HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-07Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
NOVEMBER 7, 2012
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
a. Reaccreditation Certificate – Police Department.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
9:30 a.m. - Public Hearing:
9. Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for part of the Old Crozet School. To
consider amending the lease with the Field School of Charlottesville for a portion of the old Crozet
Elementary School, property located at 1408 Crozet Avenue, Crozet, Virginia 22932 (Parcels 05600-
00-00-06100 and 05600-00-00-06200), by adding 1,193 square feet to the leased space effective
November 7, 2012.
10. 9:45 a.m. - 2013 TJPD Legislative Program, David Blount, Legislative Liaison.
11. 10:00 a.m. - Update on Public Safety Training Center – Phase 1 Police Firearms Range.
Recess
12. 10:45 a.m. - Fire/Rescue Overtime.
13. 11:10 a.m. - Capital Project Contingency.
14. 11:30 a.m. - FY 12 General Fund Year End Financial Report.
15. 11:50 a.m. - CACVB Marketing Plan Update.
16. Closed Meeting.
17. Certify Closed Meeting.
18. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
19. 1:45 p.m. - Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board
Chairman.
20. 2:00 p.m. - Rivanna Snapshop, Rivanna River Basin Commission, Leslie Middleton.
21. 2:15 p.m. - Work Sessions:
a. ZTA-2012-00012. Critical Slopes.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1107/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 12:59:42 PM]
Tentative
b. Five Year Financial Plan – General Fund.
22. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
23. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
24. Adjourn to November 8, 2012, 2:30 p.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2012.
8.2 Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft FY 2012-2019 Six Year Improvements
Program (SYIP).
8.3 FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
8.4 FY 11/12 ACE Appraisals and Easement Acquisitions.
8.5 Resolution to Participate in the FY 2014 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program.
8.6 County Sidewalk Construction Program Projects – VDOT Project Administration Agreement.
8.7 Old Trail Block 13 - Special exception to waive overlot grading plan standards for driveways.
8.8 SDP-2012-00058. Charlottesville High School Field Lighting – Zoning Ordinance Waiver.
8.9 Authorize County Executive to sign Dominion Power Easement Across County Property at
Darden Towe Park.
8.10 SUB-2012-00038 Westlake Hills. Special Exception to Authorize Disturbance of Critical Slopes.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.11 FY 2013 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and FY 2012 State Survey of Cash
Proffers.
8.12 Overview of November 12, 2012 Animal Summit to be held at the McIntire Road Albemarle
County Office Building.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1107/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 12:59:42 PM]
Tentative
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/1107/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 12:59:42 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft
Fiscal Year 2014-2019 Six-Year Improvements Program
(SYIP)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of County’s Road Improvements Priority List for
Transmittal to Commonwealth Transportation Board
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and
Benish
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) scheduled a series of public hearings in October and November to give
citizens and public officials an opportunity to provide comments on projects in the Working Draft Fiscal Year 2014-2019
Six-Year Improvements Program (SYIP). Projects can include interstate, primary road, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
improvement priorities. Comments can also be sent to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT) by November 30, 2012.
This process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that specific amounts of funds are set aside for secondary
road projects in the County after a local public hearing, whereas funds for interstate and primary road projects are
allocated for each construction district after the scheduled statewide public hearings. All interstate and prim ary road
projects proposed within individual localities in the district compete for those district funds. The Culpeper District includes
Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment A is staff’s recommended priority list of improvements for inclusion in the FY 2014-2019 SYIP based on the
Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Constrained Project List, the current Comprehensive Plan
and prior Board priority lists. The list in Attachment A is essentially the same list adopted by the Board in May 2012, but
has been updated to note the latest status of projects (funding, design and/or construction), as well as a new major
improvement project on Route 29 North.
The proposed new major improvement is:
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS (Page 1):
1. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
d. Intersection improvements at the Route 29 - Polo Ground Road (east)/Rio Mills Road (west) intersection
to address traffic back-ups on Polo Grounds Rd. Consider signalization improvements and/or
construction of turn lanes on Polo Grounds Road
This project has been recently identified by the Board as a priority due to recently approved developments in that area, a
significant increase in traffic on Polo Grounds Road over time and the resulting stacking of vehicles on the road waiting to
turn onto Route 29 North.
Note that in addition to the above change, a new section was added to Attachment A when the Board last adopted the
priorities in May 2012. This new section notes major projects which have been fully funded in the State Six Year
Improvement Plan. This section is identified as: “OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX
YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN”. Including this section enables anyone viewing the document to see both the projects
recommended for development as well as those currently programmed for construction.
With the Board’s approval, staff will forward the priority list to VDOT (and VDRPT) by November 30, 2012.
AGENDA TITLE: Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft Fiscal Year 2014-2019 Six-Year Improvements
Program (SYIP)
November 7, 2012
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
This is a state-funded program, so there are no direct impacts to the County’s budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the County’s Priority List (Attachment A) as modified for this year.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Albemarle County Recommended Priorities for FY 2014-2019 SYIP
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2014-2019 2013-2018 SYIP
May 2, 2012
November 7, 2012
NOTE: UPDATES AND NEW ADDITIONS ARE NOTED IN STRIKE THROUGH AND RED ITALIC
TYPE
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS
1. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations, most
particularly additional north and southbound lanes on Route 29 from the
Hydraulic Road intersection to the Route 250 Bypass and an additional ramp
lane from Route 29 southbound onto the Route 250 Bypass West; Places 29
Priority project; Primary/Proffer Rev Sharing/City funds – Partial funding
commitment to design and construct.
b. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive;
Places 29 Priority project; Urban/Rev Sharing/City funds/Private right of
way donations – Designed and being funded to construct.
c. Construct Berkmar Drive extension. Places 29 Priority project; Portion being
constructed in Hollymead Town Center; CIP funding – available for design
only (no funding to construct).
d. Intersection improvements at the Route 29 - Polo Ground Rd. (east)/Rio Mills Rd.
(west) intersection to address traffic back-ups on Polo Grounds Rd. Consider
signalization improvements and/or construction of turn lanes on Polo Grounds
Road; Board request – new project request/not funded.
2. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops and Village of Rivanna
Master Plans (improvements to I-64 interchange, pedestrian crossings in Pantops, parallel
roads, new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River and widening of Route 250 east from the I-64
interchange to Village of Rivanna). [note: I-64 exit ramp improvements completed]
Portions of parallel roads constructed in private projects; no additional funding to
design or construct.
3. Improvements in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan); CIP/Enhancement /Revenue Sharing funds – Crozet Ave.
Streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown; Secondary/Revenue Sharing funds –
Jarman’s Gap Rd. complete under construction; Library Ave. partially built.
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad
crossing; Portion constructed in private project; location plan complete. No
funding to design or construct.
d. Construct un-built sections of Library Ave. east from Crozet Avenue to Hill Top
St. CIP funds – Portion constructed; No additional funding to design or
construct.
4. Widen Route 20 North from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks. No funding.
5. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset Avenue
connector road. Proffer for a portion of Fontaine Ave. to Sunset Ave. Connector; No
additional funding to design or construct.
6. Widen Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and sidewalks. No
funding.
7. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection. No funding.
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide
expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville. No funding.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CAT,
JAUNT and RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as
bus pull-outs, shelters, etc.). Limited funding in CIP for 2-4 bus stops/shelters.
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of
transit operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs.
Services provided in County by CAT are County funded.
4. Inter-City Rail - Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to Charlottesville/Albemarle
County in 2009. State funded through 2012.
5. Provide new service to Avon Street/Urban Neighborhood 4 area. No funding.
6. Provide new service in the US 29 North corridor/Hollymead/Airport. No funding.
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways along primary roads in the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement
projects. Absent major road improvements, the following are prioritized for pedestrian and/or
bikeway improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet; Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds –
Crozet Ave. streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North; No funding.
c. Route 250 East in Pantops - complete existing sidewalk system through
extension and connections; provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
CIP funding – under construction. sidewalk sections recently completed on
Route 250; crosswalks need to be designed/ installed.
d. Route 250 West from the City limits to the 250 Bypass area; No funding.
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended. No funding.
f. Route 250 West in Crozet (Cloverlawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center/Cory
Farms subdivision area). Limited funding available (County CIP).
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at: 1) Tilman Road; 2) Owensville Road; 3)
Route 240 (at Mechums River Bridge). Improvements to address traffic control, such as
traffic light, round-about, or other such improvements. No funding.
3. Full lane widths, paved shoulders and spot improvements on Route 22 and Route 231. No
funding.
4. Traffic control improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 151 (traffic
light, round-about, or other such improvements). No funding.
OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Rt. 250 Bypass, Construct Interchange with McIntire Road (Charlottesville)
McIntire Road Extended, Construct 2 Lanes (Charlottesville)
Route 29 Corridor Improvements, reconstruction with added capacity from Ashwood
Boulevard to Town Center Drive
Route 29 Western Bypass, New Construction
Bridge Replacement, Route 250 over Little Ivy Creek
Various spot and safety improvements--5 projects on Rt. 29, Rt. 53, Rt. 20, Rt. 250
(flashing lights, shoulder widening, signage and guardrail, turn lane improvements)
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2013050, #2013051 #2013052, and #2012053 for local
government and school division programs and projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, and Letteri; and Ms. L. Allshouse
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
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 2013 appropriations itemized below is $151,910.49. 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.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of four (4) FY 2013 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013050) totaling $105,000.00 for Avemore bond funds;
One (1) appropriation (#2013051) totaling $38,675.00 for a grant awarded by the Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles to the Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013052) totaling -$31,764.51 for various re-appropriation and proffers adjustments;
and
One (1) appropriation (#2013053) totaling $40,000.00 for various Emergency Communication Center projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2013050, #2013051 #2013052, and #2012053.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2013050 $105,000.00
Source: Other Fund Balance $ 105,000.00
This request is to appropriate $105,000.00 received from Wachoiva Bank in FY 10 as a result of Community
Development calling a letter of credit securing a perform ance bond for the Avemore development. Since calling the
bond, the property has been sold and the new property owner has diligently worked to complete the bonded
improvements. The property owner has recently submitted inspection requests to the County a nd is now in the
process of completing the bonded improvements. Upon the County being satisfied that the improvements are
complete, the County must return these funds to the bank. Funding needs to be appropriated in FY 13 so that the
money can be disbursed.
Appropriation #2013051 $38,675.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 38,675.00
Grants Leveraging Fund* $ 2,203.00
*The “Grants Leveraging Fund” component of this appropriation will not increase the County Budget
This request is to appropriate $38,675.00 in federal revenue for a grant awarded by the Virginia Department of
Motor Vehicles to the Police Department (Grant #SC-2013-53353-5068-20.600-Highway Safety Grant). This grant
requires a local match of $2,203.00, which is requested to be provided from the Grants Leveraging Fund, for a total
grant award of $40,878.00. There is also an in-kind match required for this grant totaling $17,134 that will be
covered by vehicle use, court time, administrative expenditures, and regular traffic enforcement activities. The
purpose of this grant is to assist in the purchase of four radar units and five preliminary breath testing devices for
use with DUI enforcement, as well as to fund approximately 800 overtime hours for DUI speed enforcement and
saturation patrols.
Appropriation #2013052 -$31,764.51
Source: School CIP Fund Balance $ -28,759.55
General Gov’t Fund Balance $ -2,292.41
Other Fund Balance (Proffers/Spec Rev) $ -712.55
As staff work s to close out FY 12, budget adjustm ents are required to ensure that the budgeted funding and the
associated expenditures are included in the correct fiscal year. Project funding amounts listed below have been
moved forward into FY 13, however, the actual expenditures occurred in FY 12. To ensure the funding remains
appropriated in the correct fiscal year, this request reduces the use of fund balance brought forward in FY 13 by a
total of $31,764.51, as follows:
Description Revenue Amount Reduced
Greer Elementary School Project School CIP Fund Balance -$14,402.40
School Maintenance/Replacement Program School CIP Fund Balance -$14,357.15
Fire Dept Mobile Data Computers General Government Fund Balance -$159.08
Public Works Facility Maintenance General Government Fund Balance -$227.50
COB Brick Repointing General Government Fund Balance -$1,167.25
Parks & Rec Maintenance General Government Fund Balance -$347.23
Tourism-Greenway Program General Government Fund Balance -$391.35
Belvedere Bond Project Belvedere Bond Project Fund Balance -$374.00
Old Crozet School Old Crozet School Fund Balance -$338.55
In summary, this reduces the use of (a) School CIP Fund Balance by $28,759.55, (b) General Government
CIP Fund Balance by $2,292.41, (c) Belvedere Bond Project Fund Balance by $374.00, and Old Crozet
School Fund Balance by $338.55 for a total of $31,764.51.
In addition, this request adjusts the proffer revenues supporting the Crozet Library previously approved on July 11,
2012 in Appropriation 2013-013. The adjustment has a net zero impact to the budget, by reducing the use of Poplar
Glen II proffers by $18,362.24 and increasing the use of Wickham Pond proffers by the equivalent amount of
$18,362.24. Initially, Poplar Glen II proffers were considered to be an appropriate source to support the Crozet
Library, however, these proffers are limited to expenditures relating to affordable housing.
Attachment A
2
Appropriation #2013053 $40,000.00
Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 40,000.00
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC,
appropriate funding from the ECC’s fund balance for the following requests, which have been approved by the ECC
Management Board:
$25,000.00 for the ECC Back-up Facility at the 5th Street County Office Building (COB-5).This is a
continuation of a project in which the County is leasing space to the ECC Management Board to be used as
a back-up 911 call center location for the ECC in the event the primary location needs to be evacuated or is
damaged in some way. This funding is being used to renovate the office space on the second floor at COB-
5 and install the appropriate electrical circuits, receptacles, switches, antennas, telephone lines, furnishings
and equipment in the backup location. The total set aside for the project was $77,000.00, and $52,100.00
was appropriated for this project in July. This request is to appropriate the remaining balance required to
complete the project.
$15,000.00 Replacement Micro Computers for the ECC Operations. This funding is requested to be
appropriated from the ECC Fund Balance Account to purchase replacement micr o-computers for the ECC’s
13 dispatch consoles and several administrative staff locations.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Approval of FY 11/12 ACE Appraisals and Easement
Acquisitions
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of three appraisals from Round 11 ACE
properties (FY 11/12) and purchase of the top three
ranked properties
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs., Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg, Benish,
and Goodall
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 2012, the Board approved the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee’s request to have the
top three ranked properties from the Round 11 applicant pool (FY 11/12) appraised: the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and
Davis properties (see Attachment A). Based on estimated easement values for these properties prior to the official
appraisals, the ACE Committee believed that the ACE Program fund balance would be enough to purchase most or all of
the easements. Even if it were not, the Committee believed it would be prudent to obtain appraisals on extra properties in
the event that any applications were withdrawn.
The Board of Supervisors determines which easements are to be purchased in the ACE Program. County Code § A.1-
111(A) provides: "From the list of applications received under section A.1-110(D), the board of supervisors shall designate
the initial pool of parcels identified for conservation easements to be purchased. The size of the pool shall be based upon
the funds available for easement purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation
easement in the pool established under section A.1-111(B)." Because it is possible that not every invited applicant will
submit an actual offer to sell, if one or more applicants were to drop out of the pool, other applicants would be substituted
until the eligible applicants or available funding were exhausted.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4. Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies.
a. Work in conjunction with key stakeholders to protect the health of our local waterways and other critical natural
resources.
DISCUSSION:
The appraisals for the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis properties were completed in early August and submitted
to the Appraisal Review Committee (ARC) (Attachment B). On September 12, the ARC officially approved each of the
appraisals.
The ACE Committee recommends the purchase of easements on the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis properties.
Acquisition of these easements would eliminate 41 development rights and result in the protection of the following
resources:
382 acres of farm and forestland, 137 acres of which is “prime” farm and forestland
4,300 feet of state road frontage
12,900 feet of riparian buffer, including 1,100 feet on the Moormans River, a state scenic river
5 acres of mountain top area
12,676 feet of common boundary with other protected lands
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of FY 11/12 ACE Appraisals and Easement Acquisitions
November 7, 2012
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements is available from existing funds in the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409).
There is $483,257 of re-appropriated ACE Program funds from FY 11/12 and $178,000 of appropriated ACE Program
funds for FY 12/13, providing a total of $661,257 of available funds for easement acquisitions. With a projected net
cost of $382,500 for these properties, the ACE Program has enough funding to acquire these three, highest-ranked
properties from the FY 11/12 applicant pool (see Attachment C) and have funds in excess of $270,000 remaining for
additional strategic acquisitions. The Office of Farmland Preservation (OFP) plans to make another $110,000+ grant
available to the County’s ACE program in early 2013. This matching grant can be used for purchases from the current
class of applicants or those in the class of FY12/13. These grant funds, if obtainable, will be held by OFP until the
County submits reimbursement requests for 50% of the total acquisition costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Approve the three (3) appraisals by Pape and Company for applications from the year FY 11/12 applicant pool
(see Attachment B);
2) Approve the purchase of ACE easements on the top three ranked properties from the year FY 11/12 applicant
pool, (the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis properties); and
3) Authorize staff to invite these three applicants to make written offers to sell conservation easements to the County.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Ranking Order of ACE Applicants for Round 11 – FY 11/12
B - ACE Appraisals and Easement Acquisition Costs for Round 11 – FY 11/12
C - ACE Budget for Round 11 – FY 11/12
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment “A”
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 11 (FY 11-12)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Status
Frankfurt, Charles TM 82, Parcel 3 100.272 acres 42.53 points no appraised
(Cismont) TM 82, Parcel 3A 5.061 acres
TM 82, Parcel 3B 5.003 acres
TM 82, Parcel 3C 26.842 acres
TM 82, Parcel 3D 23.116 acres
Total 160.294 acres
Jeremy Manning-Smith TM 82, Parcel 1 104.640 acres 38.46 points no appraised
(Cismont) TM 82, Parcel 4 40.128 acres
Total 144.768 acres
Davis, J.P. TM 28, Parcel 11 77.007 acres 29.10 points yes appraised
(Free Union)
Wendy Ellis TM 34, Parcel 46 34.243 acres 11.52 points no ineligible
(Gilbert Station)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 4 applicants 416.312 acres
Note: Though we no longer use tourism funds (the hotel tax), tourism value is determined by the
presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria making certain properties eligible for
funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the following: contains historic
resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia scenic
highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop protection.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Charles & Elfi Frankfurt
Property: TM 82, Parcel 3 (100.272 acres) 4 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 10 DR’s
TM 82, Parcel 3A ( 5.061 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 82, Parcel 3B ( 5.003 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 82, Parcel 3C ( 26.842 acres) 1 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 2 DR’s
TM 82, Parcel 3D ( 23.116 acres) 1 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 2 DR’s
Total (160.294 acres) 6 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 16 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 7,432’ of common boundary County GIS 16.86
w/ other easements
Criteria A.2 160.294 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.21
Criteria B.1 no economic hardship landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 12 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 6.00
Criteria C.1 not in MOD County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.2 harvests timber periodically landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,200’ on SR 686 County GIS 3.20
Criteria C.4 old house (ca. 1820) DHR 2.00
& outbuildings
Criteria C.5 no natural heritage resources DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 52 acres of “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.04
Criteria C.7 not in reservoir watershed County GIS 0.00
or on important waterways
Criteria C.8 no scenic river County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.9 4,299’ on perennial streams County GIS/landowner 7.22
1,025’ on one side of Mechunk
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 not in ag-for district County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.12 no forest management plan Department of Forestry 0.00
Criteria D.1 no leveraging landowner 0.00
Point Total 42.53
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic
Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Jeremy Manning-Smith
Property: TM 82, Parcel 1 (104.640 acres) 2 DivR’s + 19 DevR’s = 21 DR’s
TM 82, Parcel 4 ( 40.128 acres) 1 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Total (144.768 acres) 5 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 27 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 2,955’ of common boundary County GIS 7.91
w/ other easements
Criteria A.2 144.768 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.90
Criteria B.1 no economic hardship landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 23 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 11.50
Criteria C.1 not in MOD County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.2 harvest timber periodically landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 854’ on SR 686 County GIS 2.85
Criteria C.4 no historic resources DHR 0.00
Criteria C.5 no natural heritage resources DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 44 acres of “prime soil” County Soil Survey 0.88
Criteria C.7 not in reservoir watershed County GIS 0.00
or on important waterways
Criteria C.8 no scenic river County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.9 4,819’ on perennial streams County GIS/landowner 8.42
1,600’ on one side of Mechunk
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 not in ag-for district County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.12 has forest management plan Department of Forestry 1.00
Criteria D.1 no leveraging landowner 0.00
Point Total 38.46
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
MOD = Mountain Overlay District; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: J. P. Davis
Property: TM 28, Parcel 11 (77.007 acres) 3 DivR’s + 3 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 2,289’ of common boundary County GIS 6.58
w/ other easements
Criteria A.2 77.007 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.54
Criteria B.1 no economic hardship landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 4 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 2.00
Criteria C.1 5 acres in MOD & RAB County GIS 0.35
Criteria C.2 part-time farmer landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 2,284’ on SR 671 & SR 674 County GIS 4.28
Criteria C.4 no historic resources DHR 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 5.00
Criteria C.6 41 acres of “prime soil” County Soil Survey 0.82
Criteria C.7 in watershed of SFRR County GIS 3.00
Criteria C.8 1,115’ on Moorman’s River County GIS 0.51
Criteria C.9 1,115’ on Moorman’s River landowner 2.02
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 not in ag-for district County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.12 no forest management plan Department of Forestry 0.00
Criteria D.1 no leveraging landowner 0.00
Point Total 29.10
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
MOD = Mountain Overlay District; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Wendy Ellis
Property: TM 34, Parcel 46 (34.243 acres) 4 DivR’s + 7 DevR’s = 11 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,333 of common boundary County GIS 4.66
with another easement
Criteria A.2 34.243 acres (<50 acres) RE Assessor’s Office 0.00
Criteria B.1 no economic hardship landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 1 DR eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 0.50
Criteria C.1 not in MOD County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.2 part-time farming income landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 no road frontage County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.4 no historic resources DHR 0.00
Criteria C.5 no natural heritage resources DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 33 acres of “prime soil” County Soil Survey 0.66
Criteria C.7 no County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.8 no scenic river County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.9 1,350’ on 100 year floodplain landowner 2.70
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County GIS 0.00
Criteria C.12 no forest mgmt. plan Department of Forestry 0.00
Criteria D.1 no leveraging landowner 0.00
Point Total 11.52
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
MOD = Mountain Overlay District; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
Sec. A.1-103. Definitions and construction.
A. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of the ACE
program:
(5) Family member. The term “family member” means a great grandparent or any
descendant of a great grandparent of an owner, or any spouse of a great grandparent or of any descendant
of a great grandparent of an owner.
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which conservation easement
applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned as
provided below. Points shall be prorated and rounded to the first decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state
or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for
every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one -quarter (1/4) mile of, but not
adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other
permanently protected open-space: two (2) points.
2. Size of the parcel: zero (0) points for parcels of less than fifty (50) acres; one (1)
point for parcels of at least fifty (50) acres; one (1) additional point for each fifty (50) acres over fifty (50)
acres; one (1) additional point for each fifty (50) acres over two hundred (200) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale or other hardship: three (3) points.
2. The number of division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half (1/2) point
for each division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of retained
division rights from the number of division rights.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain
overlay district, as delineated in the Comprehensive Plan; an additional one (1) point may be awarded for
each twenty (20) acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area
boundary” means the area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on
county mountain overlay district elevation maps. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1 -109(B)(1)
shall apply if the parcel is eligible for points under this criterion.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family
member’s principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3)
points if at least one family member has as a secondary occupation farming or foresting the parcel so that
it is eligible for or subject to land use taxation as land devoted to agriculture, horticulture or forest use
under Albemarle County Code § 15-800 et seq.; one (1) additional point if the parcel is certified as a
Virginia Century Farm by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or
byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two
(2) points, with one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage if the parcel is
subject to a deed restriction as provided herein; otherwise, one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet
of road frontage; the parcel adjoins a public road: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each
one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage; or, the parcel is substantially visible from, but is not
contiguous to, a public road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance
corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points. The deed
restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(2) shall apply if the parcel is eligible for points for adjoining a
Virginia scenic highway or byway.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or
state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two (2)
points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for
Monticello and in the possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains a site of
archaeological or architectural significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural
historian under the United States Department of Interior’s professional qualification standards. The deed
restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(4) shall apply if the parcel is eligible for points under this
criterion.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the Virginia Natural Heritage
Inventory or a qualified biologist submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource
to the program administrator and the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the owner, [or it
includes one of six sites of exceptional biological value designated as a priority conservation target by the
Albemarle County Biodiversity Committee OR the parcel is located within a Priority Conservation Target
area identified by the County Natural Heritage Committee]: five (5) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for
agricultural lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources
conservation service classifications found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of
Albemarle County, Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of
five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris
Greene Lake Watershed, the Ragged Mountain Reservoir Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir
Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River,
Rocky Creek (of the Moormans River), Wards Creek (of the Moormans River), Buck Mountain Creek,
South Fork Rivanna River, North Fork Rivanna River, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River),
Lynch River (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Hardware River, Rockfish River, Jame s River, any
waters designated as “Exceptional Waters” by the Virginia Water Control Board, any public water supply
reservoir or emergency water supply reservoir: one-half (1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half (1/2)
point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1 -
109(B)(3) shall apply if the parcel is eligible for points under this criterion.
9. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in a
permanent easement that establishes or maintains buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as
those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code or if the parcel is subject to such an
existing permanent easement: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is
between at least thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1 ½) points for each one
thousand (1,000) linear feet of buffer that is at least fifty (50) feet but less than one hundred (100) feed
wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is at least one hundred (100)
feet wide.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a
county-sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points.
12. The parcel is subject to a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship
Management Plan approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry: one (1) point.
D. County fund leveraging. State, federal or private funding identified to leverage
the purchase of the conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the purchase price
for which those funds can be applied.
Return to exec summary
Attachment “B”
Round 11 (FY 11/12) – Appraisals & Easement Acquisition Costs for ACE Easements
Applicant Total Appraised Value Easement Value (% FMV) ACE Payment (% EV)
Frankfurt $1,042,000.00 $ 136,000.00 (13%) $ 136,000.00 (100%)
(Cismont)
Manning-Smith $ 999,000.00 $ 145,000.00 (14%) $ 145,000.00 (100%)
(Cismont)
Davis $ 640,000.00 $ 100,000.00 (16%) $ 100,000.00 (100%)
(Free Union)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Totals $2,681,000.00 $ 381,000.00 $ 381,000.00
Notes:
1) % FMV is the percent of total “fair market value” of the easement.
2) % EV is the percent of “easement value” that the County will pay to acquire the easement.
Return to exec summary
Attachment “C”
ACE Budget for Round 11 - FY 11-12
Funds Available for Easement Acquisitions County Funds
County Funds Available from FY11/12 Re-appropriation $ 483,257.35
County Funds Available from FY12/13 Appropriation 178,000.00
Totals $ 622,958.36
Easement Acquisition Costs Easement Cost
Frankfurt (160.294 acres) $ 136,000.00
Manning-Smith (144.768 acres) 145,000.00
Davis (77.007 acres) 100,000.00
Closing Costs (title insurance) 1,500.00 (est.)
Total Acquisition Costs – FY 11/12 Easements $ 382,500.00
Notes:
1) Sometime in early 2013, we expect to receive another matching grant from the Office of Farmland
Preservation for $110,000+. The final amount will depend on how many localities apply for these funds.
The grant is held by the Office of Farmland Preservation (OFP) until we submit closing costs for the
easement acquisitions. They will reimburse us for 50% of these costs, which include easement
acquisition, title insurance, and appraisals.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to Participate in the FY 2014 VDOT Revenue
Sharing Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt resolution to participate in the FY 2014 VDOT
Revenue Sharing Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Benish
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board reviewed the County’s proposal to apply for FY 2014 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program funds at its meeting
on October 3, 2012 and directed staff to apply for matching funds for four sidewalk projects and for the deployment of
an adaptive traffic control system on US 29 from the City limits to Hollymead.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution is consistent with the Board’s direction for the FY 2014 application. The Board’s adopted
resolution is required as part of the County’s application for program funds.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Participation in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program leverages matching funds from VDOT to advance important
transportation projects. The Board has programmed $1.0 million in the FY 2014 CIP budget for the local match for the
FY 2014 Revenue Sharing request (4-9010-41020-441200-950081-9999, Revenue Sharing Road Program).
The total estimated cost of the five identified projects is $2.22 million. If the Board wishes to proceed with the five
projects, it will need to appropriate $1.11 million in local funds in FY 2014. One million dollars is currently programmed
for this purpose in FY 2014. The additional $110,000 in local funding can be identified in the FY 14 budget process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution to participate in the FY 2014 VDOT Revenue Sharing
Program for up to $1.11 million of revenue sharing funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution to Participate in the Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program for FY 2014
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to submit an application for up to
$1.11 million of revenue sharing funds through the Virginia Department of Transportation
Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Sharing Program; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to commit $1.11.million in local funds in order to
compete for a Revenue Sharing Program award; and
WHEREAS, these funds are requested to fund the County’s Sidewalk
Construction Program to install new sidewalks along roadways in the following locations:
1. Old Lynchburg Road, (new construction and replacement/relocation) from
Region10 Offices to Fifth Street;
2. Rio Road, from existing sidewalks to the Pen Park Road intersection and on Pen
Park Road;
3. Avon Street at two locations: 1) from Peregory Lane to Mill Creek Drive and 2)
from Stoney Creek Drive to Arden Drive, and including crosswalks at Cale
Elementary School;
4. US 250 West in Crozet, in the Cory Farms and Blue Ridge Shopping Center
area; and
WHEREAS, these funds are also requested to fund the deployment of an
adaptive traffic control system or other equivalent signal synchronization enhancements
to US 29, from the City limits to Hollymead.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby commits to provide up to $1.11 million of local funds in its application
for up to $1.11 million of revenue sharing funds from the FY 2014 Virginia Department of
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program and requests that the Virginia Department of
Transportation approve the County’s application.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a
vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on November 7, 2012.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Sidewalk Construction Program Projects – VDOT
Project Administration Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize County Executive to execute VDOT Project
Administration Agreement for County Sidewalk
Construction Program Projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry, and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In November 2011 the County applied for FY 13 Revenue Sharing matching funds for four (4) sidewalk projects listed in
the Sidewalk Construction Program. Those projects were: Crozet Avenue North - Rte 810 (St. George Avenue to
Ballard Drive); South Pantops Drive (Rte 1140) and State Farm Boulevard (Rte 1117); Barracks Road - Rte 654
(Charlottesville City Limits to Barracks West Apartments); and Hydraulic Road - Rte 743 (south of Commonwealth Drive
to Georgetown Road). In June, 2012, the County was awarded $1,000,000 in FY 13 Revenue Sharing matching funds
for those sidewalk projects.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
To utilize the Revenue Sharing funds for these projects, the County is required to execute a Project Administration
Agreement with VDOT (Attachment A). This Agreement outlines the County’s and VDOT’s project responsibilities. Staff
will first proceed with the Crozet Avenue North and the South Pantops Drive - State Farm Boulevard sidewalk projects.
Construction plans and specifications are being finalized, and right-of-way/easement acquisition have been initiated for
both projects. Staff will then initiate the design phase for the Barracks Road and Hydraulic Road sidewalk projects.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY 13 Revenue Sharing funds will be provided by VDOT as a reimbursement to the County. The funding already
appropriated to these projects provides $760,000 of the necessary match funding. The balance of the match funding
(approximately $240,000) will be funded from the Transportation Improvement Program CIP Fund which has a current
balance of $726,690.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution (Attachment B) to authorize the County Executive to
execute the Project Administration Agreement for these sidewalk projects identified in the County Sidewalk Construction
Program.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Project Administration Agreement
B – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION APPROVING A
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FOR
COUNTY SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM PROJECTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the County
Executive is authorized, on behalf of the County, to execute the Standard Project Administration
Agreement for the County Sidewalk Construction Program Projects (Project Number 9999-002-
R45; UPC 102886).
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of
_______ to _______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
______________________.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Old Trail Block 13 - Special exception to waive overlot
grading plan standards for driveways
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to allow waiver of standards for
minimum length and maximum grade of driveways
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham and
Brooks
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Old Trail rezoning was approved in September 2005 with 8 proffers. Proffer 7 required an overlot grading plan
and Proffer 7(H) provides that “the driveway grading shall provide an area in front of the proposed garage, or an area
proposed for vehicle parking where no garage is proposed, that is not less than eighteen (18) feet in length that will be
graded no steeper than eight (8) percent.” Proffer 7(J) allows any requirement of Proffer 7 to be waived. The applicant
has requested that the minimum length and maximum grade standards for driveways be waived in Old Trail Block 13.
