A: Chart - Fire Rescue Overtime Per Quarter
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Dollar Amount Expended on Overtime Usage in Fire/Rescue per quarter
Source: County’s Financial Records
Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2011 Redistricting
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Proposed Redistricting Schedule and Preliminary
Redistricting Guidelines
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, W ashburne, and
Weaver
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the September 1, 2010 Board meeting, staff provided the Board with an overview of the upcoming 2011 redistricting
process (Attachment A). To meet the deadlines for the November 2, 2011 general election, the redistricting process
must be completed as soon as possible after the 2010 Census data is available. The deadline for the Census Bureau
Director to deliver this data to the States is April 1, 2011.
The County’s redistricting process will culminate in the Board’s adoption of an ordinance establishing the boundaries
of the County’s magisterial districts and precincts and identify the locations of the polling places within each precinct.
The ordinance then must be submitted to the United States Department of Justice for preclearance under Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
DISCUSSION:
In order to proceed expeditiously and assure that the County complies with State and Federal laws in the redistricting
process, staff has prepared a proposed redistricting schedule (Attachment B) and preliminary redistricting guidelines
(Attachment C).
The proposed redistricting schedule is intended to assure that all statutory requirements are met and the redistricting
ordinance is adopted in time for the County to obtain a preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that will
allow the General Registrar to send timely notices to voters about their magisterial district, precinct and polling place
as required by State law prior to the November 2, 2011 general election.
The preliminary redistricting guidelines are based primarily on the guidelines adopted by the Board for the 2001
redistricting process. The guidelines have been reviewed and updated to assure that they comply with State and
Federal law. The guidelines will provide direction to County staff and inform the public of the applicable criteria to be
considered on issues pertaining to redistricting, such as establishing magisterial district and precinct boundaries and
identifying qualifying polling places. The public will be invited to comment on the guidelines at a public meeting
conducted by County staff in January. After public comments are received on the guidelines, the Board will have the
opportunity to finalize the guidelines and direct staff to proceed with developing one or more draft redistricting plans in
accordance with the guidelines.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Redistricting is already incorporated into various offices’ and departments’ workplans. However, there will be costs
associated with public notices provided for public meetings and the redistricting ordinance. If additional precincts and
corresponding polling places must be established because of population increases, there will be additional staff and
equipment costs associated with those new polling places during elections over the next decade.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed redistricting schedule and direct staff to proceed under the
preliminary redistricting guidelines. The guidelines will be reviewed again with the Board in February or March after
staff has received and reviewed public comments on the guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
A – September 1, 2010 Executive Summary
B – Proposed Redistricting Schedule
C – Preliminary Redistricting Guidelines
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2011 Redistricting
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Overview of the upcoming 2011 redistricting process
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Washburne, and
Weaver
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 1, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Constitution requires the County to redraw its magisterial districts in 2011 to meet all applicable
constitutional and statutory requirements based on the data compiled during the 2010 Census. The 2010 census data
has been collected and is currently under quality assurance review by the United States Census Bureau.
By December 31, 2010, the Secretary of Commerce and the Census Bureau Director will report state-by-state
population data to the President. The President will then report this data to Congress in January 2011. The report will
show the population of each State and the number of representatives apportioned to each State. The Clerk of the
House of Representatives will then send to each State’s governor a certificate showing how many representatives the
State may send to the next Congress.
By April 1, 2011, the Census Bureau Director will complete delivery of redistricting data to the States. This redistricting
data will provide detailed population counts for all areas within each State. This data will include a number of digital
census maps showing census tracts, counties, cities, towns, state legislative districts and voting districts. In the last
census, the Commonwealth of Virginia received the 2001 redistricting data from the Census Bureau Director on March
9, 2001.
DISCUSSION:
The County’s redistricting process will culminate in the Board’s adoption of a redistricting ordinance and the
ordinance’s preclearance by the United States Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The
redistricting ordinance will establish the boundaries of the County’s magisterial districts and precincts and delineate the
location of the polling places within each precinct. Before the redistricting ordinance can be adopted, there are several
tasks that have already been completed and a number of steps that still need to be taken by County staff and the
Board.
Correcting existing data
In the years since the 2001 redistricting, County staff has worked with the Census Bureau to assure that the Census
Bureau’s data pertaining to the County is correct. Board members may recall that the 2000 Census incorrectly
assigned approximately 4,500 County residents in the University area to the City of Charlottesville. That error was
corrected at the time, but County staff has worked with the Census Bureau to assure that a similar error is not made in
the 2010 Census. County staff has also worked with the City of Charlottesville and the County of Greene over the past
two years to correct some other minor boundary errors in Census Bureau data.
Developing a redistricting schedule
Although the redistricting data will not be available from the Census Bureau until as late as April 1, 2011, it will be
imperative for the Board to adopt a redistricting ordinance and obtain a Department of Justice preclearance of the
ordinance under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as soon thereafter as possible. In addition to the November 2011
general election, it is possible that primary elections could be scheduled sooner. The preclearance process under the
Voting Rights Act requires at least 90 days.
AGENDA TITLE: 2011 Redistricting
September 1, 2010
Page 2
There are a number of steps that need to be taken prior to the Board’s adoption of the ordinance. County staff from
the offices of the County Executive, the General Registrar, and the County Attorney, as well as the Department of
Community Development, will develop and propose a schedule for consideration by the Board at its December 1, 2010
meeting. The schedule will include tasks such as: (1) the discussion and preliminary approval of guidelines for
magisterial districts, precincts and polling places, discussed in the following paragraph; (2) a public meeting
coordinated by County staff to obtain community input on redistricting issues, concerns and the preliminary guidelines;
(3) the Board’s consideration of the community comments; (4) the Board’s approval of the final redistricting guidelines;
(5) one or more Board work sessions on the proposed redistricting plan; (6) the Board’s public hearing on the
redistricting ordinance, likely to be scheduled in May, 2011; and (7) the submittal of the 2011 redistricting ordinance to
the Department of Justice for preclearance.
Developing guidelines for magisterial districts, precincts and polling places
The guidelines provide direction to County staff and information to the public as to how redistricting decisions such as
how magisterial district and precinct boundaries will be established and how to identify qualified polling places. Some
of these guidelines are requirements established by law, such as the requirements for geographical compactness and
contiguity, the requirement that the population within each magisterial district be as equal as is practicable, and the
requirement that precincts have no less than 100 and no more than 5,000 registered voters. Other guidelines reflect
County-specific goals, such as having each magisterial district contain urban and rural areas. Staff will present a set
of preliminary guidelines to the Board for consideration by not later than its December 1, 2010 meeting. The public will
be invited to comment on the preliminary guidelines at a public meeting coordinated by County staff, most likely in
January. After public comments are received on the preliminary guidelines, the Board will have the opportunity to
finalize the guidelines and direct staff to proceed with the redistricting plan in accordance with those guidelines.
Copies of the 2001 redistricting schedule and guidelines are attached for the Board’s information.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Redistricting is already incorporated into the workplans of the County departments involved in the redistricting
process. However, there will be costs associated with public notices advertising the public meetings and the
redistricting ordinance public hearing, and postage costs to mail new voter cards to voters whose state or local election
districts or precincts change. If additional precincts and corresponding polling places must be established because of
population increases, there will be additional costs to provide elections officers and equipment at those new polling
places during elections over the next decade.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only. Staff will provide a proposed 2011 redistricting schedule and preliminary guidelines
for consideration by not later than the Board’s December 1, 2010 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A – 2001 Redistricting Schedule (Draft 02-07-01)
B – Executive Summary regarding the 2001 Redistricting, dated March 7, 2001 (includes the redistricting guidelines
adopted by Board that date)
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Proposed Redistricting Schedule
December 1, 2010 Schedule and Guidelines: Staff will request the Board’s approval
of the proposed redistricting schedule and the Board will have a
discussion and provide direction to staff to proceed with the
preliminary redistricting guidelines.
January 21, 2011 Public Meeting: By this date, County staff will conduct a public
meeting to obtain input from community organizations and the
general public on redistricting issues and the preliminary
redistricting guidelines. This meeting will be publicized and
advertised to reach those interested organizations and the public.
February 9, 2011 Staff Report on Public Meeting; Approval of Guidelines: Staff will
report to the Board on the comments received from community
organizations and the general public at the public meeting
regarding redistricting issues and the preliminary redistricting
guidelines. The Board of Supervisors will be asked to approve
final redistricting guidelines and direct staff to proceed with
redistricting work.
April 6, 2011 Tentative Work Session: If census data has been received and staff
has had sufficient time prior to this date to develop a proposed
redistricting plan, the Board will hold a work session on the
proposed redistricting plan.
April 13, 2011 Work Session: The Board will hold a work session on the proposed
redistricting plan, if necessary, because of a delay in receiving
census data or if the first work session was held the prior week and
there are unresolved issues.
May 4 or 11, 2011 Public Hearing on Plans and Ordinance: The Board will hold a
public hearing and adopt the 2011 redistricting ordinance.
May, 2011 Submittal Under Voting Rights Act: After the Board has adopted
the 2011 redistricting ordinance, staff will submit the ordinance to
the United States Department of Justice for preclearance under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Note: The proposed work session and public hearing dates are tentative
and for planning purposes only. Adherence to these dates will
depend on the date the County receives the census data upon which
the redistricting plan will be based. Staff may develop more than
one proposed redistricting plan for the Board’s consideration.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
1
Preliminary Redistricting Guidelines
Purpose: The preliminary redistricting guidelines will guide staff and inform the public of the
applicable criteria to be considered for redistricting as staff prepares to develop the
2011 redistricting ordinance, which will amend Article I, Elections, of Chapter 2,
Administration, of the County Code.
Introduction: These guidelines are divided into three sections – those that pertain to establishing the
boundaries for the County’s magisterial districts, those that perta in to the criteria for
precincts and those that pertain to the criteria for polling places. Some of these
guidelines are requirements of State or Federal law. Other guidelines are based on
local considerations (e.g., maintain six magisterial districts; have each magisterial
district contain both urban and rural areas of the County) applied by the Board in
prior redistricting years.
Magisterial District Guidelines
1. Maintain six magisterial districts.
2. Have each magisterial district contain both urban and rural areas of the County.
3. Minimize changes to existing magisterial district boundaries.
4. Establish population equality among the magisterial districts as nearly as practicable, with a
goal of having a deviation in population not to exceed +/-5%, in order to assure
representation in proportion to the population of the district. (Virginia Code §§ 24.2-
304.1(B); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) (allowing some minor variation from
population equality))
5. Maintain geographical compactness in each magisterial district. (Virginia Code § 24.2-
304.1(B); Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A))
6. Maintain geographical contiguity in each magisterial district. (Virginia Code § 24.2-
304.1(B); Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A))
7. Preserve communities of interest, including neighborhoods, within the same magisterial
district. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to, economic, social and cultural
factors, geographical features, and service delivery areas. (Based on Virginia Senate and
House 2001 Redistricting Criteria)
8. Avoid the pairing of incumbent members of the Board of Supervisors or the School Board in
the same magisterial district.
9. Avoid splitting census blocks to assure the accuracy of the census data.
10. Assure magisterial districts have clearly observable boundaries, which include: (i) any named
road or street; (ii) road or highway which is part of the federal, state primary or state
secondary road system; (iii) any river, stream or drainage feature shown as a polygon
boundary on the TIGER/line files of the Census Bureau; or (iv) any other natural or
constructed or erected permanent physical feature which is shown on an official map issued
by VDOT, on a USGS topographical map, or as a polygon boundary on the TIGER/line files
of the Census Bureau. (Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A) and (B))
11. Assure that any change in a magisterial district boundary does not have the effect of denying
or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or status as a member of a language
minority group. (Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
12. Assure that no protected class identified in Guideline 12 loses voting strength under the new
redistricting plan. (Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
13. Preserve the historic core of existing magisterial districts.
14. Use only 2010 census data for the County. (Virginia Code § 24.2-304.1(C))
15. If there is a conflict between two or more guidelines in a particular case, priority shall be
given to population equality (Guideline 4), compliance with the State law (Guidelines 4, 5, 6,
10 and 14), and compliance with the Voting Rights Act (Guidelines 11 and 12). (Based on
Virginia Senate and House 2001 Redistricting Criteria)
2
Precinct Guidelines
1. The target size of a precinct shall be not more than 2,500 regist ered voters and in no event
shall a precinct have fewer than 100 registered voters nor more than 5,000 registered voters.
(Virginia Code § 24.2-307; the 2,500 registered voter target size is not a State law
requirement)
2. Each precinct shall be wholly contained within a magisterial district. (Virginia Code § 24.2-
307)
3. Maintain geographical compactness in each precinct. (Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A))
4. Maintain geographical contiguity in each precinct. (Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A))
5. Assure precincts have clearly observable boundaries, which include: (i) any named road or
street; (ii) road or highway which is part of the federal, state primary or state secondary road
system; (iii) any river, stream or drainage feature shown as a polygon boundary on the
TIGER/line files of the Census Bureau; or (iv) any other natural or constructed or erected
permanent physical feature which is shown on an official map issued by VDOT, on a USGS
topographical map, or as a polygon boundary on the TIGER/line files of the Census Bureau.
(Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A) and (B))
6. Avoid splitting precincts with Virginia Senate and House of Delegates district lines and
United States House of Representatives district lines.
