HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-2-06Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
FEBRUARY 6, 2013
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. GFOA Award, Leslie Beauregard.
b. Monticello – 25th Anniversary as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Ann Taylor.
7. Board Discussion on Police Firing Range.
8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
9. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:45 a.m. - Public Hearings:
10. SP-2012-00013. Kenridge (Sign #48&49). PROPOSED: Amendment to SP2009-
06 to change the approved conditions. Modification to conditions to allow changes to the exterior
building materials. Approved uses remain unchanged. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:
CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by
special use permit (15 units/acre). SECTION: 23.2.2(9) R-15 residential-15 units/acre. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses,
regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging
and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Rural Areas - preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/
acre in development lots) in Neighborhood 7. LOCATION: North side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West
across from Birdwood Golf Course). Approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and
the 29/250 By-pass. TAX MAP/PARCELS: 60K/A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, 60K/1-47, 49-61.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
11. SP-2012-00023. Faith Christian Center International (Sign #67).
PROPOSAL: Amendment of SP200700029 to increase day care attendance from 50 to 120.
ZONING: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/
acre). SECTION: 10.2.2.7, Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre). LOCATION:
2184 Richmond Rd. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000047A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
10:30 a.m. - Discussion/Action Items:
12. PROJECT: SP-2011-00002. Castle Hill Cider (Signs #30&32). (Deferred
from January 16, 2013)
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0206/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 2:09:15 PM]
Tentative
13. FY 2011-2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), David Foley.
14. Access Albemarle: Revenue and Taxation System. (Moved to consent agenda.)
15. Community Development Work Program.
16. Closed Meeting.
17. Certify Closed Meeting.
18. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. - Presentations:
19. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board Chairman.
20. Economic Vitality Action Plan Quarterly Update.
21. Quarterly Capital Projects Status Report, February 2013.
Work Session:
22. Court Study Results.
23. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
a. Noise Ordinance, Ken Boyd.
b. Long Range Transportation Plan, Dennis Rooker.
24. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
a. Update on status of solid waste.
b. Board retreat – summer/fall.
25. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
9.1 Approval of Minutes: November 7, December 12, and 13(A), 2012.
9.2 Authorize County Executive to sign agreements with Jefferson-Madison Regional Library.
9.3 Resolution to Appoint Shawn Maddox as Assistant Fire Marshal.
9.4 SDP-2012-00067. Houchens/Verizon Britts Tier II Personal Wireless Facility.
9.5 Ordinance to Adopt and Approve an Addendum to the January 20, 1984 Agreement By and
Among the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and the Rector and
Visitors of the University of Virginia for the Funding and Operation of the Emergency
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0206/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 2:09:15 PM]
Tentative
Communications Center. The Addendum would revise the funding formula for allocating the ECC’s
operating and capital improvement costs.
9.6 Resolution to accept road(s) in Fray’s Mill Subdivision into the State Secondary Road System.
9.7 FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
9.8 ACE; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services grant for easement acquisition.
9.9 Resolution to Approve Travel Reimbursement Policy for Board of Supervisors’ Members.
9.10 ZTA 2012-0012 - Critical Slopes; cost of revising critical slopes regulations.
FOR INFORMATION:
9.11 FY 13 General Fund Second Quarter Report and Revised FY 13 Revenue Projections
Report.
9.12 County Grants Application Report.
9.13 FY 2013 Second Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report.
9.14 Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 2012 (on file in Clerk's office).
9.15 VDOT – Culpeper District, Monthly Report for Albemarle County, February, 2013.
9.16. Access Albemarle: Revenue and Taxation System.
NEW: CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0206/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 2:09:15 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Leases
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of JMRL leases for the Scottsville, Northside
and Crozet branch libraries
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Herrick, Letteri, Shadman, and
Freitas
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL) provides library services for Albemarle, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
counties, and the City of Charlottesville. Each locality is required to provide its branch facilities at no cost to JMRL. Under
past practices, localities did not have formal leases or use agreements for these branch libraries. However, Section 7 of
the new Regional Library Agreement, which became effective on January 1, 2013, now requires such leases.
With the input of JMRL administration, County staff drafted leases for the Scottsville, Northside and Crozet branch
libraries, which are owned or leased by Albemarle County, detailing the areas of responsibility of JMRL and the County.
These agreements have been approved by the JMRL Board, and are attached (Attachments A-D).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2 (primary): Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal 1 (secondary): Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents.
DISCUSSION:
Under the proposed leases for the Crozet and Scottsville libraries, JMRL would continue to be responsible for the
operational responsibilities of the County-owned branch libraries for the remainder of the current fiscal year (through June
30, 2013). Beginning on July 1, 2013, Albemarle County’s General Services Department would assume the
responsibilities of building maintenance, utilities, grounds care, the preventive maintenance of the mechanical systems, the
repairs and cyclical maintenance of the physical building, and solid waste and custodial services at these branches.
General Services would also be responsible for monitoring utility use (except telephone) and coordinating payments. In
addition, all CIP responsibilities would be transferred to General Services, and would be managed through the CIP budget
process. The associated County costs would be funded through the General Services operating and CIP budgets and
would be reviewed by the Board each year during the budget process. JMRL would purchase and maintain all furniture
and office equipment needed to conduct everyday business, along with any needed IT support.
Under the proposed sublease for the Northside library, which the County leases from the Rio Associates Limited
Partnership and subleases to JMRL, JMRL would continue to maintain the Northside branch library as it does currently.
This allows for maintenance costs to be shared between the County and the City as a shared operating cost for that joint
facility.
The initial term of the leases would be for six months (January 1-June 30, 2013). Thereafter, the terms would be one-year
increments and would coincide with Albemarle County’s fiscal year. Each lease could be terminated by either party with a
ninety (90) day notice, with the exception of the lease for the current Crozet Library, which could be terminated with a thirty
(30) day notice.
The Library Board reviewed and approved the proposed leases at its January 28, 2013 meeting. The County Attorney’s
Office has also reviewed and approved the proposed leases for proper form and content.
AGENDA TITLE: Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Leases
February 6, 2013
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
Except for the increase in operating and maintenance expenses anticipated for the new Crozet Library, there should
not be a significant impact on the budget. The budgeted maintenance and utility funds for the Scottsville and Crozet
libraries will be transferred from the JMRL annual budget to the General Services budget. The estimated maintenance
and utility costs for FY 14 have been submitted to OMB and are included in the FY 14 budgets to be considered by the
Board. It is believed that the County can achieve efficiencies in maintaining the Crozet and Scottsville libraries.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the leases with JMRL for the Scottsville, Northside and Crozet branch libraries,
and authorize the County Executive to execute the leases.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Scottsville Library Lease
B – Northside Library Sublease
C – Current Crozet Library Lease
D – New Crozet Library Lease
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appointment of Assistant Fire Marshal
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to Appoint Shawn Maddox as Assistant Fire
Marshal
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Brown, Eggleston, Oprandy, and
Lagomarsino; and Ms. Durham
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 06, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County Code § 6-111 establishes the Office of the Fire Marshal pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-30. County
Code § 6-111 provides that the Fire Marshal shall be authorized to exercise all of the powers authorized by Title 27,
Chapter 3 of the Virginia Code. County Code §§ 6-200 et. seq. provide that the Fire Marshal shall fulfill the duties of the
Albemarle County Fire Official as established in Title 27 of the Virginia Code and the Virginia Statewide Fire Code.
Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the Board may appoint one or more assistants who, in the absence of the Fire
Marshal, shall have the powers and perform the duties of the Fire Marshal.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well being and quality of life of all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
Goal 7: Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service.
DISCUSSION:
Shawn Maddox has been hired to fill an Assistant Fire Marshal vacancy within the Albemarle County Fire Marshal’s
Office. He previously worked as the Fire Marshal for the City of Staunton, Virginia. In that position, he performed all of
the duties required of the position of Fire Marshal for over five years. His duties in Albemarle County will include similar
functions, including inspector, investigator, public educator and fire prevention officer duties. Shawn Maddox has
completed all of the training required to be an Assistant Fire Marshal, but has not completed the basic law
enforcement training required by Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1 and the Virginia Fire Marshal Academy to exercise police
powers.
The appointment of Shawn Maddox as Assistant Fire Marshal is necessary in order for him to fulfill the duties and
responsibilities of the Fire Marshal’s Office. Adoption of the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to appoint Shawn
Maddox as an Assistant Fire Marshal would authorize him to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal’s
Office, but not to exercise police powers.
Upon Shawn Maddox’s successful completion of the police powers training, staff will request the Board to adopt a
Resolution authorizing Shawn Maddox to exercise police powers.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This action will have no impact on the County budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution appointing Shawn Maddox as an Albemarle County
Assistant Fire Marshal without police powers.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution to Appoint Shawn Maddox as an Assistant Fire Marshal without police powers
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT SHAWN MADDOX
AS AN ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-30 provides that the governing body of a county may
appoint a fire marshal and Albemarle County Code § 6-111 establishes the Office of the Fire
Marshal; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code §§ 6-200 recognize the Fire Marshal as Albemarle
County’s Fire Official for the duties and responsibilities as established by Title 27 of the Virginia
Code, the Virginia Statewide Fire Code, and the Albemarle County Code; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1 provides that the governing body of a county may
authorize the fire marshal to have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or law -
enforcement officer upon completion of the training discussed in such section; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the governing body of a county may
appoint one or more assistants, who, in the absence of the fire marshal, shall have the powers and
perform the duties of the fire marshal; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding that Shawn Maddox has not taken the training required to
exercise police powers, the appointment of him as an Assistant Fire Marshal without police powers
will promote the efficient and effective operation of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and
Rescue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby appoints Shawn Maddox as an Assistant Fire Marshal as authorized in Virginia
Code §27-36 and Albemarle County Code § 6-111, but without police powers authorized in Virginia
Code § 27-34:2:1.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of _____ to
_______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on February 6, 2013.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2012-67 Houchens/ Verizon Wireless- Tier II
Personal W ireless Service Facility
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop
facility with a steel monopole that would be
approximately 100 feet tall (10 feet above the
reference tree) and associated ground equipment.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Cilimberg and Nelson
PRESENTER (S):
N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: W. Cilimberg
BACKGROUND:
The only planning/zoning history for this parcel is the administrative approval for the mobile home located on the property.