Under current procedures, these standards may be waived by special exception approved by the Board. The
applicant’s original request and related exhibits are provided in Attachment A.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
In evaluating this request, Proffer 7(J) provides that the Board should “consider whether the alternative proposed by
the Owner satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived to at least an equivalent degree.” Staff has concluded
that the purpose for the minimum length and maximum grade standards for driveways in Proffer 7(H) is to ensure safe
and convenient access. The standards provide adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting garages, appropriate sight
lines for vehicles entering and exiting garages, and prevent vehicles from scraping driveways at severe grade
transitions. Staff’s analysis focuses on this purpose.
Reduction in Driveway Length
The applicant has requested approval to reduce the minimum length of driveways in front of garages to either 5 feet or
16 feet. Staff has evaluated the minimum length of a driveway that is necessary in order to provide safe sight distance
for vehicles exiting garages, and has concluded that the safe minimum length is 7 feet from the edge of the pavement.
Driveways shorter than 7 feet would require the vehicle to partially back into the alley before the driver could see
oncoming vehicles or pedestrians. The following illustrations depict staff’s sight distance concern:
Illustrations 1 and 2: Driveways shorter than 7 feet from the edge of the alley would not provide sight distance until part
of the vehicle was in the alley.
AGENDA TITLE: Old Trail Block 13 - Special exception to waive overlot grading plan standards for driveways
November 7, 2012
Page 2
Therefore, staff supports a reduction in minimum driveway length to 7 feet, measured from the edge of the pavement
rather than from the boundary of the alley easement.
Increase in Driveway Grade
The applicant has requested permission to increase the grade of driveways above the maximum 8% grade allowed by
proffer 7(J), but has not specified a particular grade. Staff has evaluated the request and has concluded that a driver’s
sight lines are restricted at grades of 10% or greater. Steeper grades prevent a driver from seeing the lower portion of
the garage upon entry, or low-lying objects in the the alley directly behind the vehicle, upon exit. Staff also has
concluded that the bottoms of vehicles will scrape a driveway if grade transitions are approximately 20% or greater.
The following illustrations depict staff’s driveway grade concerns:
Illustrations 3 and 4: At grades greater than 10%, sight lines are adversely affected. Illustration 5: At grades 10% or
less, sight lines are appropriate.
Illustration 6: At grades of 20% or greater, scraping occurs at grade transitions.
Based upon the foregoing, the maximum 8% grade in Proffer 7(H) is reasonable and staff recommends that it not be
changed, but that a grade transition not to exceed 10% be allowed.
Overlot Grading Plans for Blocks 13A and 13B
As part of its review of the applicant’s request, staff has discovered that the overlot grading plans for Blocks 13A and
13B, shown on the road plans for those blocks, do not match up and must be revised so that they do. Staff
recommends that the Board require a revised overlot grading plan for Block 13 as a condition of approval of this
special exception.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the special exception subject to the following conditions:
1. Garages shall be set back from the edge of pavement of the alley at least seven (7) feet.
2. Driveway grades shall be 8% or less. The grade transition on the driveway shall not exceed 10%.
3. The applicant shall obtain approval of an amended overlot grading plan for each block, phase, or sub-phase
within Block 13 before any permits are issued within Block 13.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Applicant’s October 9, 2012 letter with exhibits
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2012-00058 Charlottesville High School Field
Lighting – Special Exception
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to allow waiver of the requirement for
full cutoff luminaires
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Graham and Benish, and Ms. Ray
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Charlottesville High School athletic field complex, including the football stadium, is located on the north side of
Melbourne Road, about 800 feet from the intersection of Melbourne Road and Rio Road East [State Route 631]. The
athletic field complex is located mostly within the County. The City/County line runs through the High School football
stadium. The portion of the property within the County is identified as Tax Map 61 Parcel 193, is zoned R15 residential,
and contains 26.75 acres. The portion of the property in the County is located in the Rio Magisterial District. There are six
(6) proposed field lighting fixtures; however, the special exception is requested for the four fixtures located in the County.
City planning staff has indicated that they are comfortable with the proposed improvements.
County Code § 18-4.17.4(a) requires that outdoor luminaires be full cutoff luminaires to protect dark skies, to control
spillover, and to prevent glare. This requirement may be waived by special exception.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Charlottesville Facilities Development Department is seeking a special exception to allow a waiver of the
requirements of County Code § 18-4.17.4(a) to allow new light fixtures to be installed on the existing poles at the
Charlottesville High School stadium that do not meet the requirement that they be full cutoff luminaires . The lighting
proposed to be installed is Musco brand lighting, which is similar to the lighting that has been installed on various types of
playfields in the County, including three County high school baseball fields used for competitive play. The Musco design
was used in most of these County locations because there was no alternative design available that could meet both the
full cutoff requirement and provide the minimum foot-candle illumination needed for the competitive use of the field.
The applicant has provided a lighting measurement exhibit that shows the current foot candle readings when the stadium
lights are in use, and a photometric plan that demonstrates what the values would be with the proposed fixtures installed.
This information illustrates that the new fixtures provide better lighting of the field of play while reducing the amount of light
emitted onto areas outside of the field. The proposed Musco lighting system meets the standards specified by the Virginia
High School League to promote the health and safety of those using the field.
County Code §§ 18-4.17.5 and 18-31.8 allow the requirement for a full cutoff luminaire to be waived by speci al exception.
County Code § 18-31.8(b) provides that the Board, when acting on a special exception, “shall consider the factors,
standards, criteria, and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the board
shall not be required to make specific findings in support of its decision.” In approving a special exception, County Code §
18-31.8(c) authorizes the Board to impose “impose reasonable conditions to address any possible impacts of the special
exception.”
County Code §§ 18-4.17.5(a)(1) and (2) (italicized below) set forth the factors to be considered in reviewing this request:
1. Strict application of the standard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health,
safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting
regulations at least to an equivalent degree.
Strict application of the lighting standards would prohibit Charlottesville High School from improving its field lighting to
meet Virginia High School League standards, while also maintaining a higher level of spillover outside of the field of play.
2
AGENDA TITLE: SDP2012-00058 Charlottesville High School Field Lighting – Special Exception
November 7, 2012
Page 2
2. An outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for an athletic facility cannot reasonably comply with
the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the facility for its safe use, as determined by recommended
practices adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of facility and activity or other
evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable. (Amended 10-17-01)
It does not appear that there are any lighting systems currently available that b oth reasonably comply with the
requirement for a full cutoff luminaire and provide sufficient and safe illumination of athletic fields as recommended by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America It was originally thought that an alternative lighting system on the
market would meet the County’s standard. However, over time, it has been determined that that system may not provide
the lighting levels required and is significantly more costly to install. Even though they do not meet the County’s
requirement for a full cutoff luminaire, the proposed Musco luminaireshave been determined to be a reasonable
compromise that provide adequate lighting levels, reduce spillover, and limit light emitted above the horizontal plane.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the special exception with the following conditions:
1. The lighting fixtures installed shall be Musco Model LSG 1500 (Light Structure Green).
2. The height of the existing light poles shall not be increased.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Dominion Virginia Power Easement Across Darden Towe
Park
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to authorize the County Executive to sign an
easement to Dominion Virginia Power to provide electric
service to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center in
Darden Towe Park
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Henry, and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center is being constructed within a leased area in the northeast portion of Darden Towe
Park located on TMP 06200-00-00-02300, which is jointly owned by the County and the City. It will be an educational
center for visitors of all ages, will commemorate the Lewis and Clark expedition, and will fulfill an important need in the
community for outdoor education with an emphasis on history, transportation, and science. An easement is necessary for
Dominion Virginia Power to provide electric service to the Center.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed easement is necessary to extend electric service from the existing Dominion Virginia Power lines
located along Stony Point Road (St Rte 20) westward to the location of the Center. A copy of the proposed Dominion
Virginia Power Right of Way Plat indicating the approximate location of the easement is included as Attachment A.
Because the City of Charlottesville co-owns Darden Towe Park, the City must also approve this easement request.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with granting this easement.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) approving the granting of an
easement to Dominion Virginia Power, and authorizing the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County
Attorney, a Right of Way Agreement on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Dominion Virginia Power Right of Way Plat
B – Resolution Approving Right of Way Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION APPROVING RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER FOR
SERVICE TO THE LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville jointly own
Darden Towe Park (Parcel 06200-00-00-02300); and
WHEREAS, the County and City have leased a portion of Darden Towe Park for
the construction and operation of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center; and
WHEREAS, an easement is necessary for Dominion Virginia Power to extend
electric service to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the granting of an easement to Dominion Virginia Power,
and authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney,
a Right of Way Agreement with Dominion Virginia Power for an easement over Parcel
06200-00-00-02300 in order to provide electric service to the Lewis and Clark
Exploratory Center at Darden Towe Park.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a
vote of _______ to _______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
______________________.
Return to exec summary
WESTLAKE HILLS CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER
NOVEMBER 7, 2012 BOS
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SUB2012-00038 Westlake Hills – Zoning Ordinance
Waiver
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the following sections of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish, Ms. Ray, and Mr. Koslow
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Westlake Hills is located South of Route 240 and the CSX railroad, and west of the Western Ridge subdivision in Crozet. The
subdivision proposal is to create 131 lots on three parcels totaling 140.186 acres, at a density of 0.93 dwelling units per a cre. The
standard level development in R1 zoning is 1 unit per acre, and up to 1.45 units per acre bonus level. No bonus density is requested.
The proposal is a by-right R-1 layout using cluster development standards, and thus provides approximately 58 acres (41% of the
site) in open space, including areas for expansion of the greenway system. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver request.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for
the waiver, and this request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulatio ns.
Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.3.b of the Zoning Ordinance restrict building sites and earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section
4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive or modify this restriction. However, due to a recent State Supreme Court decision,
the waiver must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Sectio n 31.8.
The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be natural. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver request. This
recommendation for approval is based on staff’s assessment which finds that the critical slopes being disturbed have substantially
met the requirements listed in Section 4.2.5(a):
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance :
This is a proposed single unit subdivision and includes several small (less than 200 s yd) critical slope areas. The applicant is
proposing to include subdivision roads and utilities to serve 131 development units with proposed slopes up to 3:1.
Areas Acres
Total site 140.186 acres approximately
Critical slopes 12.21 9% of site
Critical slopes disturbed 1.40 11% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations:
82% of proposed critical slope disturbances are exempt (including all proposed critical slopes disturbances in conflict with area
proposed to be Eastern Park in Crozet Master Plan).
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent an y movement of soil. Much of that
will depend on activities of individual builders.
WESTLAKE HILLS CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER
NOVEMBER 7, 2012 BOS
2
“excessive stormwater runoff”
Stormwater runoff will be increased in this area, as steeper man -made slopes typically result from leveling associated with
building construction.
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County will help to ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and
maintenance can help long term stability. However, the lots proposed existing or proposed critical slopes make futu re critical
slope disturbances likely if not properly planned.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
The proposed development is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan.
“septic effluent”
This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, engineering recommends conditional approval of this critical slope impacts waiver request. Specific
challenges to the project as proposed include serving lots with driveways with 16% maximum slope which include existing or
proposed critical slopes. An overlot grading plan is recommended for all lots with existing or proposed critical slope disturbances.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the
public health, safety or welfare;
B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an
equivalent degree;
C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary
interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or
D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import t han would be served by strict
application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
Based on the review above, there are no concerns that would cause staff to object to the approval of the critical slope disturbance
request.
31.8 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon special exceptions as follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter shall be considered and acted
upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this chapter shall be considered and acted upon by
the board. For the purposes of this section, a decision by the planning commission does not include the consideration and
action by the commission on a preliminary or final site plan under section 32 of this chapter or any action provided in secti on
32 enabled under Virginia Code § 15.2-2242(1).
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the factors, standards, criteria, and
findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the board shall not be re quired to make
specific findings in support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable conditions to address any possible impacts of the
special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within ninety (90) days after the date of the
request, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use permit, or site plan appeal, whichever is longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the applicable section of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this critical slope waiver request with the following condition :
The applicant must provide an overlot grading plan prior to Final Plat approval.
WESTLAKE HILLS CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER
NOVEMBER 7, 2012 BOS
3
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report
and FY 2012 State Survey of Cash Proffers
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and
non-cash proffers for July-September 2012 and FY 2012
cash proffer summary
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Letteri, Davis, Graham, Higgins;
Messes. McCulley, Ragsdale, Allshouse, and Harris
PRESENTER (S):N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has
been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report on
August 1, 2012, which included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for April
through June, 2012.
This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the first quarter of FY 2013 (July-September). This
report also includes the County’s annual report to the State for FY 2012, which includes historical cash proffer data for
FY 2005 through FY 2012. The next quarterly proffer report will be on the Board’s February 6, 2013 agenda.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Cash Proffers Activity for Fiscal Year 2013 First Quarter (July-September)
A. New Proffered Revenue: ZMA 2009-01 5th Street-Avon Center was approved by the Board on September 12,
2012 to amend the application plan, development framework and other proffers for the project. Amendments
affecting cash proffers resulted in a total of up to $450,000 being proffered for the development. This total
includes $250,000 for a greenway trail, a greenway park and bike/pedestrian master plan, up to $100,000 for a
pedestrian link to Willoughby subdivision, and up to $100,000 for transit.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $43,214,542. This reflects annual adjustments to
anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which annual adjustments were
proffered.
C. 1st Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $121,400.45 from existing cash proffers during
this quarter from the following developments:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Avinity $105,924.64 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5
Belvedere Station $4,250.00 Affordable Housing
Old Trail Village $8,000.00 CIP-Crozet Parks/Schools
Wickham Pond $3,225.81 CIP-Crozet
Total $121,400.45
D. Expenditures: There were no expenditures of cash proffers during this quarter.
E. FY 2012 End of Year Reconciliation: During the FY 2012 accounting reconciliation process for proffer funds
it was discovered that the following proffer revenue was received (or accrued) by the County prior to June 30,
2012; however, was not submitted to the County’s Accounting Departm ent for processing until after June 30,
2012. When processed, the revenue was recorded as received (or accrued) in FY2013 but should have been
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and FY 2012 State Survey of Cash Proffers
November 7, 2012
Page 2
recorded as received (or accrued) in FY2012. This mistake was corrected and the following revenue is now
recognized as FY 2012 revenue rather than FY 2013:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Belvedere Station $2,000 Affordable Housing
Old Trail Village $6,000.00 CIP-Crozet Parks/Schools
Wickham Pond $12,903.24 CIP-Crozet
Total $20,903.24
Based on end of FY 2012 corrections, the following expenditures have now been recognized as FY 2012
expenditures rather than FY 2013:
Development Amount Interest Intended Purpose
Poplar Glenn II $32,993.24 $22.81 Affordable Housing
Belvedere Station $57,250.00 $759.66 Affordable Housing
North Pointe $0.00 $20,359.50 Affordable Housing
Total $90,243.24 $21,141.97
F. Current Available Funds: As of September 30, 2012, the available proffered cash on-hand is $2,206,117.37
(including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were proffered for specific
projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP.
Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $1,125,337.95 is currently appropriated. (See Attachment A for
details) The net cash balance is $1,080,779.42. Attachment B provides information on how the net cash may
be used.
FY 2012 Survey of Cash Proffer for Commission on Local Government
The state mandates that localities accepting cash proffers report to the Commission on Local Government (CLG)
annually. The report for FY 2012 is attached (Attachment B). During FY 2012, the County collected $859,240.84 in
cash proffers and expended $113,223.06. Expended cash proffers in FY 2012 were allocated primarily to affordable
housing and parks and recreation maintenance.
Since FY 2005, staff has tracked proffers pledged, collected and expended by fiscal year and by category of
expenditure. Please see attachment C for further comparisons over the past seven fiscal years (FY 2004 – FY 2012).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and they support the
funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash
proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for
other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general
tax revenue.
Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer funds on an on-
going basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is
appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. September 30, 2012 Summary of Cash Proffer Funds Balances
B. Net Available Proffer Funds Summary and Use of Funds
C. FY 2012 Survey of Cash Proffer Accepted by Local Governments
D. Cash Proffer Activity FY 2004-2011
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
UPDATED: 10/8/2012FUND # PROFFER NAMETOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS Projects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSREMAINING AVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSACTIVE8547ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD$2,610,000.00$375,000.00$9.33$0.00$375,009.33$375,000.00$0.00Seminole Trail Vol. Fire. Dept. Ren/Add$0.00$9.33$9.338548AVINITY$1,703,712.44$196,215.80$0.79$0.00$196,216.59$0.00$0.00 $196,215.80$0.79$196,216.598534AVON PARK$59,000.00$59,000.00$5,717.57$0.00$64,717.57$59,000.00$0.00Avon Street Sidewalks$0.00$5,717.57$5,717.578536BELVEDERE STATION$400,250.00$106,500.00$832.49($58,009.66)$49,322.83$0.00$0.00 $49,250.00$72.83$49,322.838531ECKERD PHARMACY$6,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008520GLENMORE$893,000.00$752,000.00$129,928.01($875,364.10)$6,563.91$0.00$0.00 $1,000.00$5,563.91$6,563.918521GLENMORE$569,000.00$331,000.00$56,327.78($375,000.00)$12,327.78$0.00$0.00 $2,300.00$10,027.78$12,327.788523GRAYROCK$62,500.00$62,500.00$13,286.19$0.00$75,786.19$62,500.00$12,380.00Crozet Regional Stormwater Management $0.00$906.19$906.198527HOLLYMEAD AREA C$210,000.00$169,523.75$5,185.85($112,442.36)$62,267.24$59,523.75$2,741.04Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$2.45$2.458528HOLLYMEAD AREA D$481,000.00$480,999.68$23,859.91($473,712.00)$31,147.59$20,085.18$11,061.19Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$1.22$1.228545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$609,000.00$109,000.00$566.23($28,506.62)$81,059.61$30,733.69$322.73Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$50,000.00$3.19$50,003.198572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$2,430,203.86$18,755.00$0.00$0.00$18,755.00$0.00$0.00$18,755.00$0.00$18,755.008573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$0.00$2,952.00$0.00$0.00$2,952.00$0.00$0.00$2,952.00$0.00$2,952.008544LIBERTY HALL $137,600.00$102,400.00$203.23$0.00$102,603.23$0.00$0.00Crozet Streetscapes Phase II; Crozet Library$102,400.00$203.23$102,603.238529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$346,250.00$419,144.85$10,357.77$0.00$429,502.62$0.00$0.00 $419,144.85$10,357.77$429,502.628538NORTH POINTE$460,000.00$400,000.00$28,810.93($420,359.50)$8,451.43$0.00$8,451.43Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.00$0.008537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$2,328,000.00$119,000.00$1,874.37($51,837.85)$69,036.52$48,000.00$32.88Crozet E S ADA Entrance Ramp/Crozet Greenway$21,000.00$3.64$21,003.648546POPLAR GLEN II$155,600.00$155,600.00$135.22($33,016.05)$122,719.17$107,936.66$0.00Crozet Library$14,670.10$112.41$14,782.518533STILLFRIED LANE$78,000.00$78,000.00$6,344.46$0.00$84,344.46$78,000.00$5,379.07Ivy Fire Station; Crozet Library$0.00$965.39$965.398525UVA RESEARCH PARK$78,178.00$78,718.00$899.72($79,500.00)$117.72$0.00$117.72Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.00$0.008535WESTERN RIDGE$5,000.00$5,159.12$857.46($5,000.00)$1,016.58$159.12$0.00Crozet Library$0.00$857.46$857.468541WESTHALL (1.1)$90,000.00$91,000.00$2,831.02$0.00$93,831.02$51,000.00$2,728.70Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $40,000.00$102.32$40,102.328542WESTHALL (1.2)$30,000.00$37,000.00$917.42($7,000.00)$30,917.42$10,000.00$896.30Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $20,000.00$21.12$20,021.128543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,000.00$3,000.00$166.45$0.00$3,166.45$0.00$0.00 $3,000.00$166.45$3,166.458540WICKHAM POND$345,161.67$276,493.85$4,049.02($59,161.00)$221,381.87$176,491.42$2,797.07Crozet Streetscapes Phase II; Crozet Library$41,937.85$155.53$42,093.388549WICKHAM POND II$405,000.00$62,903.24$0.00$0.00$62,903.24$0.00$0.00 $62,903.24$0.00$62,903.24FUTURE05th STREET AVON 3$250,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 4$100,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 12$100,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000AVON PARK II$461,368.15$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING$323,556.88$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000CASCADIA$405,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000ESTES PARK$754,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000FONTANA PHASE 4C$780,635.81$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000HADEN PLACE$82,500.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2$16,926,027.01$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000LIVENGOOD$980,274.47$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000NGIC EXPANSION$1,405,988.98$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000OAKLEIGH FARM$1,488,112.94$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000PATTERSON SUBDIVISION$145,611.91$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE$1,163,876.08$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000WILLOW GLEN$2,907,800.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00COMPLETED8530ALBEMARLE PLACE$100,000.00$100,000.00$3,666.41($103,666.41)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008526AVEMORE$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,286.43($51,286.43)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008539GREENBRIER$9,334.00$9,334.00$81.72($9,415.72)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008532HOLLYMEAD AREA B$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,521.85($51,521.85)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008524SPRINGRIDGE$100,000.00$100,000.00$2,214.97($102,214.97)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008522STILL MEADOWS$135,000.00$135,000.00$17,220.78($152,220.78)$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00TOTAL$43,214,542.20$4,936,199.29$319,153.38($3,049,235.30)$2,206,117.37$1,078,429.82$46,908.13$1,125,337.95$1,045,528.84$35,250.58$1,080,779.42CASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERS
NET AVAILABLE PROFFER FUNDS SUMMARY AND USE OF FUNDS 10/12FUND # PROFFER NAMENET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS PROFFERED USE OF FUNDS RECOMMENDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS*8547ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD$9.33CIP-GeneralCIP-General 8548AVINITY$196,216.59CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5Project TBD8534AVON PARK$5,717.57CIP-Neighborhoods 4-Pedestrian ImprovementsMust use for specific project8536BELVEDERE STATION$49,322.83Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8520GLENMORE$6,563.91School CIP/Other CIP-GlenmoreCIP-Glenmore 8521GLENMORE$12,327.78CIP-250/Glenmore-TransportationRt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange8523GRAYROCK$906.19Interest/Jarmans Gap Road ImprovementsCIP-Crozet Project TBD8545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$50,003.19CIP-Hollymead-Greenway connection/Pedestrian CrossingMust use for specific project8572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$18,755.00CIP-GeneralProject TBD8573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$2,952.00Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8544LIBERTY HALL $102,603.23CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBD8529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$429,502.62CIP-I-64/250 Improvements and TransitMust use for specific project8537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$21,003.64CIP-Crozet Parks/SchoolsCIP-Crozet (Parks/Schools TBD)8546POPLAR GLEN II$14,782.51CIP-General and Affordable HousingProject TBD8533STILLFRIED LANE$965.39CIP-General or Affordable HousingProject TBD8535WESTERN RIDGE$857.46Interest/Stop Light at Western Ridge/240CIP-Crozet Project TBD8541WESTHALL (1.1)$40,102.32Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIPCIP-Crozet (Transportation Projects)8542WESTHALL (1.2)$20,021.12CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBD8543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,166.45Greenway bridge in WesthallMust use for specific project8540WICKHAM POND$42,093.38CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBD8540WICKHAM POND$42,093.38CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBD8549WICKHAM POND II$62,903.24CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBDTOTAL$1,080,779.42 *Use of net available proffer funds for future projects is being reviewed during the current FY 2012 CIP process
Commission on Local Government
2012 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
(804) 371-8010 or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 1 of 2 4/30/12
Date: September 28, 2012
Locality: Albemarle County X City Town
Name: Rebecca Ragsdale Title: Senior Planner
Phone: 434-296-5832 Ext. 3226 Fax: 434-972-4126
Email: rragsdale@albemarle.org
YES NO
Did your locality accept cash proffers at any time during the 2011-2012 Fiscal Year? X
If you answered "No" for the 2011-2012 Fiscal Year, additional information is not needed. Please
return the survey to the Commission on Local Government as indicated on the next page.
If you answered "Yes" for the 2011-2012 Fiscal Year, provide the following information concerning the
cash proffers accepted by your locality: (See definitions on next page.)
FY2011-2012
1. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Collected by the Locality during the
2011-2012 Fiscal Year: $ 859,240.84
2. Estimated Amount of Cash Proffers Pledged during the 2011-2012 Fiscal
Year and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time: $ 0
3. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Expended by the Locality during the
2011-2012 Fiscal Year: $ 113,223.06
4. Indicate the Purpose(s) and Amount(s) for Which the Expenditures in Number 3 Above Were Made:
Schools $
Roads and Other Transportation Improvements $
Fire and Rescue/Public Safety $
Libraries $
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space $ 1,837.85
Water and Sewer Service Extension $
Community Centers $
Stormwater Management $
Special Needs Housing $
Affordable Housing $ 111,385.21
Miscellaneous $
Total Dollar Amount Expended
(Should Equal Amount in Number 3 Above) $ 113,223.06
Please see other side.
Commission on Local Government
2012 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
(804) 371-8010 or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 2 of 2 4/30/12
Comments:
Use additional
sheet if
necessary.
Please complete this form and return it to the Commission on Local Government by September 30,
2012, using one of the following methods:
•By Mail: Zack Robbins
Commission on Local Government
600 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
•By Fax: (804) 371-7090
•By Email: A Microsoft Word template of this form may be downloaded at
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/pages/cashproffersurvey.htm
Once completed, send it by email to:zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
DEFINITIONS
Cash Proffer: (i) any money voluntary proffered in a writing signed by the owner of property subject to
rezoning, submitted as part of a rezoning application and accepted by a locality pursuant to the
authority granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303, or § 15.2-2298, or (ii) any payment of money made
pursuant to a development agreement entered into under authority granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-
2303.1.
Cash Proffer Revenue Collected [§15.2-2303.2(D)(1), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of revenue
collected from cash proffers in the specified fiscal year regardless of the fiscal year in which the cash
proffer was accepted. Unaudited figures are acceptable.
Cash Proffers Pledged and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time [§15.2-2303.2(D)(2), Code
of Virginia]: Cash proffers conditioned only on time approved by the locality as part of a rezoning case.
Unaudited figures for the specified fiscal year are acceptable.
Cash Proffer Revenue Expended [§15.2-2303.2(D)(3), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of public
projects expended with cash proffer revenue in the specified fiscal year. Unaudited figures are
acceptable.
Proffer Activity FY2004-2012 total.xlsxFUND TYPE Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended$0 $67,600 $100,744 $1,164,000 $31,000 $172,594 $405,000 $11,000 $12,690 $1,000$0 $0 $0 $487,762 $0 $0 $524,600 $629,539 $22,844,859 $230,443 $59,161$59,000 $217,159 $0 $200,000 $10,400 $165,257 $332,500 $131,300 $109,666 $18,230,800 $1,300 $475,000$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $875,000 $554,850$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550,000 $0$0 $0 $0 $1,340,000 $0 $0 $3,000 $53,000 $50,000 $961,000 $3,000 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,344 $9,416 $30,000 $0$0 $0 $0 $435,250 $0 $0 $366,000 $355,000 $0 $678,065 $27,000$500,000Totals$59,000 $284,759 $100,744 $3,627,012 $41,400 $337,851 $1,631,100 $1,189,183 $181,772 $44,169,724 $262,743 $1,589,011General CIP FundParks, Recreation & Open SpaceSchools Affordable HousingRoads & Other Transportation CostsFire & Rescue/Public SafetyLibrariesWater & Sewer Service ExtensionStormwater ManagementFY 06-07 FY 07-08FY 04-05FY 05-06FUND TYPE Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $5,500 $0 $0 $10,000 $0$0 $15,131 $0 $0 $75,129 $0 $0 $112,103 $0 $754,000 $730,789 $0$0 $373,617 $66,000 $0 $189,572 $0 $60,527 $0 $0 $40,000 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0$0 $50,000 $0 $0 $6,000 $1,838 $0 $5,500 $0 $0 $10,000 $1,838$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,880 $0 $0$0 $3,000 $0 $0 $35,750 $0 $0 $26,250 $111,385 $0 68452 $111,385Totals$0 $441,748 $66,000 $0 $122,879 $191,410 $0 $209,880 $186,265 $754,000 $859,241 $113,223CASH PROFFER ACTIVITY 2004-2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Proffered$59,000 $3,627,012 $1,631,100 $44,169,724 $0 $0 $0 $754,000Collected$284,759$41,400$1,189,183$262,743$391,748$122,879$209,880$859,241FY 11-12 FY 08-09FY 09-10FY 10-11Parks, Recreation & Open SpaceWater & Sewer Service ExtensionStormwater ManagementAffordable HousingSchoolsGeneral CIP FundRoads & Other Transportation CostsFire & Rescue/Public SafetyLibraries$1,800,000$2,000,000Collected$284,759$41,400$1,189,183$262,743$391,748$122,879$209,880$859,241Expended$100,744 $337,851 $181,772 $1,589,011 $66,000 $191,410 $186,265 $113,223$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000$1,800,000$2,000,000ProfferedCollectedExpended$0$200,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Proffer Activity FY2004-2012 total.xlsxCASH PROFFERS COLLECTED BY CATEGORY 2005-2011CASH PROFFERS EXPENDED BY CATEGORY 2005-2011 CIP SchoolsRoads/Transp.Public Safety Parks/Rec Water/Sewer Stormwater Aff. Hsng.General CIP SchoolsRoads/Transp.Public Safety Parks/RecWater/SewerStormwater Aff.Hsng.2005$67,600 $217,1592005$100,7442006$31,000 $10,4002006$172,594 $165,2572007$629,539 $11,000 $131,300 $53,000 $9,344 $355,0002007$12,690 $109,666 $50,000 $9,4162008$230,443 $1,000 $1,300 $3,000$27,0002008$59,161 $475,000 $554,850$500,0002009$15,130 $373,617 $50,000$3,0002009$66,0002010$75,129 $6,000 $35,7502010$189,572 $1,8382011$112,103 $5,500 $60,527 $5,500$26,2502011$74,880 $111,3852012730789 10000 40000 1000068452$1,200,000$1,400,000Aff. Hsng.StormwaterWater/Sewer$1,600,000$1,800,000Aff.Hsng.Stormwater$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012StormwaterWater/SewerParks/RecPublic SafetyRoads/Transp.SchoolsCIP$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000$1,800,0002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Aff.Hsng.StormwaterWater/SewerParks/RecPublic SafetyRoads/Transp.SchoolsGeneral CIP$02005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Animal Summit
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Overview of November 12, 2012 Animal Summit to be held
at the McIntire Road Albemarle County Office Building
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis and Beck; and
Mses. Tevendale, Jenkins and Maddox
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several years, there has been growing interest in the community to identify ways to better communicate and
share ideas and issues related to animal welfare. As a result of this interest, the Police Department has organized an
Animal Summit to take place at the McIntire Road County Office Building on November 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Goal 5: Enhance the Health and Safety of the Community.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the Summit is to bring community members together to have a discussion on key issues related to the
County’s animal population. The Summit will consist of a panel of animal welfare experts and professionals who will
cover a wide range of topics, followed by a question and answer period.
Staff has identified several key topics to be discussed, including animal welfare, emergency animal sheltering, hunting/
wildlife, and state and local legislative procedures. The panelists will discuss their specific roles and responsibilities,
which will help give clarity and provide a better understanding of who to contact to address specific questions or
concerns. Community members will have an opportunity to ask the panel questions. The question and answer session
will play an important role in allowing staff to identify the top community animal concerns so that staff can educate the
community on the procedures necessary to address those concerns. See Attachment A for the Animal Summit Agenda.