7. If there is a conflict between the precinct target size of 2,500 in Guideline 1 or Guideline 6
and Guidelines 2, 3, 4 or 5, priority shall be given to Guidelines 2, 3,4 or 5 because they are
based on State law requirements. (Based on Virginia Senate and House 2001 Redistricting
Criteria)
Polling Place Guidelines
1. Each precinct shall have one polling place. (Virginia Code § 24.2-307)
2. Each polling place should be centrally located within the precinct so that the maximum travel
time for a voter does not exceed 20 minutes.
3. If a polling place cannot be located within the precinct, it shall be located within one mile (as
measured in a straight line) from the precinct boundary. (Virginia Code § 24.2-310(A))
4. Each polling place should be located in a public building whenever practicable. (Virginia
Code § 24.2-310(B))
5. No polling pace shall be located in a building which serves primarily as the headquarters,
office, or assembly building for any private organization, other than an organization of a
civic, educational, religious, charitable, historical, patrio tic, cultural or similar nature unless
the State Board of Elections has approved the use of the building because no other building
meeting the accessibility requirements set forth in Guideline 5 is available. (Virginia Code §
24.2-310.1)
6. Each polling place shall be accessible to qualified voters as required by the provisions of the
Virginians with Disabilities Act (Virginia Code § 51.5-1 et seq.), the Voting Accessibility for
the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973ee et seq.), and the Americans with
Disabilities Act relating to public services (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.). (Virginia Code §
24.2-310(C))
7. Existing polling places should be maintained, provided that they satisfy Guidelines 3, 4 and
5.
8. Polling places should be located where public transportation is available, where appropriate.
9. If there is a conflict between Guidelines 2 or 8 and Guidelines 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7, priority shall
be given to Guidelines 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 because they are based on State law requirements.
(Based on Virginia Senate and House 2001 Redistricting Criteria)
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Library Team Recommendations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Complete design of new library to "bid ready" state
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Letteri
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On September 9, 2010, a work group was organized to evaluate options for Library operations in Crozet. The team
included Board members Ms. Mallek and Mr. Snow, two representatives of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
(JMRL) Board, Mr. Halliday and Mr. Tolson, and two County staff members, Mr. Elliott and Mr. Letteri.
The need for this team was precipitated by the results of a building assessment report commissioned by the JMRL
Board regarding various libraries in the system, including Crozet. In relevant part, the report found that “…the Crozet
Library is the most crowded facility attempting to provide library service that (the) consultant has seen in recent years.
With its lack of space, substantial overcrowding and restricted interior arrangements the building is a disaster.” The
team was formed to develop options to address concerns regarding the condition and suitability of the existing Crozet
Library to be brought back to the Board for consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The team met twice during the months of September and October, 2010 and considered the following options: a)
modify and improve the existing library facility; b) relocate the library to modular units installed at the proposed new
library site or elsewhere in Crozet; c) relocate the library to leased commercial space in Crozet; and d) resume and
accelerate construction of the proposed new library.
After careful consideration, the team concluded that: a) modification of the existing library would not address the
immediate space needs and safety concerns; b) the cost of the modular units, including required site work, utilities, set
up, etc., exceeded what would seem reasonable for a short term option; and c) renting an existing commercial space
is a viable short term solution if the permanent library is to be delayed more than two or three years.
The team concluded that the County’s best option is to attempt to accelerate construction of the new library in light of
the attractive bidding climate, low interests rates, the potential for private donations and possible state/federal
subsidies.
Recognizing the County’s current inability to fund the construction and operating costs associated with the new library,
the team recommends that the planning/design process of the new library be advanced to a “bid ready” state. This
would allow staff to: a) accurately assess the construction cost of the project in the current bidding climate; b) secure
the project to a state which would allow staff to immediately proceed with construction in the event funding, donations
or special grants becomes available; and c) provide the information and details necessary for a private capital
campaign to proceed in earnest. The cost of completing the design and construction drawings is expected to be
$292,000. The risk of this course of action is the expenditure of the cost of the drawings ($292,000) if the project is
permanently cancelled and the possible expenditure of additional costs if the plans become obsolete if the project is
exceedingly delayed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No immediate impact; funds necessary to complete the design have been previously appropriated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The team recommends that the Board authorize staff to complete the design and construction drawings and to
advance the project to a “bid ready” state, recognizing that if bidding and construction is delayed for an extended
period of time additional design expense may be required to update the construction drawings. The team notes that
the design team of Grimm & Parker is under formal contract with the County to complete the design upon authorization
to proceed.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY11 First Quarter Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
First Quarter Financial Report for the three months ending
September 30, 2010
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans, Walters
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 01, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The attached Financial Report provides information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of
September 30, 2010. The financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure
data with data from the previous fiscal year.
DISCUSSION:
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are estimated to total $212.181 million,
$1.646 million (0.8%) more than appropriations of $210.535 million. Combined with the use of $2.367 million
in transfers from other funds and $0.092 million in fund balance, Revenues, Transfers, and Use of Fund
Balance will total $214.640 million, $1.326 million (0.6%) more than Budget.
Revenue estimates included in this report are preliminary and based on 3 months of actual receipts in the
fiscal year. July tax receipts are based on June levies and have been accrued back to FY10 based upon
generally accepted accounting principles. The revenue estimates that will be presented with the Second
Quarter Financial Report will be significant since the December tax collections will be realized and included.
Recent national economic data continues to point toward moderate growth. GDP is estimated to rise at a
1.9% pace during the 4th quarter. Retail Sales increased 1.2% in October, buoyed by a 5.0% surge in auto
sales. This report is another positive sign hinting at a strong holiday shopping season. However, consumers
continue to think through buying decisions. The international trade balance narrowed in September and
wholesale inventories rose. The real estate market has not recovered and continues to face on-going
challenges. Initial unemployment claims fell by 24,000 for the week ending November 6 to its lowest level
since July. Experts believe that the economy will continue its seesaw movement with little chance of
significant improvement until the labor market and job situation recuperates.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for FY11:
Real Estate Tax revenues are projected to be $0.434 million (0.4%) less than Budget. The FY11
Budget was based on a projected 0.50% decline in 2011 tax year assessed values. The estimates
presented in this financial report are based on a revised projected 1.15% decline in 2011 tax year
assessed values. A Tax Year is equivalent to a calendar year. Its effects are realized over 2
consecutive fiscal years with the 1st half in one fiscal year and the 2nd half in the next. A 1.0%
change in assessed values creates a $1.3 million change in real estate tax revenues for the 2011
tax year.
Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.169 million (0.9%). The
increase is due to increased purchases as well as the impact on the fleet replacement value
resulting from the Cash for Clunkers program.
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.297 million (12.7%).
Additional compliance enforcement through the DMV Stop and Department of TAX Set-off Debt
programs has generated additional revenues. Delinquent fees previously implemented have also
encouraged payment of delinquent taxes to avoid additional fees.
AGENDA TITLE: FY11 First Quarter Financial Report
December 1, 2010
Page 2
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.830 million (7.5%). The overall impact
is due to both increased consumer purchases as well as our auditor findings. Taxpayers continue
to be cautious with their discretional spending by slightly increasing spending. The auditor has
identified $0.512 million in misallocated sales tax revenues which have been approved by the state
to be transferred to Albemarle from other localities over a six month period with an additional
estimated $0.452 million in process. Annual receipts should increase approximately $0.262 million
based on the approved adjustments. Significant revenues continue to be lost to internet
purchases and consumer purchases in adjacent localities.
Business License, BPOL, revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.267 million (2.9%).
BPOL revenues are dependent upon economic activity. Sales tax revenue trends are a good
indicator of BPOL revenues.
Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.207 million (3.7%) less than Budget.
Consumers are continuing to eat more at home and visiting restaurants less frequently while
minimizing discretionary spending.
State Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.498 million (2.2%). The increase is due to
additional funding for constitutional offices approved by the General Assembly subsequent to
approval of this Budget as well as increased reimbursements for DSS services.
Revenue categories with variances of less than $0.100 million from Budget have not been
analyzed for this report.
b. Expenditures:
General Fund expenditures, including transfers, are expected to total $211.247 million, a 1.0% savings of
$2.067 million from Budget. The savings include frozen positions and reduction of health care expense,
which are offset by the one-time salary supplement. Estimates presented with this report are preliminary and
include only limited items. The Second Quarter Financial Report will include significant data upon which
subsequent projections will be based.
i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $78.700 million, a 1.3% savings of $1.002
million from Budget: The savings are allocated by functional area as follows:
Administration expenditures are expected to total $10.341 million, a saving of $0.015 million.
Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.888 million, a savings of $0.014 million.
Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $29.190 million, a savings of $0.038 million
Public Works expenditures are expected to total $4.501 million, a savings of $0.005 million.
Human Services expenditures are expected to be $18.414 million, a savings of $0.823
million.
Parks and Culture expenditures are expected to total $6.236 million, a savings of $0.014
million.
Community Development expenditures are expected to total $6.130 million, a savings of
$0.092 million.
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment, reserves, and refunds
are expected to total $19.510 million, a savings of $1.065 million. This is primarily due to the
savings generated by not needing to utilize the Revenue Shortfall Contingency in FY 11,
budgeted at $1.049 million.
iii. Transfers are expected to equal Budget at $113.037 million:
Transfer to the School Division is expected to be $96.058 million.
Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds are $16.979 million.
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report projects that the fiscal year will end with $3.393 million of revenues in excess of expenditures.
Revenues and related transfers are projected to exceed Budget by $1.326. Expenditures and related
AGENDA TITLE: FY11 First Quarter Financial Report
December 1, 2010
Page 3
transfers are expected to produce $2.067 million in expenditure savings. These results are preliminary
based on limited operating results for the fiscal year. The Second Quarter Financial Report will produce a
more reliable forecast.
.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
Personal Property Tax, Sales Tax, Business License, Utility Tax, Food & Beverage Tax, Other
Local Revenue, State Revenue, and Federal Revenue show positive growth over FY10.
Real Estate Tax, Other Local and Delinquent Taxes, Transfers from Other Funds, and Use of Fund
Balance show decreases from FY10.
Expenditures:
Administration, Judicial, Public Safety, Public Works, Human Services, Parks & Culture, and Non-
Departmental expenditures show anticipated increases over FY10.
Community Development, Non-School transfers, and the School Transfer show anticipated
decreases from FY10.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
Had an Unaudited FY10 Undesignated Fund Balance of $24.575 million as of December 1, 2010,
Appropriated $0.086 million for Budgeted FY11 Initiatives and Reappropriations,
Has a remaining June 30, 2010 Fund Balance of $24.489 million,
Has proposed reappropriations of $0.720 million, and
Has Proposed June 30, 2010 Available Funds of $23.769 million.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial Report is based on unaudited FY10 financial data and three months of unaudited financial data for
FY11. The financial information contained in the second quarter FY11 financial report to be presented to the BOS in
February 2011 will include final audited figures for FY10 plus six months of FY11 financial data. Staff will utilize
these figures as the basis for the FY12 Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report has been prepared for your information. No action is required .