There are no existing Personal Wireless Service Facilities on this parcel or adjoining parcels. The proposed lease area for the
PWSF under review is located on the edge of a heavily wooded mountainside in a rural setting of large lot, single family
dwellings and farms.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal: 5: Ensure health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
This is a proposal to install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility with associated ground equipment. Tier II
tower reviews were previously approved by the Planning Commission and now must be approved as special exceptions by
the BOS. The standard staff report for tower reviews is attached (Attachment I) and provides a more detailed analysis of
this proposal. This proposal also includes a waiver request to disturb critical slopes. Staff has identified the following
regarding this proposal:
Factors favorable to this PWSF request:
1. The monopole is located so that it is only visible for a short duration from sections of Route 29 South directly
across and just north and south of the site. From locations north and south of the site, the balloon was seen
through trees. From locations across from the site, the balloon was seen above trees but with a significant wooded
mountainside backdrop.
2. The proposed ground equipment is not expected to be visible from nearby roadways and properties.
Factors unfavorable to this PWSF request:
1. None identified.
Factors favorable to this Critical Slope Waiver request:
1. The amount of total disturbance is limited.
2. Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent any movement
of soil.
3. Proper stabilization and maintenance can help long term stability. No septic effluent concerns.
4. Approval of the critical slopes waiver would better serve public welfare than strict application of the
regulations.
5. Minimal loss of aesthetic resource is expected.
Factors unfavorable to this Critical Slope Waiver request:
The disturbance of critical slopes is to a larger system of critical slopes.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval for the following:
Monopole 10’ above the reference tree
Critical slopes waiver
Tier II Facility with recommended condition of approval
ATTACHMENTS:
I – Staff Analysis
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
Attachment I
STAFF CONTACT: David Benish
Brent Nelson, Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: N/A
AGENDA TITLE: SDP2012-067: Houchens Property - Verizon Wireless Tier
II Personal Wireless Service Facility
PROPERTY OWNER: Charles M. & Wanda S. Houchens
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A).
The propose treetop personal wireless service facility will contain a steel monopole that would
be approximately 100 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet),
with associated ground equipment contained within a 10,004 square foot (82’ x 122’) lease area.
This application is being made in accordance with Section 10.2.1 (22) of the Zoning Ordinance,
allowing for Tier II wireless facilities by-right in the Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax
Map 75, Parcel 24A, contains 4.51 acres, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and
zoned RA, Rural Areas and Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). The parcel under review does not
directly adjoin the Route 29 South Entrance Corridor (EC) right-of-way; however, part of the
parcel does lie within the 500 foot EC boundary extending from that right-of-way. ARB staff has
determined that the proposed lease area does not lie within that 500 foot boundary; therefore, the
proposal does not require ARB review and approval.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 4.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed facility is to be located at 1019 Britts Mountain Hollow on the south side of Route
29 South, approximately 1.5 miles south of the I-64/Route 29 interchange. The parcel is located
approximately 300’ south of the Route 29 right-of-way. The parcel has a rural character
containing wooded and cleared areas with the facility under review to be located on a hillside
just inside the wooded area. The properties surrounding the subject parcel, characterized by large
farms and single family residential lots, are designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan
and included in the Rural Area Zoning District.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP198600023: Request to install a mobile home, administratively approved.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier II personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop
facility not located within an avoidance area.
2
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self-supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown
of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL),
and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having
a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by-way.
The proposed steel monopole and associated ground equipment will also require the disturbance
of critical slopes, which may be approved by special exception under County Code § 18-
31.8(a)(1). The Tier II application and height of the monopole 10’ above the reference tree are
also reviewed as special exceptions under County Code § 18-31.8(a) (1)&(2).
Section 5.1.40(d), “Tier II facilities” states:
“Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying
the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and
operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shall act
on each application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission
shall approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these
requirements have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which
requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each
requirement.”
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1.40(a) and has performed a balloon test at the location of the proposed facility [Attachments
D, E & F].
Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility complies
with all of the exemptions of Section 5.1.40(b) and the proposed equipment meets all relevant
design, mounting and size criteria set forth in Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). The remainder of
subsection (c) provides requirements that are subject to enforcement if the facility is approved.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
3
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, the facility shall be
sited to so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 100 feet
above ground level (AGL) or 707.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the
reference tree is approximately 697.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within
25’ of the proposed monopole.
A balloon test was conducted on December 14, 2012 (Attachments D, E & F). During the site
visit, staff observed a balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed
monopole, 10’ above the reference tree. Route 29 South was traveled to determine the extent of
visibility of the proposal. The proposed ground equipment lease area was not visible. The
balloon was only visible for a very short duration from sections of Route 29 South directly across
and just north and south of the site. From locations north and south of the site, the balloon was
seen through trees. From locations across from the site, the balloon was visible above trees but
with a significant wooded mountainside backdrop. The balloon was then lowered to a height 7’
above the reference tree. Staff did not notice a material difference in the visibility of the balloon.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space
and Critical Resources Plan [Attachment G]. Staff believes there is no significant loss of
resources related to the proposed Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or
approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
There are no other personal wireless service facilities located within an area comprised of a
circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level,
shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more
than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and
shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural
ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not
a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan
caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the
board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole would have a height of
4
approximately 707.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is
approximately 697.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). As proposed by the applicant, the
monopole will be ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. It is Staff’s
opinion that there is no material difference between the ten foot height and the seven foot height;
therefore staff recommends approval at the proposed ten foot above the reference tree.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each
metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding
trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole
shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground
equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color
if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color
that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and
(iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other
parcel or a public or private street.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed
color for the tower and associated equipment shelter is a brown paint color (SW6090, Java
Brown) to match existing surroundings.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and
similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on
the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the
agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar
attachments are contained within the monopole’s structure.
A note on the site plan indicates that all vertical cables, wires and similar attachments shall be
run vertically within the monopole structure.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by
any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for
radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the
Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and
design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting
structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The
applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of
alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna
additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the denial of this application would
have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services.
5
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DISTURB CRITICAL SLOPES
The applicant has submitted a request and justification for a special exception to disturb critical
slopes [Attachment H], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the
Ordinance. The request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the
critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing
activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) establishes the criteria by which a request to
disturb critical slopes is evaluated. Under Section 31.8(b), the Board must consider the factors,
standards, criteria, and findings delineated in Section 4.2.5(a), but it is not required to make
specific findings in support of its decision.
The critical slopes specific to this site appear to be previously disturbed during the development
of the existing gravel road. The overall critical slopes in the area of this request are natural and
belong to a larger system of critical slopes that have been identified as needing to be protected in
the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the
concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled “Critical Slopes.”
These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is
presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance to which each pertain.
Section 4.2.5(a)
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request
follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
This is a mountainside parcel with existing dwelling. Applicant proposes to construct an access
road and site development for a tier II personal wireless service facility.
Areas Acres
Total site 4.508 acres approximately
Critical slopes 3.338 74% of site
Critical slopes disturbed 0.24 7.2% of critical
slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
This disturbance is not exempt.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any
movement of soil.
“excessive stormwater runoff”
Stormwater runoff will be maintained roughly as it is today in this area, as much of the work
is along an existing gravel driveway and old logging road. Additional vegetation will help
off-set the proposed impervious area.
6
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction.
Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long-term stability.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
This area is visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood.
“septic effluent”
This neighborhood is not serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns that prohibit the disturbance of the
critical slopes as shown.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The
preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the
provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3), along with staff comment on the various provisions. Under
31.8, the Board may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 based on these provisions,
however, no specific finding is required in support of the Board’s decision on the special
exception.
“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;”
Granting the special exception could better serve the purpose of this chapter or the public health,
safet y or welfare by allowing the site to provide area residents with more reliable 4G service.
More reliable service may be considered to serve public welfare, in an area where cell service is
more limited.
“B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and
purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;”
No alternatives have been proposed by the applicant.
“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”
Because the entire property is located on the slope of a mountain with 74% in critical slopes,
critical slopes disturbance is necessary in order to install the by-right facility, regardless of its
location on the parcel.
“D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.”
Granting the special exception would serve a public purpose of greater importance than would be
7
served by strict application of the regulations. Although the critical slopes to be disturbed belong
to a larger system of critical slopes, the total disturbance is minimal. Loss of aesthetic resource is
also expected to be minimal. The proposed tower is well sited and otherwise meets the County’s
Wireless Policy.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this PWSF request include:
1. The monopole is located so that it is only visible for a short duration from sections of
Route 29 South directly across and just north and south of the site. From locations north
and south of the site, the balloon was seen through trees. From locations across from the
site, the balloon was seen above trees but with a significant wooded mountainside
backdrop.
2. The proposed ground equipment is not expected to be visible from nearby roadways and
properties.