Panel Representatives:
Kimberley Maddox- Albemarle County Animal Control Officer
Jennifer Tevendale- Assistant Albemarle County Attorney
Steve Ferguson- Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries
Jennifer Hall- SPCA
Cori Lewis- Veterinarian
Legislative Representative – to be determined
Summit Advertisement:
The Summit will be advertised using the following means:
Media Announcement several days prior to event
Radio Advertisement (Coordinate with Public Information Officer)
Social Media (SPCA)
Albemarle County Website
Personal Invitations
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no impact to the budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Animal Summit Agenda
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
AGENDA
Animal Summit
Location: Auditorium (Albemarle County Office Building)
Date and Time: November 12th, 6:00pm
Moderator: Lee Catlin
6:00 - 6:05 Introduction: Colonel Steve Sellers
6:05 - 6:10 Overview of Summit: Lee Catlin
6:10 - 6:45 Introductions of panel members and role explanation:
Kimberley Maddox- Albemarle County Animal Control Officer
Steve Ferguson- Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries
Jennifer Hall- SPCA
Jennifer Tevendale- Albemarle County Attorney
Cori Lewis- Veterinarian
Rob Bell- Delegate
6:45 – 7:00 Break
7:00 - 8:00 Question & Answer
8:00 – 8:05 Closing Remarks
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for part of the Old
Crozet School
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider amending the lease agreement
between the County and the Field School of
Charlottesville for part of the Old Crozet School to
increase the leased square footage and to change the
terms regarding renewals and the addition of square
footage
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and
Freitas
PRESENTER (S): Mr. Michael Freitas
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County currently leases the Old Crozet School to two tenants. The Field School of Charlottesville (“Field School”)
currently leases 11,360 square feet pursuant to a lease agreement dated February 10, 2010 (Attachment A) and
Amendments dated April 9, 2010 and March 25, 2011. The second tenant, the Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”),
currently leases 4,826 square feet. The OCSA’s lease was renewed on August 1, 2012.
On October 3, 2012, staff presented to the Board a proposed Field School lease amendment to increase the square
footage by 33.75 square feet. The Board directed staff to schedule a November 7, 2012 public hearing. Since that
time, the Field School has requested to lease an additional 1,159.25 square feet, for a total increase of 1,193 square
feet.
Upon review of the February 10, 2010 lease agreement and the two subsequent amendments, the County Attorney’s
Office prepared a Lease Amendment to include all previously adopted lease provisions for clarity (Attachment B).
Additional revisions to the terms of the lease regarding renewals and the addition of square footage, discussed further
below, have also been included.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed lease amendment addresses three items:
1 – Additional Space. The Field School has identified a need for additional classroom and storage space. Specifically,
it would like to lease an additional 1,193 square feet of currently unused space on the ground floor and on the upper
floor in the older section as soon as possible. To include this additional space, the lease must be amended. The
current rental fee is $4.28 per square foot. Use of this space by the Field School would have no foreseeable impact on
the OCSA’s operations.
2 – Lease Renewal. The current lease allows for automatic renewal for up to four additional 12-month terms, through
June 30, 2015, after which a new lease would have to be negotiated if the Tenant wished to continue leasing the
space. Two of the four possible renewal periods remain. The proposed lease amendment removes the limit on the
number of renewals, but maintains that the lease can be terminated by either party upon providing 60 days notice prior
to the end of any term of the lease.
3 – Adding Square Footage To The Premises. The final proposed amendment allows for additional square footage to
be added upon written agreement of the parties.
AGENDA TITLE: Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for part of the Old Crozet School
November 7, 2012
Page 2
A lease amendment, which has been approved by the County Attorney’s office and signed by the Tenant, is attached
(Attachment B), along with a Resolution approving the proposed lease amendment and authorizing the County
Executive to sign the lease amendment (Attachment C). A public hearing is required pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-
1800 prior to the leasing of County-owned property.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The approval of this lease amendment based on a rental fee of $4.28 per square foot would result in a revenue
increase of $3,318.93 in FY2013.
Eliminating the renewal limitation and adding the provision to allow for additional square footage upon written
agreement would save staff time and advertisement costs in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) approving the
proposed lease amendment effective November 7, 2012 and authorizing the County Executive to sign the amended
lease.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – 2010 Field School Lease
B – Amended Field School Lease
C – Resolution
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FOURTH AMENDED
AGREEMENT OF LEASE BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
AND THE FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle (“the County”) and the Field School of
Charlottesville (the “Field School”) entered into a Lease Agreement dated February 25, 2009 in
which the County agreed to lease space in the Old Crozet School to the Field School of
Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Field School have entered into Amended Lease
Agreements dated February 8, 2010, April 9, 2010 and March 25, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Field School wishes to lease an additional 1,193 square feet for a total
of 12,553 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the attached Fourth Amended Agreement of Lease includes an additional
1,193 square feet of leased space, removes the limitation on the number of renewals, allows
additional space to be added to the lease in the future upon written agreement of the parties and
incorporates the other terms previously amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County
Attorney, the Fourth Amended Agreement of Lease between the County of Albemarle and the
Field School of Charlottesville.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of
______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to agenda
November 1, 2012
TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Executive
FROM: David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison
RE: 2013 TJPD Legislative Program
Attached is the draft 2013 TJPD Legislative Program. As I discussed when I met with you in
September, I will be presenting the program and seeking your approval of it at your November 7th
meeting. The titles of the program’s priority areas are listed below; please note that some have
been regional priorities for a number of years. I would like to draw your particular attention to a
renewed focus on mandates and cost shifting as part of the first priority, and in the second priority,
a combining of the transportation funding and devolution positions that were contained in last
year’s program.
1) State Mandates and Funding Obligations
2) Transportation Funding and Devolution
3) Public Education Funding
4) Chesapeake Bay TMDL
5) Land Use and Growth Management
6) Comprehensive Services Act
As in the past, the legislative program draft also contains sections that highlight ongoing local
government positions. You will note that changes in these sections under “Areas of Continuing
Concern” are underlined where the language is new, while language proposed for deletion is
stricken. I will be happy to discuss the suggested changes to the draft program when we meet on
November 7. Thank you.
Recommended Action: Approve the draft TJPD legislative program.
Attachment: Draft Legislative Program
Return to agenda
2013
Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Legislative Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
October 2012
Joe Chesser, Chairman
Steve Williams, Executive Director
David Blount, Legislative Liaison
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to 1) not
impose financial or administrative mandates on localities; 2) not shift costs for state
programs to localities; and 3) not further restrict local revenue authority.
Rationale: Sluggish local revenue, continued state funding reductions and additional requirements will
continue to challenge locality budgets this year. State assistance to localities has declined from pre-
recession levels, dropping by seven points as a percentage of the general fund budget since FY09. These
reductions have not been accompanied by program changes that could alleviate financial burdens on
localities, as state standards prescribe how services are to be delivered and localities have to meet such
standards regardless of the costs. While there was some recognition from the 2012 General Assembly that
localities cannot bear mandated expenses alone, other enacted policies have long term consequences.
State officials have boasted of state budget “surpluses” the past three years, yet continue to approve
unfunded and underfunded state requirements and shift costs to localities, straining local ability to craft
effective and efficient budgets that meet services that are mandated by the state or demanded by residents.
Position Statements:
We oppose unfunded state and federal mandates and the cost shifting that occurs when the state
fails to fund requirements or reduces or eliminates funding for state-supported programs. Any state
funding reductions for state-required services/programs should be accompanied by relaxation or
suspension of the state requirement or flexibility for the locality to meet the requirement.
Having realized three consecutive years of a state budget “surplus.” the state should restore
across-the-board reductions in aid-to-localities, budgeted to be $95 million in FY13/FY14. These funds
provide financial assistance for local implementation of required or high-priority state programs. If the
state cannot meet this commitment, then program criteria and requirements should be adjusted to reflect
the decrease in state resources.
Changes to Virginia’s tax code or in state policy should not reduce local government revenue
sources or restrict local taxing authority. This includes proposals to alter or eliminate the BPOL and
Machinery and Tools taxes, or to divert Communications Sales and Use Tax Fund revenues intended for
localities to other uses. Instead, the legislature should broaden the revenue sources available to local
governments. The state also should not confiscate or redirect local general fund dollars to the state
treasury, as it did this past year when it directed a portion of fines and fees collected at the local level
pursuant to the enforcement of local ordinances to the Literary Fund. The state should refrain from
establishing local tax policy at the state level and allow local governments to retain authority over
decisions that determine the equity of local taxation policy. The state should equalize the revenue-raising
authority of counties with that of cities. The state also should ensure the appropriate collection of transient
occupancy taxes from online transactions.
PRIORITY ITEMS
STATE MANDATES & FUNDING OBLIGATIONS
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the state to establish separate, dedicated
and permanent state revenues to expand and maintain our transportation infrastructure.
We urge restoration of formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and for
unpaved roads. We oppose any legislation or regulations that would transfer responsibility
to counties for construction, maintenance or operation of current or new secondary roads.
Rationale: The need for the state to fund a declining transportation infrastructure is dire and state dollars
remain inadequate. The VTrans 2035 Report notes that “the General Assembly must substantially raise
investment in transportation to keep Virginia moving.” Absent such an investment, Virginia faces a
congestion and mobility crisis that could stifle economic growth and negatively affect the quality of life
of our residents. Maintenance of existing roads continues to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars from
the construction budget and formula distributions for construction have been eliminated. It is estimated
that under current conditions, there will be little, if any, money left in the construction fund by 2017.
Position Statements:
We urge the state to fund transportation needs with stable and recurring revenues that are separate
from the general fund and that are sufficient to meet Vir ginia’s well-documented highway, transit and
other needs. We urge the state to restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and for
unpaved roads, and we support stable and increasing dollars for cities and towns to maintain roads within
their jurisdictional boundaries. Funding for urban, suburban and secondary road improvements are vital to
our region’s ability to respond to local and regional congestion and economic development issues.
Concerning secondary road devolution, we believe that efficient and effective transportation
infrastructure, including the secondary road system, is critical to a healthy economy, job creation, a
cleaner environment and public safety. In the past 20 years, the number of miles travelled on Virginia
roadways has steadily increased, while the attention to maintaining the nearly 50,000 mile secondary
system has taken a back seat. We oppose shifting the responsibility for secondary roads to local entities ,
which could result in vast differences among existing road systems in different localities, potentially
placing the state at a competitive economic disadvantage with other states when considering business and
job recruitment and movement of goods.
We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use planning,
without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities that do so. We urge VDOT to
be mindful of various local and regional plans when conducting corridor or transportation planning within
a locality or region. We also take the following positions:
1) We support enabling authority to establish mechanisms for funding transit and non-transit
projects in the region.
2) We oppose recommendations that would reallocate much of existing state transit assistance
through a less efficient and less predictable one-size-fits-all formula.
3) While we opposed the closing of VDOT’s Louisa residency facilities and support its
reopening, we also support the option for the locality to purchase the property.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING and DEVOLUTION
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the legislature to fully fund the state
share of the realistic costs of the Standards of Quality without making allocation formula
and policy changes that reduce state funding or shift funding responsibility to localities.
Rationale: The state will spend about $5.3 billion on public education per year in FY13 and FY14,
about 30% of its general fund budget. This level of funding remains below the FY09 amount by about
$600 million over the biennium, with state per pupil expenditures standing at $450 less per pupil than in
FY09. Meanwhile, local governments boost education funding by spending over $3.3 billion more per
year than required by the state.
While the 2012 General Assembly did restore some of K -12 reductions that were proposed in the
introduced budget, reductions in state public education funding the last few years have been accomplished
in large part through a number policy changes that are decreasing the state’s funding obligations moving
forward. For example, the state “saved” millions of dollars by shifting costs to localities through making
some spending ineligible for state reimbursement or lowering the amount of the payback. Three years
ago, it imposed a cap on state funding for education support personnel. It has reduced funding for other
support costs and supplanted general fund dollars with lottery funds to produce other savings. Policy
changes to the Virginia Retirement System this past year (mandatory teacher 5% for 5%) will cost
localities money and do nothing to reduce unfunded teacher pension liability. Changes to the Standards of
Accreditation and Standards of Learning, such as higher standards in math and science, also drive
increased expenditures.
Position Statements:
We urge the state to resist further policy changes that require localities to fund a greater share of
costs. State funding should be realistic and recognize actual educational needs, practices and costs;
otherwise, more of the education funding burden will fall on local taxpayers. Localities and school
divisions should have flexibility to meet requirements and management their budgets when state funding
decreases and cost-shifting occur.
We also take the following positions:
1) The state should not eliminate or decrease its funding for benefits for school employees.
2) Localities in our region should be included in the “Cost of Competing Adjustment” available
to various localities primarily in Northern Virginia.
3) We support establishment of a mechanism for local appeal of the calculated Local Composite
Index to the state.
4) We urge state financial assistance with school construction and renovation needs, including
funding for the Literary Loan and interest rate subsidy programs. The state should discontinue its
seizing of dollars from the Literary Fund to pay state costs for teacher retirement.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities support the goal of improved water quality, but
believe it is imperative that we have major and reliable forms of financial and technical
assistance from the federal and state governments if comprehensive water quality
improvement strategies for local and state waters emptying into the Chesapeake Bay are to
be effective. We support fairness in applying requirements for reductions in nutrient and
sediment loading across source sectors, along with accompanying authority and incentives
for all sectors to meet such requirements. We believe fairness across sectors will require
appropriate regulatory mechanisms at both the state and local government levels. The
Planning District localities are in strong agreement that we will oppose actions that impose
monitoring, management or similar requirements without providing sufficient resources.
Rationale: As the result of various court settlements concerning the Clean Water Act of 1972, the
Environmental Protection Agency is enforcing water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by
imposing a pollution diet (known as Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL) to reduce pollution to
acceptable levels. Bay states submitted plans for achieving TMDL goals of reducing nitrogen, phosphorous
and sediment flowing into the Bay. The proposed TMDL and Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan
require two-year milestones for the state and localities. As local governments will be greatly impacted by
initiatives to reduce pollutants into state waters of the Bay watershed, it is imperative that aggressive state
investment in meeting such milestones occurs. This investment must take the form of authority, funding and
other resources being in place to assure success, and must ensure that cost/benefit analyses are conducted of
solutions that generate the greatest pollution reductions per dollar spent.
Local governments particularly are concerned about the various effects on their communities and
their economic growth. There will be costs to meet reduced pollutant discharge limitations for localities that
own/operate treatment plants. Local governments will be required to develop and implement nutrient
management programs for certain large, public properties. Costs for stormwater management regulations
will fall on both new development and redevelopment. There will be economic impacts due to increased
cost for compliance by agriculture and increased fees charged by the permitted dischargers.
Position Statements:
1) Sufficient state funds for the full cost of implementing TMDL measures that will be required of
local governments, including those associated with revised stormwater management regulations and
any new requirement for locally-implemented stormwater management programs.
2) Sufficient federal funds for grants and low-interest loans for capital costs, such as for permitted
dischargers to upgrade treatment plants and for any retrofitting of developed areas, while
minimizing the economic impact of increased fees.
3) Sufficient state funding for and direction a) to the Cooperative Extension Service and Soil and
Water Conservation Districts to aid farmers with best management practices (BMP) in their
operations, and b) to the Soil and Water Conservation Board for monitoring resource management
plan compliance.
4) Any expansion of the Nutrient Exchange Program to allow trading and offsets of nutrients
among stormwater, onsite septic, wastewater, agriculture and forestry should be contained within
and be relevant to a particular watershed so as to improve the health of local waters.
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities encourage the state to provide local
governments with additional tools to manage growth, without preempting or
circumventing existing authorities.
Rationale: In the past, the General Assembly has enacted both mandated and optional land use
provisions applicable to local governments in order to address growth issues. While some have been
helpful, others have prescribed one-size-fits-all rules that hamper various localities that may approach
their land use planning differently. Preemption or circumvention of existing local authority hinders
localities in implementing the comprehensive plan or overseeing land uses. Moreover, current land use
authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to provide for balanced growth in a manner that
protects and improves quality of life.
Position Statements:
The General Assembly should grant localities additional tools necessary to meet important
infrastructure needs that are driven by development. We endorse efforts to have impact fee and proffer
systems that are workable and meaningful for various parties, but we oppose attempts to weaken our
current proffer authority. Rather, we support the 2007 road impact fee authority being revised to include
additional localities and to provide: 1) a fair allocation of the costs of new growth on public facilities; 2)
facility costs that include various transportation modes, schools, public safety, libraries and parks; 3)
effective implementation and reasonable administrative requirements; and 4) no caps or limits on locality
impact fee updates.
We also take the following positions:
1) To enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to implement services associated with
new developments, we support localities being given authority to enact local ordinances for
determining whether public facilities are adequate (“adequate public facility,” or APF
ordinances).
2) We support optional cluster development as a land use tool for local governments.
3) Concerning conservation of land, we support a) state funding for localities, at their option, to
acquire, preserve and maintain open space; b) authority to generate local dollars for such efforts;
c) additional incentives for citizens to create conservation easements; and d) authority for
localities, at their option, to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts.
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the state to be partners in containing
costs of the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better bal ance CSA responsibilities
between state and local government. We also request increased state dollars for local CSA
administrative costs.
Rationale: Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act in the early 1990’s, there has been
pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated chil dren, to increase local match
levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs.
After four years of steep increases (ranging from five to 16 percent) in state and local costs of residential
and non-residential mandated services, CSA pool expenditures for state and local governments have
declined the last several years. Costs remain challenging to forecast because of factors beyond state and
local control (number of mandated children in a community, severity of problems, service rates, and
availability of alternative funding).
In addition, localities pay the overwhelming majority (80%) of costs to administer this shared
program. State dollars for administration have not increased since the late 1990’s. At the same time,
administrative costs have jumped due to additional data collection/compilation and reporting
requirements.
Position Statements:
We take the following positions:
1) The state should either provide additional funding to localities for administrative support or
revise its data collection and reporting requirements;
2) The state should provide full funding of the state pool for CSA, with allocations based on
realistic anticipated levels of need; and
3) The state should establish a cap on local expenditures in order to combat higher local costs for
serving mandated children, costs often driven by unanticipated placements in a locality.
4) The categories of populations mandated for services should not be expanded unless the state
pays all the costs.
5) The state to be proactive in making residential facilities and service providers available,
especially in rural areas.
6) In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local governments, we
recommend that the state establish contracts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract
management process, to improve vendor accountability and to control costs.
We encourage the state to consider penalties for individuals who have had children removed from
their care due to abuse or neglect. We also support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost
sharing among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
AREAS OF CONTINUING CONCERN
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as
essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies that closely link the goals
of economic and workforce development and the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce
activities and revenue sources. We also support increased state funding for workforce development
programs.
We support the state’s Economic and Workforce Development Strategic Plan for the
Commonwealth that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local governments and emphasizes
regional cooperation in economic, workforce and tourism development. We also urge re -enactment of a
memorandum of understanding that outlines the expected cooperation by state-level agencies in
effectively partnering with local Workforce Investment Boards and other entities in the operation of One -
Stop delivery systems.
We support enhanced funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue meaningful
opportunities for regional projects. We also support increased state funding for the Industrial Site
Development Fund, the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism initiatives that help promote economic
development in localities and regions.
We encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities to identify, incentivize
and promote local, regional and state agricultural products and rural enterprises, and to encourage
expansion and opportunities for such products and enterprises.
We support restructuring of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (VCES) that preserves
beneficial extension agents and the services they provide, and that increases state funding for VCES.
We appreciate and encourage continuing state incentives and support for expediting deployment
and reducing the cost of broadband technology, particularly in underserved areas.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be funded and
promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water quality, solid waste management,
land conservation, climate change and land use policies. We are committed to protection and
enhancement of the environment and recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between
environmental regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of
available revenues. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the inter -jurisdictional nature
of many environmental resources, and adequate state funding to support local and regional efforts.
We believe the following:
The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or other local
services to pay for state environmental programs. To do so would set a disturbing precedent where by the
state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund state priorities.
The legislature should provide funding for wastewater treatment and other necessary assistance to
localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaired waterways. The state also should explore alternative
means of preventing and remediating water pollution.
We oppose legislation mandating expansion of the area covered by the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act. Instead, we urge the state to 1) provide legal, financial and technical support to
ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
localities that wish to comply with any of the Act’s provisions, 2) allow localities to use other practices to
improve water quality, and 3) provide funding for other strategies that address point and non -point source
pollution.
We support legislative and regulatory action to 1) ensure that alternative on-site sewage systems
(AOSS) will be operated and maintained in a manner that protects public health and the environment, and
2) increase options for localities to secure owner abatement or correction of system deficiencies.
The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development and should
work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues, including investing in regional projects.
Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts should continue to involve local governments.
We support legislation enabling localities, as a part of their zoning ordinances, to designate and/or
reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the locality, based on criteria
designed to further protect the public safety and welfare of citizens. In addition, we support increased
local government representation on the Biosolids Use Regulation Advisory Committee (BURAC).
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given to developing
circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the elderly, can
achieve their full potential. Funding reductions to community agencies are especially troublesome, as
their activities often end up preventing more costly services later. The delivery of health and human
services must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and local agencies. We ur ge the General
Assembly to ensure funding is available to continue such valuable preventive services.
We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of the local share of
costs for human services.
The state should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act
(VJCCCA) program, which has cut in half the number of juvenile justice commitments over the past
decade. The state should maintain a formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA funding.
The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards (CSBs) to meet
the challenges of providing a community-based system of care, including maximizing the use of Medicaid
funding. We believe children with mental health needs should be treated in the mental health system,
where CSBs are the point of entry. We support state action to increase investment in the MR waiver
program for adults and young people and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services. We also
oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the state to localities., and request sufficient
federal and/or state financial resources associated with new or additional roles and responsibilities for
local governments due to any expansion of Medicaid.
We support funding for mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile detention centers.
We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding.
We support the provision of sufficient state funding to match all available federal dollars for the
administration of mandated services within the Department of Social Services (DSS), and to meet the
staffing standards for local departments to provide services as stipulated in state law. Additionally, the
state should not assess penalties on localities resulting from federal audit findings; rather it should
adequately fund, equip and support local DSS offices.
We support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include companion and in
home services, home delivered meals and transportation.
We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention
programs (and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), including school-based prevention
programs which can make a difference in children’s lives. This would include the state’s program for at -
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
risk four-year-olds and the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs, as well as Part C of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (infants and toddlers).
The legislature should provide full funding to assist low -income working and TANF (and former
TANF) families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay for supervised day
care facilities and support efforts for families to become self-sufficient. We oppose any initiatives to shift
traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local governments. We
believe the current funding and program responsibility for TANF employment services should remain
within the social services realm. We also support a TANF plan that takes into account and fully funds
state and local implementation and support services costs.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to afford
decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and localities should work to expand and preserve the supply
and improve the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, disabled, and low- and moderate-income
households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible.
We support the following: 1) local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing programs, 2)
creation of a state housing trust fund, 3) local flexibility in establishment of affordable dwelling unit
ordinances, 4) the award of grants and loans to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing
dwellings, and 5) the provision of other funding to encourage affordable housing initiatives.
We support enabling legislation that allows property tax relief for community land trusts that hold
land for the purpose of providing affordable homeownership.
We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures.
We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in zoning
districts that permit single-family dwellings.
We encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using environmentally
friendly (green) building materials and techniques, which can contribute to the long -term health, vitality
and sustainability of the region.
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and assistance
for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services responsibilities
carried out locally.
We urge the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding local
positions that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of funding constitutional offices
or divert funding away from local offices, but increase money needed for their operation. Local
governments continue to provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets when state
funding is reduced.
We urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program (in accordance with
Code of Virginia provisions), the drug court program and the Offender Reentry and Transition Services
(ORTS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. We also support continued state
endorsement of the role and authority of pretrial services offices.
HOUSING
PUBLIC SAFETY
The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and restore the per
diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners to $14 per day. Also, the state should
not shift costs to localities by altering the definition of state-responsible prisoner.
We support restoration of state funding responsibility for the Line of Duty Act.
We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’ Service Award
Program and other incentives that would help recruit and retain emergency service providers. Further, the
state should improve access to and support for training for volunteer and paid providers.
We encourage shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional jails;
however, we do not believe the state should operate local and regional jails.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take place at
the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom
and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local government authority to
establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees; matters that can be adopted
by resolution or ordinance; and procedures for adopting ordinances.
We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) preserve 1) a
local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of records currently exempt from
disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning creation of customized computer records. We
support changes to allow local and regional public bodies to conduct electronic meetings as now
permitted for state public bodies.
We support allowing localities to use alternatives to newspapers for publishing various
legal advertisements and public notices.
We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to regulate noise or
the discharge of firearms.
We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the costs associated
with compensating jury members.
We support legislation include Albemarle County as a locality enabled to restrict the number of
inoperable vehicles which may be kept outside of an enclosed building or structure on residential or
commercial property.
We support legislation to allow localities to give developers the option to install sidewalks or to
contribute corresponding funds in connection with new residential development.
The state should enable localities to retain civil penalties collected from illegal sign removal in
the right-of-way.
We support a pilot program to combine voting precincts into centralized voting centers for
primary elections, in order to study their potential efficacy and cost savings.
We support increased state funding for regional planning districts.
We support legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse maintenance.
The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility are considered in any
centralizing of state computer functions.
We oppose attempts to reduce sovereign immunity protections for localities.
We support enactment of an interest rate cap of 36% on payday loans, fees and other related
charges.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE and LAWS
Return to memo
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Safety Training Center – Phase 1 Police Firearms
Range
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the current status of the Firearms Training
Facility
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, and Sellers
PRESENTER (S): Mr. Steve Sellers
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 2012, the Albemarle County Planning Commission determined that the proposed Firearms Training Facility is in
general accord with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. The Commission’s approval was communicated to the
Board on the May 2, 2012 consent agenda for information (Attachment A). On April 11, 2012, the Board of Supervisors
approved the proposed FY 13 capital budget which included funding for the Firearms Training Facility. The site plan was
submitted to the Community Development Department for review on August 20, 2012. The application started in the Site
Review Committee process but has since been called up to the Planning Commission for its consideration.
The Charlottesville Police Department is a financial and operational partner with the County Police Department on this
project with the City budgeting 50% of the funds necessary to develop and construct the range.
The Police Firearms Range is the first phase of development on this parcel. Ultimately, the facility will be used to train
police, fire-rescue, jail and sheriff’s departments on the critical skills they must maintain to keep our community safe.
Future phases may include a burn building for firefighters, shared classroom spaces and a driving track for advanced
driver training. These investments will ensure our public safety employees have the correct level of training required to
respond to critical incidents, lower the liability associated with high-risk incidents and help us to better protect our
community.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2 – Provide community facilities that meet future and existing needs.
Goal 5 – Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this presentation is to provide an update to the Board on this project and to address concerns raised
by the public regarding noise, safety, lead management, and environmental impacts. The project update will include
the current schedule and projected costs.
Two documents are attached to provide additional information about the project (Attachments B and C). Both
documents will be made available to the public through the County’s website and the Police Department’s social media
sites.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The project is fully funded in the approved Capital Budget. A local County-owned and operated training facility will
reduce training costs in the long term.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This matter is for information only. No action by the Board is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – May 2, 2012 Board Agenda Information
B – Firearms Training Facility FAQ
C – Public Safety Training Facility - A Critical Need for our Region
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner
DATE: April 11, 2012
RE: CCP201200001 Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3, 2012, by a vote of 5:2, made a
finding that the location, character and extent of the proposed Law Enforcement Firing Range Facility
(Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site) is in substantial accord with the County’s adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors as outlined in the staff report, as
follows:
1. Site will utilize an under-used county-owned land;
2. Site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas;
3. Location of range on site will further limit adverse impact on adjacent agricultural properties;
4. Site’s location limits impacts to natural, scenic, historic and cultural resources.
Cc: Gregory Patsch
Police Dept. Col. Sellers
File
ATTACHMENT A
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: CCP 2012-00001
Law Enforcement Firing Range
Staff: Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
April 3, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
N/A
Owner/s: Albemarle County
Applicant: Office of Facilities Development/
Albemarle County Police Department
Tax Map Parcels: 129-2A
Location: end of Rt. 704 Fortune Lane,
approximately 1.4 miles south of intersection of
Fortune Lane and Riding Club Rd
Acreage: 169.12 acres
Zoning District: RA, Rural Areas
Conditions or Proffers: No
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Proposal: Compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan review for a potential law enforcement
training facility, consisting of an outdoor firing
range, at the end of Fortune Lane in Keene.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Area
Use & Character of Property:
Location of the closed Keene landfill, open
space, wooded
Use of Surrounding Properties: wooded, open
space, agricultural
Factors Favorable:
1. The site will utilize an under-used county-
owned property.
2. The site’s size and remote nature isolates
it from more densely populated areas.
3. The location of the firing range on site will
further limit adverse impact on adjacent
agricultural properties.
4. The site’s location limits impacts to
natural, scenic, historic and cultural
resources.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed use on the site will
produce noise at property lines that are
above the noise ordinance provisions of
the zoning ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the location, character and
extent of the proposed Law Enforcement Firing Range facility is in substantial accord with the County’s
Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors of the staff report as outlined in
said report.
ATTACHMENT A
3
STAFF PERSON: Andrew V. Sorrell
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 3, 2012
CCP 201200001 LAW ENFORCEMENT FIRING RANGE
Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Va. Code 15.2- 2232)
BACKGROUND
This is a proposal to establish a County owned and operated firearms training facility consisting of a 100
yard outdoor fenced firing range, classroom building, toilet facilities, access road and parking area. The
facility is proposed on county-owned property which is the site of the closed Keene landfill (Attachment
A).
The Albemarle Police Department currently utilizes a private firearms range to maintain the necessary
firearms training certifications for the County’s Police Officers. The current site is inadequate for police
training because of limitations on when training can be scheduled and restrictions that prevent realistic,
scenario—based training. In addition, the County Police Department does not have a say in how the
range is operated, maintained or monitored. In order to reduce liability concerns and increase officer
proficiency and safety the Police Department needs a facility that will permit more frequent training (at
least three times a year). A dedicated law enforcement firing range owned, operated and managed by
the County will permit more frequent personnel training and has been identified as a high priority in the
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
The proposed firearms training facility is part of a larger, long-term CIP request for a public safety training
center (PSTC). The PSTC was proposed in a 2008 study prepared by TENG & Associates, Inc. The
TENG study conducted a site analysis of several county-owned properties for a PSTC that could meet the
current and future training needs of the Albemarle Police Department and Fire/Rescue Department.
Because of the sensitive nature of a firing range, the County has limited options for finding a site to
operate the facility upon. The 2008 TENG Study evaluated three county-owned properties: the Preddy
Creek site (northeast part of the County, east of Rt. 29), the Byrom site (far northwest part of the County)
and the Keene Landfill site (southern part of County near Rt. 6). The Preddy site was not preferred
because of its proximity to adjacent localities and poor soils. The Byrom site was not preferre d because it
is under a conservation easement, it is close to the Shenandoah National Park and the property has a
significant amount of critical slope. The Keene landfill site was the preferred site and the 2008 study
included an overall conceptual master plan for the PSTC on the property. The conceptual master plan
proposed a centralized public safety training center include a firing range, a burn building, a vehicle
extrication area, a hazard materials training area, an emergency vehicles course, and classroom space
together with associated support structures (Attachment C).
Due in part to the increasing difficulty in utilizing the current private firearms range, the County Police
Department revised the PSTC CIP request to break out as a separate request the infrastructure
necessary to complete only the firearms training facility. The Police Department therefore has requested
only the proposed firearms training facility (firing range) to be reviewed for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan at this tim e. Other phases of the PSTC which have not been submitted as part of
this review request have not been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and will need
such a review if and when they are proposed to be constructed in the future.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
A Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Review (or “2232 Review”) considers whether the general
location, character and extent of a proposed public facility are in substantial accord with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. It is reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Commission’s findings are
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their information. No additional action is required of the Board.
ATTACHMENT A
4
The Commission’s action is only related to the appropriateness of the site for this public use , and is not
an action or recommendation on whether the station should be funded and/or constructed.
CHARACTER OF THE SITE / AREA
The firing range is proposed to be located on a 169.12 acre parcel that contains the closed Keene
Landfill. The firing range would be located south of the landfill disposal boundaries or disposal “cells”
(Attachment C). The site is bounded by rural agricultural land on the east, west and south sides with one
adjacent property to the east within the Totier Creek Agricultural – Forestal District (parcel 129-3). Parcel
129-3 is 145 acres in area; approximately 95 acres are wooded (including the portion adjacent to the
proposed firing range site) with the remaining 50 acres in open field and pasture with livestock (cattle).
Staff reviewed the proposed firing range with the Agricultural-Forestal District Committee at their meeting
on March 19, 2012. The consensus of the Committee was that the proposed firing range was not a use
that complemented or was otherwise conducive to agricultural or forestal uses. The Committee also felt
that if such a use was to be approved, that every measure be taken to mitigate the noise and safety
impacts to adjacent property within the District. Measures such as retaining and enhancing the wooded
buffer adjacent to the proposed range and orienting the range north facing rather than south facing to
reduce the likelihood of rounds leaving the property were specifically addressed by the Committee. The
property is within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. Within a one mile radius, there are
approximately four historic structures that contribute to the District. None of these structures will be
impacted by this proposal.