ATTACHMENTS;
A – Preliminary General Fund End-of-Year Financial Report
B – Preliminary General Fund Budget Comparison Report
C – Preliminary General Fund Balance Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
FY 09/10
Full Year
Actual (1)
9/30/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
07/01/10
Adopted (2)
09/30/10
Appropriations
09/30/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Appropriations
Revenue
Estimate (3)
$
Variances
Est-Approp
Variances
as % of
Appropriations
Revenues:
Real Estate Taxes, Current $112.462 $1.514 1.3%$111.973 $111.973 $1.935 1.7%$111.539 ($0.434)-0.4%
Personal Property Taxes, Current 19.020 0.143 0.8%19.184 19.184 0.184 1.0%19.352 0.169 0.9%
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees 3.105 0.449 14.5%2.331 2.331 0.547 23.4%2.628 0.297 12.7%
Sales Taxes 11.623 0.954 8.2%11.070 11.070 1.079 9.7%11.900 0.830 7.5%
Business Licenses 9.508 0.177 1.9%9.325 9.325 0.122 1.3%9.592 0.267 2.9%
Utility Taxes 8.965 1.019 11.4%9.008 9.008 1.089 12.1%9.077 0.069 0.8%
Food and Beverage Taxes 5.390 0.867 16.1%5.650 5.650 0.924 16.4%5.443 (0.207)-3.7%
Other Local Taxes 9.817 0.703 7.2%9.761 9.761 0.520 5.3%9.823 0.062 0.6%
Other Local Revenue 4.787 1.001 20.9%5.082 5.181 1.063 20.5%5.200 0.018 0.4%
State Revenue 23.171 4.895 21.1%22.687 22.687 4.755 21.0%23.185 0.498 2.2%
Federal Revenue 4.363 0.823 18.9%4.337 4.366 0.954 21.9%4.442 0.076 1.7%
Total Revenues 212.208 12.547 5.9%210.407 210.535 13.171 6.3%212.181 1.646 0.8%
Use of Other Funds 2.477 0.000 0.0%2.692 2.692 0.000 0.0%2.367 (0.325)-12.1%
Use of Fund Balance 1.552 0.037 2.4%0.092 0.086 0.022 25.0%0.092 0.005 6.3%
Total $216.237 $12.583 5.8%$213.191 $213.314 $13.192 6.2%$214.640 $1.326 0.6%
FY 09/10
Full Year
Actual (1)
9/30/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
07/01/10
Adopted (2)
09/30/10
Appropriations
09/30/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Appropriations
Expenditure
Estimate (3)
$
Variances
Est-Approp
Variances
as % of
Appropriations
Expenditures:
Administration $10.295 $2.591 25.2%$10.356 $10.356 $2.523 24.4%$10.341 -$0.015 -0.1%
Judicial 3.647 0.933 25.6%3.894 3.902 0.896 23.0%3.888 -$0.014 -0.4%
Public Safety 28.600 7.635 26.7%29.228 29.228 6.655 22.8%29.190 -$0.038 -0.1%
Public Works 4.242 1.475 34.8%4.506 4.506 1.408 31.3%4.501 -$0.005 -0.1%
Human Services 17.561 4.339 24.7%19.209 19.238 3.523 18.3%18.414 -$0.823 -4.3%
Parks, Rec. & Culture 6.188 2.774 44.8%6.239 6.250 1.689 27.0%6.236 -$0.014 -0.2%
Community Development 6.926 2.211 31.9%6.222 6.222 1.589 25.5%6.130 -$0.092 -1.5%
Subtotal Operations 77.460 21.959 28.3%79.655 79.702 18.283 22.9%78.700 -$1.002 -1.3%
Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)18.112 0.037 0.2%20.574 20.574 0.070 0.3%19.510 -$1.065 -5.2%
Transfers:
Transfer to School Division 97.042 16.692 17.2%96.058 96.058 24.014 25.0%96.058 $0.000 0.0%
Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 18.280 0.294 1.6%16.979 16.979 9.269 54.6%16.979 $0.000 0.0%
Subtotal transfers 115.322 16.986 14.7%113.037 113.037 33.284 29.4%113.037 $0.000 0.0%
Total $210.894 $38.981 18.5%$213.266 $213.314 $51.637 24.2%$211.247 -$2.067 -1.0%
7/1/10 > 09/30/10 = 25% of year Projected FY11 Revenues in Excess of Expenditures $3.393
(1) Full Year FY09/10 Transacctions
(2) July 01, 2010 Adopted General Fund FY11 Budget Proposed June 30, 2010 Available Fund Balance $23.769
(3) Estimate as of October 20, 2010
Projected June 30, 2011 Available Funds $27.162
Current FY 10/11
Current FY 10/11
County of Albemarle
General Fund Financial Report
Year-To-Date for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
($ in millions)
Revenues with black variances are positive, red variances in ( ) are shortfalls.Expenditures with red variances in ( ) are positive, black variances are over expenditures
Attachment B
County of Albemarle
General Fund Budget Comparison Report
Year-to-Date for the Three Months Ended September , 2010
($ in millions)
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Services Parks, Rec &
Culture
Community
Development
Non-
departmental
Non-School
Transfers$ in millionsExpenditures
09/10 Actual July 1 Adopted 10/11 Appropriations 10/11 Estimate
-
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Real Estate Tax Personal
Property Tax
Sales Tax Business
Licenses
Utility Tax Food_Beverage
Tax
Other Local &
Delinq Taxes
Other Local
Revenues
State Revenues Federal
Revenues
Transfers Other
Funds
Fund Balance$ in millionsRevenues
09/10 Actual July 1 Adopted 10/11 Appropriations 10/11 Estimate
95.4
95.6
95.8
96.0
96.2
96.4
96.6
96.8
97.0
97.2
1$ in millionsTransfer to School Division
Attachment C
June 30, 2010 Unaudited Fund Balance - Preliminary October 06, 2010 $23.862
Auditor Adjustments 0.714
June 30, 2010 Unaudited Fund Balance - December 01, 2010 24.575
Less FY11 Appropriations Approved to Date:
Budgeted FY11 Local Government Initiatives (approved in budget process)0.092
Soil and Water project refund -0.006
Restitution fees - Sheriff's Office 0.000
Total Approved FY11 Appropriations 0.086
June 30, 2010 Unaudited Fund Balance Available 24.489
Less Proposed FY11 Commitments:
Reappropriation of FY10 outstanding purchase orders 0.030
Reappropriation of FY10 uncompleted projects 0.586
Fire Rescue Telecommunications Expense 0.004
Grant Leveraging Fund 0.100
Total Proposed FY11 Commitments 0.720
Proposed June 30, 2010 Available Fund Balance 23.769
Unaudited General Fund Balance Report
Year-to-Date for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2010
County of Albemarle
($ in millions)
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
INDEX
Community Development Department
2010
THIRD QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Office of Geographic Data Services
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2010
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals
1st Quarter 381 96 184 52 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 91 24 115
2nd Quarter 292 86 133 90 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 65 27 92
3rd Quarter 305 66 103 72 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 358 23 381
4th Quarter 426 68 361 84 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 0
1404 316 781 298 318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 514 74
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
Quarter
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
575599 830
20092008
1720 1079
During the third quarter of 2010, 92 building permits were issued for 381 dwelling units. There was one permit issued for a mobile home in an
existing park, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a
condominium.
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010
588831 418 339
Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010*Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Other Units SF Unit*Through Third Quarter
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 3 -
3rd Quarter 2010
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 13 0 0 0 0 300 0 1 314 82%
JACK JOUETT 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 2%
RIVANNA 4 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 17 4%
SAMUEL MILLER 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 2%
SCOTTSVILLE 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 2%
WHITE HALL 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 7%
TOTAL 56 0 21 0 0 300 2 2 381 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 12 0 0 0 0 300 0 1 313 82%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 3%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
13 0 21 0 0 300 0 1 335 88%
CROZET COMMUNITY 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 5%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 6%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
36 0 21 0 0 300 0 1 358 94%
RURAL AREA 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1%
RURAL AREA 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
RURAL AREA 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 2%
RURAL AREA 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 2%
20 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 23 6%
56 0 21 0 0 300 2 2 381 100%
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 4 -
3rd Quarter 2010
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 13 0 0 0 27%
Baker Butler 0 0 0 0 0%
Broadus Wood 4 0 0 0 1%
Brownsville 20 0 0 0 5%
Cale 1 0 0 0 0%
Crozet 0 0 0 0 0%
Greer 0 8 0 0 2%
Hollymead 2 0 0 0 1%
Meriwether Lewis 0 0 0 0 0%
Murray 3 0 0 0 1%
Red Hill 4 0 0 1 1%
Scottsville 2 0 0 1 1%
Stone Robinson 2 13 0 0 4%
Stony Point 2 0 0 0 1%
Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 56%
Yancey 3 0 0 0 1%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 25 29 2 63 119
JOUETT 8 23 1 10 42
RIVANNA 17 32 1 15 65
S. MILLER 9 32 4 13 58
SCOTTSVILLE 8 18 1 11 38
WHITE HALL 25 38 0 17 80
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the
residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and
commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other
tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
TOTAL
100%
129 4024,053,837$ 57,126,217$
Amount-$
97,000$
2,476,490$
2
218,100$
Amount-$
56 0
TOTAL 40,640,308$ 6,277,772$ 9 6,154,300$
-$
Amount-$
TOTAL
UNITS
15
2
212
3
0
5
483,000$
0
0
2
3
381
0
1
0
1
0
102
0
5
20
3
1
0
88
0
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
212
0
Amount-$
1,047,260$
1,545,300$
1,000,000$
3,831,000$
1,322,500$
1,000,000$
0
0
1,500,000$
1,000,000$
2,524,300$
1,125,000$
300
Amount-$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,942,500$
7,783,400$
92
334,781$
1,478,600$
172
29,234,229$
3,718,100$
6,361,260$
5,638,178$
2,379,281$
9,795,169$ 533,169$
246,078$
871,831$ 24,760,908$
5,000$
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF AA
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
21 0
0 0
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
Community Development Department
2010
THIRD QUARTER
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT
County of Albemarle
INDEX
Office of Geographic Data Services
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural
1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47 92 89
2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48 52 32 111 22
3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45 168 30 76 18
4th Quarter 66 62 65 42 69 63
393 220 340 171 346 172 279 129
Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
408
2010 2010
Totals
181
133
94
0
During the third quarter of 2010, 81 certificates of occupancy were issued for 94 dwelling units. There was one certificate of occupancy issued for
a mobile home in an existing park, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the
conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
200820082007 2007
151
Quarter
198
127
Totals
202
Totals
102
207 100
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
511613
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
128 107
518
2009
Totals
104
84
2009
132
Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
Dev Area Rural
Area
2007 2008 2009 2010* 2011Dwelling UnitsAnnual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
SF Unit Other Units*Through Third Quarter
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 3 -
3rd Quarter 2010
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 16%
JACK JOUETT 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
RIVANNA 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 17 18%
SAMUEL MILLER 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 11%
SCOTTSVILLE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
WHITE HALL 25 1 5 0 0 16 0 1 48 51%
TOTAL 53 2 21 0 0 16 0 2 94 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 11%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
12 0 11 0 0 0 0 1 24 26%
CROZET COMMUNITY 18 1 5 0 0 16 0 0 40 43%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 11%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
25 1 10 0 0 16 0 0 52 55%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
37 1 21 0 0 16 0 1 76 81%
RURAL AREA 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 9%
RURAL AREA 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
RURAL AREA 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9%
RURAL AREA 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
16 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 19%
53 2 21 0 0 16 0 2 94 100%
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
- 4 -
3rd Quarter 2010
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 10 0 0 0 11%
Baker Butler 2 0 0 0 2%
Broadus Wood 5 0 0 0 6%
Brownsville 20 4 0 0 43%
Cale 2 0 0 0 3%
Crozet 0 1 0 0 2%
Greer 0 1 0 0 1%
Hollymead 5 5 0 0 11%
Meriwether Lewis 2 0 0 0 2%
Murray 1 0 0 0 2%
Red Hill 4 0 0 0 4%
Scottsville 1 0 0 0 1%
Stone Robinson 0 10 0 0 11%
Stony Point 0 0 0 0 0%
Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0%
Yancey 1 0 0 0 1%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 15 12 2 16 45
JOUETT 2 9 3 4 18
RIVANNA 17 13 1 6 37
S. MILLER 9 12 1 1 23
SCOTTSVILLE 2 15 6 0 23
WHITE HALL 36 11 2 12 61
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
81
466,500$
987,500$
10
0
0
506,000$
TOTAL
14,020,834$
6,950,500$
8,071,750$
17,635,535$
623,550$
-$
3,385,000$
4,095,000$
583,500$
409,900$
9,937,200$ 90,000$
8,510,000$
4,335,000$
3,800,000$
12,450,000$
882,000$
1
10
2
2
4
1
0
0
0
0
..
100%
39 2076,329,476$ 67,585,719$
10
0
0
1
20
3,617,926$
Amount-$ Amount-$
263,200$
390,535$
16
7,569,000$
3,056,735$ 15 36,754,000$
1,150,000$
7221,445,508$
0 0
TOTAL
UNITS
10
2
6
40
0
0
0
016
AA
0
0
1
940
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
11,520,700$
0
700,000$
9,386,400$
0
TOTAL
Amount-$
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
Amount-$
3
2
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF
0 0
21 0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential
component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial
uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the
Building Report as permitting occurs.
0 0
0 0
0
53 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amount-$
365,500$ 2,468,408$
0
Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services
1
Board-to-Board
December 2010
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Virginia Farm to School Week: ACPS celebrated Virginia Farm to School Week November 8-12, 2010.
Eight schools joined the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to increase the amount of
fresh and nutritious Virginia Grown products offered in schools and promote opportunities for schools and local
farmers to work together. The Local Food Hub worked collaboratively with the Charlottesville Area
Community Foundation to source local produce, fruit, and grass fed beef. Participating farms included Critzer
Family Farm, Dickie Brothers Orchard, Double H Farm, Henley Orchard, Highland Farms, Porcello Farm,
Radical Roots Farm, Sharondale Farm, Shepherd’s Hill Farm, Singing Earth Produce, and Tinbercreek Organic.
School Calendar Development: A joint Albemarle County Public Schools and Charlottesville City Schools
calendar committee has initiated development of the 2011-12 school year calendar. The two school divisions
adopt the same calendar by mutual agreement. Two drafts for next year’s school calendar have been developed,
and feedback is being collected at www.k12albemarle.org/calendar . The School Board is scheduled to receive
a recommended calendar during their meeting on February 10, 2011. Public comment will be taken at this time.
Currently, the Board is scheduled to adopt the 2011-12 school year calendar on February 24, 2011. No
significant change to the start of school date for 2011-12 is anticipated at this point, provided the Division
receives a waiver to start school prior to Labor Day. The committee will reconvene after the 2011-12 calendar is
finalized to solicit input and consider such a change for the 2012-13 school year.
Student Artwork is on display at Trailside in Western Albemarle County, as well as various locations and
businesses across Albemarle County. The Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA features artwork from Agnor-Hurt
Elementary (teacher: Julia Hauser); Hollymead Elementary (teacher: Maureen Russell); and Woodbrook
Elementary (teacher: Joan Chapman). The Scottsville Library features kindergarten and 2nd grade work from
Scottsville Elementary (teacher: Liz Jones). Christian's Pizza and Sticks at Pantops features artwork from
Stone-Robinson Elementary (teacher: Stephanie Helvin) on a rotating basis. The Haven community center
fundraiser will feature 5th grade artwork from Agnor-Hurt Elementary. Art teacher Julia Hauser was privileged
to support 5th grade teacher Mr. Maxwell in his class project, which involved creating artwork around the
theme of "home" for this fundraiser.