Factors unfavorable to this PWSF request include:
1. None identified.
Favorable Factors for Critical Slope Disturbance:
1. The amount of total disturbance is limited.
2. Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent
any movement of soil.
3. Proper stabilization and maintenance can help long term stability. No septic effluent
concerns.
4. Approval of the critical slopes waiver would better serve public welfare than strict
application of the regulations.
5. Minimal loss of aesthetic resource is expected.
Unfavorable Factors for Critical Slope Disturbance:
1. The disturbance of critical slopes is to a larger system of critical slopes.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, if the Board of Supervisors
chooses to deny this application, the Board is required to provide the applicant with a statement
regarding the basis for denial and all items that will have to be addressed to satisfy each
requirement.
Special Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance:
Requests for modifications must be reviewed under the criteria established in Section 31.8 taking
into consideration the factors, standards, criteria and findings for each request; however no
specific finding is required in support of a decision. The proposed modifications are for the
height of the structure in relation to the reference tree as per Section 5.1.40 (d) (6).
8
RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR TIER II WIRELESS
FACILITY:
Staff recommends approval of special exceptions for a monopole 10’ above the reference tree,
modification of Section 5.1.40 (d) (6) to allow a waiver to disturb critical slopes and approval of
SDP201200067 Verizon Britts Mountain a Tier II personal wireless service facility.
Conditions of approval:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Britts
Mountain Installation of Monopole, Compound and Operation of Antennas and Base
Station Equipment in a Raw Land Lease Area (Houchens property)” prepared by Justin
Yoon latest revision date 1/4/13 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within
the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan.:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment and monopole
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Application Justification Letter
D. Balloon Test Photo, Route 29 South across from the site
E. Balloon Test Photo, Route 29 South just north of the site
F. Balloon Test Photo, Route 29 South just south of the site
G. Open Space and Critical Resources Map
H. Critical Slope Waiver Request
Return to exec summary
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLEREV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
APPROVAL
CONSULTING TEAM PROJECT SUMMARY
11
REV. NO.DESCRIPTION DATEBY
G-1
SITE
PROJECT
SITE
PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INSTALLATION OF MONOPOLE, COMPOUND AND
OPERATION OF ANTENNAS AND BASE STATION
EQUIPMENT IN A RAW-LAND LEASE AREA
HOUCHENS PROPERTY
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-1
LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
LEASE NOTES
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-1A
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-1B
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTES
LEASE NOTES
TREE INVENTORY
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-2
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTES
LEASE NOTES
DEMOLITION NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-2A
EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL NOTES
E & S LEGEND
MATCHLINE THIS SHEET
MATCHLINE THIS SHEET
MATCHLINE SHEET C-2B
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-2B
GRAPHIC SCALE(S)
MATCHLINE SHEET C-2AMATCHLINE 'A' THIS SHEET
MATCHLINE 'A' THIS SHEET
DEMOLITION NOTES
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-2C
SILT FENCE OPTION
OPTIONAL STONE COMBINATION
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-3ELEVATION VIEW
ENLARGED VIEW
ENLARGED VIEW
GENERAL NOTES
ANTENNA NOTES
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
C-4
ELEVATION KEY
REAR WALL ELEVATION C
RIGHT WALL ELEVATION D
LEFT WALL ELEVATION B
FRONT WALL ELEVATION A
A-1
NOTES
BRITTS
MOUNTAIN
RAW-LAND
MONOPOLE
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Utilities
Towers
Parcel Info
ParcelsStacked
SDP201200067, Verizon Houchens Property
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources January 28, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
296 ft
SDP 201200067, Verizon Houchens Property, Balloon Test
From Route 29 South Across from the Site
Balloon Location
SDP 201200067, Verizon Houchens Property, Balloon Test
From the Intersection of McCauley Mtn. Lane and Route 29 South
Approximately 1,500 Feet Northwest of the Site
Balloon Location
SDP 201200067, Verizon Houchens Property, Balloon Test
From the Driveway Entrance at 1370 Monacan Trail Rd. (Route 29 South)
Approximately 3,700 Feet Southwest of the Site
Balloon Location
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Addendum to Emergency Communications Center Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement Dated January 20, 1984
Between the County of Albemarle, the City of
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of an ordinance to amend the joint exercise of
powers Agreement for the Emergency Communications
Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Brown, Allshouse and Hanson
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and the University of Virginia have cooperated for many years in the
joint operation and management of the region’s combined Emergency Communications Center (“ECC”) pursuant to a joint
exercise of powers Agreement dated January 20, 1984 (Attachment A). The centralized dispatching facility provides
service for the three respective law enforcement agencies, fire agencies, and emergency medical services, as well as the
“911” emergency telephone service. The local Office of Emergency Management is also included in the ECC operations.
The history of how the ECC has been funded is provided in Attachment E.
On January 9, 2013, ECC Executive Director Tom Hanson provided an overview of the ECC operations and the proposed
Addendum #2 to the Agreement (Attachment C) to the Board, and the Board authorized a Notice of Intent to adopt the
attached Ordinance (Attachment D) to adopt the Addendum.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The ECC Management Board directed its Executive Director to work with budget representatives of the three
jurisdictions to develop a revised funding formula that would be an up to date and more easily managed budget process,
and would be more equitable to all parties. The proposed Addendum #2 (Attachment C), establishes a revised funding
formula for operating and capital improvement (CIP) costs that is based on actual calls for service. CIP costs would be
fixed by project based on the year the CIP project is approved, and would not be recomputed each year. In addition, it
establishes a maximum year-end fund balance not to exceed 25% of the ECC’s total annual operating budget. It would
be effective beginning in FY 14.
The ECC Management Board approved Addendum #2 on September 12, 2012 at its regular board meeting after an
opportunity for public comment was provided. The Addendum requires the approval of the governing bodies of the
County, City, and University. The City Council is scheduled to consider the approval of Addendum #2 on February 4,
2013, and the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia is scheduled to consider Addendum #2 on February 21 or
22, 2013.
Staff modified Addendum #2 following the Board meeting on January 9, 2013 to add paragraph 1(c). Staff and ECC
Executive Director Tom Hanson determined that the 800 MHz System should not be subject to the proposed revised
funding formula. The funding formula for the 800 MHz System was established by an Agreement dated June 27, 2003
between the County, the City and the University, which allocated the costs for that system based on the number of
radios used by each Participant, as well as other third party users. The current funding formula for the 800 MHz
System is based on actual use, is easily managed, and allows for the efficient billing of third party users of that system.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1300 requires that localities approve joint exercise of powers agreements by ordinance. A public
hearing is not required. Notice of Intent to adopt this Ordinance was duly advertised as required by Virginia Code
§ 15.2-1427. The County Attorney has approved the attached ordinance to adopt the Addendum (Attachment D) and
has approved the proposed Addendum #2 (Attachment C) as to form.
AGENDA TITLE: Addendum to Emergency Communications Center Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Dated
January 20, 1984 Between the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville and the University of
Virginia
February 6, 2013
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
If approved, the proposed Addendum #2 will provide a more equitable, simplified and comprehensive funding formula
based on system usage. If the proposed funding formula had been applicable for FY 13, the County, being the biggest
user of the system, would have paid approximately $56,893 more (1.17% increase) in the current fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment D) to adopt the Addendum #2 to the
Agreement (Attachment C).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – January 20, 1984 Agreement
B – 2002 Addendum #1 to January 20, 1984 Agreement
C – Proposed Addendum #2 to January 20, 1984 Agreement
D – Ordinance to approve Addendum #2
E – History of Funding Formula for the ECC
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
1
ADDENDUM #2 TO AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 20, 1984
BY AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, AND
THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
This Addendum #2, dated January 1, 2013, to the Agreement dated January 20, 1984, and
first amended October 10, 2002, by and among the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, the
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, and the RECTOR and VISITORS of THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (collectively referred to as the “Participants”).
The Participants agree to the following modifications to the Agreement:
1. Section IV (“Allocation of Costs”) is deleted and replaced with the following
paragraphs:
a. Operating Costs. Beginning with the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2013,
the Management Board shall submit the annual budget request for the Center to each Participant by
January 15th of each year in a format generally in accordance with the Uniform Financial Reporting
System of the Auditor of Public Accounts for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Operating costs will
be allocated among the Participants in direct proportion to their respective shares of the percentage
of the numbers of calls for service received by the Center. In preparing for the budget for each year,
the Management Board shall obtain the actual number of calls received by the Center for the
immediately preceding 12 month period of October 1 through September 30. The Management
Board shall use such actual call numbers to recompute the allocation formula for each next ensuing
fiscal year. The recomputation shall be made as soon after January 1 as possible to make accurate
figures available to the Participants for their annual budget. A hypothetical example of the Funding
Formula calculated under this section if it had applied to fiscal year 2012-2013 is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. The budget shares for the Participants under the formula calculated under this section are
set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto.
b. Capital Improvements Costs. Non-recurring capital items for the Center
shall be submitted to each Participant as part of its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Capital
items include (i) land acquisition, and construction of new facilities: (ii) renovations or additions
to existing facilities; (iii) major studies such as facility or systems assessments, engineering or
feasibility studies related to facility or system needs; and (iv) equipment requirements. Funding
for capital items shall be subject to approval by the Participants. The cost for capital items for the
Center shall be allocated among the Participants according to their percentage of actual calls to
the Center as determined in section IV(a) above for the fiscal year such capital items are
approved by a Participant; provided, however, that each Participant’s percentage of cost for a
capital item shall not be recomputed each year, but shall remain constant for such capital item.