On the north, along Fortune Lane, smaller rural residential parcels exist. Within a one mile radius of the
proposed range location, there are approximately 19 homes. Four homes are located on Fortune Lane
the closest being approximately 2/3 of a mile to the north of the firing range site. Approximately fifteen
homes front on Irish Road within a one mile radius, the closest being approximately ½ mile to the south of
the firing range site.
The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan; and this area drains into the Totier
Creek Water Supply Watershed. It has been designated as Rural Area since adoption of the 1971 (first)
Comprehensive Plan. The Keene Sanitary Landfill was permitted on the site in approximately 1974 and
the property was utilized as a municipal landfill until its closure in May 199 1. The site is zoned for rural
area uses and is outside of the jurisdictional boundaries for water and sewer.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The primary component of this project is the
proposed 350’ by 150’ outdoor firing range
surrounded by 20 foot tall side and rear berms.
The firing range is proposed to be a 100 yard
range with twelve firing lanes, expandable to 24
lanes. The firing line would be covered (roofed)
and paved in asphalt. The range floor and
berms would be grassed. The range is
proposed to accommodate handguns and rifles.
Other components of the project would include
road improvements onsite to include a gravel access road and parking area, toilet facilities, perimeter
fencing around the range, and a learning cottage (classroom). The project will require the submittal and
approval of a site plan and an erosion control plan.
Ideally, the County desires to begin construction on the facility in the spring of 2013 with the facility
opening in the summer of 2013. This timeframe for opening the firing range is considered critical for
providing the necessary training and qualifying for the Police Department. If the County Police
Department’s current arrangement was terminated and the County had no firing range, then county
personnel would need to travel outside of the County to receive necessary training.
Types of Activity
Activity onsite will involve firearms and special weapons training and qualification for members of the
County Police Department. Other in-service activities could include simmunition (force-on-force) training,
Figure 1: Perspective View - Firing Range
ATTACHMENT A
5
less-than lethal training, and any other outdoor law enforcement training where a controlled environment
is necessary. In addition to in-service training, schools and special events are proposed to be held from
time-to-time. Examples of a training school could include a five-day school to teach new officers during a
basic training academy class or training veteran officers on a new weapon system or training officers on
law enforcement tactics. Examples of special events could include a law enforcement shooting
competition or a firearms safety class offered to the public.
Site Access
The site would be accessed from the terminus of Fortune Lane, Route 704 which is currently a gravel
public road. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated that Fortune Lane will be
hard-surfaced in 2012 as part of the Rural Rustic Road program. VDOT has stated that due to the low
amount of additional traffic generated by the proposed firing range that Fortune Lane remains eligible for
the rural rustic program and the hard-surfacing of the road scheduled to occur.
Frequency of Use
The County Police Department anticipated using the site three to four days per week which may include
10-20 police vehicles and up to 20 people per use. In addition to in-service training for police officers,
schools and special events are proposed to be held from time-to-time. Except for special cases or
events, it is not anticipated that the site will be used on weekends. Hours of operation would vary by the
season, but would conclude no later than 10:00 PM. Periodic night training is required by the Police
Department’s training standards. Such night training would occur no more than four times per quarter.
Facility Users
It is anticipated that the facility will primarily serve the Albemarle County Police Department and the
Albemarle County Sheriff’s Department. The Charlottesville Police Department has committed to
providing funding for the project so they will be users as well. It is anticipated that there will be up to 20
people on site per use. The firing range would be staffed by the County Police Department when training
is being conducted.
The possibility exists to partner with other local governments, federal agencies and private corporations
for use of the facility. A public-private partnership with a corporation would be based on regional law
enforcement needs first and then if available, the range could be available for lease by corporations that
require firearms training. If the County was to enter into such a lease agreement, county personnel
would be present to monitor the training activity and such expense would be built into the lease
agreement.
Noise Measures
Noise abatement has been addressed through
facility location and design features. The
2008 TENG Study concluded that placement
of the firing range at the rear of the property
where the site elevation is low would aid in
keeping generated noise levels low. The
2008 TENG study proposed to orient the
range facing south with earthen berms on
three sides 20 feet in height (Attachment C).
Taking from the firing line, preliminary noise
calculations for four rifles and twelve
handguns firing simultaneously produced a
decibel level of 90 for a 320 foot radius from
the firing line at the range site. The 90 decibel
radius was contained within the property
boundaries. The noise level calculations take
into account a grass-surfaced firing range with 20
foot tall side and rear earthen berms with a wooded buffer behind them. At the site of the proposed
range, planted loblolly pines are approximately 15 feet tall and are 6-8 years old (Figure 2). Attachment D
provides the estimates noise levels for the proposed firing range. At the property line, noise l evels range
71 to 86 decibels on the western property line closest to the facility and 69 to 82 decibels on the eastern
Figure 2: Perspective View – Existing Tree Buffer Size
ATTACHMENT A
6
property line closest to the facility. The northern property line at Fortune Lane furthest from the facility
would be approximately 52 dB. Figure 2 below illustrates real-world examples of noise levels.
Figure 3: Examples of Noise Levels (approximate)
Lawn mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB) 90-100 dB
Food blender (88 dB); garbage disposal (80 dB). 80-89 dB
Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); radio or TV-audio, vacuum
cleaner (70 dB) 70-79 dB
Conversation in restaurant, office, Air conditioning unit at 100 ft 60-69 dB
Quiet suburb, conversation at home. 50-59 dB
Source: http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm
Staff has determined that as a public use, the proposed firing range is exempt from noise ordinance
provisions of the zoning ordinance. However, the noise ordinance can serve as general benchmark of
what noise levels are appropriate. For uses located in the Rural Areas, noise levels are permitted to be
55 dB at night and 60 dB during the day. Therefore, using the noise ordinance provisions as a
benchmark, the facility would be over the desired limits of the noise ordinance at the property lines
closest to the proposed range site but not significantly so, given the nature of the use/ facility.
Within the portion identified as “general location of proposed firing range” on Attachment E, the County is
researching the best location and orientation for the firing range. The 2008 TENG study recommended
the firing range face south. This recommendation included supporting noise level documentation. A
general area has been identified for the location of the firing range so that if additional research and noise
data indicate that noise and other concerns can be mitigated more effectively by adjusting the range’s
location and/or orientation within the identified area, that the County have the flexibility to do so.
In addition to the design measures on the range itself, other noise mitigation measures may include
retaining and cultivating the wooded buffer of planted loblolly pine (currently 15 feet tall) as well as using
engineered baffles or barriers.
Other Safety and Security Measures
The facility will be secured with perimeter fencing which will include signage warning of the firing range.
The fencing will be secured when the facility is not in use. The access road will include a gate which will
remain locked when the facility is not in use. As proposed in this request, ammunition and weapons are
not proposed to be stored onsite. A storage building would be used for keeping maintenance, cleaning
and targeting supplies onsite. Outdoor lighting will be minimal and just include, several outdoor light
fixtures affixed to the classroom, bathroom and cover over the firing line.
While the potential exists for an errant bullet to leave any outdoor firing range, the County is taking
several precautions to minimize this risk. First, the location of the range has been carefully selected on
the property to buffer the firing range from adjacent properties. Secondly, the design of the firing range
contributes to keeping all bullets within the berm perimeter. The range will be contained on three sides by
earthen structures whose dimensions are 40’-45’ thick at the base, 5’ thick at the top, and are
approximately 20’ high. Thirdly, State certified instructors will always be present to ensure that range
rules are followed and unsafe practices prohibited. In addition, targets are placed at a 3’-5’ height to
ensure that there is ample backstop on all sides of the target, especially above the target area. If
research and data support that noise and safety measures can be better mitigated by orienting the range
to the north rather than south-facing as proposed in the 2008 study, then the range would be oriented
away from adjacent properties further reducing the chance of an errant bullet leaving the property.
Lead Abatement
Lead abatement will occur once the fired round count exceeds one million lead bullets. Bullet
containment and berm design will follow recommendations in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
manual entitled. “Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges.” Once the identified
ATTACHMENT A
7
volume of lead bullets have been fired, a lead-reclamation company will be hired to conduct removal
work. The Police Department will also follow an Environmental Stewardship Plan that outlines a site
assessment, action plan, and how to m easure success for lead abatement. To enhance the lead-abating
design elements outlined in the EPA manual, the Police Department is conducting a cost comparison
analysis between using lead-free ammunition, a bullet reclamation system, or a combination of the two.
The Police Department has stated that they plan to use 80% lead-free rounds and use lime to neutralize
the lead that is onsite.
STAFF COMMENT
The purpose of this review is to determine if the proposed location for the firearms training facilit y is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal has been reviewed based on Comprehensive
Plan policy, including the Community Facilities Plan (part of the Land Use Plan) and the Rural Areas
Plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Community Facilities Plan
The Community Facilities Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, provides the following guidance
regarding the development and location of community facilities:
Objective: Give priority to facilities which address emergency needs, health and safety co ncerns,
and provide the greatest ratio of benefit to the population served.
Staff Comment: This is a firearms training facility which is needed to meet service standards for training
as established in the Community Facilities Plan.
Objective: The location of new public facilities should be within the County’s Development Areas
so as to support County land use policies. Development Areas such as Communities and Villages
will serve as service center locations for the Rural Areas. Only in cases where it is not possible to
locate a new facility in the Development Area due to physical constraints, or the nature of the
facility, and/or service(s) provided, will public facilities be allowed in the Rural Area.
The location of community facilities can be an important factor in determining where development
can and will be accommodated. Therefore, the provision of community facilities must be carefully
coordinated with the land use plan to ensure the adequate provision of facilities and services to
accommodate existing and anticipated development. The primary focus of the land use plan is to
encourage development in the Development Areas; the necessary facilities should be provided to
support this pattern of growth. In certain cases it may not be appropriate, or possible, to provide
facilities solely in the Development Areas due to the nature of the service or other unique
circumstances. However, the priority is to provide the highest level of service to the Development
Areas [emphasis added].
Staff Comment: This objective provides some flexibility to locate public facilities in the Rural Area to due
to the “nature of the service” or “unique circumstances.” This flexibility was specifically contemplated for
public facilities like a firing range which has unique location needs due to the nature of the service the
facility provides. Due to the noise impacts of an outdoor firing range more land area is often needed to
buffer and reduce such impact to an area. In addition, while every precaution shall be taken to preve nt
rounds from leaving the site (such as a 20 foot tall berm), locating a firing range outside of a Development
Area (where residential density is greater) reduces potential impacts if rounds were to leave the property.
Objective: Priority shall be given to the maintenance and expansion of existing facilities to meet
service needs.
Maintenance of existing facilities is of primary importance. No benefit is gained if new facilities are
provided while existing facilities deteriorate and become substandard. Also, in meeting new
service needs, consideration should be given to whether the existing facilities can provide an
adequate level of service through modification of them.
ATTACHMENT A
8
Staff Comment: The County does not own or operate the current location where firearm training occurs;
therefore there is no opportunity to expand the existing facility that is used for firearms training.
Objective: All sites should be able to accommodate existing and future service needs. All
buildings, structures and other facilities shall be designed to permit expansion as necessary.
Staff Comment: The 2008 TENG study found that the proposed site is large enough to accommodate
future service needs, however at this time such future needs have not been evaluated.
Objective: Schedule funding of community facilities through the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), based on the adopted Community Facilities Plan.
Staff Comment: The proposed firing range has been scheduled for funding through the CIP and is based
upon the adopted Community Facilities Plan.
Objective: All community facilities shall be in conformance with County regulations, site
development standards, and policies to the greatest extent feasible.
County projects are expected to meet all County development regulations and procedures,
consistent with any other like type of development project. County projects should further strive to
achieve or meet all other appropriate development standards and policies
established/encouraged by the County (stormwater/water quality, critical slope management,
building form/orientation, amount/location of parking, pedestrian/bike accessibility, others). Public
projects should be examples of good development and should be models to demonstrate the type
of development the County wants to see.
Staff Comment: As an outdoor firing range, the facility will have difficulty in meeting the noise standards
desired in the zoning ordinance. While this facility is a public use and therefore exempt from the noise
ordinance, the County is committed to locating the proposed firing range on the property in a manner that
best mitigates the noise and safety concerns associated with facility use. This is why only generalized
area for the proposed firing range has been shown for the location of the range (Attachment E). While
the 2008 TENG study provided data for one particular site on the property, if further analysis finds noise
and other concerns can be better addressed by adjusting the range location and/or orientation, the
County wanted the design flexibility to do so.
Objective: Determine the value of maintaining existing but obsolete facilities and sites for the
potential re-use for other services/facilities prior to their disposal.
Consideration should be given to the re-use of public facilities/sites for other public uses, if no
longer viable for its original service/facility. It is costly and often difficult to purchase property and
site public facilities in new locations. Prior to disposing of public properties, a review of the
site/facilities potential for other public uses or reservation of the property for future use should be
considered.
Staff Comment: The proposed firing range site utilizes and re-uses county owned property that has been
unused since the Keene Landfill closed in 1991. The proposed firing range will be located south of the
closed landfill disposal cells and will not disturb the earthen cap that seals the landfill.
Police Department Service Objectives and Standards
The following provides specific service objectives and standards for the Police Department (as
found in the Community Facilities Plan) that relate to the development and location of new
training facilities:
Service Objective:
Provide new facilities in a manner that accommodates anticipated service demands and the
needs of the current and future staff.
ATTACHMENT A
9
Service/ Facility Standards:
Training Facilities. Provide, or insure availability of, training facilities including firing range
academic facilities classroom/training rooms.
Staff Comment: The service/facility standards for the County Police Department, specifically address the
need for training facilities such as a firing range. A firing range that is owned, operated and managed by
the County will insure the availability of a county-controlled firing range. The firing range shall meet the
service demands of the current and future law enforcement personnel. Space for other aspects of a
public safety training center has the ability to accommodate anticipated service demands in the future.
Staff opinion is that the proposed firing range site is generally consistent with the Community Facility Plan
recommendations.
Rural Areas Plan
Because the firing range is proposed in the County’s designated Rural Areas, it is necessary to weigh the
impact that the proposed firing range site could have on key components of the Rural Areas. The Rural
Areas Plan provides the following guidance:
1. Agriculture - - Protect Albemarle County’s agricultural lands as a resource base for its agricultural
industries and for related benefits they contribute towards the County’s rural character, scenic
quality, natural environment, and fiscal health.
2. Forestry resources - Protect Albemarle County’s forests as a resource base for its forestry
industries and watershed protection.
Staff Comment 1-2: The proposed site of the firing range is on property adjacent to a parcel within the
Totier Creek Agricultural-Forestal District. Staff solicited input from the Agricultural-Forestal District
Committee at their meeting on March 19, 2012. As started earlier in the staff report, the Committee felt
that the proposed firing range was not a use that complemented or was otherwise conducive to
agricultural or forestal uses. The Committee also felt that if such a use was to be approved, th at every
measure be taken to mitigate the noise and safety impacts to adjacent property within the District.
Measures such as retaining and enhancing the wooded buffer adjacent to the proposed range and
orienting the range north facing rather than south facing to reduce the likelihood of rounds leaving the
property were specifically addressed by the Committee.
3. Land Preservation – Permanently preserve and protect Albemarle County’s rural land as an
essential and finite resource through public ownership or through conservation easements.
4. Land Conservation – Protect Albemarle County’s rural land through planned management of
open spaces to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.
5. Water supply resources - Protect the quality and supply of surface water and groundwater
resources.
Staff Comment 3-5: The proposed site of the firing range is not adjacent to land within a conservation
easement. The site is located within the Totier Creek Water Supply Reservoir Watershed. The County is
committed protecting the quality and supply of surface water and groundwater and particularly water
supply watersheds. To this end, at the proposed site of the firing range, the Police Department plans to
utilize best management practices (BMPs) to ensure lead from fired rounds does not contaminate water
supplies. Bullet containment and design of the 20 ft. tall berms will follow Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) BMP guidelines specifically created for outdoor firing ranges. In addition, the Police
Department is considering using lead-free rounds for certain types of ammunition.
6. Natural resources - Preserve and manage the Rural Areas' natural resources in order to protect
the environment and conserve resources for future use.
7. Scenic resources - Preserve the County's rural scenic resources as being essential to the
County's character, economic vitality, and quality of life.
8. Historical, archeological and cultural resources - Protect the Rural Areas' historic, archeological
and cultural resources.
SITE
ATTACHMENT A
10
Staff Comment 6-8: The proposed site of the firing range does not impact rural scenic resources because
the proposed site is not within an entrance corridor nor is it in a location that would be visible from a
public roadway. The proposed site is within the Southern Albemarle Rur al Historic District. The proposed
site limits possible impacts on historic resources by its isolated and remote location.
Staff opinion is that the proposed firing range site is consistent with the Rural Area Plan
recommendations.
SUMMARY
Factors Favorable:
1. The site will utilize an under-used county-owned property.
2. The site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas.
3. The location of the firing range on site will further limit adverse impact on adjacent agricultural
properties.
4. The site’s location limits impacts to natural, scenic, historic and cultural resources.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed use on the site will produce noise at property lines that are above the noise
ordinance provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Staff finds the proposed site and scale of activity for the proposed Law Enforcement Firing Range in
substantial accord with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission find the location, character and extent of the proposed Law
Enforcement Firing Range facility is in substantial accord with the County’s Comprehensive Plan for the
reasons identified as the favorable factors of the staff report as outlined above.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Location Map
B. Aerial Photo of Site
C. Conceptual Master Plan (from the 2008 TENG Study)
D. Estimated Firing Range Noise Levels ( 2 pages, from the 2008 TENG Study)
E. Map of General Location for Proposed Firing Range
SITE
ATTACHMENT A
11
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 3, 2012
Public Hearing Items:
CCP-2012-00001 Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site
PROPOSAL: Albemarle County Law enforcement firearms training facility on approx. 170 acres
ZONING: RA Rural Areas agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas, the goals of which are to preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
LOCATION: Southern terminus of Fortune Lane/Route 704, approx. 1.4 miles south of intersection of
Route 704/Riding Club Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 129000000002A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Andy Sorrell)
Mr. Sorrell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
CCP-2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range General Vicinity Map
• End of Fortune Lane
• 170 acres County –owned parcel
• Closed Keene Landfill site
• Zoned RA, Rural Area
• Comp. Plan designated Rural Area
Proposal
• County owned & operated firearms training facility - 100 yard outdoor firing range;
• Other facilities include a classroom building, toilet facilities, access road and parking area;
• Users: county and city law enforcement
• Frequency: 3-4 times/ week, 20 officers per use
– Night training up to 4 times/quarter no later than 10 p.m.
No weekends except for special cases /events
General Area Proposed for Range
• Request to find general area compliant as shown on slide in green area on map
• Flexibility if other orientations and/or areas can address noise & safety concerns as well or better
than current location (Staff report shows a particular location as shown on a 2008 Concept Study.
If they were to find a location that was within that green area that was perhaps different than that,
they would want that flexibility.)
Staff reviewed slides of photographs and drawings to review the following:
Entrance to Landfill Property
Entrance looking towards Fortune Lane
Height of Pine Buffer
(Loblolly Pines on either side of the road with six to eight years growth)
The pine buffer would surround the proposed firing range. The County Forester is present tonight
and could potentially answer any questions regarding the age and height of that particular buffer.
He worked with the county when that was replanted six to eight years ago. The pine trees are
about 15’ tall.
– Perspective View of Range
The range is proposed to be surrounded on three sides by a 20’ tall earthen and berm. It would
be proposed to have 12 shooting lanes to start out with the abilit y to potentially expand them in
the future. However, for right now that is not proposed.
ATTACHMENT A
12
Noise Measures
The major concern with a facility of this nature is noise. Noise has been addressed, as follows:
• Noise addressed by location & design features
• Located at rear of property where the elevation is lower and the noise would have less of an
impact than if it was at a higher location on that property. It is also not sited on the closed landfill.
It would not be disturbing the disposal cells of that landfill.
• Firing range oriented south with 20’ earthen berms on 3 sides surrounded by 15’ loblolly pine
buffer. If additional data can show that orienting it in another direction or something that could
further lessen the noise impacts that is what they would l ike to do in that general area.
• 71 -86 dB at western property line (closest to the facility)
• 69 - 82 dB at eastern property line.
• ~ 52 dB at northern property line adj. to Fortune Lane
Examples of Noise Levels (approximate)
- Lawn mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB) - 90-100 dB
- Food blender (88 dB); garbage disposal (80 dB) - 80-89 dB
- Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); radio or TV-audio, vacuum cleaner - (70 dB) - 70-79 dB
- Conversation in restaurant, office, Air conditioning unit at 100 ft - 60-69 dB
- Quiet suburb, conversation at home - 50-59 dB
What this is showing is that at the property lines the facility would be above what the Noise Ordinance
does permit. However, it is something that the county is working very hard to locate the fac ility in a
manner that would reduce the impacts from noise on adjacent property owners and adjacent users.
Easements in Vicinity –
Ag.- Forestal Committee Review
• Adjacent property to southeast (fronting on Rt. 6) within Totier Creek Agricultural Fores tal District
• Agricultural and Forestal Committee made a finding that the firing range isn’t consistent with
agricultural or forestal uses (March, 2012)
• Suggested consideration be given to:
– reorienting range north-facing inward to property
– Maintaining and preserving the wooded buffer between the District property & the county
property
Commission Action
• Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Planning Commission finding)
(April, 2012):
– to make a finding on whether the general use and location are consistent with the Comp
Plan (“substantial accord”);
– Review required by State Code (15.2-2232).
• Site Plan (including Erosion & Sediment Control Plan) approval for development of site.
Factors Favorable & Unfavorable
Favorable
– Site will utilize an under-used county-owned land;
– Site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas;
– Location of range on site will further limit adverse impact on adjacent agricultural
properties;
– Site’s location limits the impacts to the natural, scenic, historic and cultural resources.
This particular property is not one that is adjacent to a parcel that is on the National
Registrar. There are some sites within proximity of a mile. It is not intermediately
adjacent to any.
ATTACHMENT A
13
Unfavorable
– Use will produce noise at some property lines above the noise ordinance. This is a
county facility and it is exempt from the noise ordinance. However, it is a benchmark for
the county to use as to what the county sees acceptable for noise. That is why it is
something that they are trying our best to locate the facility in the area that would reduce
those noise impacts as best possible.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Summary:
• Comprehensive Plan location standards allow facilities to be located outside Deve lopment Area
to meet unique circumstances, in this case to meet both training standards and safety needs for
the Development Area AND Rural Area;
• Facility location generally and on-site limit impacts to rural area resources;
• Character and extent of use is within the scale anticipated in the Community Facilities
Plan/Comp. Plan for law enforcement training facilities. This is a permanent firing range that
meet the County Police Department service standards for training as found in the Comprehensive
Plan;
This would be serving a need for the whole county by being able to have a county owned and operated
firearms training facility. Currently the county uses a private facility, which they do not have operational
control over. This would allow for additional abilities to train and to make sure that those safety needs are
being met for the county law enforcement.
Also, the location of the particular property and its location on site will limit its impact to the rural area
resources that it is adjacent to. It definitely is something that is not intermediately visible from a scenic
byway or Entrance Corridor. It is not intermediately adjacent to an historic resource.
The character and extend of this use is within the anticipated scale of what the Comprehe nsive Plan calls
for. The Comprehensive Plan does speak to the need for a law enforcement firing range/training facility.
This permanent range would meet the County Police Department’s service standards for training as found
in our Comprehensive Plan. This is something they have been planning for quite some time.
Recommendation
• The Commission finds that the location, character and extent of the proposed Law Enforcement
Firing Range facility is in substantial accord with the County’s adopted Comprehen sive Plan.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson questioned if the Planning Commission makes the final action since this is a finding and not to
specify conditions or to make a recommendation to the Board like a special use permit.
Mr. Sorrell replied that is correct because it is a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The
finding of the Planning Commission would be provided to the Board of Supervisors as information.
Mr. Loach asked if the site itself is surrounded by an Agricultural Forestal District.
Mr. Sorrell replied the property is adjacent to an Agricultural Forestal District on one side. There is a
conservation easement that is not intermediately adjacent.
Mr. Loach noted the staff report indicates that four homes are located on Fortune Lane with the closest
approximately two-thirds of a mile to the north of the range site. In addition, it says approximately 15
homes are on Irish Road within a one mile radius. He asked did staff extrapolate out the noise valu es to
see what they would be at those property lines.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was done in the 2008 study for the site they had chosen at that time. The map in
the staff report basically shows what the noise levels would be at various ranges, which is where he
pulled the information on the decibel readings at the property lines. On the left side of the aerial photo at
ATTACHMENT A
14
the dotted white line is about 52 dB at that range. The Noise Ordinance establishes 55 dB for nighttime
readings for rural areas and 60 dB for the day. Generally that would be where those readings would be
that are compliant with the Noise Ordinance.
Ms. Monteith asked if the Commission were to find this in compliance what is the process about it going
to the Board of Supervisors and what would happen after that.
Mr. Sorrell replied if the Commission was to find this to be in compliance with the Comp Plan, then the
information would be provided to the Board of Supervisors as information and the applicant could submit
a site plan to the county for review. The Planning Commission makes the finding. The Board of
Supervisors does not take an official action on this particular activity since it is a public facility.
Mr. Kamptner asked to make one correction in that the Board of Supervisors does have the ability to
overrule the decision of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Monteith asked if the Commission finds it in compliance and the Board of Supervisors did not
overrule it, then the project would move forward.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was correct.
Mr. Morris asked if any discussion has taken place about additional ranges in the future at this location.
Mr. Sorrell replied the 2008 Study was done to determine if that particular property was large enough to
accommodate a number of uses that could relate to a safety training facility for the county. At this time
the applicant has requested this particular firing range be reviewed for compliance. If additional ranges or
other components of a safety training facility would be required, th en they would have to come back
under a review just like this. They have prepared a concept plan for what could potentially or basically fit
on a property of that size. However, at this time that has not been requested. It is just this particular
firing range and other ancillary uses to that.
Ms. Monteith acknowledged that she had a lot of questions and asked if they were going to come back
and discuss this more after hearing from the public.
Mr. Morris explained the public hearing process noting the hearing will be opened for applicant and
general public input prior to further discussion by the Commission.
Mr. Smith asked how the estimated firing range noise levels are determined.
Mr. Sorrell replied the estimated firing range noise levels were det ermined by an engineer that was able
to estimate it using methodologies for this type of facility. The 2008 study was done by an engineering
firm who were able to provide that data. The applicant can also address that in more detail as to how
that was determined.
Mr. Loach asked if the same parameters such as the height of the berms, the length of the range, etc.
were used when they calculated the data.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was correct. The engineers calculated it using the 20’ grassed berms wit h a
wooded buffer behind them.
Ms. Monteith noted she had several questions for the applicant to address. In thinking about alternatives
obviously one of the things presented in the staff report was there are certain conditions in the existing
firing range that they are using that have to do with flexibility and choices that there are concerns around.
She asked if there are options of scheduling; if access has been discussed with the existing use; are
there any other methods of practice that could be applied; and are there any options where the existing
use is occurring that have been addressed.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
ATTACHMENT A
15
Rob Heide, a Police Officer serving as a project manager on this application, said they were not going to
add anything to what Mr. Sorrell said since he did a very thorough job. There is representation here from
the contract engineering firm, Keenly Horn; Travis Henry, with Facilities Development; and
representatives of the Police Department should they have any questions or need clarification.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Monteith asked for responses to her previous questions.
Mr. Heide said the Police Department entered into a temporary agreement in 1995 with the private club
facility. At that time they were the only department using the private facility. Other departments found out
they had a good thing going and joined in. Between the number of law enforcement personnel using the
facility and number of private members of the club it has well exceeded its capacity. To that end in a
recent action the club’s board limited all law enforcement agencies to two days a month. Therefore, that
is over 400 people trying to use 8 hours a month for tra ining. There was no statement in the contract
about extending or reevaluating it. The contract just ends in two years on a certain date. The answer to
the question is there have been limitations put on this so that they can better manage the capacity for
their membership at large.
Ms. Monteith said it was suggested that if no new location can be found that officers or people within
Albemarle County, which is what they are specifically addressing, might have to go outside of the county
to practice. What would be the closest location?
Mr. Heide replied it would be Augusta County, which is about 15 to 20 miles outside of Albemarle County.
Mr. Randolph commended Mr. Heide and his team for their effort to invite all of the Commissioners down
to look at the site. It was very valuable to see the site and to have a discussion about what their plans
were. He had two questions. The first is about the design to reassure the public about the noise level. In
his Army experience he was well aware that the higher t he caliper the louder the noise. He asked what
the highest caliper round was anticipated to be fired at this facility.
Mr. Heide replied that it would be a 308 caliper rifle, which is a specialty weapon used by their SWAT
Team. The tradeoff with that is they don’t shoot them as frequently as hand guns per say just because
there is not a need to. While there might be a slight increase in decibel at the source it is far less
frequent.
Mr. Randolph asked would the department be prepared if there was an em ail list put together of the
contiguous property owners to let them know night firing was occurring or on weekends when firing was
occurring just as a courtesy. Those neighbors could possibly make plans to go to the movies and not
have to deal with the stress of listening to the rounds from the firing range.
Mr. Heide replied absolutely. They are already looking at different software opportunities out there that
allow people to opt in for a type of update as he described. They are talking about that no w, but have not
really gotten into that detail because they are still far from that. However, it is something on the table as
they speak.
Mr. Loach noted the range as proposed is an outdoor range. He asked if there are any future plans for
an indoor component.
Mr. Heide replied no.
Mr. Smith asked how many round would typically be fired in a day.
Mr. Heide replied that was dictated on what they were trying to accomplish in that training evolution. The
annual qualification is their heaviest round of usage, which is state mandated. They have to shoot X
amount of rounds to show proficiency once a year per person, which is several hundred rounds per
ATTACHMENT A
16
person on a given day. All of the other training would be a lesser round count than that. They don’t
equate number of rounds fired with quality of training. They try to find a balance between what they are
budgeted for every year and still maintain quality training.
Ms. Monteith asked if there is a cost estimate on this project. If so, what are the costs?
Mr. Heide replied the cost estimate is 1.153 million.
Mr. Dotson said the noise estimates have been made on the basis of four rifles and 12 pistols firing at
once. He asked if that is normal or an unusual case.
Mr. Heide replied that would be unusually high. If they have ten hand guns firing at once it does not
mean the sound is ten times what one is. To answer the question, that is not realistic and is a very high
number with a worst case scenario. It would not be a realistic training environment to do that.
Mr. Dotson said if he was on property nearby and could hear the sounds of this what he would likely hear.
Would he hear something with a one hour duration or just one hour during the day? Would he be able to
detect the individual rounds being fired, or would it be sort of a blur of sounds? What would it be like?
Mr. Heide replied that it depends on the training. During qualification training where they have a line of six
or eight people shooting within a two or three second period of time it might sound like a little bit of a
longer noise. In reality it is one or two rounds being fired by six or eight people in a very short period of
time, which would be their heaviest use of the range. The duration of hours on that day would be an eig ht
hour training day with breaks, lunch and pulling people off the range to revisit a training issue or what
have you. Other types of training would potentially be more sporadic and with less volume. It would be
involving hand guns, rifles, and shotguns. The majority of the time it is going to be sporadic through the
day and won’t be eight hours of constant percussive.
Mr. Dotson said the staff report mentions there could be occasional events such as competitions. He
assumed that is amongst police forces not involving the public. It might be to test and sharpen your
abilities with city, county, Augusta County, and others coming in.
Mr. Heide replied yes there is a potential for competitions. However, that is not something they have
discussed to have in the near future such as the day it opens. Of course, there is always within the police
culture the need to host events for a school or competition. They wanted to keep the possibility open to
use it for community education as well. There is hunter saf ety classes offered through the county and
perhaps that could be hosted at a range. When they say special events it is community based events
and law enforcement based events. However, again it would not be something that goes beyond what
Mr. Sorrell had in his staff report information regarding time frame of usage, days of usage and things like
that.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this is the best design to minimize noise and could they have the range open at one
end or closed off.
Mr. Heide said he did not know if their representative from Kimberly Horn wants to speak to that. Most
ranges have a simple backstop and are open on the other three sides. This range is closing in three
sides and only opens at the back. Therefore, from that perspective it is going to have a better impact at
mitigating noise. He did not know if they closed off the back end since he had never seen a range built
like that. Just coming from a range conference that talked about building and developing there was
nothing mentioned regarding anything like that.