Dr. Luvelle Brown announced his resignation as Chief Information Officer (CIO) for Albemarle County Public
Schools and department head for the Department of Accountability, Research & Technology (DART). Dr.
Brown has been appointed superintendent of schools for the Ithaca City School District in Ithaca, New York.
Dr. Brown will continue his role as CIO through December 31, 2010, and will begin his new duties on January
1, 2011. The CIO leads the Division's work in the areas of assessment, data analysis, student information
management, and school technology. The Albemarle County Department of Human Resources has reviewed
and posted the CIO job description so that a replacement for Dr. Brown can occur as soon as possible.
Rule of Law: A new program was initiated at Burley Middle School with volunteer lawyers and judges
working with teachers to educate students about the rule of law. Students get a deeper understanding of what
the rule of law means, and why it is important to them.
Grant Awarded: ACPS was recently awarded funding through the Virginia Local Government and School
Renewable Energy Utilization Program administered by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and
Energy (DMME). The competitive grant process will fund solar thermal, solar electric, and a small wind power
2
system. Proposal ranking criteria included partnering and leveraging of non-federal funds, meeting a minimum
25 percent required cost share, geographic distribution, energy savings, and educational potential. The funding
will be used for a Renewable Energy Resource Center at Henley Middle School, due to the funding that has
already been raised by the school for a renewable energy project, proximity to Western Albemarle High School
and Brownsville Elementary School, and the renewable energy curriculum already developed by teachers. The
Henley community raised approximately $40,000 toward the installation of renewable energy technology, and
this amount was applied to the majority of the cost share required for grant funding. Henley's fundraising efforts
included bake sales, golf tournaments, a Dominion Virginia Power grant, an ELMO Foundation donation, a
J&E Berkley Foundation donation, Henley's Parent and Teacher Support Organization, Box Top competitions,
and a silent art auction. The remainder of the cost share ($35,000) will come from ACPS capital funds. Based
on the approximate annual savings for the renewable energy systems, the simple payback for the $35,000
provided by ACPS will be less than eight years. The grant award amount is approximately $211,000.
All-District Chorus: Fifty Albemarle County high school students from all three comprehensive high schools
were selected to participate in the All-District Chorus. Choral students from 17 area high schools competed in
the All-District Chorus Auditions held November 13 at Eastern View High School in Culpeper, Virginia.
Auditioning choral students were required to perform both a prepared piece and a sight reading piece. The first
75 sopranos and altos were accepted into the All-District Chorus, as well as the first 25 tenors and basses.
Among the Albemarle County students selected are 21 sopranos, 18 altos, six tenors, and five basses. Students
who were selected will participate in the All-District Chorus event in February 2011. Thirty-four Albemarle
High School students (Jennifer Morris, director), 12 Monticello High School students (Janet Whitmore,
director), and four Western Albemarle High School students (Joel Hartshorn, director) will join other
outstanding choral students from around the state at this prestigious event.
ACPS Partnership with League of Women Voters: ACPS partnered with the League of Women Voters
November 16, 2010 to provide community dialog regarding the U.S. Constitution and the state of civics
education in local public schools. Monticello High School Government teacher Emily Dooley and two of her
Civics students, Seniors - Morgan Rittenhouse and Katie White, joined Dr. Sean O'Brien (the Center for the
Constitution's Executive Director) and Kelly Carmichael (Education Outreach Manager and We the People
State Coordinator) to share the students’ real life civics experiences in their studies.
School Board Reports: During the School Board’s November 11, 2010 regular meeting, several reports were
provided:
-Comprehensive High School Program of Studies Course Additions for 2011-12: Each year the High
School Program of Studies goes through a review process to update course offerings and consider
program changes. Updates include new courses offered, courses deleted that are no longer taught, and
policy or program changes in line with revisions to Standards of Accreditation.
-High School and Middle School Fees: Annually the School Board reviews and approves school fees.
The Board tried to minimize the financial impact on students participating in specific courses or
programs.
-Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee Considerations: Staff provided a comprehensive proposal
for the direction of the committee.
-2011/2012 Budget Direction and September 30th Enrollment: Annually the School Board receives an
approves a calendar setting dates for meetings associated with the development of the next fiscal year
budget. The Superintendent’s budget presentation is scheduled for January 19, 2011 when updated
revenue projections from the State and local government can be included in the request.
3
Board Meeting Regarding Scheduling: On November 16, 2010, the School Board conducted a work session
at Albemarle High School to receive information regarding scheduling. Parents provided feedback regarding
the hybrid eight-period schedule combined with semester-long and year-long courses.
VSBA Annual Convention: On November 19, 2010, Chairman Price served as Delegate, and Mr. Koleszar
served as Alternate to the Virginia School Board Association’s (VSBA) annual convention. The VSBA
Delegate Assembly adopted four issues to take forward during the upcoming legislative session: Enrollment
cap for Virtual Virginia, Tax Relief for Teachers, Unexpended Funds, and Gang-Free Zones. School Board
Chairman Price was also elected 2011 VSBA Board of Directors, At Large Member.
Upcoming Meetings: The School Board will hold its regular meeting on December 9, 2010 at 6:30p.m. The
School Board is also in the process of developing its legislative priorities and is hoping to meet with local
legislators on December 21st at 11:15 a.m. prior to the Board of Supervisors’ meeting with legislators.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
10-03( ) Agricultural and Forestal Districts; periodic review of one
district, additions to multiple districts, and corrections to those
district ordinances to identify all those tax map parcels within the
districts
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearings on an ordinance to amend Division 2, Districts, of
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the County Code pertaining
to the periodic review of the High Mowing AF District; and
additions and corrections to the Blue Run, Buck’s Elbow Mountain,
Fox Mountain, Hardware, Keswick, South Garden and Sugar
Hollow AF Districts
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Having land within an Agricultural and Forestal District (“AFD”) is one of three ways in which a landowner may satisfy one of
the prerequisites for making land eligible for land use valuation as open space under Virginia law. As a result of the
County’s land use taxation revalidation process that took place last year, many landowners have applied to place their lands
within an AFD. These applications would add parcels to the Blue Run, Buck’s Elbow Mountain, Fox Mountain, Hardware,
Keswick, South Garden and Sugar Hollow AFDs, and would add in the aggregate over 472 acres to the County’s AFD
program. Corrections are simultaneously being proposed to the Blue Run, Keswick, South Garden and Sugar Hollow AFD
descriptions to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts.
In addition, the High Mowing AFD, which was created in 1991 and currently includes seven parcels and 661.141 acres, is
undergoing its periodic ten-year review. This AFD is located south of Batesville and is roughly bound by Plank Road along
the west, Heartwood Road along the south, and Stillhouse Creek Road along the east. Virginia Code § 15.2-4311 requires
the periodic review of districts to determine whether they should continue, be modified, or be terminat ed unless the Board
determines that review is unnecessary. During the review process, land within the District may be withdrawn at the owner’s
request by filing a written notice with the Board any time before the Board acts on the review. As of the submission of this
executive summary, a request for withdrawal has been received for TMP 85-33B and 85-39A1. The withdrawal of these two
parcels, totaling 215.33 acres, would reduce the acreage in the district to 445.811.
Virginia Code §§ 15.2-4309 (additions to AFDs) and 15.2-4311 (review of AFDs) require that the Board conduct public
hearings on proposed additions to and reviews of AFDs. In addition, those sections require that these actions be reviewed
by both the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisor y Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendations.
The Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have reviewed all of these AFDs and recommended approval of the
proposed actions. The AFD-specific staff reports to the Planning Commission are attached (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION:
The following table summarizes the proposed changes:
Summary of Proposed AFD Actions
District Existing Acres Acres to be Added Acres to be Withdrawn Resulting Total Acres
District Review
High Mowing 661.141 N/A 215.33 445.811
District Additions
Blue Run 3,967.85 192.352 N/A 4,160.202
Buck’s Elbow
Mountain 3,156.929 21.5 N/A 3,178.429
Fox Mountain 316.57 120 N/A 436.57
AGENDA TITLE: 10-03( ) Agricultural and Forestal Districts; periodic review of one district, additions to multiple districts, and
corrections to those district ordinances to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts
December 1, 2010
Page 2
Hardware 3,057.87 59.977 N/A 3,117.847
Keswick 6,753.775 31.49 N/A 6,785.265
South Garden 2,163.41 38.635 N/A 2,200.045
Sugar Hollow 4,961.05 8.867 N/A 4,969.917
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After conducting public hearings on the AFDs, which may be consolidated, staff recommends that the Board adopt the
attached ordinance, which will continue the High Mowing AFD for an additional 10-year period and establish the next
review period, revise the parcels with the High Mowing AFD, authorize the addition of parcels to the Blue Run, Buck’s
Elbow Mountain, Fox Mountain, Hardware, Keswick, South Garden and Sugar Hollow AFDs and revise the parcels
identified within those districts.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Ordinance amending County Code Chapter 3
B – Staff reports to the Planning Commission
Blue Run AFD
Buck’s Elbow Mountain AFD
Fox Mountain AFD
Hardware AFD
High Mowing AFD
Keswick AFD
South Garden AFD
Sugar Hollow AFD
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Draft: November 16, 2010
1
ORDINANCE NO. 10-03(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
Sec. 3-209.5 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
Sec. 3-212.5 Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
Sec. 3-216 High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District.
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
Sec. 3-225.5 South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District.
Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26B1, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29, 31, 32A,
41A, 41E, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A1, 4A5, 24, 24A, 24B; tax map 50,
parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 41A, 41Q, 42A, 43, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcel 13. This district, created
on June 18, 1986 for not more than 8 years, since amended at its last review on July 10, 2002 to continue
for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01; Ord. 02-
3(3), 7-10-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Sec. 3-209.5 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 25, parcel 1; tax map 38, parcels 4, 7, 8, 10, 20; tax map 39,
parcels 1, 1F, 1F1, 1G, 2B, 8, 10A, 21Q, 21Z. This district, created on December 2, 2009 for not more
than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Sec. 3-212.5 Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the
following described properties: Tax Map 14, parcels 26A, 26B, 26C; tax map 15, parcels 1, 10A. This
district, created on December 2, 2009 for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to
December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
Draft: November 16, 2010
2
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39C7, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44; tax map 74,
parcels 6N, 26, 28, 28B; tax map 75, parcels 4A, 5; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F,
16H, 27, 27A; tax map 87, parcels 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres), 16A; tax map 88,
parcels 2A, 3V, 6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, 23E, 23F, 24, 24A, 24B, 26B, 29, 40, 42; tax map 99,
parcels 10(part), 29, 52, 52B. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than 10 years and
last reviewed on September 12, 2007, shall next be reviewed prior to September 12, 2017.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(2), 7-12-00; Ord. 07-3(2), 9-12-07; Ord. 09-
3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
Sec. 3-216 High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 84, parcel 69A; tax map 85, parcels 33B, 39, 39A1, 39H, 41A,
41A1. This district, created on January 16, 1991 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20,
2001 December 1, 2010, shall next be reviewed prior to January 16, 2011 December 1, 2020.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(t); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 48, parcels 30, 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E; tax map 63, parcels 39, 39A,
39B, 40, 42A; tax map 64, parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9, 10 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 11 12, 13, 13A, 14; tax
map 65, parcels 13, 31C1, 31C3, 31D, 32; tax map 79, parcel 46; tax map 80, parcels 1, 2, 2A, 2C, 3A,
3A1, 3G, 3H, 3I, 4, 61D, 88, 114A, 115, 164, 169, 169A, 169C, 169C1, 174, 176, 176A, 182, 182A, 183,
183A, 190, 192, 194; tax map 81, parcels 1, 8A, 15A6, 15B, 63. This district, created on September 3,
1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to
November 3, 2014.
(10-12-94; 4-12-95; 8-13-97; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(e); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04; Ord.
09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Sec. 3-225.5 South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 99, parcels 35, 102; tax map 109, parcel 70; tax map 110,
parcels 8, 10, 18, 18E, 27; tax map 119, parcel 2. This district, created on October 6, 1999 for not more
than 7 years, since amended at its last review on October 4, 2006 to continue for not more than 10 years,
shall next be reviewed prior to October 4, 2016.
(Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 06-3(1), 10-4-06; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 18A, 18B, 21,
21A, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 11C, 11D, 12A, 13, 14F, 14H, 19,
40B, 40C, 41A, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 24A, 25, 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4,
13C3, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcels 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 12B1, 22, 22A, 27A, 46C1, 49.