By way of example, the Computer Aided Dispatch System (CADS) is a capital item. The cost
allocation of the CADS project is based on the cost allocation among the Participants in effect at
the time that project was approved by the Participants and shall remain constant throughout such
project, not-withstanding the recalculation of allocations for operating costs pursuant to section
IV(a) above.
c. 800 MHz System. Notwithstanding paragraphs a and b above, the capital
and operational cost allocation of the 800 MHz Public Safety Project (the 800 MHz System) was
established by an Agreement dated June 27, 2003 among the Participants, with the cost
allocation based on the number of radios used in the 800 MHz System by the Participants and
certain third party users. The capital cost allocation of the 800 MHz System shall remain fixed
pursuant to the terms of the Agreement dated June 27, 2003. The operational cost of the 800
MHz System shall continue to be recomputed each year allocating the cost to the Participants
equal to the percentage of the number of radios used by each Participant in the 800 MHz System.
Unless otherwise agreed to, the capital and operational cost for any communications system
ATTACHMENT C
2
which replaces the 800 MHz System will also be allocated among the Participants equal to the
percentage of the number of radios used by each Participant in such replacement system.
d. Fund Balance. The Center may retain a year-end fund balance not to exceed
twenty-five percent (25%) of the Center’s total annual operating budget. The Management Board
will, after each fiscal year audit, return to each Participant its share of any carryover funds in excess
of those amounts necessary to fund the reserve fund. The return of such funds to each Participan t
will be prorated using the allocation formula calculated pursuant to section IV(a) above for such
fiscal year. In lieu of returning such funds, the Management Board may formally request alternative
uses for such carryover funds, subject to the approval of the Participants.
2. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect and the
Participants hereby ratify and confirm the provisions, terms and conditions set forth in the
Agreement and any amendments or addenda thereto.
WITNESS the following signatures.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
_____________________________ ___________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive Date
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
County Attorney
ATTACHMENT C
3
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
_______________________________ __________________________
Maurice Jones, City Manager Date
Approved as to form:
______________________________
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT C
4
RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
_____________________________ ________________________
Date
Approved as to form:
______________________________
University Counsel
ATTACHMENT C
5
Exhibit A
Proposed Funding Formula
County City UVA Totals
PD/Fire/EMS Calls
Percentage
69,826
48.45%
53,008
36.78%
21,296
14.77%
144,130
100.00%
69,826 53,008 21,296 144,130
Percentage 48.45% 36.78% 14.77%
FY 13 Budget $5,326,614
Minus Internal 800 MHz Public Safety* $500,863
Minus 800 MHz Outside Agencies** $271,011
Total $4,554,740
Total multiplied by % above $2,206,772 $1,675,233 $672,735
Internal 800 MHz Public Safety* $288,107 $122,841 $89,915
Minus Other Revenue $240,189 $182,335 $73,222 $495,746
Total Owed per locality $2,254,690 $1,615,739 $689,428
* Internal public safety agencies include:
Albemarle County Public Safety (37.33%) $288,107
City of Charlottesville Public Safety (15.91%) $122,841
University of Virginia Public Safety (11.65%) $89,915 $500,863 ***
* Outside agencies include (billed individually):
Albemarle County Schools (11.03%) $85,166
City of Charlottesville Public Works (3.98%) $30,710
City of Charlottesville Schools (2.09%) $16,147
City of Charlottesville Transit (2.30%) $17,730
UVA Transit (2.91%) $22,479
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Airport (2.13%) $16,463
Albemarle -Charlottesville Regional Jail (6.23%) $48,123
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (2.30%) $17,730
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (0.17%) $1,266
Albemarle County Service Authority (1.97%) $15,197 $271,011 ***
*** These would be billed separately as part of the 800 MHz infrastructure budget
The public safety agencies for each jurisdiction would be included in the localities
portion of the regular budget.
ATTACHMENT C
6
Exhibit B
CHARLOTTESVILLE-UVA-ALBEMARLE COUNTY
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
BUDGET SHARES
FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013
Description Cost Center Albemarle Charlottesville UVA Others TOTAL
Operations 31040 $744,421 $565,114 $226,937 $0 $1,536,472 48.45% 36.78% 14.77% 0.00%
Admin 31041 $706,479 $536,312 $215,370 $0 $1,458,161
48.45% 36.78% 14.77% 0.00%
Telecom. 911 31042 $113,858 $86,433 $34,710 $0 $235,000
48.45% 36.78% 14.77% 0.00%
EMD 31043 $159,680 $121,218 $48,678 $0 $329,576
48.45% 36.78% 14.77% 0.00%
Emergency 31045 $70,487 $53,509 $21,488 $0 $145,485
Services 48.45% 36.78% 14.77% 0.00%
PS Technology 31046 $111,391 $84,561 $33,958 $0 $229,909
48.45% 36.78% 14.77% 0.00%
Co.Fire Com. 31047 $148,612 $112,816 $45,304 $0 $306,733
48.45% 36.78% 14.77% 0.00%
800 MHz 31048 $288,107 $122,841 $89,915 $271,011 $771,874
37.33% 15.91% 11.65% 35.11%
City Fire 31049 $151,844 $115,270 $46,290 $0 $313,404
48.45% 36.78% 14.77%
Total Budget $2,494,879 $1,798,074 $762,650 $271,011 $5,326,614
Share
Revenues -$240,189 -$182,335 -$73,222 $0 -$495,746
Total Due $2,254,690 $1,615,739 $689,428 $271,011 $4,830,868
Other Outside Revenues
29,000 (Interest)
10,500 (OES Grant)
453,600 (Wireless Fund)
2,646 (FBI)
$495,746.00 Total Other Outside Revenues
Total Shares Due FY- 2012-2013
Albemarle County - $2,254,690
City of Charlottesville - $1,615,739
University of Virginia - $689,428
800 MHz Infrastructure Others - $271,011
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ORDINANCE NO. 13-A(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE AN ADDENDUM
TO THE JANUARY 20, 1984 AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA AND
THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
FOR THE FUNDING AND OPERATION OF
THE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
WHEREAS, the County, the City and the University have jointly funded and undertaken
the operation of a joint dispatch center for the purpose of performing direct dispatching functions
for County, City and University law enforcement personnel pursuant to a joint exercise of
powers Agreement dated January 20, 1984; and
WHEREAS, this Board desires to amend the January 20, 1984 Agreement to revise the
funding formula to be simpler and more equitable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THAT the Addendum #2 to Agreement
Dated January 20, 1984 by and among the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia and the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia pertaining to
the joint funding and operation of the Emergency Communications Center, attached hereto and
incorporated herein, is hereby approved, and that the County Executive is hereby authorized to
execute Agreement Addendum #2 on behalf of the County of Albemarle.
This ordinance shall be effective immediately.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
_____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT E
2306 Ivy Road ∙ Charlottesville, VA 22903 ∙ (434) 970-1098 ∙ Fax (434) 971-1767
“A CALEA Nationally Accredited Communications Center”
“APCO Project 33 Certified Training Program”
M E M O R A N D U M - G E N E R A L
To: ECC Management Board
From: Tom Hanson, Director
Date: December 10, 2012
Subject: History of Current ECC Funding Formula’s
When the ECC was established in 1984 it was for a joint police department communications
center. The funding formula that was developed at that time was based on population, number of
police calls dispatched and the number of UCR Part 1 crimes within each jurisdiction. This
information was averaged to develop each jurisdiction’s budget percentage for the year. This
formula is still being used today.
In the late 1980’s the ECC took over EMS dispatch operations for the rescue squads and a
funding formula for EMS operations was developed based on actual number of calls dispatched
within the City and County which included UVA Grounds in both localities. The percentage for
this part of the budget was based on actual calls dispatch and divided into this part of the budget
to get payment shares for the City and County. The University does not pay into this part of the
budget.
In the early 1990’s when the city and county jointly developed the E911 emergency telephone
system the budget percentage that was developed was based on the number of land line
telephones within the City and County. This was divided into the total number of telephones in
both jurisdictions to get the budget percentage that was then used to divide budget costs. The
University does not pay into this part of the budget. At the time they were exempt because they
were a state agency and they had their own telephone system that required them to dial 9-911
when trying to access the emergency telephone system.
In 2001 when the ECC opened the new facility we took over regional public safety technology
needs including police and fire RMS Systems. The ECC Management Board agreed to fund this
part of the ECC budget that dealt with regional technology with the City and County paying 40%
each and the University paying for 20% of this part (technology cost center) of the ECC budget
annually.
In 2004 the ECC took over county fire department dispatching and the County agreed to pay
100% of the cost of 5 additional FTE’s for 24 hour dispatch operations. This is still done today.
ATTACHMENT E
2306 Ivy Road ∙ Charlottesville, VA 22903 ∙ (434) 970-1098 ∙ Fax (434) 971-1767
“A CALEA Nationally Accredited Communications Center”
“APCO Project 33 Certified Training Program”
In 2004 the ECC began to operate the 800 MHz regional radio system and the ECC Management
Board agreed to fund the annual infrastructure maintenance costs. This funding formula is based
on the actual number of radio’s each agency has working on the radio system.
In 2006 the ECC took over the city fire department dispatching and the City transferred funding
for 5 FTE positions from their budget into the ECC’s budget annually to pay for 24 hour dispatch
operations. This is still paid by the city today.
Today the ECC uses 6 different funding formulas to develop its annual budget which now is split
into 9 individual cost centers. This was developed based on the old 911 surcharge law which
only allowed the surcharge to pay for certain parts of the budget and because of the various
funding formulas. The local 911 surcharge was replaced by a new funding law in about 2008
which requires the funds to be included in communications tax funding collected by the
Commonwealth and then dispersed back to the locality’s general fund.