Brian Peters, with Kimberly Horn and Associates, said he was working on a term contract with the County
of Albemarle to design this project pending the Commission’s action. The sound waves when they
bounce or project themselves off the back berm are not going to come back at you level. So having the
berm behind you really would not do anything significant to noise. Most of the noise absorption after the
firing is going to be that sound wave that comes out, hits the berm and is a bsorbed by the berm.
Obviously, some of that sound is then redirected off the berm in a different direction. They will be looking
ATTACHMENT A
17
at that in the design to be sure they are making decisions consistent with the design similar to what was
done in the Tank Study from a noise level standpoint. They want to do what they can to resolve that
noise challenge.
Ms. Monteith asked what kind of coordination or meetings have occurred with the adjacent neighbors of
this site.
Mr. Heide replied that before they did anything internal on this project, like applying for this Comp Plan
review, they sent letters to all abutting owners and then owners one -half a mile up Fortune Lane from the
entrance to this county property. They let those owners know what they were doing and who to contact.
They also let the owners know they would be in the area that coming week to go door to door and meet
with folks. It was in late January, around the 25th and 26th, that they sent those letters out. People
received the letters and they started to get phone calls. On January 31 most of the department heads
from the Police Department and Sheriff’s Office that will be using this facility went down and went door to
door and met with folks. If they were not home or they got a delayed res ponse they opened up the
opportunity to meet with them one on one. Some folks took advantage of that. They were able to hear
what some of their concerns were. Actually hearing some of those concerns moved them away from the
concept plan being the absolute location of the range and opening up the rest of the property to reorient
the range and move it further away from those abutting owners. They have done quite a bit of outreach
before they ever put the pen to paper in terms of applying for this project.
Ms. Monteith asked what other mitigations have been made regarding the impacts that people were
concerned about.
Mr. Heide replied that it was not as much mitigation as it is not locking them in. The 2008 report has the
range location at the very southern tip of the property. After listening to some of the property owners they
looked at the opportunity to reorient it where the range is now facing the opposite direction from these
properties and moving it upwards of a quarter of a mile further away. Th at is the reason in the staff report
for the larger green area shown in terms of the affected part of this property. They did not go with what
was recommended in 2008.
Mr. Smith pointed out that 20 participants times 200 rounds is about 4,000 rounds. He asked why they
did not do any live fire testing for the sound.
Mr. Heide replied that he could not speak to that. It seems typical at this stage of a project that the sound
studies are done through a model with existing data. Regarding the new location he just spoke about
they are doing a line by line comparison to see if that location actually is better than the one proposed in
2008. It is a different engineering firm, a different sound engineering firm, and they are doing the same
kind of modeling. It seems to be an industry standard to do it in this way. No one mentioned taking a
noise generator out or anything like that.
Ms. Monteith noted there were many things in the staff report she had questions about. One of the things
that stood out in the frequency of use was the use would conclude no later than 10 p.m. She wondered
why people in this community need to have firing range impact noise going on until 10 p.m. at night.
Mr. Heide replied that two-thirds of law enforcement’s job is to work at night. They would be doing
officers a bit of an injustice if they had them shoot outside the scope of when they actually work. It is a
totally different environment when out at pitch black and having to manipulate the fire arm that is issued to
them, having to shoot it accurately, and to operate it correctly and safely. They would be doing officers a
disservice. They don’t need to do it that often, which is why they committed to no more than four times a
quarter. The thing that is not in the staff report, which they debated about being in there, is they don’t
want to be at the range from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. in July waiting for it to get dark. They intend to avoid the
months where it does not get dark until later and use the months where it is darker ea rlier from 5:30 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Monteith suggested that mitigation should be looked at.
ATTACHMENT A
18
Mr. Smith asked how they see to shoot at night with no lights.
Mr. Heide replied they do it carefully and have techniques and strategies that are used. Typica lly there is
always some form of ambient light available to be able to identify the location of the target. However, it is
through muscle memory, which is accomplished through repetition in the environment you are working in.
Mr. Dotson said if not here are there other locations in the county that would have different impacts than
this site. He offered that as a serious question. It seems that most parts of the county have some
scattered rural residents. Most parts of the county are not too far from a conservation easement or an
agricultural/forestal district. He asked if they have looked at other sites. The obvious thing about this site
is that it is already county owned and sort of a previously abused property. It would be nice to have the
property put to a beneficial use.
Mr. Heide replied that most of the study done was to pick the best property. They looked at three different
properties. Because it was a landfill he did not think it bumped the site up to the top of the list. It was the
property’s size, the surrounding area in terms of how sparely populated it was, and perhaps the cost to
develop it. Those other two county properties have gone away and are now being used for other things.
He referred the question to Trevor Henry.
Trevor Henry, Director of Facilities Development, said Mr. Heide had accurately described what was done
in 2008. A study was commissioned to look at the best location for the firing range. There were three
sites, which included Preddy Creek, the Byron Park area a nd this site. The conclusion at the time was
the site presented today was the best location. Since 2008 both of the other sites have actually been
converted to parks.
Mr. Dotson asked if in each case the three sites were already publicly owned, and Mr. Henry replied that
was correct.
Mr. Dotson asked if there has been a study that simply looked for remote locations not adjacent to any of
the things that are concerning us. He was not suggesting that there should have been.
Mr. Henry replied that he would have to go back and look at the parameters of the study, but he did not
think that was a criterion. He thought it was just for existing owned facilities.
Ms. Monteith pointed out Mr. Dotson was making a really good point. Of course, they were given in the
staff report the other sites that had been studied. However, she would really like to know more broadly
the criteria of that study because there are a lot of people who would be impacted by this.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Mike Sheets, resident of 6783 Fortune Lane, said he owned two parcels located on Fortune Lane and
had the following concerns.
- He was concerned about the notifications, but assumed he was outside of the one-half mile buffer
as far as getting notice. He was disappointed because he was not aware of the proposal until his
neighbors told him about it. He has lived on Fortune Lane for 40 to 50 years and had to put up
with the landfill.
- The road has not been addressed. He had not heard anything about the road or road
improvements to be put in to handle the traffic. This is a one-way road since people who go
down the road have to come back, which means he has to look at the same car twice. He did not
think it was fair in his history of living there for 50 years that he had to tolerate the traffic that is
going to be created by the proposed firing range. He understands that VDOT is getting out of the
picture and putting more of the financial burden on the county with the times and economy b eing
what it is. VDOT is not currently supporting the dump road and comes down there once to
possibly five times a year to scrap the road. They are the last ones to get their road scrapped
with snow. He was concerned about that.
- As a member of Rivanna Rifle Club he feels their pain because the club has grown tremendously
and has been limited. He thinks the facility is great, but thought the facility needs to be handled
ATTACHMENT A
19
much more delicately. He hoped that the Commission and Board see this. These statis tics are
great; however, they are not actual conditions. He was a hunter and heard rifle firing hundreds of
yards away or for miles. He has a bird shoot club called Church Hill who hunts on Saturdays
when it sounds like a war zone. The decibels are measured sound and don’t impact what the ear
hears. He understands everybody here is addressing the noise.
- He thinks the facility is great, but should be put under a roof. He suggested that they spend
another $250,000 and put the facility under a roof. It is not fair for the residents to have to listen
to the gun fire.
- He was concerned about the impacts to his property. If the road was enlarged and paved would
he lose a portion? He was concerned about the future because there is going to be more
planning and things being done at the site. He understands there is going to be a fire tower for
the fire department. That means he is going to have the long fire engine coming down the road.
He has children and grandchildren playing out there. He did not think it was fair as a tax payer
his entire life to have to be burdened with the Keene Landfill and now this.
Brian LaFontaine, resident of 1810 Irish Road in Esmont, said his property is intermediately adjacent just
to the south. He thanked the Commission for the good questions they have posed tonight. His intent is
not to prevent the establishment of this much needed training facility since it is recognized that public
safety employees do need it. However, they do need to bring forth the issues that w ill affect the market
value of the adjacent property and the peaceful and serene lifestyle that they have enjoyed for many
years. Although they do appreciate the relocation of the range, which they just heard tonight, this
recommended location is still very close to their property line. This makes them the most affected by
gunshot noise. He noted the following concerns.
- There are water ways that run from the vicinity of the landfill on to their land. There are numerous
springs and shallow aquifers that populate these properties. Lead or other forms of contamination
can easily be transferred to the water tables and potentially affect the adjacent property owner’s
drinking water.
- They are told that the range will be enclosed on three sides to reduce the noise. However, he
was not aware before tonight of any documentation that those types of berms would be sufficient
to keep the noise down to a nonintrusive level. They are told that the noise level from the firing
range should be no more than 54 decibels at the location of their home. The level of a normal
conversation is about 54 decibels, which is akin to a knock on a door. He did not know about
anyone else, but it would drive him crazy to have somebody knocking at his door five to six hours
a day.
- He asked how the noise would affect the wildlife habitat. It could potentially destroy hunting on
their farm. He asked how the cows in their fields would be affected. Many dogs are scared to
death of gun shots. Would his dog have to cower in the hou se? Why have more noise
prevention options not been presented such as soundproofing baffles over the range or indoor
facility possibilities? They are told indoor facilities are cost prohibited because of the regulations
requiring lead dust collection and containment. But then they were told that lead ammo is not
going to be used. He asked what the problem is.
- They also know that future plans call for a driving track, which is another issue for another time. It
is a known fact that the market value of adjacent properties will plummet. No one wants to live
next door to a firing range. They need proof that what they say the noise levels will be will
actually be or lower and what recourse they have if they are not. They need to be assured that
pollution to our springs and water aquifers do not happen and what can they do if it does. There
are a lot of questions and few answers. If it means that this project be delayed until these
questions can be answer then so be it. If a new firing range and train ing facility is in the future of
Albemarle County, let’s make sure it is done right.
Mr. Dotson asked if his property accessed from Fortune Lane or from Route 6.
Mr. LaFontaine replied it accessed from Route 6. The original firing range was slated to be down at the
very bottom of the property. They had a very good meeting with Officer Heide and some other
representatives. It was after that meeting that they took another look at the proposed location.
Apparently what they learned tonight was they moved it a little more north, which they do appreciate that
effort.
ATTACHMENT A
20
Mr. Lafferty asked how long have you been at that location.
Mr. LaFontaine replied that the property was in a family trust and purchased in 1973. His family has been
living there since 1984.
Brenda Morris, resident of 7246 Fortune Lane, said her problem is they have not addressed the issue of
safety at all. She asked if her children and grandchildren would not be allowed to go comfortably outside
to play for stray bullets. They have not addressed that fact. She thought that it being an old landfill is a
huge reason that it is being chosen. Moving the proposed location further north brings it closer to her
house. However, there are houses all around that property. She did not know why it does not need to be
considered more heavily to put it someplace else that does not have people living all around it and to look
at the fact that the road issue is a problem.
In addition, Ms. Morris pointed out she drives a school bus on that road and li ves there. Six school buses
go in and out of that road twice a day. There is no passing zone for a school bus or car much less a
school bus and a fire truck or anything else that is going to be traveling that road. Her biggest concern is
the safety of stray bullets. She has a friend that used to live by the Rivanna Range and she actually has
had two stray bullets go through her home. She was not harmed, but are they going to wait until
somebody is harmed by a stray bullet before saying that might have been a bad decision to put that there.
She asked if they were going to wait until somebody got hurt before they say they need to raise it higher.
They need to look at some place that is not as populated as this area is
Mr. Lafferty asked how long she has lived there.
Ms. Morris replied that she had lived in the area all her life. However, she has lived at this particular
house for the last four years.
D. G. Van Clief said he did not live adjacent to the property, but did own property adjacent to it. He
simply would like to voice a similar concern to the other speakers this evening. Obviously, staff had given
a great deal of thought to this. He would add they are big supporters of law enforcement and delighted to
see a range that will meet the needs of training proficiency that our law enforcement personnel need and
deserve. Frankly, they would welcome added presence of law enforcement presence in our area.
However, they do have the same concerns as the other two contiguous property owners. He own s the
property to the southwest and wondered if the county has taken into consideration in its evaluation
process what the impact would be beyond noise, and again to Ms. Morris’ point regarding safety and in
terms of future marketability. Obviously, this is a rural area now. That status quo may or may not be the
same some years from now. He asked is there a source of information they can go to in terms of what it
might mean to the value and marketability of the adjacent property in the future.
Mr. Morris pointed out those questions would be addressed once they close the public hearing.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said Free Enterprise Forum has no opinion about this
application or any other application. In general, they have questions about the policy. What they have in
front of them is a request regarding consistency with the Comp Plan. They have a general idea of where
the range is going to be. If this were a private developer coming in with a private range would the
Commission accept that level of detail? In addition, they find that the questions that the Commission has
posed regarding intensity, caliper, noise, and hours of operation all fall within that clear determination.
They are a bit unclear of the understanding of how, as they have spoken on other applications, other
options that were considered really influence the decision whether this is consistent with the Comp Plan
or not. That is interesting information. He just did not know if that was germane to their decision. I n
addition, the cost of the program or the cost of what they are going to go forward with – is that germane to
determine if this is or is not a part of the Comp Plan compliance.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Williamson if he felt it was important for the Commission to consider the cost of
the project.
ATTACHMENT A
21
Mr. Williamson replied that he considers that the county is the applicant in this presence. If the applicant
were a private entity he would say absolutely not. He believes that the cost of the project falls und er the
preview of the Board of Supervisors in their CIP. The Commission has an opportunity to speak when the
CIP is considered. He thinks this is an application in whether the proposal is compliant or not with the
Comp Plan. Either decision is fine with the Free Enterprise Forum. The cost of the program really does
not fall under the Commission’s preview.
Ms. Monteith noted since she asked the question that this is tax dollars and not private dollars.
Jo Higgins pointed out in ’89 when she was hired b y the county one of her projects was the closure of the
Keene landfill. She met a lot of the property owners at that time. Possibly between ’92 and ’95 there was
much discussion about making this a training facility. It was on the CIP list for some time and has been
bumped back many times in looking for other alternatives. The road issue was probably looked at, which
was in that file. At the time this was operating there were 27 haulers in the county. About one -third of the
haulers used the Keene landfill versus the Ivy landfill. The traffic then was quite brisk. It had daily traffic
with dump trucks bringing stumps in and also with trash hauling trucks. The road was heavily traveled.
The issue then was road width and that sort of thing. However, it was deemed to be adequate. It was
suggested at that time if another use was going to occur it would be less disruptive to people to have it
basically continuous after the landfill was closed. Once it is closed everybody forgets about the traffic that
existed. She was not suggesting that it was not important. She was just saying there was a lot of traffic
on the road, which was established for a very long time. Then it was switched over to Ivy Landfill.
Ms. Higgins continued noting the other concern about the drawing was that a berm is a lot of dirt. Her
first question is where the dirt is coming from and if there is adequate land. To get that dirt they are
going to have to clear trees and where that tree clearing occurs could affect the sound. As far as the
cost there is one other thing they talked about, which was the lead abatement. However, there was also
discussion about a baffle wall to actually receive bullets. She recalled an old file that actually showed a
covered line, like a 10’ wide covering on top, where the shooters would stand. It was always assumed
that it was going to be heavily insulated. Now standing in the rain and shooting is probably not what
someone wants to do. Therefore, she was wondering where that went. She suggested that a cost
comparison be done between the cost of moving all of that dirt with the price of fuel in doing some sort of
baffled cover and guide walls. The interstate acoustical walls would be an example. It might be more
cost effective than trying to clear trees, move dirt, and do an E & S to alter the site in that way.
In addition, Ms. Higgins noted there are two ranges that she was aware of. One is near her neighborhood
in Augusta County. She had no idea it was even a shooting range. It was an old chicken building that
had been insulated. While driving by there is not sound from the bullets being fired. There are a load of
trucks there and they are all practicing their gun shots. There is also one in Fluvanna where the shooters
are stationed it is an insulated building and they shoot out into a wall. Again, people drive by and don’t
even know it. She was not sure if it was permitted. She noted that there are options.
Hal West said he lived on Esmont Road just around the corner from the K eene Post Office. He did not
hear about this until he caught it on the news this morning since he did not get anything in the mail. He
was off yesterday and heard some rifles. There were some pistol shots just behind him over behind
Riding Club Road. He thought the shots were in the direction of the landfill. He was not sure if the shots
came from there, but sounded so close. It was just one individual firing for about an hour in the
afternoon. They hear rifle shots and pistol shots quite often. He had to go back to the woods behind his
home to make sure someone was not on the property. It sounded like someone was right there. It was
about a quarter of a mile as a crow flies from the old landfill. He suggested if the Commission decided to
do something like this that hopefully the range would be enclosed in preferably a sound proof area. He
would think that using the landfill would be a good idea for the county. Also, the roads need to be kept up
including Riding Club Road coming in from Route 20 as well as Fortune Lane. He lives on Esmont
Road, which is paved. There is a lot of traffic on Esmont Road in front of his house as it is. However,
with this proposal the traffic would increase. They would need to take care of Fortune Lane and Riding
Club Road as well.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to
ATTACHMENT A
22
the Planning Commission for discussion.
Mr. Lafferty said it was stated in the report and presentation that noise is not a factor i n making this
decision. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Kamptner replied the staff report said the use is not subject to the noise regulations. Noise may be a
factor in their consideration. For example, the rural areas plan when they look at its impa ct on agriculture
and things like that. However, the public use is not subject to the noise standards although the county is
trying to adhere to those regulations.
Mr. Morris asked if staff wanted to address some of the questions that were raised before they go further.
Mr. Sorrell replied that he could answer some of the questions. The applicant can address the other
questions. Regarding the road, Fortune Lane is scheduled to be hard surfaced by VDOT this year, which
is under the Rural Rustic Road Pro gram. As part of the review of this project VDOT did review this and
determined that this proposal would not prevent the paving of that particular road. The road
improvements for that will be made later this year.
Mr. Benish pointed out the work was going to advertisement this past March. He did not know what the
status of the bid opening is. That improvement was actually approved and scheduled before this
proposal was submitted. It has been scheduled for upgrade.
Mr. Smith asked staff to elaborate on road improvement.
Mr. Benish replied the Rural Rustic Road is a surface treatment used on low volume level roads out in the
rural areas. It is a tar and gravel type treatment that is rolled and surfaced. It looks like a hard surface,
but it is not a plant mix type high-level that you would see on a higher volume road way.
Mr. Smith asked if there would be no additional width or ditch line work.
Mr. Benish replied no, as he understands the paving work can be accommodated within the existing cross
section to meet VDOT standards.
Mr. Sorrell said regarding the market value issue staff strictly stuck to the land use impacts that this might
have on the surrounding area in terms of noise, safety and things of that nature. Staff did not look at the
market value effects on adjacent property. The applicant might be better prepared to answer the
questions regarding stray bullets and soundproofing.
Mr. Heide said the way they plan to address the question regarding safety in terms of stray rounds
leaving the site is how they always do wherever they are training, which is through operating it safety. Our
instructor/officer ratio is one instruction for every three officers. The target placement is key for keeping
rounds within the range facility. When they are thinking of standing in the middle of this facility they are
going to have 20’ berms in every direction that the firearm is pointing. Targets are placed at the ground
level up to a height of about 4’. There is roughly a 15’ to 16’ buffer above that, which allows for some
judgment in the officer’s aiming. They would need to be aiming very high when they are shooting 25
yards, 10 yards or 7 yards away from the back berm. Observation, the instructor ratio and the placement
of the targets are the three key ways they are going to address keeping rounds within the range. The
target is put against the berm on a 20’ high impact area, which makes it even harder for a round to leave
the range. Accidents can happen. However, through design they are trying t o address that safety issue
with the design and operation.
Mr. Sorrell noted the other question was for soundproofing and lead abatement.
Mr. Heide said what they were trying to do, since this is tax payer money being spent, is find out what
type of base line they have as designed and if it is still unacceptable then they can look at methods to
address it. Some of those methods have to do with plants, engineered noise mitigation systems, and
walls that absorb noise or deflect it. When they see overhea d baffles on an outdoor facility it is not
ATTACHMENT A
23
because of noise, but to ensure that rounds don’t leave the range where the height of the berm may only
be 12’ to 14’ high. They are called no blue sky ranges. So as a shooter they are looking down the range
and see no blue sky. That is what baffles are. They don’t have anything to do with sound. Regarding
lead abatement, they are looking at three different ways. This is a cost benefit analysis.
- The first way is to design the earthen berms in such a manner th at it is easy for a lead reclaimer
to come in and sort out the sand that will be on the face of the berm from the lead and then put all
of the sand back and they haul the lead away.
- The second option, which has to do with the money that is available, is to purchase rubber bullet
traps. It is a metal frame that has a bed of rubber beads and the bullets impact the rubber and
they set there until it reaches a predetermined amount. Then they call the same lead reclaimer in
to sort it all out and haul it away.
- The third way, which is the most expensive way because it is an annual expense, is lead free
ammunition. With lead free ammunition obviously they don’t have the lead, but they still have
something that needs at some point in time to be extracted and hauled away. Those are the
three ways they are looking at addressing that concern.
Ms. Monteith asked if they have done a cost estimate or a design for an indoor type facility.
Mr. Heide replied that indoor facilities are extremely expensive. A lot of this is actually OSHA driven. To
exchange the air on an indoor range for the size they need the air conditioning system would be
approximately one-half of this project. That is not the building, range, or equipment.
Mr. Randolph asked how many officers the county is currently down.
Mr. Heide replied it was six officers.
Mr. Randolph noted that building an indoor range when there is no money in the budget to actually
ensure that they have a force that is appropriate to the needs within the community is a little bit of a pipe
dream.
Mr. Heide said that they could use that terminology.
Mr. Franco asked if they can regulate this by limiting the number of officers by the number of shooting
lanes. If they reduced the number down to 10 instead of 16 p otential shooters would that cut the sound in
half?
Mr. Heide referred the question to the Brian Peters with Kimberly Horn and Associates.
Brian Peters replied that they would have limited return from that restriction. If they had 8 officers firing
that does not mean that particular weapon produced a certain number of decibels that they multiply by 8.
That is because unlike other sound sources, such as a roadway, if they take 100 vehicles and add
another 100 vehicles the sound doubles. That is because they have a continuous sound source that lasts
over a period of time. Firing is a very instantaneous thing. It is not a boom, but a bang, bang, bang. With
that it is not a cumulative sound effect like they would have with other sound sources. He thought they
would have limited return on what the folks next door would hear by offering that restriction.
Mr. Franco said the sound levels they saw in the report are those booms. In other words, when the 16
shots are fired that would be the impact or is that a continuous noise effect of usage of the range.
Mr. Peters replied that he could not speak to the Tank Study in particular because he was not the
engineering firm that completed that. All he has is the same information that the Commission has seen
at this point in time. It would be very similar to the assessments are done as the design progresses. The
assessment will develop those decibel ranges with the number of uses they would expect.
Mr. Franco said that would represent a 5 minutes average. I n other words, the sound ordinance is based
on a 5 minute average. If a shot is a boom and there is 59 more seconds that are there where they listen
to the ambient, then it is going to kind of average out. Even at the qualification level that they were t alking
ATTACHMENT A
24
about earlier of 20 officers firing 200 shots or 4,000 shots it is working out to about 8 a minute if they do it
over the 8 hours. He knows they are taking breaks and doing other things so maybe it is 16 shots a
minute. He was trying to figure out if the numbers they are seeing represent an average of a 5 minute
noise level or is it really just sort of the knock that he is hearing.
Mr. Peters replied that it would be the knock that he would be hearing. That would be the main problem.
When they work with a locality that has a noise ordinance on a private range the biggest problem would
be the noise ordinance is not really written to account for this type of noise producer. What he is saying
he felt he was on track with that.
Mr. Franco said he assumes if the berms are raised in height that would be a potential mitigation.
Mr. Peters replied that he would offer that it could be. At some point they would have extremely limited
return at some height.
Mr. Loach said on the outer limits they are showing 55 decibel at the outer radius. What is the standard
deviation? Is there a wide deviation from that 55 decibel? He asked how accurate it is and how wide is
the deviation from that 55 decibel. He asked if there are multiple factors that come in to play that affect
that.
Mr. Peters replied that it is a model and a little bit of both. Therefore, it would not be unrealistic to expect
that if this is actually what happened and this particular study or assessment took into effect all the
factors. Our assessment will be more informed because they will be doing actual design versus the Tank
Study. But any model they do whether it is a noise model for this or any other applicant or traffic model,
at the end of the day it is not what he likes as an en gineer typically being an answer and putting a box
around it. There would be some deviation. He would not know in this particular model how it was done
and what that deviation would be. It would be close to give them an idea that somewhere in the vicini ty of
that white circle based on the inputs put in they would be at 55 decibels. If they went out and did a noise
meter what would you find. He would not be prepared at this time to say a number of what they could
expect to deviate. It would not surprise him if that was 56, 57 or if 55 was even closer. It all depends on
the inputs to the model and how it was done. He could tell them the assessment that the county has
tasked them to do to evaluate their design. This was a high level assessment to develo p a worst case
scenario. They will refine that and move forward in their design. They are using a data base in their
model that has been used in numerous ranges around the country that has weapons that the Police
Department will be firing. Our model will in put sound levels from the actual weapon type that he is going
to be using on his range. With all of that he can tell them they can feel reasonably comfortable that white
circle is where the 55 decibel line will be in general.
Mr. Smith asked does their study take into effect topography, contours and tree cover.
Mr. Peters replied that it will be informed by them, but would not be a massively in depth 3 -D model. It
would be a model that was done very similar to this one. But, again they will know what elevation the
range would set at whereas in the Tank Study they probably took an engineering judgment decision.
They will know more based on the actual site plan than the folks did in the 2008 study. He replied yes to
some degree they will take into effect the surrounding topography, the surrounding trees, and then
whatever mitigation which obviously will be the 20’ berm.
Mr. Randolph asked him to clarify if there would be any relationship actual or potential between
atmospheric conditions- weather conditions, temperature and sound.
Mr. Peters replied yes.
Mr. Randolph noted what he was trying to get at is the question about the standard deviation here with
the level of sound during the summer time when the air is actually thinner. He asked would one therefore
be subject to louder sound because it was going to carry further than in the winter where there is more
moisture in the air and therefore the sound will be deadened. In other words, for the contiguous
neighbors is the noise going to be perhaps louder naturally because of weather conditions during the
ATTACHMENT A
25
summer than it would be during the winter.
Mr. Peters said that was a good question. He thought that those type of sound anomalies he would
hesitate to say that during the summer it will be worse and in the winter it will not. Some of that is driven
purely by atmospheric conditions that may vary and you could have the same condition in the winter time
as in the summer. Would those things affect it - yes it would affect it. Would they be able to say that in
the summer time it will be worse - probably not. Obviously elevation plays into that more than anything
else. If he fires a round off in a valley and compares that to where he would be if he was top of the ridge,
the folks in the bottom of that valley are going to hear that from further away as opposed to if he was on
top of the ridge. Hence the positive benefits that will be evaluated to potentially move the range away
from the tank study location.
Mr. Randolph pointed out that a 20’ berm with Loblolly pines growing behind on three sides would
address a concern that has been voiced about stray rounds.
Mr. Heide pointed out they have no plans to plant on top of the berm.
Mr. Dotson noted that several times in his remarks he has ta lked about design studies that your firm will
now be doing and kind of updating the 2008 data. He was hearing that more data will be available at
some stage in the future than is available now in looking at some of these alternatives. He asked if that is
correct.
Mr. Peters replied that he would say yes. The purpose of that is making sure if the range was
repositioned on the site they would not provide a design that did something significantly worse than is on
the screen. There would be more information. The only thing they would be informing this kind of study
with would be true elevations from our grading on the site. It would not be a 3-D model.
Mr. Lafferty said in general in the winter time when the air is cold it is denser. He asked if that wa s
correct.
Mr. Peters replied that would depend on the humidity. On a real humid summer day that would not be
entirely true. But, in general yes.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the sound would carry further in a denser medium. He said that night practices are
going to be in the winter time when it is colder. He asked if he will be taking that into account in his
studies.
Mr. Peters replied that they have not started the study yet and referred the question to Mr. Heide.
Mr. Heide said he would guess that it is a trade off. Is it better to try to get as much training done in a
shorter period of time when folks are less likely to be at home because they are coming home from work;
or, to shoot when sound does not carry as far or as fast, but they are doing it w hen folks are home. He
did not know how to answer that other than it is a balancing act of sorts.
Mr. Peters offered in that scenario when the sound is transmitted like that from an atmospheric condition
he would not want them to think that white line m oves out. More than likely what happens is folks who
may be below the 55 decibel line could hear that. He was a history buff – if they think about that from a
civil war perspective there are plenty of senses of a civil war battle being heard hundreds of miles away
purely from an atmospheric condition. But it was not like it was right out their window, but he just heard
the sound. That is how that would be because 55 decibels would not be a super loud noise based on the
numbers given earlier from the staff report.
Mr. Smith pointed out to answer the question it would be louder in the summertime because folks are
outside when it is being used.
ATTACHMENT A
26
Mr. Franco noted they talked about qualifications being the most intense time. Do the qualifications
require the night time use or will the night time be more limited. Will it be 20 officers firing several
hundred rounds?
Mr. Heide replied no. Typically there might be 20 officers there. However, there may only be 8 to 10
officers shooting at only one time. They work in relay so to speak in rotation. Annual qualification is a
daylight and test. So they want to give people the opportunity to perform their best. Night time fire is
more job specific. They try to gauge those types of courses on what is realis tic for an officer to shoot
when they are actually involved in a gun fight on the street, which is a minimal number of rounds each
time someone goes through the course.
Ms. Monteith asked what kind of traffic analysis has been done in terms of the potenti al traffic impacts.
Mr. Peters replied that the traffic analysis has not been done beyond the Police Department estimated
number of people that was just given. It does not mean that there would be 6 vehicles if 6 officers were
going down for certification. For this phase, which is before the Commission tonight, traffic would be
going into the range, doing the certification and training and then going out. It would not be a generator of
traffic at this time. Unfortunately that would be something that he could study as an engineer.
Mr. Sorrell pointed out that when VDOT reviewed this project they reviewed it at the 10 to 20 vehicles per
use. At that level they felt that the Rural Rustic Road Program would still permit that road to be paved.
Their concern was if this was deemed a higher intense use that had a lot of traffic, then that would not be
meeting the intent of paving a rural road because it would be used more frequently. They provided
information that said this was not deemed development in their words. So the road could continue under
the Rural Rustic Road Program to receive that hard surface.
Mr. Benish noted that Rural Rustic Roads are not anticipated to exceed 1,500 trips per day. When he
mentions that it is within that standard that does not mean that it will have 1,500 trips per day, but it is just
the limit of the category for the road.
Mr. Morris invited further questions for the applicant. There being none, Mr. Morris reminded the
Commission that what they were really looking at on this is the use of this land as a firing range in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was correct.
Mr. Benish said it was the scope, scale and intensity. It is a general location. The map provided the
region by which they say that use is appropriate, which again allows for some flexibility in the site design
to massage the specific location.
Mr. Kamptner asked to elaborate on the standard that the Commission will be applying. It is “substantially
in accord”, which is a standard the Commission does not see day to day. In this context substantially
would mean largely but not wholly in accord. If they need another term for accord it was conformity. So
the standard they are applying “substantially in accord” also trans lates to largely, but not wholly in
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. There are various elements of the Comprehensive Plan that
the Commission has before them for consideration in making that determination.
Mr. Loach asked if the Board can ask for additional improvements and if there is going to be a different
standard that the Board will use.
Mr. Kamptner replied what the 2232 says is simply that the Planning Commission makes their decision,
they communicate their findings to the Board, and the Board may overrule the action of the Commission
by a majority vote. Presumably the Board will be applying the same standard “substantially in accord”
that the Commission is applying.
Mr. Benish suggested that they keep in mind too that this is an evalua tion of whether this general location
is in accord with the Comp Plan looking at the Communities Facilities Plan, and Land Use Environmental
ATTACHMENT A
27
Goals and Objectives. Aside from this decision the Board controls essentially a department of the county
in how that facility operates. So there are perspectives that the Board can have with the Police
Department to address how this facility operates on a day to day basis. They understand the scope that
is intended here. But this is a public facility and not a private facility. It is under the management that
ultimately is under the control of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Loach agreed since that was the point he was trying to make.
Mr. Sorrell said he also wanted to add that when they mentioned the additional reviews that may be
required for the site if they were to provide other things there. If the county was to designate in the
Community Facilities portion of our Comprehensive Plan as they were updating it to say this is an area
appropriate for this type of use and that was called out specifically in the Comprehensive Plan, then it
might not be necessary to come back in to do the individual compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
reviews for the other components.