Draft: November 16, 2010
3
This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on Dece mber 2,
2009, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 02-3(1), 1-9-02;
Ord. 02-3(2), 4-3-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-9 Blue Run AFD Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting: October 11, 2010
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 9, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 8, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the Blue Run
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
Petition:
NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO THE BLUE RUN AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICT
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4307, which is part of the Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act (Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Act”)), that:
1. An application for an addition to the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District (the “District”) has
been filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the application has been referred to the
Albemarle County Planning Commission pursuant to the Act;
2. The application for this addition to the District, together with descriptive maps, is available for public
inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle
County Community Development Department, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia;
3. Any political subdivision whose territory encompasses or is part of the District may propose a
modification. Any proposed modification must be filed with the Albemarle County Planning
Commission in the Albemarle County Community Development Department within 30 days after the
date that this notice is first published (no later than September 22, 2010);
4. Any owner of additional qualifying land may join the application for the District within thirty days after
the date this notice is first published (no later than 5:00 p.m., September 22, 2010) or, with the consent
of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at any time before the public hearing the Board of
Supervisors must hold on the application;
5. Any owner who joined in the application may withdraw his land, in whole or in part, by written notice
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in either office identified in paragraph 2 at any
time before the Board of Supervisors acts pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4309;
6. Additional qualifying lands may be added to an already created district upon separate application
pursuant to the Act at any time following the district’s creation;
7. The application for the District and proposed modifications will be submitted to the Albemarle Coun ty
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on October 11, 2010;
8. Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, a public hearing will be held by the Albemarle
County Planning Commission on the application for the District, and any proposed modifications, on
November 9, 2010.
2
Purpose
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program
(the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the
protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD Program
is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes of the AFD
Program are to:
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural
and forestal products;
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes; and
Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable
segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources.
Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District
The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects:
1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel
within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation
of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production, without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “development to a more intensive
use” is defined in County Code § 3-202.
2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not
conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD
Program.
3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities . The County
may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural and forestal
practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is
directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or
retail sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and County ordinances.
4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a
district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its
land use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to a district.
5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal
production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under
State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in which land devoted to
open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment
under State law are satisfied.
6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service
corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an
3
agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service
corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to determine: (i) the
effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and
agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the proposed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner.
7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land
within a district continues to be enrolled in the district.
8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for
agricultural or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by
a special district for sewer, water or electricity or fo r nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basis of
frontage, acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to
the formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one -half
acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to
remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue
agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County not more than every 10 years to
determine whether the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisors, a
district is reviewed by the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning
Commission. Both the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the
Board as to whether the district should be terminated, modified or continued.
Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the Board
conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may terminate, modify or continue the d istrict. If
the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those imposed on the
district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of this process,
including notice of any proposed different conditions.
When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a written
notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with the
same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or last
reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable for
roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and
obligations described in the “Effects” section above.
THE BLUE RUN AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26B1, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29, 31, 32A, 41A, 41E, 43; tax map
36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A1, 4A5, 24, 24A, 24B; tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A,
4
47B; tax map 51, parcel 13. This district, created on June 18, 1986 for not more than 8 years, since amended at its
last review on July 10, 2002 to continue for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01; Ord. 02-
3(3), 7-10-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
The Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District is located north of Cash Corner and east of Stony Point Road
(Attachment A) The district is characterized by evergreen and deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural fields,
hedgerows, as well as occasional residential and agricultural buildings.
The District was created in 1986 and originally included 14 parcels and 1,184.97 acres. The District now includes
32 parcels and 3,967.85 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 3,967.85 acres that comprise the Blue Run District,
383.726 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of Land-Use Value Taxation, 921.640 are enrolled in the
Forestry category, 1.802 acres are enrolled in the Horticulture category, and 48.7 acres are enrolled in the Open
Space category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Blue Run District
includes approximately 28 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment C).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Blue Run District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels
adjoining the parcels in the District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment C).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The northern most parcels in the District are located in the Blue Run
watershed, while one large parcel in the western portion of the District is located in the Happy Creek watershed
and the parcels in the southern portion of the District are located in the Mechunk Creek watershed (Attachment
C).
Time Period: The Blue Run District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on July 10, 2012.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add four parcels to the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Blue Run Agricultural & Forestal
District was created on June 18, 1986, and was last reviewed on Jul 10, 2002. The District currently includes 32
parcels and 3,967.85 acres. The proposed addition of four parcels totaling 192.352 acres would increase the total
number of acres in the Blue Run District to 4,160.202.
The parcels, Tax Map 50, Parcels 41A, 41Q, 42A and 43, are located immediately east of Gordonsville Road and
south of Lindsay Road (Attachment B).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
5
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On October 11, 2010, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Blue Run
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Blue Run
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Blue Run District (Please see attachments B & C for attachment A)
B. Blue Run District - Proposed Additions
C. Blue Run District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-18 Buck’s Elbow Mountain AFD
Addition
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting: October 11, 2010
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 9, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 8, 2010
Proposal: Addition to the Buck’s Elbow
Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the addition
to the Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
THE BUCK’S ELBOW MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-209.5 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 25, parcel 1; tax map 38, parcels 4, 7, 8, 10, 20; tax map 39, parcels 1, 1F, 1F1, 1G,
2B, 8, 10A, 21Q. This district, created on December 2, 2009 for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed
prior to December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
The proposed District is located west of White and adjoins the Shenandoah National Park in western Albemarle
County (Attachment A).
The District was created in 2009 and currently has 14 parcels with 3,156.929 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 3,156.929 acres that comprise the Buck’s Elbow Mountain
District, 88.581 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of Land-Use Value Taxation, 1,596.333 are enrolled
in the Forestry category, and 1.454.016 are enrolled in the Open Space category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Buck’s Elbow
Mountain District includes approximately 11 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels east of the District are under conservation easement (Attachment C).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Buck’s Elbow Mountain District is entirely
designated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural
Areas. The parcels adjoining the parcels in the District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment C).
2
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The Buck’s Elbow Mountain District is located in the Doyles River
watershed (Attachment C).
Time Period: The Buck’s Elbow Mountain District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is
scheduled to be reviewed on December 2, 2019.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and
Forestal District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County
Code, which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Buck’s Elbow Mountain
Agricultural & Forestal District was created on December 2, 2009. The District currently includes 14 parcels and
3,156.929 acres. The proposed addition of one parcel totaling 21.5 acres would increase the total number of acres
in the Buck’s Elbow Mountain District to 3,178.429.
The parcel, Tax Map 39, Parcel 21Z, is located south of Buck’s Elbow Mountain Road and north of Mint Springs
Valley Park (Attachment B).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On October 11, 2010, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Buck’s Elbow
Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Buck’s
Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Buck’s Elbow Mountain District (Please see attachments B & C for attachment A)
B. Buck’s Elbow Mountain District - Proposed Addition
C. Buck’s Elbow Mountain District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-15 Fox Mountain AFD Addition
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting: October 11, 2010
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 9, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 8, 2010
Proposal: Addition to the Fox Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the addition
to the Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
THE FOX MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-212.5 Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the
following described properties: Tax Map 14, parcels 26A, 26C; tax map 15, parcels 1, 10A. This district,
created on December 2, 2009 for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
The District is located south of Blackwells Hollow Road, east of Browns Gap Turnpike, and north of Fox
Mountain Road (Attachment A).
The District was created in 2009 and currently has four parcels with 316.57 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 316.57 acres that comprise the Fox Mountain District,
27.139 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of Land-Use Value Taxation and 260.741 are enrolled in the
Forestry category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Fox Mountain
District includes approximately 2 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels around the District are under conservation easement (Attachment C).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Fox Mountain District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels
adjoining the parcels in the District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment C).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
2
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The Fox Mountain District is located in the Doyles River watershed
(Attachment C).
Time Period: The Fox Mountain District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on December 2, 2019.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Fox Mountain Agricultural &
Forestal District was created on December 2, 2009. The District currently includes four parcels and 316.57 acres.
The proposed addition of one parcel totaling 120 acres would increase the total number of acres in the Fox
Mountain District to 436.57.
The parcel, Tax Map 14, Parcel 26B, is located immediately west of Brown’s Gap Turnpike and north of Walnut
Level Road (Attachment B).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On October 11, 2010, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Fox Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Fox
Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Fox Mountain District (Please see attachments B & C for attachment A)
B. Fox Mountain District - Proposed Addition
C. Fox Mountain District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-13 Hardware AFD Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting: October 11, 2010
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 9, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 8, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
THE HARDWARE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39C7, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44; tax map 74, parcels 6N, 26, 28,
28B; tax map 75, parcels 4A, 5; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 27, 27A; tax map 87, parcels
10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres), 16A; tax map 88, parcels 2A, 3V, 6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F,
23, 23E, 23F, 24, 24A, 24B, 26B, 29, 40, 42; tax map 99, parcels 10(part), 29, 52, 52B. This district, created on
November 4, 1987 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 12, 2007, shall next be reviewed
prior to September 12, 2017.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(2), 7-12-00; Ord. 07-3(2), 9-12-07; Ord. 09-
3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
The Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District is in the North Garden area of Albemarle County (Attachment
A).
The District was created in 1987, and originally included 52 parcels and 5,947.243 acres. The District now
includes 48 parcels and 3,057.87 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 3,057.87 acres that comprise the Hardware District,
637.281 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of Land-Use Value Taxation, 928.028 are enrolled in the
Forestry category, and 227.505 are enrolled in the Open Space category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Hardware District
includes approximately 35 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment C).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Hardware District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. A large
cluster of parcels located north of North Garden are zoned Village Residential (Attachment C).
2
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. Portions of the Hardware District are located in the North Fork Hardware
River, South Fork Hardware River, Moores Creek, Ragged Mountain Reservoir, and Upper Meachums River
watersheds (Attachment C).
Time Period: The Hardware District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on September 12, 2017.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add two parcels to the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Hardware Agricultural & Forestal
District was created on November 4, 1987. The District currently includes 74 parcels and 3,057.87 acres. The
proposed addition of two parcels totaling 59.977 acres would increase the total number of acres in the Hardware
District to 3,117.847.
The parcels, Tax Map 86, Parcels 16 and 16H, are located immediately north of Plank Road and west of Edge
Valley Road (Attachment B).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On October 11, 2010, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Hardware District (Please see attachments B & C for attachment A)
B. Hardware District - Proposed Additions
C. Hardware District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-12 High Mowing AF District
Review
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting: October 11, 2010
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 9, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 8, 2010
Proposal: Periodic review of the High Mowing
District.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the District for
another 10-year period.
AFD 2010-12 HIGH MOWING DISTRICT REVIEW
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the High Mowing District:
Sec. 3-216 High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "High Mowing Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 84, parcel 69A; tax map 85, parcels 33B, 39, 39A1, 39H, 41A, 41A1.
This district, created on January 16, 1991 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on Ju ne 20,
2001, shall next be reviewed prior to January 16, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(t); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
The parcels in the District are located south of Batesville and roughly bound by Plank Road along the west,
Heartwood Road along the south, and Stillhouse Creek Road along the east (Attachment A). The parcels are
primarily forested with some large tracts of open space.
The District was created in 1991, and originally included 598 acres. In 2009, one parcel was added, and the
District now includes 7 parcels and 661.141 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 661.141 acres that comprise the High Mowing District,
116.865 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural category of the Land-Use Value Taxation program, while
291.652 acres are enrolled in the Forestry category. Enrollment in these tax categories is an indicator of active
rural land uses.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the High Mowing
District includes approximately 3 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels. Two parcels in the
District, and many to the north, are under conservation easements (Attachment B).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The High Mowing District is entirely designated as
Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in and around the District are zoned RA
2
Rural Areas (Attachment B).
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County
and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, mountain resources, critical slopes,
and wildlife habitat.
Time Period: The District was created on January 16, 1991, and was last reviewed on June 20, 2001. The High
Mowing District is currently on a 10-year review cycle.
Landowners may withdraw their parcels from districts by right during a renewal at anytime before the Board of
Supervisors takes final action to continue, modify, or terminate the district. Landowners were notified of the
renewal by certified mail on September 14, 2010. As of this date, no landowners have requested withdrawal.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On October 11, 2010, the
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended renewal of the High Mowing
Agricultural and Forestal District for an additional ten (10) year period.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the High Mowing Agricultural and
Forestal District for an additional ten (10) year period, and for the next review to occur before December 8,
2020.
Attachments:
A. High Mowing AF District
B. High Mowing AF District – Conservation Easements
Return to exec summary
High Mowing
High Mowing
Batesville
Batesville Batesville
STILLHOUSE CREEK RDMILLER LAKE RDPLANK RD
HEARTWOOD RDMCCAW PLACE RDs 0 390 780 1,170 1,560
Feet
High Mowing AF District Attachment A
High Mowing
High Mowing
Batesville
Batesville Batesville
STILLHOUSE CREEK RDMILLER LAKE RDPLANK RD
HEARTWOOD RDMCCAW PLACE RDs 0 390 780 1,170 1,560
Feet
High Mowing AF District - Conservation Easements Attachment B
Legend
Conservation Easement
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-14 Keswick AFD Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting: October 11, 2010
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 9, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 8, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the Keswick
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
THE KESWICK AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 48, parcels 30, 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E; tax map 63, parcels 39, 39A, 39B, 40, 42A; tax
map 64, parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8A, 9, 10 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 11 12, 13, 13A, 14; tax map 65, parcel 13; tax map 79,
parcel 46; tax map 80, parcels 1, 2, 2A, 2C, 3A, 3A1, 3G, 3H, 3I, 4, 61D, 88, 114A, 115, 164, 169, 169A, 169C,
169C1, 174, 176, 176A, 182, 182A, 183, 183A, 190, 192, 194; tax map 81, parcels 1, 8A, 15A6, 15B, 63. This
district, created on September 3, 1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall
next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
(10-12-94; 4-12-95; 8-13-97; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(e); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04; Ord. 09-
3(4), 12-2-09)
The District is located in the area north of Keswick (Attachment A). The district is characterized by evergreen and
deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural fields, hedgerows, as well as occasional residential and agricultural
buildings.