Return to exec summary
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
6th day of February 2013, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Fay’s Mill Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 6, 2013, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of T ransportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Fray’s Mill, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 6, 2013, to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Millhouse Drive (State Route 1048) from the intersection of Route 641 to the cul-
de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 4130, page 586, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.18 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.18
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#201362, #2013064, #2013065, #2013066, #2013067,
#2013068, #2013069, #2013070, and #2013071 for local
government and school division programs and projects.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, and Letteri; and Ms. Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
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 increase to the FY 13 budget due to the appropriations itemized below is $1,400,436.20. 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 nine (9) FY 2013 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013062) totaling $2,785.00 for donations to the Department of Fire and Rescue;
One (1) appropriation (#2013064) totaling $80,127.46 for the ACE program from the Farmland Preservation’s
Local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program Grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2013065) totaling $5,500,000.00 for a transfer from the FY12 General Fund balance
to the FY13 Capital Improvement Program Funds. This appropriation increases the budget $500,000.00 due
to the reduction of use of capital fund balance by $5,000,000.00;
One (1) appropriation (#2013066) totaling $880,800.00 for the Revenue and Taxation component of Access
Albemarle. This appropriation increases the budget $692,945.47; the remaining $187,054.53 are from
currently appropriated funds;
One (1) appropriation (#2013067) totaling $38,583.27 for reimbursed and recovered costs received by the
Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013068) totaling $35,995.00 for a grant awarded by the Department of Criminal
Justice Services to the Police Department. This appropriation includes a local match of $4,000.00 provided
from the County’s appropriated Grants Leveraging Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2013069) totaling $292,506 for the purchase of an ambulance and related equipment
to serve the Seminole Trail/Rio Road area of the County. This appropriation will not increase the total budget
because the funding will be re-appropriated from the balance of current apparatus funding;
One (1) appropriation (#2013070) totaling $50,000.00 for school division grants; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013071) totaling $25,929 for training and professional development for various
departments. This appropriation will not increase the total budget because the funding will be re-appropriated
from the Training Pool funding.
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
February 6, 2013
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2013062, #2013064, #2013065, #2013066, #2013067, #2013068,
#2013069, #2013070, and #2013071.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2013062 $2,785.00
Source: Donations $ 2,785.00
This request is to appropriate $2,785.00 in donations received by the Fire and Rescue Department (FR) for the cost
of necessary cable system upgrades at Monticello and Hollymead Fire and Rescue stations. In 1998 a Special
Reveune Fund account was established for donations received by FR. Periodically, these funds are requested for
appropriation by the Board of Supervisors to help fund needed items for the Department.
Appropriation #2013064 $80,127.46
Source: State Revenue $ 80,127.46
This request is to appropriate $80,127.46 from a 2012 Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Grant to reimburse the County for a portion of the cost of an ACE easement. The total cost of the easement was
$207,038.00. Although the Grant can reimburse up to 50% of the purchase price of a qualifying easement, or
$103,519 for this easement, the remaining 2012 Grant balance available to the County was only $80,127.46.
Appropriation #2013065 $500,000.00
Source: General Fund fund bal. $5,500,000.00
General Gov’t CIP Fund fund bal. ($4,150,000.00)
School CIP Fund fund bal. ($850,000.00)
This request is to appropriate $5,500,000.00 of FY 12 General Fund excess revenues over expenditures to the
Capital Improvement Program funds for "pay as you go" capital projects. The General Fund will budget the transfer
of $5,500,000.00 in revenues to the Capital Improvement Program. In the Capital Improvement Program funds,
$5,000,000 of these revenues will be budgeted for pay- as-you-go projects, which will reduce the use of Capital
Program fund balance.
This transfer will be placed in the following Capital Improvement Program funds, based on the percentage of pay-
as-you-go projects included in each fund. The transfer will be appropriated as follows:
School CIP Fund: $1,054,284.00
General Government CIP Fund: $4,436,929.00
Stormwater CIP Fund: $8,787.00
As part of the FY 13 Adopted Budget, $500,000 of this amount had previously been budgeted for pay-as-you-go
projects in the Captial Improvement Program funds. This appropriation will result in a net increase in the overall
County budget of $500,000.00.
Appropriation #2013066 $ 692,945.47
Source: Miscellaneous Revenue $ 250,000.00
General Gov’t CIP Fund fund bal. $ 442,945.47
As described in the Access Albemarle: Revenue and Taxation System Executive Summary, also on the Board’s
February 6 agenda, this request is to appropriate $250,000.00 in general fund miscellaneous revenue and
$442,945.47 in general government CIP fund balance, and to re-allocate $187,054.53, which is the balance of the
Access Albemarle project funding, for a total net appropriation of $692,945.47. This funding will support the
Revenue and Taxation componnent of the Access Albemarle Program . The total capital project budget is
$880,000.00. The Revenue and Taxation System Replacement will transition existing revenue and taxation
functions from the County’s main frame to a new system for Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes, Business
Taxes & Licenses, Pet, Hunting and Fishing Licenses and Payment Receipt Processing. The project will begin upon
appropriation of this funding and is anticipated to be completed in 12 to 15 months.
Attachment A
2
Appropriation #2013067 $38,583.27
Source: Local Revenue (recovered costs, non-tax revenue) $ 38,583.27
This request is to appropriate $38,583.27 to the Police Department; $37,627.27 from the Charlotte, North Carolina
Police Department for overtime associated with Albemarle County officers assisting with the 2012 Democratic
National Convention and $956.00 from e-cycle for recycling old cell phones.
Appropriation #2013068 $35,995.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 35,995.00
Transfer from Grants Leveraging Fund $ 4,000.00
This request is to appropriate a grant (# 13-A2720JB10) awarded by the Department of Criminal Justice Services
to the Police Department in the amount of $35,995.00 and to re-appropriate a local match of $4,000.00 from the
Grants Leveraging Fund, for a total grant award of $39,995.00. Because the local match is re-appropriated, the total
County Budget will only increase by $35,995.00. The purpose of this grant is to develop a comprehensive
community gang assessment process that results in a comprehensive, collaborative, and actionable strategic plan
for the local Gang Reduction through Active Community Engagement (GRACE) Coalition. The goal of the project is
organize the community toward gang prevention, intervention, and suppression. Resource and staff support will be
contributed by members of the local Safe Schools and Health y Students Program. This funding provides for
consulting services to develop the assessment and to work with the Coalition to develop a knowledge-based
understanding of the situation and an actionable strategic plan.
Appropriation #2013069 $0.00*
*This appropriaton will not increase the total budget
Source:
This request is to re-appropriate $292,506.00; $146,253.00 from the unspent balance of the CARS Ambulance #1
project and $146,253.00 from the unspent balance of CARS Ambulance #2 project, to support the purchase of an
ambulance and related equipment to serve the Seminole Trail/Rio Road area of the County. A new ambulance cost
approximately $290,000, including equipment.
This re-appropriation will not increase the total budget.
Appropriation #2013070 $50,000.00
Source: Miscellaneous Grants $ 50,000.00
At the July 11, 2012 Board meeting, the Board approved streamlining the appropriation process for anticipated FY
12/13 School Fund revenue for grants, donations, and School Activity Funds. On August 1, 2012, the Board
approved an initial appropriation of $50,000.00 for the School Division’s anticipated grants. The School Division has
exceeded this amount in grants received and anticipates that there will be a number of additional grants awarded
throughout the year. This request is to appropriate an additional $50,000.00 in grant funding. Funds will not be
expended until grants are awarded.
Appropriation #2013071 $0.00*
*This appropriaton will not increase the total budget
Source: Training Pool $ 25,929.00
This request is to re-appropriate $25,929.00 from the Training Pool funding to various departments for training
opportunities. The Board approved funding for training in the amount of $83,807.00 in the FY 13 budget in support of
its strategic objective to expand opportunities for training and professional development. After this appropriation,
$31,550.00 will remain in the training pool. This re-appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
Attachment A
3
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ACE; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services grant for easement acquisition
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the County Executive to execute an Inter-
governmental Agreement with Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg, and Goodall
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ (“VDACS”) Office of Farmland Preservation has awarded
a grant in the amount of $160,715.64 to the County under a program established by the 2007 General Assembly to
provide funds for the preservation of working farms and forest lands.
The County was awarded similar grants of $110,952.46 in 2012, $55,290.31 in 2011, $93,932.19 in 2010, $49,900.00 in
2009 and $403,219.75 in 2008. The 2012 General Assembly appropriated $1.2 million for this grant program statewide,
and Albemarle County is one of nine localities to receive a grant this year, and one of only seven to receive the full
amount requested.
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:
VDACS has requested that the County enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the “Agreement”) (Attachment A) as a
condition for receiving this grant. While the County has yet to identify the specific easement(s) to which it would apply
these funds, it intends to apply them toward the acquisition of the next qualifying easement. It is anticipated that this
grant can be used for an application in the next pool of applications we receive this year. This grant can be used to
reimburse or partially reimburse any qualifying purchase for up to two years from the date of the Agreement. The key
provisions of the Agreement are summarized below.
1. The Agreement would obligate VDACS to set aside the grant amount in a restricted account and reimburse the
County for its eligible costs for the purchase of conservation easement(s). The County’s funds would be
restricted exclusively for the County’s qualifying costs for a period of up to two years.