Mr. Franco said based on what is front of the Commission tonight and what our responsibilities are he
thought it was clear that there was some concern about the noise issue, but as staff said this is a county
facility so the county really does have the ability to mitigate noise to a level that is a cceptable to the
adjacent neighbors and to the project itself. He would like to make the following motion based on that.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded that the Commission finds that the location,
character and extent of the proposed Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site is in substantial
accord with the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors
outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Randolph asked to make the following comments:
- He was well aware of Fortune Road since his son is a property owner there and has been for
about six or seven years. His son is a law enforcement official for the federal government and he
know he supports a training facility for the county. He thought it was needed by the police. It is
the time and budget responsive it is a better use of resources for the county. Police officers will
not have to travel as far. Everyone is aware of from events in Sanford, Flori da that better training
results in increased weapon’s proficiency and better public safety. That is a bottom line that the
Police Department is out to achieve with this training facility. This is the best location currently
available.
- In all likelihood if they don’t utilize this location they will have a window of opportunity close on us.
It will be irretrievable and therefore the Police Department will have to look to do their training in
the county of Fluvanna, Nelson or Augusta and there are costs as sociated with that. If people in
the audience want an indoor range then he certainly would urge them along with their neighbors
to pressure the Supervisors to support a budget where those sums of money are going to be
allocated for an indoor range. At this time the money is not there for an indoor range. All of us
would be in agreement in an ideal world that an indoor range would be part of this proposal.
However, they are not in an ideal world.
- Since he represents the Scottsville District he thinks it is important to be mindful that with this
training range in Scottsville that the police presence in southern Albemarle County will be
enhanced dramatically. Where currently there are about one-half hour response times that once
officers are training at this facility the response time to any issue in Scottsville region should be
ten minutes or less because officers will leave this training facility if they are called to respond.
- Finally about property values, property values on Fortune Lane with a pav ed road with increased
police presence may in fact be enhanced. For contiguous property in the future in 20 to 30 years
if this facility is to grow and there is support within the community for it to grow then government
might be interested in purchasing increased property in the region. As the Police Department
has bent over backwards to try to address the noise issue and staff will continue to work with the
Police Department on that just in good faith moving forward he would dispute with Mr. Williamso n
that he thinks this is an issue for us to address at this time because it is a question of trust. The
ATTACHMENT A
28
Police Department is also part of the public trust as are we and he was comfortable that they will
do everything possible within the budget constraints that they live by to try to mitigate as much
noise as possible He would be supportive of the motion and just wanted to make those remarks.
Mr. Dotson commented that there are some land uses that nobody ever wants to be near, but they are
needed since they provide a needed function. He asked himself the question is it conceivable that there
would be a better location in the county even if they looked beyond publicly owned land. He would be
doubtful because there are no places where they can get completel y away. He just did not think they
were there. If a facility is needed he thought ethically they should provide it for ourselves and not go to
some other jurisdictions and impact those neighbors and citizens. They should have to “bite the bullet”
and have it ourselves. Having said that, he was not comfortable with what they have heard about the
sounds. The sort of analogy Mr. LaFontaine used of a “knock at the door” would drive him crazy if he
heard six hours, one hour, thirty minutes of knocking on th e door every day. He thought that would drive
somebody nuts and would bother them. He was just wondering if now that they have got some new
engineers on board looking at design options if it might not be possible to mitigate some of the sound. He
was not so much concerned with the volume of sound as simply the attention getting nature of the sound
like the knock on the door and whether that might not be avoidable. He was really not convinced that
they know as much right now as they could know about this that would make it a lot easier to agree with
the motion.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Randolph that this is a clear need. Even the neighbors who spoke saw the
need for the firing range. Like the gentleman that spoke he also belongs to the gun shop. On the other
side of the coin he served as a reserve deputy with the Sheriff’s Department. One of the reasons he
joined the gun club was so he could practice more. As Mr. Heide said one of the things that they have to
develop is muscle memory with their weapon. That is only a component of practice. As Mr. Dotson just
said they are going to get more data from the engineers that he thinks is important in making the final
decision for the Board. His vote is based on compliance with the Comp Plan, which is what h e is judging
and making his vote on. That is why he asked the question about when this gets to the Board because
he thought the Board has a wider jurisdiction to look at other factors. As stated this will be a function of
county government and it has to be compliant to the people of the county. He was hoping as they work
through this things will get better. His vote will be based on the issue at hand, which is the Comp Plan.
Ms. Monteith commented that there are four areas in the staff report that have to do with the Comp Plan
that she has concerns about. She realizes that these are concerns and not necessarily regulations.
However, in the report the consensus of the Agricultural/Forestal Committee was that the proposed firing
range was not a use that complimented or was otherwise conducive to agricultural or forestal issues.
Two, is the sound issue where she did not believe that they were in compliance with our own regulations.
Three, is that the location of this new public facility should be within the county’s development area, which
is not. It is in the rural area. Four, was where they were talking about issues around this being a
watershed and they are not completely sure about what the impacts to the watershed will be with this use.
If this is voted in compliance tonight she would like to see additional mitigation measures designed as
part of this project before it goes to the Board to be under consideration.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Kamptner if this body was at liberty to add conditions at this t ime.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the practice of the Commission over the years has been to occasionally impose
a condition if it deemed that the condition was needed in order make the finding of substantial accord. It
certainly does not have to. However, that has been the practice of the Commission. Typically those have
been on applications for privately owned facilities that were subject to the 2232 review.
Mr. Benish clarified that the Commission’s action will go to the Board of Supervisors for information.
There is no mandated action by the Board of Supervisors. He wanted to make sure there is no confusion
with the public. There is not a next step of the Board other than they are informed of the Commission’s
decision. They have an option to pick it up.
Mr. Dotson asked to clarify that. The Board would receive the Commission’s minutes and that is as much
notification that they would have.
ATTACHMENT A
29
Mr. Benish replied that there would an action letter notifying the Commission’s action with any conditions
with that action and the minutes.
Mr. Franco noted the Board would also get the information from staff when the project began to move
forward. A lot of the questions they have right now are due to a lack of information. What they are doing
with this action is saying go ahead start to better design the facility and look at what mitigation measures
can be done to bring it closer to the rural noise regulations. Then the Board as part of their expenditure of
the funds can make a decision if it requires additional funding whether they want to pay those additional
funds.
Mr. Dotson asked is that a part of the motion and a part of what will be in the action letter.
Mr. Franco replied no. He thought they were just getting the Commission’s minutes and their
recommendation that the use is appropriate in this location and that sound is of concern and it needs to
be looked at more closely as the project develops.
Mr. Smith said this is a situation where you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. He thinks
the concept and idea is great and they need it. However, he does not like it.
Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Franco and the motion that this is a facility that is desperately needed. He was
sorry that it cannot be an indoor facility that is totally soundproof. However, that is not the reality of the
environment that the Police Department works in. It would seem that everything that they can do to
provide them realistic training is to the betterment of everyone in the county. He asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Dotson and Smith voted no)
Mr. Morris noted staff would forward the Planning Commission’s finding and other information to the
Board of Supervisors, as follows:
The Planning Commission finds that the location, character and extent of the proposed Law Enforcement
Firing Range Facility (Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site) is in substantial accord with the
County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors in the staff
report, as follows:
1. Site will utilize an under-used county-owned land;
2. Site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas;
3. Location of range on site will further limit adverse impact on adjacent agricultural properties;
4. Site’s location limits impacts to natural, scenic, historic and cultural resources.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B
Firearms Training Facility Overview and Frequently Asked Questions
Project Summary
The County of Albemarle is working to develop a Public Safety Training Facility at the closed Keene
Landfill site off Fortune Lane (Rt. 704) in the southern portion of the county. The facility will include
critical training infrastructure to improve the safety and effectiveness of our local law enforcement and
jail agencies. The City of Charlottesville is committed to sharing 50% of the development cost.
We began discussing this project with the community in mid-January. Colonel Steve Sellers and Fire
Chief Dan Eggleston sent a letter to each property owner within a ½ mile radius of the proposed range.
The letter provided a short overview of the County’s plans for the landfill property. The following week,
law enforcement leaders from the City and the County made personal visits to the neighboring homes to
share more details about the project and gain input. In an effort to be as transparent as possible and
based upon the suggestion of a neighbor, the Albemarle County Police Department established a public
website to allow the community to track the project. Since that time, county officials have met with
many neighbors and have adjusted various design elements based upon feedback. Colonel Sellers spoke
about the range and fielded questions in February and March during three Town Hall meetings
sponsored by Supervisor Dumler and Supervisor Snow and other Albemarle County officers spoke in
community meetings earlier this fall. Finally, the plan went before the Planning Commission in April.
The public feedback from these events and encounters has helped direct the project. In the early
planning stages, we took community advice to make the range more centrally located on the property.
We understand the questions and are working to make sure everyone is informed about the project.
We are doing everything possible to lessen the impact on the surrounding community.
Project Benefits
The facility would serve as a tool to enhance training efforts for the local police departments. Officers
within the Albemarle/Charlottesville communities would use the facility to improve their firearm skills.
The departments have outgrown their current arrangement with the Rivanna Rifle & Pistol Club.
Currently, officers are only able to train with their weapons an average of one day per year because of
range availability. The new facility would allow officers to train to a national average1 of three times per
year. This training is critical for the officers’ safety and for the safety of the community they serve.
Locating the training facility within Albemarle County allows resources to remain available if needed in
an emergency. A county owned facility also reduces long term training costs over short term facility
expenses. This is accomplished by eliminating travel expenses and user-fees associated with other
facilities.
1 Police Firearms Training Survey: Final Report; Gregory B. Morrison, PhD, 2008
ATTACHMENT B
Additionally, the Albemarle-Charlottesville community will realize a regional benefit when officers
respond to critical incidents. When a large critical incident occurs, or a high attendance event is
planned, the partnerships formed in training will enhance the response and handling of the incident.
Events like the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, highlight the need for both advanced firearm skills
and effective regional partnerships. By allowing regional officers to train closely together, this facility
ensures a higher level and faster response in an emergency.
Project Location
The County has evaluated numerous sites and determined that the reuse of the old Keene Landfill is the
most cost-effective and low impact location for this project. The land belongs to the county and is not
currently being utilized. In addition to those aspects, the land is remote and large enough to
accommodate the proposed facility. Studies were done on three county properties and the Keene
Landfill was selected. The Keene site was ideal because of remoteness, soil conditions and size. The
other properties evaluated in previous studies are no longer available for consideration. In April, the
Planning Commission approved the site, saying it was most compatible with the project and the
County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. What will the facility consist of?
The facility will be comprised of three outdoor ranges, enclosed on three sides with 20-foot high
earth berms. This design will contain fired rounds and mitigate noise impacts. The facility will
include a semi-permanent classroom building, a small sheltered area, and a vault toilet. The
surrounding area will be fenced and gated for security and will remain forested to create a visual
barrier and sound buffer. A gravel road across the property will provide access to the facility from
Fortune Lane. The estimated average traffic load will be 10 – 15 police vehicles, 3 – 4 times per week
and not on weekends.
The police firearms range is the first phase of a larger concept to utilize the 169 acre county-owned
landfill property in rural Keene to train our police, fire-rescue, jail and sheriff’s departments on the
critical skills they must maintain to keep our community safe. Future phases could include a burn
building to train our fire fighters, shared classroom spaces and a drivers’ training track.
2. What is the noise impact of the proposed project?
Understanding that this project will generate noise, we are working to minimize this impact through
design, operations and future enhancements. Noise studies were done to help us evaluate the site
location. The facility location was centrally placed on the property to create equal distances from all
adjacent neighbors. Based on a feasibility study, the facility’s design will be constructed to both
ATTACHMENT B
absorb and re-direct noise away from the closest neighbors. In addition, trees will be maintained
around the property to serve as a sound buffer and visual barrier.
Once the facility is operating we will continue to monitor noise impacts. If the noise impact is
greater than expected, we will evaluate and propose ways to further mitigate the facility’s impacts
to the Keene area.
Neighbors have expressed concern about the noise being a constant issue. We plan to post dates
and hours of usage and update that information weekly. The facility would not be used on holidays
or weekends and nighttime training would be limited. We expect the facility to be used an average
of 3-4 days per week with a general operating time frame of 8 am until 5 pm.
Actual noise within a day will be intermittent as classroom training, safety briefings, gun cleaning
and range cleanup occupies part of the day. Limited night shooting would be reserved for the late
fall and winter months so that we can be off the range by early evening.
3. What will be the traffic impact on Fortune Lane?
The estimated average traffic load will be 10-15 police vehicles, 3-4 times per week and not on
weekends. We believe the traffic impact will be less than when the landfill was in use.
VDOT plays a major role in evaluating the expected increase in road use and its impacts on the
community. A VDOT engineer will study the road and provide comments during the site plan review
process. Those comments will be included in the recommendation to approve or deny the proposed
facility.
4. What is the environmental impact of the proposed facility?
Environmentally, we are taking the utmost precautions to ensure no hazardous materials associated
with the facility leave the site. We have designed this facility in accordance with the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges. Our design
meets or exceeds the EPA’s recommendations.
The County is taking a four-step approach using the EPA guidelines. The four steps include; 1)
careful design of earthen berms which best support reclamation and soil testing; 2) regularly
scheduled soil testing, lead immobilization methods and carefully designed runoff controls; 3)
professional lead removal and recycling; and 4) comprehensive record keeping and monitoring of
effectiveness of program.
In addition, the county has hired an environmental consultant to author an Environmental
Stewardship Plan outlying facility operation, maintenance and lead management. The soil makeup
of the property is ideal for mitigating lead migration and this mitigation is enhanced through
effective storm water management.
ATTACHMENT B
The county is committed to not disturbing the area of the landfill to ensure the continued stability of
the landfill closure plan. The Department of Environmental Quality was consulted and provided
input on the facility’s design.
5. What safety concerns are associated with the facility operation?
As law enforcement officers, we strive to enhance safety in everything we do. We understand
accidents can happen but we are committed to a culture of safety that lowers the potential for
harm. The operation of this facility virtually eliminates any possible off property incident. This is
accomplished through a high instructor to student ratio, strict adherence to facility rules and a high
level of accountability.
The facility is designed to capture all bullets within designated impact areas. These areas, called
berms, exist on three sides of each range. The berms are 45-50 feet thick, 20 feet high and are
backed up by a high natural grade. The impact areas are double EPA recommendations of clean fill
depth. The impact areas have four feet of dirt that contains no solid material to cause a ricochet.
Also, there are no structures in the line of fire that could cause a ricochet.
As professionals committed to saving lives, the last thing this department wants it to cause
unintentional harm. We have taken every feasible opportunity to ensure the safety of the
surrounding area. This training facility will also help ensure our officers are prepared and safe in the
line of duty.
6. Who would use the proposed site and how often?
The proposed facility would be used for police officers, deputies and jail staff in Albemarle County
and the City of Charlottesville. The City of Charlottesville has committed to providing funding for 50
% of the project’s cost. It is anticipated that there would be between 15-20 people on site per use.
The facility would not be used on holidays or weekends and nighttime training would be limited.
We expect the facility to be used an average of 3-4 days per week with a general operating time
frame of 8 am until 5 pm.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT C
1
Public Safety Training Facility – A Critical Need for our Region
Public Safety Training and Education Center
The first phase of a larger public safety training facility (police firearms range) has been
developed and approved by the Albemarle County Plann ing Commission and funded by
the Board of Supervisors. This plan develops a public safety training facility on a 169
acre parcel of land owned by Albemarle county near Keene Virginia. This parcel was
previously utilized as a landfill. A firearms range is the first phase of the facility.
Ultimately, the facility will be used to train our police, fire-rescue, jail and sheriff’s
departments on the critical skills they must maintain to keep our community safe.
Future phases may include a burn building for firefighters, shared classroom spaces
and space for advanced driver training. These investments will ensure our public safety
employees have the correct level of training required to respond to critical incidents,
lower the liability associated with high-risk incidents and help us to better protect our
community.
Background
The Albemarle and Charlottesville police departments have been without a police firing
range since the mid-1990’s. If not for the generosity of the members of the Rivanna
Rifle and Pistol Club (RRPC) over the last 17 years, both agencies would have been
unable to meet the minimum firearms standards required of all police officers. The
Albemarle County Police currently train with their firearms an average of only once a
year and the majority of that training is just for re-qualification. The national average for
police department firearms training is three times a year. Quite simply, the current level
of training is not sufficient to keep our community and sworn officers safe.
Citizen Interaction and Input
As with any public project, a number of significant efforts were undertaken to insure that
citizens who either owned property or lived near the proposed site understood the plan
and had an opportunity to voice their concerns and offer suggestions.
In mid-January 2011, Chief Eggleston (the Albemarle County Fire Chief) and Col.
Sellers sent a letter to each property owner within a ½ mile of the proposed range,
providing a short overview of the County’s plans for the landfill property. The following
week, Col. Sellers, Chief Eggleston, Sheriff Harding, Sheriff Brown and law enforcement
leaders from the City and the County personally made visits to neighboring homes to
share more detailed information and gain input.
ATTACHMENT C
2
In an effort to be as transparent as possible and based upon the suggestion of a
neighbor, the Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD) established a public
website to allow the community to track the project. Since that time, ACPD has met with
many neighbors, both collectively and individually throughout the summer and adjusted
various design elements based upon feedback.
Col. Sellers also publically spoke about the new range and fielded questions during
three town hall meetings in the southern part of Albemarle County in February and twice
in March 2012. Supervisor Dumler and Supervisor Snow sponsored these town hall
meetings. On April 4th, the plan went before the Planning Commission where residents
had an opportunity to offer additional comment. Finally, senior ACPD officers spoke in
community meetings in the southern part of the Albemarle County earlier the fall of
2012.
Concerns
Noise - Albemarle County is sensitive to the noise concerns and is working with
the community to minimize noise through design, construction and operations. Based
upon public input, noise levels will be further mitigated through the strategic scheduling
of range operations. Training officials expect to use the range an average of 3 to 4
times a week during regular business hours and rarely on the weekends or holidays.
Actual noise within a day will be intermittent as classroom training, safety briefings, gun
cleaning and range cleanup occupies part of the day. Limited night shooting would be
reserved for the late fall and winter months so that officers can be off the range by early
evening.
Environmental – The County is taking a four-step approach to lead
management and are following the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPAs) best
practices for outside ranges. The four steps include; 1) careful design of earthen berms
which best support reclamation and soil testing; 2) regularly scheduled soil testing, lead
immobilization methods and carefully designed runoff controls; 3) professional lead
removal and recycling; and 4) comprehensive record keeping and monitoring of the
effectiveness of the program. Finally, the County is working with a professional
environmental consultant to prepare an environmental stewardship plan for the facility’s
maintenance, operations and lead management.
Safety - Every precaution is being made during the design phase of this facility to
ensure the utmost safety for the community. The range is designed to capture all
bullets within designated impact areas. The berms are 45 to 50 feet wide and 20 feet
high. Behind the berms, an existing hill exceeds the berm height. Berm eyebrows, will
ATTACHMENT C
3
be affixed near the top of the berms and provide the affect of additional height. The
bullet impact areas contain no solid materials, which can cause ricochet.
Col. Seller’s Comments - As Chief, one of my many responsibilities is to mitigate risk.
In terms of local government liability, guns and driving rank near the top in terms of risk.
An investment to ensure our public safety employees have the correct level of training
will improve our readiness to respond to critical incidents, lower the liability associated
with high-risk incidents and help us to better protect our community. I also have the
responsibility to ensure that my men and women safely return home each day to their
spouses, children and loved ones.
After my first year as Chief, I identified several priority issues requiring improvement and
attention. The information gathered by my assessment was provided by our citizens
(voiced in over 70 community meetings), by my officers, through my professional
associations and knowledge of best practices in the field of law enforcement. Police
training, especially as it relates to firearms use and critical decision making, was
identified as a top priority. A police firearms range is one small step toward making your
police department better prepared to handle deadly encounters and active shooter
incidents such as were experienced at Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado and most
recently, in Brookfield, Wisconsin. The City and County remain committed to working
with the Keene community to ensure that this project is successful for all members of
our community and the least impactive for the neighbors.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Fire Rescue Overtime
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and Discussion of Fire Rescue Overtime
Budget/Expenditures
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Brown, Eggleston, and
Oprandy
PRESENTER (S): Mr. John Oprandy
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On September 5, 2012, the Board approved the County’s acceptance of a Federal FEMA Safer Grant to provide nine
Firefighter/Advanced Life Support (ALS) personnel. Analysis of the grant impacts revealed the need for an increase in
overtime (OT) funds to accommodate the additional personnel. During discussion of this matter, the Board requested more
information regarding the scope and magnitude of the amount of OT inherent in a Firefighter’s schedule, as well as the
history of OT use in the Fire/Rescue Department. The Board requested that staff provide information at a future meeting
describing in detail the Department’s OT budget, expenditures, and how it compared to that of Fire Rescue departments in
similar localities.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
In FY2012, the Department’s OT expenditures totaled $514,736; representing approximately 7.6% of its overall
operating expenditures. As noted in Attachment A, fire/rescue OT costs have been trending in an upward fashion over
the past six years. At first look, this may appear concerning; however, data reveals that this level is appropriate and
consistent with peer jurisdictions especially when considering the fact that a certain amount of OT is more cost
effective, efficient and preferable to hiring additional staff.
Several contributing factors have led to increased OT expenditures over the past six years for the Department. Key
among the reasons is the addition of 17 Firefighter/ALS FTE’s (East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department daytime
staffing and opening of the Hollymead Fire Station), Department staff turnover, and increased salaries for most
personnel within the Department. Additionally, implementation of a Virginia employment law regarding “gap hours”
requires pay at time and one half for certain hours where straight pay had been applied in the past.
Fire Rescue staff have taken a number of steps to ensure the most efficient and effective use of career staff, and
thereby OT dollars. Staff restructured the shift schedule for operations personnel to achieve maximum efficiency,
secured Board approval for the over-hire of two additional personnel, and eliminated OT where possible, such as a
quarterly Captain’s meeting now conducted online while meeting attendees are on regular duty. Other steps recently
taken will help to ensure a well managed OT budget as well. The Board implemented the public safety reclassification
in the spring of 2012 and just last month approved a public safety recruitment and retention program. Staff believes
these steps will help with OT expenditures by reducing turnover and encouraging certification, which will allow
maximum use of on-duty staff to fill minimum staffing roles.
Specific to the amount of OT built into a firefighter’s position, it is important to recognize that staff assigned to the 24
hour shift (36 FTE’s) work a 28 day FLSA work cycle and work an average of 56 regularly scheduled hours per week,
or an average of 224 regularly scheduled hours per work cycle. The FLSA requires that all regularly scheduled hours
worked above 212 hours per work cycle be paid at a time and one half rate. Therefore, on average there are 12
scheduled hours more than the FLSA maximum (212 hours) per work cycle for each FTE, which are required be
compensated an additional half time to meet the time and one half rate requirement. This half time expenditure for
regularly scheduled OT is paid out of Fire Rescue’s OT budget. In FY12, FLSA OT pay made up 11% ($50,000) of the
Operations OT expenditures.
AGENDA TITLE: Fire Rescue Overtime
November 7, 2012
Page 2
Fire Rescue Operations staff assigned to a 24 hour shift must work all County holidays, and those assigned to a day
shift must work five of the twelve County holidays. Because of this, personnel are compensated comp time or pay for
each holiday. For those who choose pay, the expenditure is paid out of Fire Rescue’s OT budget. In FY12, Holiday
pay made up 12% ($58,000) of the Operations OT expenditures. Accordingly, because of the need for employees to
work Holidays and adhere to FLSA pay requirements, there is a certain amount of OT that is inherent in their schedule
and pay structure.
Extra hours pay includes what is typically understood as “OT hours”, those hours worked beyond the normal shift.
Although this type of “typical” activity (for example an emergency call occurring just prior to a crew going off duty) is a
component of operations OT, it only accounted for $17,000 in expenditures in FY12. The more significant OT results
from minimum staffing requirements. Minimum staffing requirements accounted for $293,000 in FY12. Minimum
staffing is described as putting the right number of people having the right certification on each unit to provide the
minimum level of service. For example, it takes three personnel to staff an ALS engine company. One of those
personnel must be certified as
an officer, another must be
certified as a driver, and one of
the three must be an ALS
provider. To maintain the right
number of personnel with the
right certifications frequently
requires paying an individual
OT. Other factors influencing
extra hours include scheduling
mandatory training and
providing volunteer instruction
(see figure 1).
Generally, a certain amount of
OT is preferable to hiring
additional staff; being more
cost effective and efficient.
However, at some point it is not
more cost-effective. Staff has
completed a comparison of the
Department’s OT budget with
the OT budgets of Departments in similar localities, and this research shows that the Department’s OT per FTE is in
line with other benchmark localities (see figure 2). Further, the County employs fewer career firefighters per one
thousand in population and does so with the smallest budget per capita (see Attachment A).
Figure 1
AGENDA TITLE: Fire Rescue Overtime
November 7, 2012
Page 3
Figure 2
Staff offers the following conclusions: (1) OT expenditures cannot be eliminated due to FLSA requirements, holiday
pay, and staffing to provide minimum service levels; (2) Current OT expenditures are in line with peer localities; and
(3) OT is a reasonable expenditure and provides for cost effective and efficient operations at current service levels.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact at this time. Staff anticipates that the Fire Rescue OT budget will continue to trend upward
over the next several years. Factors in that trend include salary increases (including the VRS increase), a full year of
operations in both Pantops and Ivy, and additional staff as a result of the FEMA Grant. Additionally, the Fire Rescue
OT budget has been under funded in the past, so there will be funding necessary to “catch up” with historical actuals.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This item is for information only and no action is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Fire Rescue Overtime Information
Return to agenda
Why is our OT trending up?
•Additional staff added since
2007 (17 people)
•Staffing challenges due to
staff turnover and
unreleased personnel.
•Injuries – staff on light duty
•Increased Salaries
•Higher OT costs due to VA
Law interpretation (Gap
Pay)
•Call load increase – early
and late calls
•Hiring for specialties
(Captain, Driver, ALS,etc)
ATTACHMENT A
Efficient use of career staff
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Career FF’s per thousand population
ATTACHMENT A
Overall Budget Efficiency $68 $110 $127 $139 $145 $145 $161 0
50
100
150
200
Fire Rescue Operating Budget / Total Population
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Capital Project Contingency
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Project Contingency Use
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Letteri, and Henry
PRESENTER (S): Mr. Trevor Henry
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On June 06, 2012, the Board was provided information on project contingency planning and management. Since that
time, the Board has requested additional information on the planning and management of these funds.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
Contingency is an integral part of the total estimated costs of a project. Establishing an adequate contingency
prepares the County, financially and operationally, to address unforeseen and unpredictable conditions that typically
arise during the design/construction phase. Because many factors can make a cost estimate inaccurate, especially
during the initial phase of planning a project, setting aside an amount is critically important for the financial planning of
a project. The goal of a contingency is to plan for unexpected financial obligations or costs that would be disruptive to
the budget or divert resources from other projects or needs. The earlier the stage of project development, the more
uncertainty there is in the estimate and the larger the contingency should be. Contingency serves three core
purposes:
To account for errors and omissions in the construction documents.
To pay for unknown conditions, such as excess rock, beyond the allowance or price escalation of a product
(i.e. copper).
To accommodate necessary construction changes that are realized on-site during construction.
The complexity of the project dictates the size of the contingency, normally measured as a percent of total project cost,
and will change appropriately, as the project moves from concept to accepting the bid as risks become better defined
and/or eliminated. Rules of thumb for the percentage of a contingency throughout a project are as follows:
Concept/Desk Estimate: ~ 20-25%
At 50%-75% Design: ~ 15-20%
100% design, pre-bid: ~10-15%
Bid Opening/Notice to Proceed: ~5%-10%
This practice is consistent with guidelines in the Virginia Construction and Professional Services Manual and from the
American Institute of Architects. Projects at the conceptual level are typically estimated utilizing a dollar per gross
square foot methodology for building construction and cost per acre for site work. Estimates at this stage in a project’s
life cycle, which are based on limited design/evaluation efforts, typically require some level of contingency, usually
10%, built in at the line item level with an additional 10% design contingency overall to adequately account for
unknown project requirements. As the project moves through the development life cycle risks are reduced or better
defined allowing the contingency budget to be properly allocated, or liquidated, as appropriate to complete the project.
Contingency balances will be shared with the Board on a quarterly basis, thus allowing for the opportunity to liquidate
contingencies that exceed the recommended target. Typical contingency at the start of construction should be 5-10%.
Contingency enables the project to proceed with minimal interruptions or delays to the schedule, and mitigates any
costs associated with delays. Contingency is not an unnecessary expense, but rather a critical and necessary
component of project costs and a tool to complete the project on time and within budget.
AGENDA TITLE: Capital Project Contingency
November 7, 2012
Page 2
In order to more effectively address and enhance the planning and management of project contingency funds, the
Office of Facilities Development, in collaboration with the General Services Department and Schools Building Services
Department, has documented its practices and developed the attached Contingency Guidelines and Use procedural
document. The intent of the document is to clearly define how project contingency funds are planned, managed and
reported. Also attached is OFD’s Project Change Order Guidelines and Procedures for the processing of change
orders.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budgeting project contingencies anticipates and enables projects to proceed with minimal delays when unforeseen
or unpredictable conditions arise, and plans for those costs within a project budget. If the project contingency is
not sufficient to fund the required changes, a request to the Board of Supervisors for approval of an additional
appropriation is required for continuing the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Contingency Guidelines and Use
Project Change Order Guidelines and Procedures
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OFFICE OF FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT (OFD)
CONTINGENCY GUIDELINES and USE
October 19, 2012
Contingency
An amount added to an estimate to allow for items, conditions, or events for which the state,
occurrence, or effect is uncertain and that experience shows will likely result, in aggregate, in
additional costs. Contingency can also be referred to as a risk allowance to account for known or
unknown risks to a project.
Purpose
Contingency is an integral part of the total estimated costs of a project and a critical tool in
allowing a project to proceed on schedule. The goal of a contingency is to plan for unexpected
financial obligations or costs that would be disruptive to the schedule or divert resources
(budget) from other projects or needs. The earlier the stage of project development, the more
uncertainty there is in the estimate and a larger contingency typically should be budgeted.
Establishing an adequate contingency prepares the County, financially and operationally, to
address unforeseen and unpredictable conditions that typically arise during the
design/construction phase. Because many factors can make a cost estimate inaccurate,
especially during the initial phase of planning a project, setting aside an amount, usually a
percentage of the total estimate, is critically important for the financial planning of a project.
Contingency serves three core purposes:
To account for errors and omissions in the construction documents.
To pay for unknown conditions, such as excess rock, beyond the allowance or price
escalation of a product (i.e. copper).
To accommodate necessary construction changes that are realized on-site during
construction.
ATTACHMENT A
Contingency Guidelines and Use
Page 2 of 4
General Rule and Practice
There is no “one-size-fits-all” contingency amount. The amount varies based on the nature and
complexity of the project. For example, the contingency allowance for site work and renovation
projects is normally higher due to the unknown and unforeseen conditions that may exist (i.e.
rock, unmarked utilities, and existing unknown building conditions such as asbestos).
Contingency enables the project to proceed with minimal interruptions or delays to the schedule,
and mitigates any costs associated with delays. Contingency is not an unnecessary expense, but
rather a critical and necessary component of project costs and a tool to complete the project on
time and within budget
The County budgets a project contingency that varies throughout the life of a project but
typically is 5-10% above the expected budget (soft costs – i.e. design, surveying, etc., plus hard
costs – i.e. construction) required in order to deliver the work. Contingency is a reserve to
enable the project manager and owner to deal with the unexpected, unplanned events during the
course of the project. The complexity of the project dictates the size of the contingency,
normally measured in a percent of total project cost, and will change appropriately as the project
is taken from concept to accepting the bid as risks become better defined and/or eliminated.
Rules of thumb for the percentage of a contingency throughout a project are as follows:
Concept/Desk Estimate: ~ 20-25%
At 50%-75% Design: ~ 15-20%
100% design, pre-bid: ~10-15%
Bid Opening/Notice to Proceed: ~5%-10%
This practice is consistent with the Virginia Construction and Professional Services Manual and
the American Institute of Architects. If the project contingency is not sufficient to fund the
required changes, a request to the Board of Supervisors for approval of an additional
appropriation is required for continuing the project. It is important to note that the
contingency is not used to avoid making an accurate assessment of expected costs. It should
also be noted that projects funded within a maintenance fund might carry less contingency within
the project due to managing an overall contingency at the fund level.