The District was created in 1986 and originally included 41 parcels and 5,412.026 acres. The District now
includes 61 parcels and 6,753.775 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 6,753.775 acres that comprise the Keswick District,
813.095 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of Land-Use Value Taxation, 558.946 are enrolled in the
Forestry category, and 23.02 acres are enrolled in the Open Space category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Keswick District
includes approximately 81 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment C).
2
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Keswick District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Are as. The parcels
adjoining the parcels in the District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment C).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. Portions of the Keswick District are located in the North Fork Rivanna
River-Flannigan Branch, Upper Rivanna River, Mechunk Creek, and Middle Rivanna River watersheds
(Attachment C).
Time Period: The Keswick District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on November 3, 2014.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add four parcels to the Keswick Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Keswick Agricultural & Forestal
District was created on September 3, 1986, and was last reviewed on November 3, 2004. The District currently
includes 61 parcels and 6,753.775 acres. The proposed addition of four parcels totaling 31.49 acres would
increase the total number of acres in the Keswick District to 6,785.265.
The parcels, Tax Map 65, Parcels 31C1, 31C3, 31D, and 32, are located immediately east of Gordonsville Road,
south of Louisa Road, and north of Castalia Farm (Attachment B).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On October 11, 2010, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Keswick
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Keswick
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Keswick District (Please see attachments B & C for attachment A)
B. Keswick District - Proposed Additions
C. Keswick District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-11 South Garden AFD Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting: October 11, 2010
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 9, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 8, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the South Garden
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District.
THE SOUTH GARDEN AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-225.5 South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 99, parcel 35; tax map 109, parcel 70; tax map 110, parcels 8, 18, 18E, 27; tax map 119,
parcel 2. This district, created on October 6, 1999 for not more than 7 years, since amended at its last review on
October 4, 2006 to continue for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to October 4, 2016.
(Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 06-3(1), 10-4-06; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
The District is located south of South Garden and north of Bungletown (Attachment A). The district is
characterized by evergreen and deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural fields, hedgerows, as well as
occasional residential and agricultural buildings.
The District was created in 1999 and originally included 3 parcels totaling 1,855.3 acres. The district currently
includes 7 parcels and 2,163.41 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 2,163.41 acres that comprise the South Garden District, 25
acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of Land-Use Value Taxation, 153.03 are enrolled in the Forestry
category, and 129.08 are enrolled in the Open Space category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the South Garden
District includes approximately 6 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment C).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The South Garden District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels
adjoining the parcels in the District are also all zoned RA Rural Areas (Attachment C).
2
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The South Garden District is located in the South Fork Hardware River and
Green Creek watersheds (Attachment C).
Time Period: The South Garden District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on October 4, 2016.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add two parcels to the South Garden Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The South Garden Agricultural &
Forestal District was created on October 6, 1999. The District currently includes seven parcels and 2,163.41 acres.
The proposed addition of two parcels totaling 38.635 acres would increase the total number of acres in the South
Garden District to 2,200.045.
The parcels, Tax Map 110, Parcel 10 and Tax Map 99, Parcel 102, are located immediately south of Plank Road,
east of Cove Garden Road, and west of Appleberry Mountain Road (Attachment B).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On October 11, 2010, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the South Garden
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the South
Garden Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. South Garden District
B. South Garden District - Proposed Addition
C. South Garden District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-17 Sugar Hollow AFD Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee Meeting: October 11, 2010
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 9, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
December 8, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the Sugar Hollow
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
THE SUGAR HOLLOW AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 18A, 18B, 21, 21A, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; tax
map 26, parcels 5A, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 11C, 11D, 12A, 13, 19, 40B, 40C, 41A, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8,
8E (part), 24A, 25, 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 13C3, 14, 15, 25, 25A; tax map 40, parcels 1, 9, 9C, 10,
10A, 10B, 10C, 22, 22A, 27A, 46C1, 49. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years
and last reviewed on December 2, 2009, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 02-3(1), 1-9-02; Ord.
02-3(2), 4-3-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
The Sugar Hollow District is located west of Whitehall, near the northwestern border of Albemarle County
(Attachment A). The district is characterized by evergreen and deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural field s,
hedgerows, as well as occasional residential and agricultural buildings.
The District was created in 1989 and originally included 2,504.16 acres. The District now includes 57 parcels and
4,961.05 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 4,961.05 acres that comprise the Sugar Hollow District,
218.124 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of Land-Use Value Taxation, 2,571.512are enrolled in the
Forestry category, and 113.680 acres are enrolled in the Horticulture category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Sugar Hollow
District includes approximately 33 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment C).
2
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Sugar Hollow District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels
adjoining the parcels in the District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment C).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The Sugar Hollow District is located in the Doyles River, North
Moorman’s River, and Beaver Creek Reservoir watersheds (Attachment C).
Time Period: The Sugar Hollow District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on December 2, 2019.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add two parcels to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Sugar Hollow Agricultural &
Forestal District was created on September 6, 1989, and was last reviewed on December 2, 2009. The District
currently includes 57 parcels and 4,961.05 acres. The proposed addition of two parcels totaling 8.867 acres would
increase the total number of acres in the Sugar Hollow District to 4,969.917.
The parcels, Tax Map 26, Parcels 14H and 14F, are located north of Sugar Hollow Road, east of Carrs Ridge
Road, and south of Sugar Ridge Road (Attachment B).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On October 11, 2010, the Agricultural
and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Sugar Hollow
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Sugar
Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Sugar Hollow District (Please see attachments B & C for attachment A)
B. Sugar Hollow District - Proposed Additions
C. Sugar Hollow District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 11 19 10
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 9, 2010
Public Hearing Items:
a. AFD-2010-0012 High Mowing District Review
b. AFD-2010-0009 Blue Run Additions
c. AFD-2010-0011 South Garden Additions
d. AFD-2010-0013 Hardware Additions
e. AFD-2010-0014 Keswick Additions
f. AFD-2010-0015 Fox Mountain Addition
g. AFD-2010-00017 Sugar Hollow Additions
h. AFD-2010-00018 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Addition
(Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the requests.
The first proposal is for the ten-year district review of the AFD-2010-12 High Mowing
Agricultural/Forestal District Review.
The parcels in this district are located roughly south of Batesville and bound by Plank Road along
the West, Heartwood Road along the South, and Stillhouse Road along the East. The parcels
are primarily forested with some large tracts of open space. The district was created in 1999 and
originally included 598 acres. In 2009, one parcel was added. Currently there are seven parcels
in the district with 661 acres. The district is entirely designated as Rural Areas in the
Comprehensive Plan. The parcels around and in the district are zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Landowners were notified of the renewal by certified mail on September 14, 2010. As of this
date, no landowners have requested withdrawal from the district.
On October 11, 2010, the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended
renewal of the district for an addition al ten-year period, which is set to expire on January 16,
2011.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend renewal of the High Mowing Agricultural
and Forestal District for a period of ten years from the date of the Board of Supervisors action.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant and public comment. There being none,
the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of the renewal of AFD-
2010-00012, High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District for another ten-year period.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach noted that AFD-2010-00012 High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District Review would go to the
Board of Supervisors on December 1, 2010 with a recommendation for approval of the renewal for another
ten-year period.
Ms. Brennan reviewed seven proposals for 16 parcels to join 7 different districts totaling roughly 472
acres. All of the parcels requesting to join the Agricultural/Forestal Districts are zoned Rural Areas and
identified as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan.
- One application has been received to add two parcels to the South Garden Agricultural/Forestal
District, which total approximately 38 acres.
- One application has been received to add four parcels to the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District,
which total approximately 231 acres.
- One application has been received to add two parcels to the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District,
which total approximately 60 acres.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 9, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 11 19 10
2
- One application has been received to add one parcel to the Fox Mountain Agricultural/Forestal
District, which is 120 acres.
- One application has been received to add four parcels to the Kes wick Agricultural/Forestal District,
which totals approximately 31 acres.
- One application has been received to add two parcels to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal
District, which totals approximately 9 acres.
- One application has been received to add one parcel to the Bucks Elbow Mountain Agricultural
District, which totals approximately 21 acres.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of all the proposed additions as
identified in the staff reports. The Board of Supervisors’ meeting has been changed to December 1.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked what conditions would exist that staff would not recommend an application other than it
not being in the Rural Area.
Ms. Brennan replied that the requirements to join an Agricultural and Forestal District include that the parcel
has to be adjacent to a parcel already in the district or within one mile of the core. A core parcel is identified
as a parcel that was part of the district when it was originall y formed. The parcel also has to meet the
minimum acreage requirement.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicants to address the Commission. There being
none, he invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was
before the Planning Commission for action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of all the requested
additions for AFD-2010-0009 Blue Run Additions, AFD-2010-0011 South Garden Additions, AFD-2010-
0013 Hardware Additions, AFD-2010-0015 Fox Mountain Addition, AFD-2010-0014 Keswick Additions,
AFD-2010-00017 Sugar Hollow Additions, and AFD-2010-00018 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Addition.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach noted that the seven requests would go to the Board of Supervisors on December 1, 2010 with a
recommendation for approval.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CenturyLink Request for Easement Across Boulders Road
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider granting an easement to
CenturyLink across Boulders Road, a public right-of-way
owned by the County (TMP 03200-00-00-005C3)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Central Telephone Company of Virginia, doing business as CenturyLink, has requested that the County grant a 10-foot
wide easement across Boulders Road, a public right-of-way owned by the County (TMP 03200-00-00-005C3), in the
general location shown on the attached illustration (Attachment B). The proposed deed of easement (Attachment A)
would allow CenturyLink to install and maintain underground cables and related facilities or structures within the
easement area, and would also grant CenturyLink the right of ingress and egress to the easement area. Boulders
Road is not in the secondary system of state highways.
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-
owned real property. Staff prepared the proposed deed of easement. Century Link must submit a plat depicting the
exact location and dimensions of the easement.
The proposed deed is based on the deed form used for easements within County-owned rights-of-way that are not in
the secondary system of state highways, and it includes provisions that will assure that the grant of the easement will
not prevent Boulders Road from being accepted into the secondary system.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after receiving public comment, the Board approve the proposed easement and authorize the
County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County after the deed has been approved in
substance and in form by the County Attorney with any necessary changes and a recordable plat has been received
from Century Link depicting the easement.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed deed of easement
B – Illustration showing proposed easement location
Return to regular agenda
Draft: 11/17/10
1
This document was prepared by:
Albemarle County Attorney
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-005C3 (Boulders Road right-of-way)
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code § 58.1-811(C)(4).
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, is made and entered into on this _______ day of
_________________________, 2010, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, hereinafter referred to
as the “County,” and CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, doing business as
CENTURYLINK, whose address is 100 Century Link Drive, Monroe, Louisiana, 71203, Grantee,
hereinafter referred to as “CenturyLink.”
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the County does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL
WARRANTY to CenturyLink, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, a permanent
easement and right-of-way (hereinafter, the “Easement”) to install, construct, operate, maintain,
expand, replace and remove underground cables and related facilities or structures as are reasonably
necessary for CenturyLink to exercise the rights granted to it herein, upon, over, through, under and
along the real property of the County known as Boulders Road and identified in the tax records of the
County as Tax Map and Parcel Number 00320-00-00-005C3, in Albemarle County, Virginia, and more
particularly described as follows:
A permanent easement in the public right-of-way known as Boulders Road in
Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on the plat of ________________, dated
_________________, entitled “Plat Showing New 10’ Underground Cable Easement to
be Conveyed to CenturyLink” (hereinafter referred to as the “Plat”).
Reference is made to the Plat, a copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded herewith, for
the exact location and dimensions of the permanent easement hereby granted and the property over
which the Easement crosses.
Draft: 11/17/10
2
This Easement shall be subject to the following:
1. Location of Improvements. CenturyLink may install, construct, operate, maintain,
expand, replace and remove underground cables and related facilities or structures (hereinafter, the
“Improvements”) only within the Easement. The Improvements shall be underground.
2. Right to Enter; Ingress and Egress. CenturyLink shall have the right to enter upon the
Easement for the purposes of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, expanding, replacing and
removing the Improvements within the Easement. CenturyLink shall have the right of ingress and
egress thereto as reasonably necessary to install, construct, operate, maintain, expand, replace and
remove the Improvements.
3. Excavation and Restoration. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the
Easement, CenturyLink shall backfill the excavation in a timely, proper and workmanlike manner so as
to restore the surface conditions to the same condition as they were prior to excavation, including
restoration of all paved surfaces that were damaged or disturbed as part of the excavation.
4. Vegetation and Obstructions. CenturyLink may cut any trees, brush and shrubbery,
remove obstructions, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide for safe installation,
construction, operation, maintenance, expansion, replacement and removal of the Improvements.
CenturyLink shall not be responsible to the County or its successors and assigns, to replace or
reimburse the cost of replacing or repairing any County-owned trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions
that are removed or otherwise damaged if such vegetation or obstructions prevent CenturyLink from
installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, expanding, replacing or removing the Improvements.