2. The Agreement would restrict conversion or diversion of a subject property from open-space use, unless the
conversion or diversion satisfied the requirements of the Open Space Land Act. Conversion or diversion of land
is permitted under the Open-Space Land Act in limited circumstances upon the concurrence of the County and
the Public Recreational Facilities Authority and upon the placement of substitute land of equal or greater value
and quality under an open-space easement. The Agreement would entitle VDACS to reimbursement of its pro
rata share of the market value of the easement if conversion or diversion ever occurred.
3. In exchange for VDACS’s grant commitment, the Agreement would obligate the County to:
appropriate matching funds equal to the grant amount for the purchase of a subject easement,
apply the grant funds to the purchase of the easement,
AGENDA TITLE: ACE; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services grant for easement acquisition
February 6, 2013
Page 2
provide VDACS with annual progress reports (while the grant Agreement is in force) describing the
County’s efforts to obtain easements on other working farms, and its programs for public outreach,
stewardship and monitoring, and measuring the effectiveness of the County’s efforts to bring working
farms under easement,
maintain sufficient title insurance for the subject easement(s) (which is already a standard County
practice),
allow VDACS the opportunity to review easement instruments and the title insurance policy prior to
closing,
provide VDACS copies of the recorded easement instrument after closing,
provide notice to VDACS if the County receives an application to convert or divert a subject easement
from its permitted easement uses, and
enforce the terms and conditions of the deed of easement.
Staff has reviewed the terms of this year’s proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between VDACS and the County
and finds its terms acceptable. The Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney’s Office.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement would allow the County to receive $160,715.64 in State
funding to apply to the ACE program. In order for the County to receive these funds, it must appropriate matching
funds of $160,715.64. That local match is available through funds already appropriated for ACE purposes in FY 13.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement (Attachment A) on behalf
of the County, provided that it is first approved as to form and content by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – VDACS Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT
POLICY FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEMBERS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors may grant to its members any or all of the fringe
benefits in the manner and form as such benefits are provided for County employees pursuant to
§ 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that a policy to establish uniform standards
and procedures for travel reimbursement will serve the purpose of allowing Board members to
travel on official County business and assure the prudent use of County funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia hereby adopts the Travel Reimbursement Policy for Board of Supervisors
Members, as attached hereto and incorporated herein.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors by a vote of ______
to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
View Attachment
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Travel Reimbursement Policy for Board of Supervisors Members
of Albemarle County, Virginia
The purpose of this policy is to establish uniform standards and procedures that allow Board
members to travel for official County business purposes consistent with the prudent use of County
funds.
I. Scope
A. Board members may be reimbursed for the following routine travel expenses,
provided there are available funds:
1. Mileage for travel by personal vehicle or other travel costs to scheduled
Board meetings and Board committee meetings for committees to which a
Board member is appointed, from home or work, if a work day, which is not
part of routine personal travel;
2. Mileage for travel by personal vehicle or other travel costs to events
reasonably necessary to prepare for matters scheduled for consideration on
the Board’s agenda which is not part of routine personal travel (i.e., site
visits, informational meetings); and
3. Parades and other community gatherings not advertised as Supervisor’s
town hall meetings to discuss County business. Travel to use the COB office
between other personal travel or meetings, shall not be covered.
B. Board members may be reimbursed for the following educational conference travel
expenses, provided there are available funds:
1. All necessary, actual and reasonable meal, travel and lodging costs
(including gratuity and excluding alcohol) of attending regional, statewide or
national meetings at which the Board member represents the County, as
approved by the Board; and
2. All necessary, actual and reasonable meal, and travel (including gratuity and
excluding alcohol) of attending legislative or congressional hearings relating
to official County business.
C. Board members will not be reimbursed for the following travel expenses:
1. Travel to events which are political in nature (i.e., campaigning or partisan
events);
2. Personal expenses incurred during travel; or
3. Other travel which is not part of the statutory governmental duties of the
Board of Supervisors that are not provided for in Sections A or B.
II. Procedures
A. This policy will be applied and overseen in the following manner:
1. Reimbursement requests shall be made in writing on forms provided by the
Clerk of the Board and shall itemize the date, number of miles of travel
expenses and purpose of the meeting. Mileage for use of a personal vehicle
shall be reimbursed at the County’s authorized car mileage reimbursement
rate. Other reimbursements shall be for the amount of costs expended and
shall be documented by receipts for actual amounts paid.
2. The Clerk, or her/his designee, will review all travel reimbursement requests
prior to reimbursement. No payment will be made for incomplete submissions
or information.
3. When all allocated funds for Board reimbursements have been expended,
there will be no further reimbursement for that fiscal year unless the Board
appropriates additional funding.
4. This policy shall be distributed to each mem ber of the Board upon taking
office or upon any changes to the policy.
(Adopted 2/6/2103)
Return to resolution
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2012-0012 Critical Slopes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information on the cost of revising the critical slopes
regulations.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Fritz
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On November 7, 2012, staff presented a proposal to amend the critical slopes regulations to the Board. As part of
developing new regulations, staff proposed a robust public process. The Board expressed concern that the cost to the
County in developing and administering the new regulations may be excessive when compared to the benefit of reviewing
critical slopes disturbances on a case by case basis under the existing regulations. This report provides a cost-benefit
analysis of the proposed regulations.
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:
The Board requested that staff demonstrate how a revision to the critical slopes regulations would:
- Save the County money
- Save applicants money
- Save the Board review time
- Save time in the review process
In order to determine the benefits to the County in terms of cost, staff first calculated the expected cost of amending
the critical slopes regulations. At the November 7 meeting, staff recommended the following steps to amend the
critical slopes regulations:
- Meet with the Board-appointed Citizen Advisory Councils for the various neighborhoods for input. These meetings
are expected to occur in March, 2013.
- Hold Open Houses after providing mailed notice to the affected property owners in the Development Areas. It is
expected that multiple Open Houses will be required. The Open Houses are expected to be held during the
second quarter of 2013.
- Hold a work session with the Planning Commission to review the public input received at the Open Houses and to
determine if the proposed zoning text amendment (ZTA) is ready to be scheduled for public hearings. This work
session is expected to occur in the early part of the third quarter of 2013.
Staff estimates that the cost would be $25,000 to $35,000 based on the timeline and resources required for these
steps. This cost includes staff’s costs to map the critical slopes within the Development Areas. Of course, the amount
of staff time required to process the zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment will depend on the amount of
landowner opposition or disagreement with the maps.
Some members of the Board expressed concern regarding the perceived complexity of the proposed regulations.
After the Open Houses are completed, staff will develop an outline of the proposed regulations and, if the Board
requests, will present the outline to the Board for consideration before the Planning Commission work session.
How will amending the critical slopes regulations save the County money?
Based on the fee study the County undertook in 2004, which determined the County’s cost to review zoning and
subdivision applications, and adjusting for inflation, staff estimates that the County’s cost to review a critical slopes
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2012-0012 Critical Slopes
February 6, 2013
Page 2
waiver request under the current regulations is $1,900 per request. Because the current fee for a critical slopes waiver
request is $425, the County absorbs the $1475 shortfall with each application. In 2011 and 2012, only 16 critical slopes
waiver requests were submitted each year. In these years, when the numbers of requests were at historic lows, the
County’s shortfall each year was $23,600. The table below provides some perspective on the number of estimated
critical slopes waiver requests over the past eight years.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
SDP/SUB Applications 536 549 568 516 279 258 233 229
# of waivers based on 2012
experience (7% of applications)
38 38 40 36 20 18 16 16
Estimated unrecovered cost $56,050 $56,050 $59,000 $53,100 $29,500 $26,550 $23,600 $23,600
The proposed critical slopes regulations outlined by staff at the November 7 work session will create two categories of
critical slopes – Preserved and Managed.
Preserved slopes would not be allowed to be disturbed except in certain specific circumstances. These exemptions
will be identified when the draft regulations are developed. The current regulations have provisions for exempt
activities on critical slopes. Reviews to determine if activities are exempt currently occur and involve very limited staff
resources.
Managed slopes would be allowed to be disturbed only if performance standards are satisfied. The review of the
disturbance of Managed slopes will be the same as what currently occurs for all grading activities. The standards for
disturbing Managed slopes will incorporate specific design criteria similar to the Erosion and Sediment Control
regulations in the Water Protection Ordinance, which the County already has experience in reviewing and enforcing.
Staff does not anticipate any significant increase in workload or review time to insure that the performance standards
are satisfied. As the proposed regulations are developed, staff will further analyze this issue. If any costs are
associated with the review of Managed slopes which are greater than the cost for review of any other grading activity,
staff will inform the Board and recommend an appropriate fee. However, at this point, staff is confident that any costs
would be less than the existing $425 fee for reviewing requests to disturb critical slopes. Exemptions for disturbing
Managed slopes would be developed. Staff is exploring appropriate legislative and administrative solutions in those
cases where critical slopes boundaries or designations as Preserved or Managed are disputed or when the regulations
impose a hardship on the owner of an individual parcel. Staff anticipates that these remedies would rarely, if ever, be
required.
The proposed review process means that the unrecovered cost for the review of a critical slopes disturbance would be
reduced to zero. Therefore, the expected return on investment is approximately one year based on the recent annual
historically low numbers of requests, and approximately six months based on historic averages.
How will amending the critical slopes regulations save the applicants money?
Under the proposed regulations, applicants will not have to pay a fee for the review of a critical slopes disturbance.
This is a direct savings to the applicant. No application for the disturbance of Managed slopes will be required. Under
the current regulations, applicants incur not only a $425 fee, but also a cost due to the resources that must be devoted
to preparing the request and justification for the disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant will not be required to
review or respond to a staff report for a critical slopes waiver and will not have to attend a Board meeting. These are
all direct cost savings to the applicant. Indirect cost savings to the applicant include certainty in the development
process. Applicants will know which portions of their property may be developed and what measures will need to be
undertaken to develop the site. County staff has been told by developers that removing uncertainty is a cost savings
to them.