Tracking and Reporting of Contingency
OFD utilizes a standard budget tracking worksheet that allows a baseline of the budget at the
beginning of the project, which acts as a point of reference when executing the project for
comparison of budget changes. Included in the baseline budget is a contingency amount that
reflects the stage, complexity and risk of the project as previously described. As the project
proceeds, the Project Manager updates the Estimate at Complete (EAC) which is the total costs
anticipated for the project including completed work, committed work and anticipated work.
ATTACHMENT A
Contingency Guidelines and Use
Page 3 of 4
Project budgets are updated monthly, at a minimum, and are part of a monthly review conducted
with project stakeholders and the Assistant County Executives. The following format provides
an example of how OFD tracks and reports budget at a summary level. In the event total project
costs are lower or higher than expected in the baseline, a line item titled “Balance=Funding-
Costs” shows the potential difference.
Use of Contingency Funds and Change Order Process
Contingency funds are utilized by the Project Manager and owner to account for future,
unanticipated costs not captured in the original planned budget (baseline). In the event
contingency is required to cover costs associated with changes to contracts (i.e. design changes
or construction changes), thresholds and approvals defined by the County’s Purchasing Manual
are followed.
Virginia Code § 2.2-4309(A) provides in part: “No fixed-price contract may be increased by
more than twenty-five percent of the amount of the contract or $50,000, whichever is greater,
without the advance written approval of ….. the governing body, in the case of political
subdivisions.” Per the County Purchasing Manual, the County Executive’s Office acts as the
designee of the Board of Supervisors for purposes of this review and approval. Proposed change
orders shall receive this review whenever any single change order is in excess of $50,000, or any
change order that, when added to prior approved change orders, exceeds 25% of the original
contract amount. Any proposed change that substantially alters the original concept or scope as
ATTACHMENT A
Contingency Guidelines and Use
Page 4 of 4
approved by the Board, or that will increase the amount of the contract(s) such that actual costs
will exceed the amount appropriated for the project, will require approval of the Board of
Supervisors in advance of the issuance of such change.
These practices and procedures are more restrictive than required by state law to assure close
scrutiny of construction projects.
Budget Impact
The impact of budgeting project contingency is recognized during the Board of Supervisors
review and approval of projects and appropriation of the budget to execute the project, typically
during the CIP approval process. In the event a project overrun occurs that exceeds the project
budget a new appropriation request is submitted for review and approval by the BOS.
Examples of Contingency Use
1. Crozet Streetscape - unanticipated work arose as a result of negotiating the acquisition of an
easement. In order to satisfy the property owner, and ultimately obtain their signature, the
property owner required a redesign of a section of the sidewalk/landscape on the property
that, while conforming with the original scope, required minor modifications to
accommodate the property owner.
2. Old Mills Trails Pedestrian Bridges - an unsuitable soils condition was encountered requiring
extensions of two of the three bridges. The project contingency could not support the
additional work required to extend the bridges; therefore, the Board approved a transfer of
funds from the Pantops Master Plan to the project budget to support the needed change order.
ATTACHMENT A
County of Albemarle
Office of Facilities Development (OFD)
Project Change Order
Guidelines and Procedures
May 2010 (revised October 2012)
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to prescribe procedures for approving changes to the design
requirements and/or the scope of construction which causes an adjustment to the Contract
Amount or Contract Time of a project while under design or under construction.
Guidelines
Projects under design or construction require the execution of a "Change Order" to change the
design requirements and/or the scope of construction which in turn requires an adjustment of the
Contract Amount or Contract Time.
A proposed Change Order will be considered:
1. For changes in scope/work required by the County;
2. For unforeseen site conditions during construction;
3. When essential design/work has been inadvertently omitted;
4. To correct errors/omissions in plans and specifications;
5. To correct design/work when concealed conditions are exposed and found to differ from
construction documents or available information; and
6. When unavoidable events or weather cause delays and the need for additional time for
completion of work.
Change Orders shall be recommended by the Project Manager and approved by the Director of
Facilities Development or his designee in advance of the proposed work being performed. It is
the Project Manager's responsibility to assure the project budget, including contingency, is
sufficient to cover the change order without impact to the overall project budget. Any proposed
change that substantially alters the original concept or scope as approved by the Board, or that
will increase the amount of the contract(s) such that actual costs will exceed the amount
appropriated for the project, will require approval of the Board of Supervisors in advance of the
issuance of such change.
ATTACHMENT B
Project Change Order
Guidelines and Procedures
Page 2 of 2
Procedures
1. Change Orders shall be administered in accordance with procedures outlined in the Virginia
Construction and Professional Services Manual and contract documents.
2. Change Orders and justifications shall be prepared on a form approved by the Director of
Facilities Development.
3. Change Orders for professional services shall be prepared by the Project Manager; Change
Orders for construction shall be prepared by the Project Manager or the Architect/Engineer if
required pursuant to the A/E contract. All supporting documentation must be attached to the
change order (A/E fee estimate, contractor, sub and sub-sub contractor estimates).
4. Any single change order in excess of $50,000, or any change order that, when added to prior
approved change orders, would exceed 25% of the original contract amount, will require
advance approval of the County Executive or his designee. The procedures for obtaining
approval for change orders that meet this criteria are as follows:
a. Project Manager prepares a change order justification memo to the Director of
OFD. Justification memo outlines all change orders to date, justification for
each, and impact to budget.
b. Director of OFD prepares memo and forwards justification to County
Executive Office for approval.
c. Upon approval of the Executive’s Office, the change order will be routed for
other approvals in accordance with paragraph 5 below.
5. If Executive approval is not required, or once Executive approval is obtained in accordance
with item 4, the Project Manager prepares a change order recommendation memo (example
maintained by OFD), attaches three signed originals of the change order, all supporting
documentation, and routes the change order for approval to the following (using OFD's
standard routing cover sheet):
a. Director of Facilities Development
b. Director of Sponsoring Department (Schools Building Services, Parks,
General Services, etc.)
c. County Attorney
d. Purchasing
6. Once the change order is approved, the Project Manager sends a fully executed copy to the
A/E or Contractor, as the case may be.
ATTACHMENT B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 12 General Fund Year End Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
FY 12 Unaudited Annual Financial Report for the
Year Ended June 30, 2012
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, S.; and
Ms. Burrell
PRESENTER(S): Ms. Betty Burrell
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The attached unaudited Annual Financial Report (AFR) (Attachment A) provides information about the County’s General
Fund operations and Fund Balance as of June 30, 2012.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service
consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The AFR reflects year-end data through June 30, 2012, the end of FY 12. The data in the attached AFR is organized
in a way that is consistent with Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Line item
titles in the AFR match the line item titles in the CAFR. The columns in the AFR show FY 12 Adopted Budget
revenues and expenditures, Revised Budget revenues and expenditures, as well as Year End actual revenues and
expenditures. Each of these Year End figures subsequently is expressed as a percentage of the amount of the
relevant line item of the FY 12 Revised Budget.
Additionally, this AFR includes corresponding data for FY 11 so that the current fiscal year’s financial data can be
compared easily to that of the previous fiscal year. An important feature of this report is that data is provided for a
point in time (June 30, 2012) and is compared to data from the same point in time for the prior fiscal year (June 30,
2012). Anomalies and similarities between fiscal years become readily apparent using this comparison format.
Highlights of the attached report include:
Revenues – Year End Actual
Year End total revenues in FY 12 came to $219,190,219 compared to $215,377,074 in FY 11, an increase of 1.77%,
or roughly in line with the 1.66% increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) during this time period. FY 12
Year End actual revenues, as a percentage of FY 12 Revised Budget revenues, stood at 102.40% compared to
101.80% in FY 11. This result means that the County’s actual total revenues in both years were within roughly 2% of
forecasted total revenue. This variance is well below the +/- 5% range of forecasting error that the Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA) considers reasonable. Most revenue streams performed fairly consistently in FY
12 compared to FY 11. In dollar terms, the line item with the largest variance between the two years was Property
Taxes; this item grew roughly $3.7 million, due largely to the County’s enhanced efforts to collect delinquent taxes.
Another factor that had an impact on property tax revenue was the decision by the Board to equalize the tax rate, at
$0.762 per $100 of assessed value, which impacted June 5, 2012 real property tax bills. For additional information
about variances, please see the analysis page in the AFR.
Expenditures – Year End Actual
Year End total expenditures in FY 12 equaled $192,352,921 compared to $190,660,603 in FY 11, an increase of 0.9%,
or less than the increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) during this time period. FY 12 Year End actual
expenditures, as a percentage of FY 12 Revised Budget expenditures, stood at 97.87% compared to 97.32% in FY 11.
Again, this result means that the County’s actual total expenditures in both years were within roughly 2% ~ 3% of
AGENDA TITLE: FY 12 General Fund Year End Financial Report
November 7, 2012
Page 2
forecasted total expenditures. In dollar terms, the item with the largest variance between the two years was Public
Safety; this item grew by about $1.35 million between the two years. Several factors contributed to this increase,
including a rise of almost $900,000 in Police expenditures.
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures
Consistent with best practices among AAA-rated localities, Albemarle takes a cautious, but reasonable approach in
budgeting revenues and expenditures. In terms of revenue budgeting, this approach means that the County’s
projections tend to be moderately conservative while, in terms of expenditure budgeting, the County does not assume
that there will be cost savings for items over which the County has little or no control (e.g., early retirements, salary
lapse, etc.). This situation means that, in many fiscal years, revenues come in greater than expenditures. This
phenomenon is consistent with the experience of other AAA-rated jurisdictions. Note that, with regard to Albemarle
County, Standard & Poor’s remarked recently that, “[w]hat we believe are strong and conservative fiscal policies, and a
well-seasoned management team, have allowed management to maintain, in our opinion, its solid finances and low
debt, providing rating stability.”1 Similarly, Moody’s noted that the company, “believes that the county’s financial
operations, characterized by ample reserve levels, will remain strong given conservative management practices and
healthy revenue streams.”2
In FY 12, revenues, including net transfers, cam e in at $7,793,026 over expenditures. This excess reflects, in part, the
fact that in FY 12 Actual expenditures were only 98.61% of FY 12 Revised Budget expenditures. In dollar terms, the
difference between revised budgeted and actual expenditures equaled $4,181,925. A significant portion of these
expenditure savings is associated with salary lapse and related benefits (totaling approximately $1.2 million) and
unused set-asides for such things as Board Contingencies, Job Opportunity Fund, Grants Leveraging Fund and
potential CSA liabilities.
____________
1. Standard & Poor’s, “Summary: Albemarle County Economic Development Authority, Virginia; Albemarle County;
Appropriations General Obligation” memorandum, p. 5. (4 November 2011).
2. Moody’s Investors Services, “Moody’s Assigns Aa1 Rating to Economic Development Authority of Albemarle
County’s (VA) $38.1 Million Public Facility Revenue Bonds (Albemarle County Project), Series 2011” memorandum, p.
1. (1 November 2011).
General Fund FY 12 Fund Balance & Use of FY 12 Fund Balance
The unaudited June 30, 2012 Fund Balance is $39,774,591. There is no projected addition to fund balance for FY 13.
According to County policy, $27,653,715 of this amount is to be put into unassigned fund balance reserve, while
$7,214,066 of the $39,774,591 represents actual and planned used of fund balance, including Board approved
transfers to capital. The remainder of the projected June 30, 2013 excess fund balance of $4,906,810 equals the
dollar amount anticipated to be available for Watch List/Capital going forward.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Revenue and expenditure data contained in the AFR reflect the state of the County’s budget-to-actual performance as
of June 30, 2012.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only, and no action is requested.
ATTACHMENTS:
A-FY 12 Unaudited Annual Financial Report
Return to agenda
Annual Financial Report
Year Ended June 30, 2012
Introduction
The Albemarle County Annual Financial Report (AFR) for the year ended June 30, 2012 has a
format that is different from the format of previous AFR’s. This new format displays general
fund revenue and expenditure data using the same line item titles that are found in Exhibit 12
of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Finance Department staff
hopes that consistency in the way that the CAFR and the AFR present this information will help
improve understanding of the County’s revenues and expenditures.
The Annual Financial Report document consists of three parts:
An analysis page of year end revenues and expenditures that changed by more than 2% and
that also experienced dollar changes of more than $200,000 between FY 2010/11 and FY
2011/12.
A detailed table that shows (1) Year end actual dollar amounts of revenues and
expenditures for FY 11/12 and FY 10/11; (2) budgeted dollar amounts of revenues and
expenditures for FY 11/12 and FY 10/11; and (3) Year end actual revenues and expenditures
as percentages of budgeted revenues and expenditures for FY 11/12 and FY 10/11.
An examination of the percentages for both fiscal years reveals the extent to
which year end actual revenues and expenditures in the most recent fiscal year
matched budgeted amounts, compared with the extent to which year end actual
revenues and expenditures in the prior fiscal year matched budgeted amounts.
As an example of this comparison, the figure contained in Column D, Line No. 4
reveals that, by the end of FY 2011/12, the revenue that the County collected in
fines and forfeitures was roughly 162% of the budgeted amount while, as shown
in Column H, Line No. 4, the revenue that Albemarle collected from this source in
by the end of FY 10/11 stood at about 104% of the budgeted amount.
Pie charts that show (1) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various revenue
streams for FY 2011/12; and (2) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various
expenditures for FY 2011/12.
Albemarle County
Analysis of Significant Variances in General Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2012
REVENUES Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances
Local Revenues: Property Taxes. In FY 11/12 actual revenues as a percentage of the FY 11/12
revised budget amount equaled 102.91% vs. 100.50% in FY 10/11.
The actual dollar revenue in FY 11/12 was $140,607,418 vs.
$136,906,535 in FY 10/11. This positive variance of $3,700,883 is
due primarily to the County’s enhanced collection of delinquent
property taxes.
Local Revenues: Fines and Forfeitures. In FY 11/12 actual revenues as a percentage of the FY 11/12
revised budget amount equaled 162.02% vs. 103.70% in FY 10/11.
The actual dollar revenue in FY 11/12 was $990,096 vs. $622,358
in FY 10/11. This variance is due primarily to the County’s
enhanced law enforcement efforts.
Intergovernmental Revenues: Revenue
from Federal Government.
In FY 11/12 actual revenues as a percentage of the FY 11/12
revised budget amount equaled 92.52% vs. 107.28% in FY 10/11.
The actual dollar revenue in FY 11/12 was $4,390,084 vs.
$4,733,964 in FY 10/11. This variance is due primarily to drop in
federal funding for child services provided by the County’s Dept.
of Social Services (DSS); this drop in revenues resulted in a
commensurate drop in DSS expenditures as the service was
picked up by the Commonwealth.
EXPENDITURES Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances
Administration: Information Technology. In FY 11/12, actual expenditures as a percentage of the FY 11/12
revised budget amount equaled 88.46% vs. 96.38% in FY 10/11.
Actual dollar expenditure in FY 11/12 was $2,200,265 vs.
$2,402,554 in FY 10/11. This variance results primarily from
personnel changes and use of funds for Access Albemarle.
Public Safety: Police. In FY 11/12, actual expenditures as a percentage of the FY 11/12
revised budget amount equaled 97.9% vs. 94.43% in FY 10/11.
Actual dollar expenditure in FY 11/12 was $12,748,536 vs.
$11,856,236 in FY 10/11. This variance results primarily from
overtime expenses (including reimbursable overtime expenses)
and vehicle replacement expenditures.
Contingencies: Total Contingencies. In FY 11/12, actual expenditures as a percentage of the FY 11/12
revised budget amount equaled 48.56% vs. 26.64% in FY 10/11.
Actual dollar expenditure in FY 11/12 was $892,611 vs. $594,970
in FY 10/11. This dollar variance results primarily from a $272,000
rise in miscellaneous contingencies expenses.
Note: Significant variances are defined as differences of more than two percentage points and $200,000.
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, October 16, 2012.
A B C D E F G H
FY 11/12 FY 11/12 FY 10/11 FY 10/11
FY 11/12 FY 11/12 Actual Actual as %FY 10/11 FY 10/11 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget Yr. End (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget Yr. End (Col G/Col F)
REVENUES
Reveues - Local
1 Property Taxes $136,633,800 $136,633,800 $140,607,418 102.91%$136,225,118 $136,225,118 $136,906,535 100.50%
2 Other Local Taxes 43,497,250 43,497,250 44,230,674 101.69%42,076,100 42,076,100 44,105,916 104.82%
3 Permits, Priv. Fees, Licenses 1,516,350 1,516,350 1,838,735 121.26%1,464,150 1,464,150 1,687,480 115.25%
4 Fines and Forfeitures 578,600 611,100 990,096 162.02%600,165 600,165 622,358 103.70%
5 Use of Money and Property 518,138 518,138 335,185 64.69%712,455 723,955 466,484 64.44%
6 Charges for Services 2,106,591 2,780,750 2,874,077 103.36%2,118,527 2,671,648 2,754,714 103.11%
7 Miscellaneous 182,478 182,478 139,562 76.48%55,779 57,979 122,548 211.37%
8 Recovered Costs 222,250 222,250 357,514 160.86%206,300 218,733 554,345 253.43%
9 Subtotal - Local Revenues $185,255,457 $185,962,116 $191,373,261 102.91%$183,458,594 $184,037,848 $187,220,380 101.73%
Revenues - Intergovernmental
10 Contribution from School Bd.$328,500 $328,500 $325,811 99.18%$421,695 $421,695 $325,317 77.15%
11 Contribution from Other Ent.0 10,300 10,300 100.00%0 14,500 10,300 71.03%
12 Revenue from Commonwealth 22,952,060 23,006,257 23,090,762 100.37%22,686,644 22,686,644 23,087,113 101.77%
13 Revenue from Fed. Govt.4,673,507 4,745,234 4,390,084 92.52%4,337,204 4,412,610 4,733,964 107.28%
14 Subtotal - Intergovernmental Revs.$27,954,067 $28,090,291 $27,816,958 99.03%$27,445,543 $27,535,449 $28,156,695 102.26%
15 TOTAL REVENUES $213,209,524 $214,052,407 $219,190,219 102.40%$210,904,137 $211,573,297 $215,377,074 101.80%
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration
16 Board of Supervisors 577,562 577,562 528,765 91.55%582,695 589,695 526,139 89.22%
17 County Executive 960,995 960,995 952,127 99.08%1,073,789 1,067,048 1,051,867 98.58%
18 Human Resources 662,770 666,270 658,137 98.78%673,346 673,346 664,032 98.62%
19 County Attorney 911,527 911,527 892,795 97.94%912,860 912,860 899,906 98.58%
20 Finance 4,117,239 4,207,258 4,176,604 99.27%4,158,557 3,998,275 3,920,623 98.06%
21 Management & Budget 290,222 290,222 278,855 96.08%0 281,287 267,121 94.96%
22 Information Technology 2,487,297 2,487,297 2,200,265 88.46%2,492,866 2,492,866 2,402,554 96.38%
23 Registrar 547,543 632,740 580,416 91.73%462,346 479,302 431,179 89.96%
24 Total Administration 10,555,155 10,733,871 10,267,963 95.66%10,356,459 10,494,679 10,163,420 96.84%
Albemarle County Quartery Financial Report Comparison -General Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2012 vs. Year Ended June 30, 2011
UNAUDITED DRAFT
Page 1 of 3
A B C D E F G H
FY 11/12 FY 11/12 FY 10/11 FY 10/11
FY 11/12 FY 11/12 Actual Actual as %FY 10/11 FY 10/11 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget Yr. End (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget Yr. End (Col G/Col F)
Judicial
25 Circuit Court 110,945 166,912 130,376 78.11%103,061 123,827 111,336 89.91%
26 General District Court 23,894 25,394 59,392 233.88%22,806 22,806 21,313 93.45%
27 Magistrate 4,425 4,642 4,642 100.01%4,425 4,425 3,315 74.92%
28 Juvenile Court 119,229 119,229 119,229 100.00%148,717 148,717 144,868 97.41%
29 Clerk of Court 669,016 669,016 644,332 96.31%708,680 712,448 651,644 91.47%
30 Sheriff 2,006,798 2,051,651 1,995,555 97.27%1,988,555 2,035,088 1,940,349 95.34%
31 Commonwealth Attorney 910,408 910,408 902,614 99.14%911,601 911,601 900,091 98.74%
32 Total Judicial 3,844,715 3,947,252 3,856,140 97.69%3,887,845 3,958,912 3,772,916 95.30%
Public Safety
33 Police 13,023,658 13,021,454 12,748,536 97.90%12,456,084 12,567,296 11,856,236 94.34%
34 Fire/Rescue 6,765,354 6,946,364 6,846,319 98.56%6,634,476 6,717,662 6,714,803 99.96%
35 Volunteer Fire 1,386,192 1,462,326 1,415,464 96.80%1,295,843 1,396,013 1,277,094 91.48%
36 Volunteer Rescue 452,167 473,167 449,442 94.99%437,249 428,249 437,335 102.12%
37 Fire/Rescue Forest Fire Ext.23,786 23,786 23,786 100.00%23,786 23,786 23,786 100.00%
38 Charlottesville Fire Dept.845,638 845,638 789,191 93.32%764,647 794,776 794,776 100.00%
39 Regional Jail 3,378,990 3,428,165 3,306,119 96.44%3,154,209 3,297,165 3,297,165 100.00%
40 Building Codes 1,060,583 1,060,583 1,034,062 97.50%1,072,951 1,072,951 991,227 92.38%
41 ECC - General Fund 1000 2,066,831 2,066,831 2,066,831 100.00%1,982,766 1,982,766 1,982,766 100.00%
42 Contributions - Public Safety 1,517,156 1,517,156 1,469,224 96.84%1,378,288 1,399,178 1,415,043 101.13%
43 Total Public Safety 30,520,355 30,845,470 30,148,974 97.74%29,200,299 29,679,842 28,790,231 97.00%
Public Works
44 Solid Waste, Recycling 475,810 475,810 421,382 88.56%520,500 520,500 221,594 42.57%
45 Facilities Development 866,608 866,608 750,829 86.64%999,077 1,005,990 900,867 89.55%
46 General Services 3,048,693 3,048,693 2,865,821 94.00%2,986,372 3,003,663 2,870,471 95.57%
47 Total Public Works 4,391,111 4,391,111 4,038,031 91.96%4,505,949 4,530,153 3,992,932 88.14%
Human Development
48 Social Services 11,395,164 11,395,164 10,401,750 91.28%11,725,114 11,756,871 10,747,800 91.42%
49 CCF - Programs 4,303,950 4,361,950 4,299,030 98.56%4,220,186 4,220,186 4,136,394 98.01%
50 Total Human Development 15,699,114 15,757,114 14,700,780 93.30%15,945,300 15,977,057 14,884,194 93.16%
Education
51 Schools - Capital Improvement 22,524 22,524 0 0.00%22,301 22,301 22,301 100.00%
52 Transfers 97,334,361 98,120,832 98,120,832 100.00%96,316,652 97,616,652 97,616,652 100.00%
53 Total Education 97,356,885 98,143,356 98,120,832 99.98%96,338,953 97,638,953 97,638,953 100.00%
Page 2 of 3
A B C D E F G H
FY 11/12 FY 11/12 FY 10/11 FY 10/11
FY 11/12 FY 11/12 Actual Actual as %FY 10/11 FY 10/11 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget Yr. End (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget Yr. End (Col G/Col F)
Parks, Recreation, and Culture
54 Towe Park 152,262 152,262 138,013 90.64%156,838 156,838 136,958 87.32%
55 Parks & Recreation 2,194,476 2,194,476 1,996,653 90.99%2,198,752 2,209,772 2,153,634 97.46%
56 Libraries 3,220,283 3,220,283 3,220,283 100.00%3,173,138 3,173,138 3,173,138 100.00%
57 Contributions - Parks 669,912 869,912 869,912 100.00%710,147 710,147 710,147 100.00%
58 Total Parks, Rec. and Culture 6,236,933 6,436,933 6,224,861 96.71%6,238,875 6,249,895 6,173,877 98.78%
Community Development
59 Community Development 3,864,334 3,876,334 3,687,970 95.14%4,066,961 3,998,291 3,771,943 94.34%
60 Housing 516,952 603,107 599,153 99.34%528,130 867,311 782,051 90.17%
61 Soil & Water Conservation 96,355 96,355 95,800 99.42%96,372 96,372 95,360 98.95%
62 Extension Programs 203,859 203,859 85,425 41.90%201,290 201,290 113,874 56.57%
63 Contributions - Comm. Dev.1,335,252 1,342,252 1,342,252 100.00%1,328,447 1,328,447 1,328,447 100.00%
64 Refunds 173,500 229,776 202,317 88.05%207,500 207,500 102,775 49.53%
65 City/County Rev. Sharing 18,089,812 18,089,812 18,089,812 100.00%18,454,658 18,454,658 18,454,658 100.00%
66 Total Community Develop.24,280,064 24,441,495 24,102,729 98.61%24,883,358 25,153,869 24,649,110 97.99%
Contingencies
67 Total Contingencies 1,661,473 1,838,245 892,611 48.56%1,912,004 2,233,333 594,970 26.64%
68 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 194,545,805 196,534,846 192,352,921 97.87%193,269,042 195,916,693 190,660,603 97.32%
Excess/Deficiency of
69 Revenues over Expends.18,663,719 17,517,561 26,837,298 17,635,095 15,656,604 24,716,471
Other Financing Sources
70 Transfers (In)2,372,294 4,100,552 2,008,564 2,362,161 5,070,603 (1,696,160)
71 Transfers (Out)(21,036,013)(21,580,813)(21,052,836)(19,997,256)(20,712,707)(19,179,038)
72 Total Other Financing Sources (18,663,719)(17,480,261)(19,044,272)(17,635,095)(15,642,104)(20,875,199)
Estimated Net Change in
73 Fund Balance in FY 2011/12 $7,793,026
74 Fund Balance (Beginning)31,981,565
75 Estimated Fund Balance (End)$39,774,591
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, October 16, 2012.
Page 3 of 3
Unaudited June 30, 2012 Fund Balance 39,774,591$
Projected Addition to Fund Balance from FY13 -$
Projected June 30, 2013 Fund Balance 39,774,591$
Policy Use of Fund Balance
10% unassigned fund balance reserve 27,653,715$
Subsequent to Year-End Use of Fund Balance
FY 12/13 Actual Appropriated Use of Fund Balance 3,481,066$
Planned Use of Fund Balance
Anticipated Transfer to CIP (to be finalized after audit)2,500,000$
Anticipated FY 12/13 Appropriations of Fund Balance*400,000$
Federal/State Revenue Contingency 500,000$
Performance Incentive Pool (2 years)333,000$
Subtotal, Actual and Planned Use of Fund Balance 7,214,066$
Projected June 30, 2012 Fund Balance 39,774,591$
Maintain 10% fund balance policy (27,653,715)$
Actual and Planned Use of Fund Balance (7,214,066)$
Funds Anticipated to be Available for Watch List/Capital 4,906,810$
Source: Albemarle County Office of Management and Budget, 18 October 2012.
GENERAL FUND
FY12 FUND BALANCE
*Currently anticpate appropriations coming forward for storm damage clean
up and Access Albemarle costs
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, October 16, 2012.
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, October 16, 2012.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CACVB Marketing Plan Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of CACVB Branding Initiative as part of the
Strategic Marketing Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley and Davis, and Ms. Catlin
PRESENTER (S): Ms. Lee Catlin, and Ms. Susan Payne
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 2012, the Board endorsed the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB)
strategic marketing plan developed in consultation with CACVB’s consultant, Payne, Ross and Associates (PRA). The
success of the marketing plan largely depends on a refreshed and refocused brand for our area to achieve the desired
goals of increased visitation and extended visitor stays. The purpose of this presentation is to share with the Board
the efforts to refresh the CACVB’s brand for our region by creating a destination identity that is compelling, distinctive,
and memorable, and that reflects the area’s emerging assets as well as established amenities.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3 - Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
The CACVB hired Payne, Ross and Associates to research, develop and roll out the CACVB’s refreshed brand. The
process, which began in early July, 2012, included extensive research, surveying and community engagement, and is
nearing completion with a target date of mid-November, 2012. PRA organized a series of six focus group meetings in
September, 2012 to meet with elected government and business leaders, key stakeholders and influencers for their
input and feedback. Input from those meetings, along with data from a community-wide survey conducted by PRA
and extensive research from Virginia Tourism Corporation, has provided information necessary to align our regional
brand with our region’s established and emerging tourism assets. The CACVB Board has reviewed and endorsed the
concepts developed by PRA as a refreshed brand for regional tourism. Staff from CACVB and PRA will be present at
the meeting to present the branding concepts.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact to the County. Funding for the branding initiative was provided through the CACVB fund
balance as discussed previously with the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors support the CACVB Board of Directors’ endorsement of the branding
concepts developed by PRA to be presented at the November 7, 2012 Board meeting.
Return to agenda
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: October 31, 2012
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through
October 29, 2012.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Architectural Review Board, Historic
Preservation Committee and the Natural Heritage Committee.
Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be appointed
and reappointed to the respective committees:
Architectural Review Board
John Quale, term expires November 14, 2012
Historic Preservation Committee
Amy Durbin
Natural Heritage Committee
Brian Morse
Attachment: Vacancy List
Return to agenda
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Bill Edgerton 8/1/2012 8/1/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Architectural Review Board John Quale 11/14/2012 11/14/2016 Yes
Architectural Review Board Bruce Wardell 11/14/2012 11/14/2016 waiting for response
Architectural Review Board Fred Missel 11/14/2012 11/14/2016 waiting for response
Crozet Community Advisory Council Chuck Johnston 3/31/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013 Resigned
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Christopher Dumler 11/21/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Burton Webb 11/21/2012 Deceased
Historic Preservation Committee Melissa Celii Thackston 6/4/2012 6/4/2015 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Historic Preservation Committee Following application received:
Amy Durbin
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council Naomi Ryan 5/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No
Natural Heritage Committee Mike Erwin 9/30/2013 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Following application received:
Brian Morse
Places29 Community Advisory Council Joseph Barnes 1/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Planning Commission Tom Loach 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 No, (White Hall)Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Planning Commission Following application received:
James Fulcher
PRFA Joseph Henley 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Vincent Day 12/31/2013 Resigned
Workforce Investment Board Sue Goldman 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 No Recommendations to come from TJPED
Revised 10/31/2012
Board‐to‐Board
November, 2012
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SSHS) – SSHS presented its third year report during the October 11th School Board
meeting, emphasizing that the success of its programs continues to be the leadership and effectiveness of student-led
groups at many of our schools. Student-reported incidents of bullying and substance abuse are continuing to decrease.
The report also notes that more than 200 school staff members have been trained in restorative practices at our high
schools. Although this is the final year for federal funding of SSHS, the program will continue next year, since program
efficiencies have resulted in a fund balance. The SSHS website includes the full report:
https://www.safeschoolscville.org
State of the Division Report – All Albemarle County public schools are accredited for 2012-13. Schools must have a
minimum pass rate of 70 percent in all content areas and meet state graduation standards to earn accreditation. Schools
with a graduation class fewer than 50 students (Murray High had 31) can apply for accreditation based on meeting
additional standards. Under these criteria, the division applied to the state on behalf of Murray High School and
accreditation was granted.
As the result of Virginia’s waiver under the No Child Left Behind federal initiative, Adequate yearly Progress (AYP)
measurements have been replaced by a different standard, Annual Measureable Objectives (AMO). A significant
difference is the composition of student membership groups. Next year, testing standards for some of these groups will
increase in rigor. Twenty-one of the division’s 26 schools meet the new AMO standard, an improvement over the 17
schools in the prior year that met AYP objectives. The primary driver for the schools not meeting AMO was the change
in how SOL data was reported for certain student membership groups.
SAT Test Scores—SAT test scores for Albemarle County students are among the top three percent of all students in
Virginia according to the latest results from the state Department of Education. The mean average score of 553 on the
critical reading test was second best among all school divisions in the state and the mean average scores for math and
writing of 557 and 537 placed Albemarle third highest among all state school divisions.
Redistricting—The parent-led redistricting subcommittees for the northern and western feeder patterns have met three
times and are reviewing data on current and projected enrollments, residential growth and building capacities. Some
neighborhoods have been identified to help begin the review process, which ultimately will offer options for short and
long-term scenarios. The schedule calls for those options to be finalized and presented to the public in December. One
subcommittee is reviewing Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, where students could be redistricted to Broadus Wood,
Woodbrook or Greer elementary schools. The second subcommittee is reviewing Brownsville, Crozet, Meriwether Lewis
and Murray elementary schools with Red Hill also as a possible destination school. Any changes affecting Agnor-Hurt
students are expected to take effect next August. The western feeder pattern subcommittee may recommend changes for
next year or wait for improvements in the CIP to be approved.