5. Ownership of Improvements. The Improvements shall be the property of CenturyLink.
6. Obligations of CenturyLink if and when Boulders Road is Proposed for Acceptance or
is Accepted into the State-Maintained System. If and when the segment of Boulders Road in which the
Easement lies is proposed for acceptance or is accepted into the state-maintained or other publicly-
maintained system of highways, CenturyLink shall comply with the following:
Draft: 11/17/10
3
a. Permits. CenturyLink shall obtain all permits required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (hereinafter, “VDOT”) or such other public entity that becomes
responsible for the maintenance of Boulders Road (hereinafter, “such other public entity”) to authorize
the Improvements to exist or remain within the Boulders Road right-of-way (hereinafter, the
“Permits”) and shall comply with all applicable requirements of VDOT or such other public entity.
b. Acts Required of CenturyLink to Assure Acceptance of Boulders Road into the
State-Maintained System. Until CenturyLink quitclaims its interest in the Easement to VDOT, such
other public entity, or the County as required in conjunction with the acceptance of Boulders Road into
the state-maintained or other publicly-maintained system, CenturyLink, at its sole expense, shall,
promptly alter, change, adjust, relocate or remove the Improvements from the Boulders Road right-of-
way if VDOT or such other public entity determines that such alteration, change, adjustment,
relocation or removal is required in order for VDOT or such other public entity to accept Boulders
Road into the secondary system. Neither VDOT, such other public entity, nor the County shall be
responsible or liable to CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any costs associated with such
alteration, change, adjustment, relocation or removal of the then-existing Improvements. In addition,
neither VDOT, such other public entity, nor the County shall be obligated to compensate or reimburse
CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased cost or value associated with
either the Improvements or Boulders Road resulting from such alteration, change, adjustment,
relocation or removal.
c. Continuing Obligations of CenturyLink to the County. After VDOT or such
other public entity has issued the required Permits, CenturyLink shall be subject to the following
conditions, notwithstanding any quitclaim of its interests to VDOT or such other public entity, and
these conditions shall be continuing obligations of CenturyLink:
1. CenturyLink, to the extent authorized by law, shall at all times indemnify
and save harmless the County, its employees, agents, officers, assigns, and successors in interest from
Draft: 11/17/10
4
any claim whatsoever arising from CenturyLink’s exercise of rights or privileges stated herein.
2. In the event that the County or such other public entity becomes
responsible for the maintenance of Boulders Road and the County or such other public entity requires,
for its purposes, that CenturyLink alter, change, adjust, or relocate the Improvements, across or under
Boulders Road, the cost to alter, change, adjust, or relocate the Improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of CenturyLink. Neither the County nor such other public entity shall be responsible or
liable to CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any costs associated with altering, changing,
adjusting or relocating the then-existing Improvements as may be required herein. In addition, neither
the County nor such other public entity shall be obligated to compensate or reimburse CenturyLink or
its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased cost or value associated with either the
Improvements resulting from such alteration, change, adjustment or relocation. The requirements of
this paragraph 6(c)(2) shall not apply if VDOT, such other public entity, or the County is either
required by law to pay for such costs or is authorized and elects to pay for such costs.
The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by action of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on December 1, 2010, does hereby convey the interest in real
estate made by this deed.
By its acceptance and recordation of this Deed of Easement, CenturyLink acknowledges that it,
its successors and assigns, shall be bound by the terms herein.
WITNESS the following signatures.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Draft: 11/17/10
5
GRANTOR: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: _______________________________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for the
aforesaid City and State by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, on this _______ day of ____________________, 2010.
My commission expires: ___________________
Reg. No.:______________________
_________________________________________
Notary Public
GRANTEE: CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA,
doing business as CENTURYLINK
By: _______________________________________
Name:_____________________________________
Title:______________________________________
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF ____________________:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for the
aforesaid Locality and State by __________________, ___________, on behalf of Century Telephone
Company of Virginia, doing business as CenturyLink, on this _______ day of ___________________,
2010.
My commission expires: ___________________
Reg. No.:______________________
_________________________________________
Notary Public
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
County Attorney
Draft: 11/17/10
6
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Tax Parcel or ID# 03200-00-00-005C3
EXHIBIT A TO CABLE EASEMENT
DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT TRACT
A ten-foot (10’) wide easement crossing Boulders Road approximately eight hundred fifty feet
(850’) easterly of US Route 29, in Albemarle County, VA, from a telecommunications hand hole
to a telecommunications manhole, as shown in the sketch below:
FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY NOT TO SCALE
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Clifton Lake PRD- Request to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water
service only
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for public hearing to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide
water service to Tax Map 79, Parcel 23 and Tax Map 79C,
Parcel 1 located approximately 2,100 feet southwest of the
intersection of Rt. 250 and Shadwell Road.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”) Jurisdictional Area designation for public
water to serve a proposed 39-lot Planned Residential Development (PRD) approved by the Board of Supervisors on
January 18, 1978 (ZMA 77-24) (see Attachment A). The PRD is located south of the Shadwell Estates Subdivision
and east of Clifton Inn (see Attachment B). The site is designated Rural Areas in the County’s Comprehensive Plan
and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The original development proposal called for the use of a central
water system to provide water service to all of the proposed lots except two, which were to be served by private wells.
The Board’s 1978 rezoning approval included Condition #9, which states: “Final subdivision approval will be subject to
the County engineer’s office approval of central water systems.” The applicant is now requesting public water service
in lieu of a central water system or use of individual wells. Use of a central water system would require both the
County Engineer’s and the Board’s approval. To date, the applicant has not submitted a central water system
proposal to the County for review and approval.
In the immediate area, Clifton Inn is in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for Water Only to Existing Structures, and Stone
Robinson Elementary School is in the Jurisdictional Area for Water Only. Service was provided to the Clifton Inn
because of a documented health and safety issue involving groundwater quantity, consistent with the County’s policies
for extending water/sewer service to the designated Rural Areas. The designation does not permit service to any new
structure on this parcel.
The Board recently approved an amendment to the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to allow public sewer service to the
Whittington PRD located on Old Lynchburg Road. Like Clifton Lake, Whittington is a property zoned PRD in Rural
Areas. While this similarity exists, staff opinion is that there are important distinctions between the Clifton Lake
request and the Whittington request:
-W hittington is located immediately adjacent to Urban Area 5 and to existing similarly scaled developments
(Mosby Mountain). The Board’s decision was based on the rationale that this area/developments along Old
Lynchburg Road would likely be included in the designated Development Area with the update of the
Comprehensive Plan, making it eligible in the near future for water and sewer service under the County’s utility
policies. While the Clifton Lake subdivision abuts the Rivanna Village, expansion of the Village was considered
during the recently adopted Village Master Plan (adopted 5/12/10) and was rejected during that Master Plan
development process.
-When the Rivanna Village Master Plan was originally adopted as a new Development Area in the
Comprehensive Plan, the Board directed that the water line to the Village only serve (and be sized to serve) the
designated Village and the Stone Robinson Elementary School.
-The Whittington development was already designated in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water service when
the sewer service designation was added. The Clifton Lake subdivision is not designated for either public water
or sewer service.
AGENDA TITLE: Clifton Lake PRD- Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for
water service only
December 1, 2010
Page 2
-Providing sewer service to 90 approximately 40,000 square foot lots in the Whittington PRD avoided the
necessity for 90 individual septic systems which would have created the potential for more undesirable and
significant environmental impacts in the long term. The use of a central water system or individual wells on 39
lots in the Clifton PRD would not have significant environmental impacts.
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following recommendations concerning the provision of public water and sewer
service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Developm ent Areas in cases where the
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger (p. 130).”
By policy, water and sewer services are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where growth is
encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services are a potential catalyst for growth.
Water supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to serve the Development
Areas. Continued connections of properties in the Rural Areas to the public systems result in further extension of lines
from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area into the Rural Areas, potentially straining limited water resources and
capacity.
There are no lots developed or platted on the subject parcels (only preliminary plat approval has been obtained to
date) and there are otherwise no documented public health or safety issues regarding these parcels. Therefore,
designating these parcels as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water service would not be consistent with
County policy. If there were to be any future documented health or safety issue with water quality or quantity in Clifton
Lake, under the County’s utility policies, a water service designation could be further considered at that time.
The prior zoning action in 1977 required the use of a central water system to serve most of the development. No
proposal for a central water system has been submitted to the County by the applicant for review and approval;
therefore there is no evidence that a central system cannot safely and appropriately serve the development. While
current Comprehensive Plan policies also discourage the use of central systems in the Rural Areas except in cases
where there is a health and safety issue, use of a central water system would be consistent with the existing PRD
zoning of the property approved by the Board in 1977.
If the Board approves the request to amend the jurisdictional area for water service as requested by the applicant, the
approval would be in conflict with Condition #9 of ZMA 77-24. Unless a central water system is provided, Condition #9
must be amended or deleted through a zoning map amendment.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner would bear all of the costs for connection to public water service.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This request is not consistent with the principles, objectives, and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the
provision of public water service. The applicant has provided no information that public health and safety is
endangered if public water is not provided. Condition #9 of ZMA 77-24 requires the use a central water system. No
proposal for a central water system has been submitted by the applicant for review and approval; therefore, there is no
evidence that a central system cannot safely and appropriately serve the development. Based on this information,
staff does not recommend approval of this request and recommends that the Board not proceed to public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Applicant’s Request
B – Location Map and Jurisdictional Area Designations
Return to exec summary
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Structures
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
ATTACHMENT B -- LOCATION MAP AND ACSA JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATIONS Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 18, 2010
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
RSWA - Solid Waste Services
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to consider solid waste service delivery
arrangements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 1, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the October 6, 2010 Board meeting, staff recommended that the County continue to have the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority (“RSWA”) provide solid waste services for the County at the McIntire Recycling Center and at the Ivy Facility
(see Attachment A). The Board concurred with staff’s recommendation and agreed to consider how best to deliver
these service at a later work session. Staff deferred this work session until December so the City of Charlottesville’s
decision on continuing support of the McIntire Recycling Center could be considered in this report. On November 1,
City Council decided to continue to support the McIntire Recycling Center, but to offer no support for RSWA’s Ivy solid
waste services beyond December 31, 2010. Staff is now seeking Board direction on how County services should be
contracted with RSWA.
DISCUSSION:
Staff evaluated numerous options before focusing on RSWA as the service provider for continued solid waste
services at the Ivy Facility. A matrix outlining those options along with the pros and cons of each option is attached
(Attachment B). As noted at October’s work session, staff recommended maintaining the existing level of service and
continuing to use RSWA as the service provider, mainly because the RSWA has proven to be an effective service
provider and staff believes the cost and complexity of establishing a different management approach would likely
exceed its potential value. In addition, all of the other management approaches require the City and County to agree
upon a revision to the Organizational Agreement. Section 6.1 of the attached Organizational Agreement specifies that
both the City and County shall use RSWA as the sole provider of solid waste disposal facilities (Attachment C).
Staff has several concerns regarding this recommended approach. First, the City may have significant control in
determining if RSWA will agree to a contract that serves primarily the County’s interests. While staff does not
anticipate any prohibitive issues with this arrangement, it does introduce uncertainty on future contracts and is a
questionable long-term business practice. In addition, staff notes the contract will need to address waste generated
outside of the County. As proposed, the County is effectively subsidizing services for its citizens. It will be unfair to
County taxpayers for this subsidy to also benefit citizens in other localities. Finally, the City’s participation in the
McIntire facility but not in the other operations raises a question of how shared costs, such as trucks, equipment and
personnel who provide services to both facilities, are to be shared.
To address the above concerns, staff believes a contract with RSWA should:
1) be an annual contract with a provision that the County may extend it for two additional years. This provision
would address circumstances where the RSWA Board is no longer willing to contract services in a manner
acceptable to the County. The two one-year extensions would provide the County adequate time to develop
solid waste alternatives should RSWA be unwilling to approve a new contract.
2) require proof of County residency for users of the Ivy Facility. Other regional or County solid waste facilities
routinely require such proof. Non-County users must be charged to fully cover the cost of the service
provided to them.
3) specify how shared costs will be split with the City. This will avoid future questions on how costs are shared
between the McIntire and Ivy facilities.
AGENDA TITLE: RSWA - Solid Waste Services
December 1, 2010
Page 2
In addition to addressing these issues, staff will specify in the contract what materials can be processed at Ivy, hours
of operations, tip fees charged, and special events, such as the amnesty day program or disposal of household
hazardous waste. Recognizing the City and County will share the cost of McIntire, staff anticipates McIntire
operations will be handled by a separate City / County / RSWA agreement under terms similar to the existing cost
sharing agreement.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County has $350,000 budgeted in FY 11 to support RSWA FY 11 operations. Based on the RSWA adopted
budget for FY 11, it is anticipated that RSWA’s operational deficit would total $385,000. It appears that County and
City funding for the period of July, 2010 through December 2010 will cover operational losses for that period. Ivy
operations for the remainder of FY 11 are anticipated to break even or have a small loss, which can easily be covered
by the existing budget. Unless a City / County agreement specifies otherwise, it is anticipated the operations loss for
the McIntire facility in the remainder of FY11 will b e funded by RSWA’s reserves. For FY 12 and beyond, it is
anticipated the County’s budget will remain largely unchanged, though this cannot be assured until a contract is
finalized.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to work with RSWA staff to draft a contract for solid waste services to
commence in FY 12. The contract should be based upon the level of services agreed upon at the October
worksession and it should include the contract provisions discussed above. Once that draft is prepared, it will be
brought to the County Board for consideration and incorporated into the County’s FY 12 budget.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – October 6, 2010 Executive Summary
Attachment B – Matrix of Solid Waste Management Approaches
Attachment C – Solid Waste Organizational Agreement
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to consider solid waste service disposal
options upon the expiration of the City/County support
agreement
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1990, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville entered into an agreement (Attachment A) to form the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) for the purpose of managing solid waste generated in the County and the City.