How will amending the critical slopes regulations save the Board review time?
Applications for special exceptions to allow critical slopes waivers will no longer be presented to the Board. This
eliminates the time and cost associated with placing items on the Board’s agenda, even on the consent agenda. This
also reduces the burden on the County Attorney’s Office, the County Executive’s Office and the Clerk of the Board. All
of these entities are involved in preparing and scheduling consent agenda items.
How will amending the critical slopes regulations save time in the review process?
By eliminating the need for critical slopes waivers, review times will be reduced. The applicant will not have to spend
time preparing a request and justification. Staff will not have to process waiver requests. Review time for the County
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2012-0012 Critical Slopes
February 6, 2013
Page 3
Attorney’s office, the County Executive’s Office and the Clerk of the Board would be eliminated. Projects will be
approved administratively without having to wait for a Board meeting for action to be taken on the waiver. This will
also allow site plans to be approved in less time.
Staff also believes that the new regulations will result in intangible benefits to the community, such as more predictable
development patterns, a more attractive community and improved protection of resources.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff anticipates that the cost to review the disturbance of Managed critical slopes will be no greater than to review the
disturbance of any non-critical slopes. This means that the County’s unrecovered costs for reviewing requests for
critical slopes disturbance under the proposed regulations would be reduced to zero. Therefore, staff anticipates that
the proposed regulations will have a positive budget impact, even if some applicants having lands in the Preserved
area seek legislative or administrative relief.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with the ZTA to amend the critical slope regulations as
outlined by staff, including a Board work session on the outline of the proposed regulations before the Planning
Commission work session, unless staff is directed otherwise.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 13 General Fund Second Quarter Report and Revised
FY 13 Revenue Projections Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
FY 13 Second Quarter Financial Report October through
December, 2012; and Revised Revenue Projections
Report for FY 13
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, S; and
Ms. Burrell
PRESENTER(S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The attached Quarterly Financial Report (Attachment A) provides information regarding the County’s FY 13 General Fund
performance as of December 31, 2012. The Revised Financial Projections Report (Attachments B through D) includes
projected General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 13.
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:
The Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) reflects year-to-date (YTD) data through December 31, 2012, the end of the
second quarter of FY 13. The data in the attached QFR is organized in a way that is consistent with Exhibit 12 of the
County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Most line item titles in the QFR match the line item titles in
the CAFR.
The columns in the QFR show FY 13 Adopted Budget revenues and expenditures, Revised Budget revenues and
expenditures, as well as YTD actual revenues and expenditures. Each of these YTD figures subsequently is
expressed as a percentage of the amount in the relevant line item of the FY 13 Revised Budget.
Additionally, the QFR includes corresponding data from FY 12 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 (December 31, 2012) and is compared to data from the same point in time for the prior fiscal year
(December 31, 2011). Anomalies and similarities between fiscal years become readily apparent using this comparison
method.
The Revised Financial Projection Report (RFPR) provides a streamlined summary of forecasted revenues and
expenditures. The columns of the table in the RFPR show FY 13 Adopted revenues and expenditures, Appropriated
revenues and expenditures, and Revised revenue and expenditure projections. The last two columns of the table
reveal the variances between revised projected revenues/expenditures and the corresponding Appropriated
revenues/expenditures. These variances are expressed in dollar terms in the second-to-last column and are shown in
percentage terms in the last column.
Highlights of the attached reports include:
Revenues – YTD Actual
YTD total revenues in the second quarter of FY 13 totaled $98,571,081, compared to $96,998,820 in the second
quarter of FY 12. In percentage terms, FY 13 YTD Actual revenues, as a percentage of FY 13 Revised Budget
revenues, stood at 43.86% compared to 44.47% in FY 12. This result represents an essentially neutral trend for
revenues.
Revenue streams performed fairly consistently through the second quarter of FY 13 compared with the same quarter
of FY 12. There were just three significant year-to-year variances in revenues. These three streams included Local
AGENDA TITLE: FY 13 General Fund Second Quarter Report and Revised FY 13 Revenue Projections Report
February 6, 2013
Page 2
Revenues: Miscellaneous; Intergovernmental: Contributions from Other Entities; and Intergovernmental: Revenue
from Federal Government. The variance in Miscellaneous revenue reflects a one-time payment to the County of
$250,000. The variance in Contributions from Other Entities, as well as the variance in Revenue from the Federal
Government, reflects the timing of when these transfers were made in both fiscal years. For additional information
about revenue variances, please see the analysis page in the QFR.
Expenditures – YTD Actual
YTD total expenditures in the second quarter of FY 13 totaled $79,167,049, compared to $49,731,647 in the second
quarter of FY 12. This significant variance is due principally to the fact that, in the first half of FY 13, there was a
$25,026,575 transfer to the Schools Division whereas, due to a delay in the transfer in the previous year, the
corresponding amount in the first quarter of FY 12 was $0. Seven other expenditure items had significant variances
from the previous year. These items included Public Safety: Fire & Rescue; Public Safety: City Fire Contract; Public
W orks: Facilities Development; Human Development: Social Services; Education: Transfer to School CIP;
Education: Transfer to Schools Debt Service; and Transfers, Contingencies, and Refunds: Transfer Accounts.
The variance in Fire & Rescue expenditures reflects a major salary reclassification that took place in the Spring of
2012. These costs would not have been included in the first half of FY 12, but have been included in the first half of
FY 13. The FY 13 budget also includes three new positions at Pantops. The variance in Facilities Development
expenditures reflects the fact that, in FY 12, the entire Facilities Development function was budgeted as part of the
General Fund, and that this function was moved to a separate fund in FY 13. The amount remaining in the General
Fund in FY 13 represents just the general government portion of Facilities Development expenditures. In the case of
each of the remaining expenditure streams, the variance reflects the timing of when the transfer or contribution was
made in both fiscal years. For additional information about expenditure variances, please see the analysis page in the
QFR.
Year-end Projections
The Revised Financial Projections Report indicates that, by June 30, 2013, estimated revenues will exceed
appropriated revenues by roughly $1.750 million, whereas expenditures are projected to be approximately $1.112
million below the appropriated budget. This difference between appropriated expenditures and projected expenditures
is due primarily to savings associated with salary lapse and insurance. Excess revenues and expenditures savings
are projected to result in a net of $2.861 million additional fund balance by the end of FY 13.
In addition to the attached reports, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly update of any FY 13 budget transfers
administratively approved by the County Executive as authorized by the Board on August 1, 2012.
During this quarter, the County Executive approved three administrative transfers totaling $30,885. Two transfers, one
in the amount of $19,150 and the other in the amount of $7,815, were made to transfer funds from the Local
Government’s training pool to various departments for approved training expenses. The third transfer in the amount of
$3,920 was made to correct previous appropriations that were associated with the transfer of the Organizational
Development Manager position from the Human Resources Department to the County Executive’s Office. Funding
that was moved to the County Executive’s Office for staff development and telecommunications was transferred back
to the Human Resources Department and funding for cross-departmental organizational development activities was
moved from the Human Resources Department budget to the County Executive’s budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Revenue and expenditure data contained in the QFR reflects the state of the County’s budget-to-actual FY 13
financial performance as of December 31, 2012. Year-end projections are subject to change based on the result
of actual collections and expenditures through June 30, 2013.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
These reports are for information only. Staff welcomes the Board’s feedback regarding the content and presentation
of these reports.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Quarterly Financial Report
B – General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report
C – General Fund Revised Financial Report Table
D – General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report Endnotes
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
Quarterly Financial Report
Quarter Ended December 31, 2012
ATTACHMENT A
Introduction
The Albemarle County Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) for the quarter ended December 31,
2012 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).
The Quarterly Financial Report document consists of three parts:
An analysis page of YTD FY 12/13 revenues and expenditures that changed by more than 2%
and that also experienced dollar changes of more than $200,000 between Q2 of FY 2011/12
and Q2 of FY 2012/13.
A detailed table that shows (1) YTD actual dollar amounts of revenues and expenditures for
FY 12/13 and FY 11/12; (2) budgeted dollar amounts of revenues and expenditures for FY
12/13 and FY 11/12; and (3) YTD actual revenues and expenditures as percentages of
budgeted revenues and expenditures for FY 12/13 and FY 11/12.
An examination of the percentages for both fiscal years reveals the rate at which
YTD actual revenues and expenditures in the current fiscal year are approaching
budgeted amounts, compared with the rate at which YTD actual revenues and
expenditures in the prior fiscal year approached budgeted amounts.
As an example of this comparison, the figure contained in Column D, Line No. 6
reveals that, in the second quarter of FY 12/13, the revenue that the County
collected in Charges for Services was 37.90% of the budgeted amount while, as
shown in Column H, Line No. 6, the revenue that Albemarle collected from this
revenue source in the second quarter of FY 11/12 stood at 36.90% of the
budgeted amount.
Pie charts that show (1) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various revenue
streams for FY 2012/13; and (2) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various
expenditures for FY 2012/13.
ATTACHMENT A
Albemarle County
Analysis of Significant Variances in General Fund
Quarter Ended December 31, 2012
Revenues Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances
Revenues – Local: Miscellaneous. In FY 12/13, actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY/13
budgeted amount, came to 254.45% vs. 35.05% in FY 11/12.
Actual YTD revenue equaled $345,738 in FY 12/13 vs. $63,957 in
FY 11/12. This variance reflects primarily a one-time payment to
the County of $250,000.