Recommendations will be presented to the School Board after the December public meeting and a public hearing by the
School Board will take place during the early months of 2013.
Health and Medical Sciences Academy – Approximately 80 government, academic, business, community and school
leaders and student families participated in the October 22 open house for the county’s new Health and Medical Sciences
Academy at Monticello High School. Virginia’s Secretary of Education, Laura Fornash and Superintendent Dr. Pam
Moran were guest speakers for the evening. The program highlight was presentations by academy students of the research
and project work they are engaged in as part of the academy’s innovative instructional model.
CoderDojo Academies – Following ACPS’ successful summer CoderDojo program, four more academies are operational
this fall. CoderDojos provide students with hands-on instruction and prototype opportunities for computer coding, web
page development, programming, and the design and development of computer application and video games. They bring
together students, instructors, mentors and speakers from public and private organizations involved in the computer
science field. There is no program fee and all Albemarle County public school students are eligible to attend. Programs
are being offered at Crozet and Baker-Butler elementary schools, Burley middle school and Monticello high school.
Western Albemarle High School Theater Ensemble – Thursday evening, November 1, at 7:30, the Ensemble will offer
three one-act plays in the high school auditorium. Reminiscent of the long-running Broadway play, the Producers, is the
story line for !Artistic Impression, a tale about two playwrights who set out to compose the worst play ever written. Also
on the bill that evening is These Shining Lives, based on a true story about employees in a watchmaking factory who
suffer from radium poisoning. The evening’s third production is A Company of Wayward Saints, a comedy about a
theater company trying to win the patronage of a benefactor in order to return home. Tickets are $3 in advance and $4 at
the door and can be purchased in the main office of the high schools.
Friday and Saturday evenings, November 16 and 17, at 7:30, the Ensemble will present the Shakespearean classic, As You
Like It, a romantic comedy that includes the playwright’s well known “All the World’s a Stage” speech. As You Like It
tickets are $5 for students and $7 for adults in advance, and $6/$8 at the door. Live music and dessert will be available
during the intermission. Tickets are available at the high school’s front office and in Crozet at Over the Moon bookstore
and the Mudhouse Coffee Shop. All monies raised by the performances are used to support future student productions at
Western Albemarle High School.
AF Junior ROTC Program-As the result of program requirements, the AFJROTC program is scheduled to end at
Monticello High School with the conclusion of this school year. Previously, the Air Force set a program participation
target of 100 cadets for schools with 1,000 or more students. Now in its 11th year, the program at Monticello never has
exceeded 90 cadets despite an aggressive recruiting effort by program and school staffs. The target of 100 participating
cadets now is a program requirement. We are working with program staff and the Air Force to explore whether there are
participation alternatives that would allow the program to continue.
School Bus Safety—The week ending October 27th was National School Bus Safety Week and the school’s transportation
department recognized employees for their safe driving record during the past year. Statistics show that it is eight times
safer to ride a school bus than for a student to be driven to school by a parent and more than 40 times safer if the driver is
a friend or sibling. Each day, the department transports some 9,000 students over 14,000 miles and has now accumulated
100,000 hours without a lost time accident. During the past year, there were no driver-responsible student injuries on a
school bus. A new initiative by the department is focused on working with Safe Schools/Healthy Students to incorporate
Responsive Classroom principles to student behavior on a school bus.
Donations to Albemarle County Public Schools – The School Board received the following donations at its October 11
and October 25, 2012 meetings:
Albemarle High school received a donation of 8 graduation gowns and 4 caps from Robert A. Garland, Jr., to be
used at the 2013 graduation ceremony.
Brownsville Elementary school received a donation of a baby grand piano from Kristin Landis.
Red Hill Elementary school received a donation in the amount of $2,240.00 from the Red Hill PTO. The donor
requested the donation be used to supplement classroom supplies at the school.
Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $125.00 from Don Soechting. The donor requested the
donation be used to help with expenses for Student Snack/Meals.
Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $10,136.00 from the Brownsville PTA. The
donor requested the donations be used for: Software licensing, professional development, grade level allocation
per teacher, and the Principal’s Discretionary Fund.
Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Sabrena Yoder, and $325.00 from Don
Soechting. The donors requested the donations be used to help with expenses for Student Snack/Meals.
Monticello High School received a donation of a Yamaha Keyboard with accessories from Craig and Elizabeth
Hanson, with stand and bench. The donors requested their donation be used in the Chamber Music class at
Monticello High School
Murray High School received donated plants and mulch from Grelen Nursery. The items were donated in support
of “Day of Caring” and the donors requested the items be used at Murray High School.
Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,550.00 from the Crozet PTO. The donor
requested the funds be used to help funds teachers at Crozet Elementary School.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from the Virginia Discovery
Museum. The donor requested the funds be used to purchase physical education instructional supplies and/or
equipment at Meriwether Lewis.
Hollymead Elementary School and Baker Butler Elementary School received donations in the amounts of $300.00
and $100.00 for Preschool Reverse Inclusion payments. These payments are from parents of children without
disabilities; however, they placed their child in one of the schools’ special education classrooms. The funding is a
nominal fee to cover the cost of incidentals for their child’s participation.
Monticello High School received grants in the amounts of $15,000 from Martha Jefferson Hospital and $15,000
from the UVa Health System. The funds will be used to support the new Health and Medical Sciences Academy
that opened in August 2012 at Monticello High School.
Burley Middle School was awarded a grant in the amount of $1,850.00 from the LexisNexis Cares Employee
Foundation. The funds will be used to implement a Music Therapy Program for the Functional Skills Class.
Burley Middle School was awarded a grant in the amount of $2,000.00 from the Dominion Foundation. The
funds will be used to build the Burley Academic Garden.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
!"#$%%$&!"#'(&)$*"%&+,--"**",%&./01.0.2&
345'-$(4'&+,6%78&),$(9&,:&;6<'(#"*,(*&&..0=02/.2&.&
Snapshot Overview
!"#$%%$&!"#'(&)$*"%&+,--"**",%&./01.0.2&
345'-$(4'&+,6%78&),$(9&,:&;6<'(#"*,(*&&..0=02/.2&2&
County or City Acres of
Watershed in
Locality
% Watershed
within
Locality
Charlottesville 6,589 1%
Albemarle County 316,022 64%
Greene County 59,569 12%
Fluvanna County 95,021 19%
Louisa 9,065 2%
Orange 4,608 1%
Nelson 382 Less than 1%
Category % Acres
Deciduous Forest 57.8 284,083
Evergreen Forest 9.5 46,721
Open Land 22.3 109,858
Water 1.1 5,339
Impervious 3.2 15,868
Pine Plantation 4.3 21,280
Forest Harvest 0.6 3,049
Orchard/ Vineyard 0.4 1,975
Bare Earth 0.5 2,242
Golf Course 0.2 1,200
TOTAL 491,615
VCU Healthy Waters Assessment for
significant aquatic living resources
Impairment Stream Miles Impaired
Benthic-Macroinvertebrates (aquatic life standard) 135.44
E. Coli or Fecal coliform (bacteria or recreational
contact standard)
123.34
DO* (N. Fork Moormans – possible anomaly) 10.97
pH 5.23
!"#$%%$&!"#'(&)$*"%&+,--"**",%&./01.0.2&
345'-$(4'&+,6%78&),$(9&,:&;6<'(#"*,(*&&..0=02/.2&1&
Source – http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/vclnawater.shtml
!"#$%%$&!"#'(&)$*"%&+,--"**",%&./01.0.2&
345'-$(4'&+,6%78&),$(9&,:&;6<'(#"*,(*&&..0=02/.2&>&
Land
Acres
# Acres of
Forest Acres
within 100 ft
Buffers*
% in 100 ft
Forest
Buffers
# Acres of
Forest Not
in Buffers
% Not
within
100 ft
Buffers
58,533 44,865 77% 13,668 23%
6%
4% 3%
86%
State Conservation Lands
Local Conservation Lands
Non-Profit Conservation Lands
Easements
Stream health follows land use
!"#$%%$&!"#'(&)$*"%&+,--"**",%&./01.0.2&
345'-$(4'&+,6%78&),$(9&,:&;6<'(#"*,(*&&..0=02/.2&>&
Stream health follows land use
!"#$%%$&!"#'(&)$*"%&+,--"**",%&./01.0.2&
345'-$(4'&+,6%78&),$(9&,:&;6<'(#"*,(*&&..0=02/.2&>&
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2012-00012 Critical Slopes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of proposed approach for critical slopes
regulations in the Development Areas.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Fritz
PRESENTER (S): Mr. Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On May 2, 2007, the Development Review Task Force (DRTF) presented the Board its recommendations for review and
consideration including a provision that would “…establish staff authority for waivers and modifications in development
areas.” On January 14, 2009, the Board adopted a zoning text amendment authorizing the County’s agent to authorize
critical slopes (slopes of 25% or greater) to be disturbed in those zoning districts typically found in the Development Areas
in two specific circumstances: (1) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to a site
plan approved by the County; and (2) the critical slopes would be disturbed to replace an existing structure located on
critical slopes under specified circumstances. In the initial discussion of that amendment on January 7, 2009, the Board
indicated that the regulations delineating the circumstances under which the agent may authorize the disturbance of critical
slopes in the Development Areas should be broadened.
The Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend the critical slopes regulations on April 1, 2009. (Attachment A) Staff
began work on the regulations and held roundtables with stakeholders in December 2009 and February 2010. A summary
of the roundtable comments is included as Attachment B. Staff continued to work on further assessing revisions to the
regulations throughout 2010, however, that work was temporarily suspended due to reductions in staffing levels as well as
undertaking more recent Board priorities such as the Ministerial and Legislative Process changes, the fast track process,
biosolids, home occupancy regulations, farm winery regulations, and Wireless policy and regulations . Staff is now seeking
Board concurrence on the proposed approach before proceeding to public hearing with a draft ordinance.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies
DISCUSSION:
Staff considered the comments made at the roundtables, reviewed the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment C) and studied
how other localities regulate critical slopes to identify the best practices for preserving and managing them. Staff also has
applied its experience in processing a large number of critical slopes waivers to determine the most important issues to the
community. A more detailed discussion of critical slopes and management strategies is provided as Attachment D.
Based on the cumulative results of this research, staff mapped all critical slopes in the Development Areas. Because
different critical slopes may have different qualities and characteristics, staff has classified the areas of critical slopes as
either “Preserved” or “Managed.” Those areas of critical slopes classified as “Preserved” would not be allowed to be
disturbed. Staff recommends establishing an overlay district that would identify and regulate the Preserved areas. Those
areas of critical slopes classified as “Managed” could be disturbed by right, subject to applicable performance standards.
Certain activities would be exempt from the applicable critical slopes regulations in both the Preserved and Managed
areas. Owners of lands within a Preserved area could request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to disturb
Preserved critical slopes.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2012-00012 Critical Slopes
November 7, 2012
Page 2
The attached maps (Attachments E through K) show all of the existing critical slopes in the Development Areas and
identify them as either Preserved or Managed. The areas shown in green are the proposed Preserved areas and the
areas shown in orange are the proposed Managed areas. The areas shown in purple are protected stream buffers. The
proposed zoning text amendment would not expand the areas of regulated critical slopes.
Staff applied the following criteria in classifying critical slopes areas as Preserved or Managed:
Preserved Areas
- The slopes are part of a system of slopes associated with a water feature.
- The slopes are part of a hillside system.
- The slopes are identified as a resource in the Open Space Plan.
- The slopes are identified as a resource in the Comprehensive Plan.
- The slopes may be of significant value to the Entrance Corridor District.
- The slopes are a contiguous area of 10,000 square feet or more or a close grouping of slopes less than 10,000
square feet.
- The slopes are shown to be preserved by a prior County action.
Managed Areas
- The contiguous area of critical slopes is limited or fragmented.
- The slopes are not associated with a water feature.
- The slopes are not natural.
- The slopes have been significantly disturbed prior to June 1, 2012.
- The slopes are located within previously approved single family residential lots.
- The slopes are shown to be disturbed by a prior County action.
These areas are subject to change as additional information is obtained. The disturbance of critical slopes in the Rural
Areas will continue to be allowed only by special exception.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Establishing development standards will allow for a more efficient review of projects ultimately reducing staff and Board
workload required to review waiver requests. While the number of critical slopes waivers is not enough to result in a need
for fewer staff, this change should provide significant cost reductions for applicants.
During the development of new regulations, the County will incur costs related to publishing notifications, sending mailings
to property owners in the development areas, and holding open houses and work sessions. The large number of property
owners that will be notified will have a significant impact on the Community Development’s existing budget for
advertisement and printing.
Staff anticipates that adoption of a zoning text amendment would (1) reduce staff time and costs associated with reviewing
projects, preparing staff reports, and making presentations before the Planning Commission and the Board for applications
for special exceptions; and (2) reduce the applicant’s time and cost.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to (1) continue to work on the development of a critical slopes overlay district
containing “Preserved” critical slopes; (2) generate development standards for “Managed” critical slopes; and (3) develop a
list of exempt activities. Upon completion of this work, staff will prepare a zoning text amendment for consideration.
Staff recommends that the following steps to amend the critical slopes regulations be taken prior to scheduling a public
hearing:
- Meet with the Board appointed Citizen Advisory Councils for the various neighborhoods for input. These meeting
are expected to occur in January and February of 2013.
- Hold an Open House with notification being mailed to affected property owners in the development areas. It is
expected that multiple Open Houses will be required. These meetings are expected to occur during the 2nd
quarter of 2013.
- Hold a work session with the Planning Commission to review public input received at the Open House and to
determine if the proposed zoning text amendment is ready to be scheduled for public hearings. It is expected that
this work session will occur in the early part of the 3rd quarter of 2013.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2012-00012 Critical Slopes
November 7, 2012
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution of intent
Attachment B – Roundtable Summary
Attachment C – Comprehensive Plan Statements about Critical Slopes
Attachment D – Background on Critical Slopes and Management Strategies
Attachment E – Crozet Slope Maps
Attachment F – Neighborhoods 1 and 2 Slope Maps
Attachment G – Pantops (Neighborhood 3) Slope Maps
Attachment H – Neighborhoods 4-7 Slope Maps
Attachment I – Hollymead Slope Maps
Attachment J – Piney Mountain Slope Maps
Attachment K – Rivanna Slope Maps
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
1st Critical Slopes Roundtable 12/9/09
Topics
- Redefine Critical slopes as 45% not 25%
- 25% is ideal for walkout basements
- Give consideration for slopes between 25% and 45% based on erosion hazard.
- Slopes near streams could receive regulation.
- Treat slopes differently based on proximity to streams.
- Treat slopes differently based on area. (10 sq. ft. of contiguous slopes is different than 10,000
sq. ft. of contiguous slopes.)
- Are critical slope regulations necessary at all?
- Albemarle County Regulations are different than other jurisdictions.
- Use Open Space as reference for regulation.
- Maps should be updated so that slopes are easily identifiable.
- Field survey should always trump County GIS.
- Clarify waiver criteria. Criteria should be less subjective.
- Reduce post construction standards in handbooks.
- Establish cost/benefit analysis for phasing projects. (Time project may remain open)
- Standards should be technical only.
- Aesthetics should be addressed by means other than Critical Slopes regulations.
- Phasing mass grading plan makes phasing of project more difficult.
- Protect slopes based on environmental and aesthetic standards and all other slopes may be
disturbed.
- Establish post development standards.
- Existing Erosion and Sediment Control standards address disturbance. No additional regulation
needed to address construction period.
- Post development standards could include length/height of slopes and retaining walls.
- Design standards should allow for a purely administrative process.
- Update Open Space Plan.
- The size of the critical slopes should determine the level of regulation.
- If stream quality can be improved by disturbing slopes then the disturbance should be
permitted.
- Goals and regulations for critical slopes should match.
- Realize that critical slopes have to be impacted to get from one place to another.
- Adopt separate critical slope regulations for wireless facilities.
- Establish minimum area before slopes are considered critical. (10,000 square feet was
suggested).
- Location standard for regulation and not minimum size standard.
- Past problem has been no connection between waiver and changes or conditions requested by
Planning Commission.
- To promote development in Development Areas remove all critical slope regulations except
those slopes associated with streams buffers.
- Evaluate past waivers to see if consistent issues exist.
- Base Critical Slopes regulations on science.
- Clarify definitions of criteria – created slopes, aesthetic value.
- Clarify who makes determination of value slopes and evaluates request against review criteria.
ATTACHMENT B
- Insure appeal route exists.
- Define what a stream is in the development areas.
- Any regulation should result in an improved outcome. WPO plan and E&S plans are required.
Current process does not achieve anything.
- Regulations should distinguish between created and natural slopes.
- Critical Slopes waivers should be administrative.
- By-right projects are turned into something else solely due to presence of critical slopes. This
results in a significant investment in time.
- Process and criteria are too complicated.
2nd Critical Slopes Roundtable 2/17/10
Topics
- Develop a decision tree (standards) for waivers.
- More defined administrative checklist
- Conditions should be tied to waivers. So that review is beneficial. (Mitigation)
- If an intermittent stream is placed in a culvert does a system still exist?
- Waiver process encourages developments to minimize impacts.
- Fact that majority of requests are granted does not mean process isn’t beneficial
- Add predictability/consistency to decision making.
- Investigate additional areas for administrative flexibility
- Don’t completely sacrifice critical slopes in development areas
- Establish threshold - water resources are primary threshold
- Critical slopes associated with water systems are not waiver able.
- Use a system concept. Contiguous areas are a system.
- Criteria. Demonstrate that biological quality is better post development than pre-development.
- Off site/on site off sets at greater than 1:1
- Criteria. Geology, restabilization possibilities.
- Criteria. Areas to keep as non-waiver able such as recreation and open space.
- Criteria. Green infrastructure.
- Criterion should make outcome of waiver easily predictable.
- Identify types of slopes totally taken off table.
- Make one type of process easier and another type impossible.
- Don’t establish process that pushes development into RA because process is difficult in DA.
- Redefine Critical Slopes based on soils and geology.
- Rank slopes on value.
- Don’t base on slope. Small areas of steep slopes and larger areas of shallower slopes to be
protected.
- Buffers on maps don’t equal good buffers on the ground.
- Establish a baseline/snapshot on existing slopes.
ATTACHMENT B
- Calculate how much area would be given to development if any changes are adopted.
- Tie waiver to improvement in water quality.
- Re-evaluate exemptions. Particularly sewer lines.
- Tallahassee, fla – canopy tree streets
- Utilize streamwatch data
- Establish post development standards.
- Problem of allowing development access to areas where development wouldn’t occur without
waiver.
- Base waiver on existing and post development water quality.
- Area outside of determined area should be open for development but only with detailed set of
conditions establishing post development standards.
- Standards for critical slopes waivers should be easier in DA than RA.
- RA critical slopes are a system themselves. RA waivers should have many more considerations.
- Recognize that competing goals exist in DA but not in RA.
- Make development in RA more difficult than in DA.
- Expand evaluation of critical slopes to include RA.
- Recognize that DA and RA are very different. RA has rare and special features.
- Best development is redevelopment. Way to mitigate critical slope impacts is redevelopment.
- Investigate trading nonpoint source credits.
- Consider original intent of critical slopes.
- Require impact statement by developer with County field verification.
- Provide incentives to protect critical slopes.
- All critical slopes should be protected without possibility of waiver.
- Consider things both within the Comp plan and outside of Comp Plan.
- Evaluate waiver process to verify that all steps in the process are necessary and not just
bureaucratic steps.
- Make sure environment is still protected by quantitative, output oriented standards
- Steep slopes modulate density of construction and provide visual interest.
- While vacancy rates are high focus on redevelopment.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT C
Comprehensive Plan Statements about Critical Slopes
Reasons to protect steep slopes (slopes of 25% or greater) in the Development Area, as
indicated in the Comprehensive Plan:
1. To prevent siltation, sedimentation, and extensive erosion (p. 107)
2. To prevent landslides or sloughing of soil (p. 107)
3. To prevent excessive stormwater runoff and surface water and groundwater pollution
that can occur from excessive stormwater runoff (p. 107)
4. To retain environmental systems of streams and woods (p. 108)
5. For an aesthetic resulting from the relationship of buildings to landforms and vegetation
(p. 142)
6. For good urban design which respects the existing natural and cultural landscape and
creates new urban open spaces (p. 142)
7. To retain wooded areas that are valued by residents and that provide shade,
windbreaks, buffers, and visual breaks (p. 142)
8. To protect viewsheds that are valued by residents (p. 106 of NM – actual quote:
Viewshed impacts should be considered when designing buildings on steep slopes).
9. To protect and enhance riparian corridors. Stream buffer widths should be adjusted
based on the presence of wetlands, floodplains, adjacent critical slopes and/or erodible
slopes using guidance from the Open Space Plan and other watershed considerations.
(p. 37 Water Resources)
Which slopes should be protected?
1. Large contiguous areas of critical slopes especially along stream valleys, where the
slopes overlay with other significant resources. (Open Space Plan)
2. Slopes that are identified for preservation to enhance the quality of life in the
Development Areas (p. 106 of NM)
Actual quote: The County recognizes that not all steep slopes should be preserved from
development in the Development Areas. Significant features identified for preservation
in the Open Space Plan, as well as other environmentally sensitive areas, should be
mapped during the Master Planning process. As described in Section 4 (of the NM) the
first map created should identify particular areas of steep slopes, forested land, streams
and stream valleys to be preserved to enhance the quality of life in the Development
Areas.
ATTACHMENT C
Return to exec summary
Attachment D
Background on Critical Slopes and Management Strategies
After mapping the critical slope resources of the development areas staff considered what the typical impacts are to
critical slopes. Slopes are cut and filled to achieve a level surface for roads, parking and buildings. Below are diagrams
providing a basic example of what occurs during the development of critical slopes.
As can be seen from the above diagrams the creation of a flat area can result in the creation of slopes steeper than
previously existed.
Based on staff research and the comments made at the Roundtables staff opinion is that the resulting character of
development on critical slopes is important to the community and consistent with best planning practices.
EXAMPLES OF RETAINING WALL DESIGNS TO AVOID AND PROMOTE
To achieve the desired grading character the use of development standards should be implemented. By using
development standards the disturbance of “Managed” critical slopes can be processed administratively. Developers will
know what standards to use and can incorporate those standards into their designing and planning processes at the
beginning of the project layout. Neither the developer nor the citizens of the County will have to wonder if the
development of a certain area will be permitted or what it will look like. Some areas will not be permitted to be developed
while others may be developed with known standards.
Some types of development standards that could be developed include: (These standards were taken directly from other
jurisdictions and the specific requirements may not be appropriate for Albemarle County. The standards are provided to
give an example of the types of regulations that might be used to achieve the desired character of development.)
- Finished slopes of all cuts and fills shall not exceed thirty three (33) percent, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that steeper slopes can be stabilized and maintained adequately to the satisfaction of (Municipality)
- No retaining wall shall exceed the height prescribed in Section __ (Section of Mu nicipal Ordinance regulating
fences and walls) of the Zoning Ordinance, and there shall be at least 10 feet between stepped retaining walls. All
retaining walls require a certification by a professional engineer that the wall was constructed in accordance with
approved plans and applicable building codes.
- No trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of eight (8) inches or more shall be removed from steep slope
areas unless in accord with Section __ (Section of municipal zoning ordinance regulating fores try).
- No tree or other vegetation determined to be of specimen quality as determined by a registered landscape
architect or which generally falls within the parameters of the following table shall be removed from steep slope
areas. The examples of specimen trees included in the following table are intended to provide guidelines and
examples of what constitutes a specimen tree and are not considered all inclusive for the purpose of defining a
specimen tree.
- Tops and bottoms of cut and fill slopes shall be set back from existing and proposed property
lines a distance at least equal to the lesser of three feet plus 1/5 of the height of the cut or fill or
10 feet.
- Tops and bottoms of cut and fill slopes shall be set back from structures a distance that will
ensure the safety of the structure in the event of the collapse of the cut or fill slopes; generally,
such distance will be considered to be six feet plus 1/5 the height of the cut or fill but need not
exceed 10 feet. Nevertheless, a structure may be built on a slope or at the toe of a slope if it is
designed to retain the slope and to withstand the forces exerted on it by the retained slope.
- A minimum horizontal distance of 3 feet shall be maintained between each individual wall in the stepped wall
system, and shall be landscaped.
- Retaining walls could be incorporated into the design of the structure so that they become part of the structure.
- Gravity retaining walls could be used, regardless of the height, provided that landscaping and irrigation is installed
in the face of the wall.
- The transition between manufactured slopes and natural topography should be blended to avoid harsh angular
lines.
- Landscaping on manufactured slopes adjacent to natural topography should be similar to the vegetation on the
natural slopes. (With guidance from the recently approved database of native plant species).
- The maximum height for a single retaining wall, measured from grade to grade, shall be 10 feet. When the overall
retained height would exceed 10 feet, the retaining wall shall be broken into multiple stepped walls, with no
individual wall height exceeding 6 feet.
- Cut and fill slopes that are to be stabilized with grasses shall not be steeper than 2:1. When slopes exceed 2:1,
special design and stabilization consideration are required and shall be adequately shown on the plans. (Note:
Where the slope is to be mowed, the slope should be no steeper than 3:1, although 4:1 is preferred because of
safety factors related to mowing steep slopes.)
- Reverse slope benches or diversion shall be provided whenever the vertical interval (height) of any 2:1 slope
exceeds 20 feet; for 3:1 slope it shall be increased to 30 feet and for 4:1 to 40 feet. Benches shall be located to
divide the slope face as equally as possible and shall convey the water to a stable outlet. Soils, seeps, rock
outcrops, etc., shall also be taken into consideration when designing benches.
A. Benches shall be a minimum of six feet wide to provide for ease of maintenance.
B. Benches shall be designed with a reverse slope of 6:1 or flatter to the toe of the upper slope and with a
minimum of one foot in depth. Bench gradient to the outlet shall be between 2 percent
and 3 percent, unless accompanied by appropriate design and c omputations.
C. The flow length within a bench shall not exceed 800 feet unless accompanied by appropriate design
and computations; see Standard and Specifications for Diversion on page 5B.1
- Surface water shall be diverted from the face of all cut and/or fill slopes by the use of diversions, ditches
and swales or conveyed downslope by the use of a designed structure, except where:
A. The face of the slope is or shall be stabilized and the face of all graded slopes shall be protected from
surface runoff until they are stabilized.
B. The face of the slope shall not be subject to any concentrated flows of surface water such as from
natural drainage ways, graded swales, downspouts, etc.
C. The face of the slope will be protected by special erosion control materials, sod, gravel, riprap, or
other stabilization method.
- Subsurface drainage shall be provided where necessary to intercept seepage that would otherwise adversely
affect slope stability or create excessively wet site conditions.
- Slopes shall not be created so close to property lines as to endanger adjoining properties without adequately
protecting such properties against sedimentation, erosion, slippage, settlement, subsidence, or other related
damages.
It is recognized that certain activities should be permitted even in “Protected” areas. These activities potentially include:
- Road Construction.
- Sanitary Water and Sanitary Sewer facilities.
- Stormwater facilities.
- Public Utilities.
- Public and Private recreation, such as trails.
- Accessory uses on previously developed residential lots such as, gardens, sheds, driveways, decks and patios.
- Expansion of an existing structure.
- The establishment of the first dwelling on previously approved residential lots.
These are examples of the general types of activities that may be permitted in “Protected” areas. Standards for
determining when alternatives exist should be developed.
Return to exec summary
CROZET AVEROCKFISH GAP TPKE
THREE NOTCH'D RD WHITE HALL RD¡810
}ÿ240
£¤250
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, April 2010.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
±
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Critical Slopes
Managed
Preserved
Parcels
Streams
Water Bodies
Roads
Railroads
Development Areas
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Critical Slopes Crozet
Total Critical Slopes : 178.58 acresPreserved : 148.11 acres ( green)Managed : 30.47 acres ( orange)
ATTACHMENT E
SEMINOLE TRLSTONY POINT RD250/29 BYP
A
S
S SEMINOLE TRL}ÿ20
£¤29
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, April 2010.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
±
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Critical Slopes
Managed
Preserved
Parcels
Streams
Water Bodies
Roads
Railroads
Development Areas
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Critical Slopes Neighborhoods 1-2
Total Critical Slopes : 1064.04 acresPreserved : 380.05 acres ( green)Managed : 182.05 acres ( orange)
City ofCharlottesville
ATTACHMENT F
RIC
H
M
O
N
D
R
DSTONY POINT RDTHOMAS JEFFERSON P
K
WY }ÿ20
}ÿ53
£¤250
§¨¦64
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, October 2012.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2011
±
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Critical Slopes
Managed
Preserved
Parcels
Streams
Water Bodies
Roads
Railroads
Development Areas
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Critical Slopes Pantops
City ofCharlottesville
Total Critical Slopes : 300.89 acresPreserved : 177.97 acres ( green)Managed : 122.92 acres ( orange)
ATTACHMENT G
SCOTTSVILLE RDIVY RD SEMINOLE TRL29 BYPASS EXPW
250/29 BYPASS
THOMAS JEFFERSON
P
KWYMONACAN TRA
I
L
R
D STONY POINT RDRICHMOND RDEMMET ST SU
N
IVERSITY AVE
BYPASS OFF RAMPBYPASS ON RAMPMONTICELLO AVEFONTAINE AVENUE EXT
W M
A
I
N
S
T
B Y P A S S O FF RAMPBYPASS OFF RAMP2 5 0 /2 9 B Y P A S S SEMINOLE TRLRIC HMOND RDBYPASS OFF RAMP29 BYPASS EXPWM O N A C A N T R A IL RD}ÿ20 }ÿ53}ÿ20
£¤29
£¤250
£¤250
£¤250
£¤29 £¤250
£¤29
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
§¨¦64
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, April 2010.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
±
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Critical Slopes
Managed
Preserved
Parcels
Streams
Water Bodies
Roads
Railroads
Development Areas
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Critical Slopes Neighborhoods 4-7
Total Critical Slopes : 2603.47 acresPreserved : 1113.93 acres ( green)Managed : 298.81 acres ( orange)
City ofCharlottesville
ATTACHMENT H
SEMINOLE TRLSEMINOLE TRL£¤29
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, April 2010.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
±
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Critical Slopes
Managed
Preserved
Parcels
Streams
Water Bodies
Roads
Railroads
Development Areas
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Critical Slopes Hollymead
Total Critical Slopes : 429.99acresPreserved : 272.24 acres ( green)Managed : 157.749 acres ( orange)
ATTACHMENT I
SEMINOLE TRLSEMINOLE TRL£¤29
£¤29
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, April 2010.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
±
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Critical Slopes
Managed
Preserved
Parcels
Streams
Water Bodies
Roads
Railroads
Development Areas
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Critical Slopes Piney Mountain
Total Critical Slopes : 91.19 acresPreserved : 59.24 acres ( green)Managed : 31.95 acres ( orange)
ATTACHMENT J
RICHMOND
R
D
T H O M A S J E F F E R S O N P K W Y
LOUISA RD
}ÿ53}ÿ22
£¤250
§¨¦64
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, April 2010.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009
±
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Critical Slopes
Managed
Preserved
Parcels
Streams
Water Bodies
Roads
Railroads
Development Areas
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Critical Slopes Rivanna
Total Critical Slopes : 186.76 acresPreserved : 158.09 acres ( green)Managed : 28.67 acres ( orange)
Preserved
ATTACHMENT K
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Five Year Financial Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session on the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs Foley, Letteri, and Davis, and Ms. L. Allshouse
PRESENTER (S): Ms. Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 7, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Since 2008, the County has annually approved a balanced Five-Year Financial Plan for the County. This process is not
designed to be an approval of the next fiscal year’s operating budget, but helps create a framework within which the next
fiscal year’s budget development will take place. The first work session is scheduled for November 7, 2012. A
Board/School Board joint work session is scheduled for November 8, 2012 for the School Board to present the School
Division’s information related to the Five-Year Financial Plan. Additional Five-Year Financial Plan Board work sessions are
scheduled for December 5 and December 12, 2012. The purpose of these work sessions is for the Board to provide
direction on future priorities for funding given the financial projections over the next five years.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
At the November 7th work session, staff will present the latest information on revenues and expenditures and will present
an initial balanced Financial Plan for the Board’s review and discussion. The information will include specific assumptions
used by staff to balance the Five-Year Financial Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The five-year financial planning process informs thinking on future fiscal year planning and the priorities of the Board and
provides a framework for the annual budget process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide direction to staff regarding what potential changes, if any, it desires to see in the
Five-Year Financial Plan at this time. Adoption of a final Plan will be requested at a future work session.
Return to agenda