The agreement designated the RSWA as the sole provider for solid waste disposal services for both the County and
the City. The agreement anticipated that the RSWA would be self-supporting, primarily through the collection of
tipping fees at the Ivy Facility. This arrangem ent worked well until 2001, when the last landfill cell at the Ivy Facility
was closed, and tighter regulations, as well as public opposition, made it highly unlikely that the RSWA could open a
new landfill cell. From that point, the RSWA has provided a limited capacity transfer station at the Ivy Facility for
garbage (MSW) and construction debris (CDD). This Facility is not adequate to handle the total demands of both the
County and the City. To compensate, the RSWA accepted MSW and CDD through a contractual arrangement at a
private transfer station at Zions Crossroads.
As a result of losing the tipping fees generated by the Ivy Facility, the RSWA was no longer self-sustaining. The
County and City entered into a Local Government Support Agreement in December, 2007 (Attachment B) to fund
RSWA’s operational deficits. Since entering into that agreement, other disposal options have become available and
the RSWA has determined that it is no longer in a position to serve as the sole provider of solid waste disposal
services for the County and the City. Currently, there are at least four options for disposal of MSW and CDD
generated in the County: the Ivy Facility, two private transfer stations at Zion’s Crossroads, and a private transfer
station in Greene County. Acknowledging the City’s interest in exploring other service options, in June, 2010, the
County and City amended the 2007 agreement to end the County/City funding of RSWA’s operational deficits as of
December 31, 2010 (Attachment C). The County must now determine its service needs and delivery options with the
assumption that the City is discontinuing its financial support of the RSWA, except for a prior commitment to fund the
environmental mitigation at the Ivy Landfill.
The purpose of this work session is to define the solid waste disposal services the Board believes are needed in the
County. This will be followed by a November work session to consider options for providing those services.
DISCUSSION:
Staff initiated its analysis by considering levels of service and developed the attached table that defines a low,
medium, and high level of public service for solid waste disposal (Attachment D). The County currently provides a
medium level of service. Staff believes the public would perceive the level of service to be low if there were a
significant drop in the level of service and that they would perceive the level of service to be high if there were a
significant increase in the level of service. Staff recognizes that these are debatable standards. The rationale for
defining the existing level of service at medium is that there have been few complaints received at the current level of
service. While there have been complaints about curbside recycling options in the past, those complaints have
diminished since the Zions Crossroads transfer stations started extracting recyclable materials from both MSW and
CDD. It appears people interested in curbside recycling have largely found that those transfer stations addressed
their needs. Thus, staff does not see an immediate need for increased services.
With this framework, the County involvement and costs were compared to peer communities (Attachment E). From
this, it appears Albemarle has a lower level of service in solid waste disposal services and also has much less tax
support than most of the peer localities. Stafford County is one of a few localities that still operates its own landfill.
Similar to the RSWA’s experience prior to 2001, revenue generated from Stafford’s landfill appears to allow that
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options
October 6, 2010
Page 2
locality to fund a number of solid waste related services to their constituents. Complicating this analysis, Albemarle
appears to be unique since the public is now served by a private transfer station that incorporates a materials recovery
facility (recycling) in its process. To perform an accurate total cost analysis would require merging the fees charged by
private haulers with the localities’ support. That data was not available for this analysis. Additionally, there are
subjective values that would need to be included in a total cost analysis. For example, what value does the typical
citizen place on a curbside service that provides co-mingled recycling?
Next, the RSWA FY 11 budget anticipates a deficit of $385,000 for operations, while the County has budgeted
$350,000 for RSWA support in the current year. Pursuant to the amended support agreement, that cost is shared by
the County and the City through December 2010. Staff notes the current financial data suggests that there will be a
higher deficit than budgeted, but it is too early in the fiscal year to verify this. (Attachment F) This data suggests that
even if the City were not to contribute in the second half of FY 11, it may be possible for the County to continue
receiving the current level of services with little or no service adjustment in FY 11.
The final factor staff considered in its analysis was the current demand for services and whether alternatives exist.
Based on the RSWA’s records and prior surveys of residents, staff believes there remains a significant need for a
drop-off center in the County. This need is not only for MSW, but for other materials such as woody debris and
appliances. For MSW, it was noted that RSWA continues to see a sizable number of residents who are not served by
commercial trash haulers. Many of those are due to their remote location, while others are people who generate very
little trash and/or have limited income. If a convenience center/transfer station were not available to those residents,
staff anticipates the County would see an increase in illegal dumping and complaints over the service reductions. With
respect to the McIntire Road Recycling Facility, staff notes that the recycling offered continues to be a very popular
program for both County and City residents, though the need appears to be reduced due to expanded curbside
recycling options available in both the County and the City. Staff believes there will continue to be some need for drop-
off recycling services.
Based on the above, staff believes the County should maintain the current RSWA operations, with the possible
exception of the McIntire Road Facility. The comparison to peer communities indicates that the RSWA is providing a
cost effective service and service demands have not dramatically changed. While an expansion of services could
allow the County to better match peer communities, there appears to be little public demand for expanded services,
perhaps because there are multiple private options currently available to County residents and businesses, many of
which are not available in those peer communities. If the Board is interested in expanding services (and funding
support), staff believes those changes should be permanent. The County’s experience in closing the Keene landfill
suggests there would be significant citizen dissatisfaction and increased illegal dumping if the County expanded
services, then later reduced them. Conversely, while a reduction of services may be possible, staff noted many
residents and businesses continue to rely on the RSWA’s programs at the Ivy Facility. Therefore, staff recommends
keeping those services in place. If the City does not continue to fund the Ivy Facility, then the RSWA should
implement a fee system for its use by City residents.
With respect to the McIntire Road Facility, staff notes this Facility receives a similar per capita usage by County and
City residents, but the City has not committed to continuing its support. If the City is not willing to continue its support,
staff believes the RSWA should consider the cost savings that could be realized by consolidating services at the Ivy
Facility. If the City is willing to continue its support, staff recommends continuing to support the McIntire Road Facility.
Staff would also ask that the RSWA consider restoring the fluorescent bulb and battery programs that were recently
eliminated at the McIntire Road Facility. While restoration of those programs would likely require additional funding,
there are currently no alternatives available to County residents, and those programs appear to be important for
environmental reasons.
Finally, staff notes that while the RSWA provides a cost effective service, the organizational agreement provides the
County and the City equal votes in setting the RSWA budget. When the costs of those services are shared by the
localities, that arrangement is appropriate. However, if the County were to become the sole funding source for the
RSWA, it would be inappropriate to allow the City to continue to have an equal vote in setting the RSWA’s operations
budget. If the Board agrees with staff’s recommendation for the County to continue to fund the RSWA and if the City
discontinues its partnership with the County in funding the RSWA, staff recommends that the Board consider
amending the RSWA Organizational Agreement at its November work session.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service Options
October 6, 2010
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County has $350,000 budgeted in FY 11 to support RSWA FY 11 operations. Based on the RSWA adopted
budget for FY 11, it was anticipated that RSWA’s operational deficit would total $385,000. It appears that County
and City funding for the period of July, 2010 through December 2010, combined with County funding from January
2011 through June 2011, will cover the RSWA’s FY 11 operational deficit. If inadequate, it appears RSWA would
need to use its reserves. Staff’s recommendation focuses on maintaining services without any significant increase
in the County support to RSWA.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board 1) continue support of services currently provided at RSWA’s Ivy Facility (it appears
this will require little, if any, increase in current County support payments); 2) continue support of RSWA’s McIntire
Road Facility if the City agrees to continue its support (otherwise, staff recommends requesting RSWA to consider
consolidating those services to the Ivy Facility, with the goal of not increasing current County support payments; and 3)
consider changes to the RSWA Organizational Agreement at a November work session with the goal of assuring the
organization matches operations and support by both the County and the City.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Solid Waste Organizational Agreement
Attachment B –RSWA Local Government Support Agreement
Attachment C – Amendment to RSWA Local Government Support Agreement
Attachment D – Solid Waste Service Levels
Attachment E – Peer Community Comparison
Attachment F – RSWA July 2010 financial report
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Solid Waste ServicesManagement ApproachesAttachment B Management ApproachPro's Cons1Utilize existing provivisions in RSWA Organization AgreementEstablished Organization with experience at managing these programs; facilities in operation and permitted; easiest to doCurrent charter gives considerable control to City for approving County contract with RSWA. 2Modify ACSA charter to provide servicesEstablished Organization; ACSA Board appointed by County BoardRequires revision to the existing RSWA Organizational Agreement. No experience in managing solid waste acitivities; need to modify charter; no faciliteis for services, new facilities require new permits3Create New AuthorityCharter can be designed to fit planned operationsRequires revision to the existing RSWA Organizational Agreement. Very long time line to become operational ; need to acquire expertise to manage programs; need to acquire facilities and obtain DEQ Permits4Create new County departmentEasily manged by County for efficiency; easier to shift workers as needed due to special programs or service changesRequires revision to the existing RSWA Organizational Agreement. Longer time line for becoming operational: little experience in managing solid waste activities; no facilities or permits in place5Assign to existing departmentSame as new department Same as new department6Contract management to private firmUtilizes existing expertise; no organizational charter issues; objectives managed through contractRequires revision to the existing RSWA Organizational Agreement. Complex contracting arrangement which would likely be contingent on County approving new facilities and receiving DEQ permits; may require extensive time to establish
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: December 1, 2010
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions
through December 2010 provided for informational purposes only. Also, please find attached
your Equalization Board appointees. Their terms will expire on December 31, 2010.
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Housing Committee: Two vacancies.
No applications received.
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy, business representative.
No applications received.
Pantops Community Advisory Council: Five vacancies.
Kate Clapper
Dennis Dutterer
Wendy Fisher
Places 29 Community Advisory Council: Fifteen vacancies. Application
deadline is Dec. 23, 2010.
Joseph Barnes
Pete Borches
Vicki Gist
Joan Graves
Mariclaire Hession
Brian Johnson
Tim Kaczmarek
Charles Lebo
Cynthia Neff
Joe Milby
Joel Spring
Henry Weinschenk
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: Four vacancies
(one being a joint City/County Chair).
No applications received.
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
ACE Appraisal Review Committee:
Joseph Samuels
Ross L. Stevens
Albemarle County Service Authority:
White Hall representative
Architectural Review Board:
Charles Lebo
Paul Wright
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority: (City discussing in December.)
Michael Gaffney
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority: (City discussing in December.)
Michael Gaffney
1 MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Joseph Samuels 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Yes Action Required
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross L. Stevens 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Yes Action Required
ACE Committee Joseph Samuels 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 No Advertised, no applications recv'd
Albemarle County Service Authority John C. Martin 12/31/2011 Resigned, White Hall No Action Required
ARB Charles Lebo 11/14/2010 11/14/2014 Yes Action Required
ARB Paul Wright 11/14/2010 11/14/2014 Yes Action Required
Cville Area Community Foundation Gv. Board Alan Culbertson 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Community Mobility Committee Ms. Frances Hooper 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Eligible No Action Required
Equalization Board Alan Collier 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Rivanna No Action Required
Equalization Board David Cooke II 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Jack Jouett No Action Required
Equalization Board Virginia Gardner 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, White Hall No Action Required
Equalization Board Rosa Hudson 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Scottsville No Action Required
Equalization Board Kathy Rash 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Rio No Action Required
Equalization Board John C. Lowry 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Samuel Miller No Action Required
Housing Committee David Paulson 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 No Advertised
Housing Committee Jana Crutchfield 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Ineligible Advertised
Housing Committee Martha deJarnette 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Amber Capron 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised
Pantops Community Advisory Council Barbara Elias TBD Resigned Advertised 3 Received
Pantops Community Advisory Council Nancy Hackman TBD Resigned Advertised 3 Received
Pantops Community Advisory Council Jason Trujillo TBD Resigned Advertised 3 Received
Pantops Community Advisory Council Daniel Goodall TBD Resigned Advertised 3 Received
Pantops Community Advisory Council Margaret (Peggy) Echols TBD Resigned Advertised 3 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Advertised 12 Received
Planning Commission Julia Monteith 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible No Action Required
Public Defender Office Citizens Adv. Com.Marilyn Minrath 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Public Recreational Facilities Authority Jay Fennell 12/13/2010 12/13/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Public Recreational Facilities Authority John deKoven Bowen 12/13/2010 12/13/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Public Recreational Facilities Authority Glen Michael 12/13/2010 12/13/2010 Eligible No Action Required
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Michael Gaffney 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Yes, Joint City/County Action Required
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Reed Muelman 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible Advertised
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Deborah Rutter 12/31/2012 Resigned Advertised
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Teri Kent 12/31/2011 Resigned Advertised
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Michael Gaffeny 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Yes, Joint City/County Action Required
Revised 11/22/10