Revenues – Intergovernmental:
Contributions from Other Entities.
In FY 12/13, actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted amount, equaled 7.29% vs. 0% in FY 11/12. Actual YTD
revenue came to $421,219 in FY 12/13 vs. $0 in FY 11/12. These
revenues represent miscellaneous transfers from local entities,
e.g., contribution from Sheriff. The variance reflects the timing of
when the transfers were made in both fiscal years.
Revenues – Intergovernmental: Revenue
from Federal Government.
In FY 12/13, actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted amount, came to 49.53% vs. 47.16% in FY 11/12.
Actual YTD revenue came to $1,935,029 in FY 12/13 vs.
$2,237,798 in FY 11/12. This variance reflects the timing of when
the transfers were made in both fiscal years.
Expenditures Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances
Public Safety: Fire & Rescue. In FY 12/13, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted amount equaled 47.04% vs. 49.26% in FY 11/12. Actual
YTD expenditure in FY 12/13 was $3,933,726 vs. $3,442,786 in FY
11/12. This variance reflects a major salary reclassification that
took place between the two years.
Public Safety: City Fire Contract. In FY 12/13, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted amount came to 0%% vs. 93.32% in FY 11/12. Actual
YTD expenditure in FY 12/13 was $0 vs. $789,191 in FY 11/12.
This variance reflects the timing of the expenditure.
Public Works: Facilities Development. In FY 12/13 actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted came to 29.42% vs. 45.65% in FY 11/12. In dollar terms,
actual YTD was $54,144 vs. $395,590 in FY 11/12. This variance is
due to the fact that, in FY 11/12 the entire Facilities Development
budget was part of the County’s General Fund whereas, in FY
12/13, part of the Facilities Development budget was moved to a
separate fund.
Human Development: Social Services. In FY 12/13 actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted equaled 43.83% vs. 36.82% in FY 11/12. In dollar terms,
actually YTD was $5,985,870 in FY 12/13 vs. $5,400,667 in FY
11/12. This variance reflects primarily the timing of contributions
made to outside organizations (e.g., JAUNT, Region 10, etc.).
Education: Transfer to Schools CIP. In FY 12/13, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted amount equaled 51.40% vs. 0% in FY 11/12. Actual YTD
expenditure in FY 12/13 was $987,720 vs. $0 in FY 11/12. This
variance reflects the timing of when the transfer was made in
ATTACHMENT A
both fiscal years.
Education: Transfer to Schools Debt
Service.
In FY 12/13, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted amount equaled 81.16% vs. 83.18% in FY 11/12. Actual
YTD expenditure in FY 12/13 was $10,257,946 vs. $11,313,126 in
FY 11/12. This variance reflects the timing of when the transfer
was made in both fiscal years.
Education: Transfer to Schools Fund. In FY 12/13, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted amount equaled 25.00% vs. 0% in FY 11/12. Actual YTD
expenditure in FY 12/13 was $25,026,575 vs. $0 in FY 11/12. This
variance reflects the timing of when the transfer was made in
both fiscal years.
Transfers, Contingencies, and Refunds:
Transfer Accounts.
In FY 12/13, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 12/13
budgeted amount equaled 51.80% vs. 17.73% in FY 11/12. Actual
YTD expenditure in FY 12/13 was $3,393,178 vs. $829,856 in FY
11/12. These expenditures represent a variety of transfers,
including items such as transfer to General Government Debt
Service, transfer to Storm Drainage Fund, etc. The variance
reflects the timing of when the transfers were made in both fiscal
years.
Note: Significant variances are defined as differences of more than two percentage points and $200,000.
ATTACHMENT A
A B C D E F G H
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 FY 11/12 FY 11/12
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual as %FY 11/12 FY 11/12 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col G/Col F)
REVENUES
Reveues - Local
1 Property Tax $140,455,780 $140,455,780 $69,331,237 49.36%$136,633,800 $136,633,800 $68,874,037 50.41%
2 Other Local Taxes 45,215,800 45,215,800 12,044,268 26.64%43,497,250 43,497,250 11,618,939 26.71%
3 Permits, Priv. Fees, Licenses 1,645,100 1,645,100 838,617 50.98%1,516,350 1,516,350 758,557 50.03%
4 Fines and Forfeitures 839,700 839,700 380,045 45.26%578,600 611,100 505,177 82.67%
5 Use of Money and Property 460,126 460,126 263,292 57.22%518,138 518,138 91,590 17.68%
6 Charges for Services 3,348,371 2,696,826 1,022,048 37.90%2,106,591 2,753,750 1,016,133 36.90%
7 Miscellaneous 135,878 135,878 345,738 254.45%182,478 182,478 63,957 35.05%
8 Recovered Costs 257,077 264,432 83,117 31.43%222,250 222,250 95,243 42.85%
9 Subtotal - Local Revenues $192,357,832 $191,713,642 $84,308,361 43.98%$185,255,457 $185,935,116 $83,023,633 44.65%
Revenues - Intergovernmental
10 Contribution from School Bd.$328,338 $328,338 $122,365 37.27%$328,500 $328,500 $68,737 20.92%
11 Contribution from Other Ent.2,283,919 5,781,771 421,219 7.29%2,372,294 4,100,552 0 0.00%
12 Revenue from Commonwealth 22,976,867 23,016,660 11,784,107 51.20%22,952,060 23,006,257 11,668,654 50.72%
13 Revenue from Fed. Govt.3,864,910 3,906,959 1,935,029 49.53%4,673,507 4,745,234 2,237,798 47.16%
14 Subtotal - Intergovernmental Revs.$29,454,034 $33,033,728 $14,262,720 43.18%$30,326,361 $32,180,543 $13,975,188 43.43%
15 TOTAL REVENUES $221,811,866 $224,747,370 $98,571,081 43.86%$215,581,818 $218,115,659 $96,998,820 44.47%
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration
16 Board of Supervisors 577,136 578,009 232,553 40.23%577,562 577,562 236,143 40.89%
17 County Executive 1,000,914 1,122,647 557,082 49.62%960,995 960,995 461,914 48.07%
18 Human Resources 685,514 587,256 171,684 29.23%662,770 666,270 111,681 16.76%
19 County Attorney 954,313 964,175 491,215 50.95%911,527 911,527 439,518 48.22%
20 Finance 4,570,221 4,673,973 2,219,217 47.48%4,117,239 4,207,258 2,068,565 49.17%
21 Management & Budget 296,594 298,655 149,670 50.11%290,222 290,222 138,866 47.85%
22 Information Technology 2,325,111 2,353,351 1,170,939 49.76%2,237,297 2,237,297 1,040,634 46.51%
23 Access Albemarle 250,000 406,679 55,988 13.77%250,000 250,000 0 0.00%
24 Registrar 578,834 607,552 322,624 53.10%547,543 632,740 301,676 47.68%
25 Total Administration 11,238,637 11,592,297 5,370,972 46.33%10,555,155 10,733,871 4,798,997 44.71%
Albemarle County Quartery Financial Report Comparison -General Fund
Quarter Ended December 31, 2012 vs. Quarter Ended December 31, 2011
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
A B C D E F G H
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 FY 11/12 FY 11/12
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual as %FY 11/12 FY 11/12 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col G/Col F)
Judicial
26 Circuit Court 121,348 139,757 49,198 35.20%110,945 166,912 75,810 45.42%
27 General District Court 23,955 23,955 15,737 65.69%23,894 25,394 17,396 68.50%
28 Magistrate 4,375 4,375 4,279 97.80%4,425 4,642 4,642 100.00%
29 Juvenile Court 111,522 111,522 111,598 100.07%119,229 119,229 0 0.00%
30 Clerk of Court 675,474 713,536 371,243 52.03%669,016 669,016 310,318 46.38%
31 Sheriff 2,099,390 2,159,576 1,127,316 52.20%2,013,438 2,053,971 1,028,303 50.06%
32 Commonwealth Attorney 1,005,857 1,016,968 506,011 49.76%910,408 910,408 451,602 49.60%
33 Total Judicial 4,041,921 4,169,689 2,185,380 52.41%3,851,355 3,949,572 1,888,070 47.80%
Public Safety
34 Police 14,073,637 14,233,790 6,896,897 48.45%13,051,415 13,047,554 6,377,185 48.88%
35 Fire/Rescue 8,160,828 8,361,698 3,933,726 47.04%6,807,669 6,988,679 3,442,786 49.26%
36 Volunteer Fire 1,393,165 1,506,380 768,690 51.03%1,343,877 1,420,011 767,463 54.05%
37 Volunteer Rescue 465,184 465,184 230,441 49.54%452,167 473,167 216,372 45.73%
38 Fire/Rescue Forest Fire Ext.23,786 23,786 23,786 100.00%23,786 23,786 23,786 100.00%
39 City Fire Contract 887,920 887,920 0 0.00%845,638 845,638 789,191 93.32%
40 Regional Jail 3,617,064 3,644,252 1,288,499 35.36%3,378,990 3,428,165 1,419,013 41.39%
41 Inspections 1,094,667 1,101,791 543,745 49.35%1,060,583 1,060,583 521,900 49.21%
42 ECC - General Fund 1000 2,197,797 2,197,797 945,532 43.02%2,066,831 2,066,831 892,786 43.20%
43 Contributions - Public Safety 1,654,250 1,654,250 846,317 51.16%1,517,156 1,517,156 716,165 47.20%
44 Total Public Safety 33,568,298 34,076,848 15,477,634 45.42%30,548,112 30,871,570 15,166,646 49.13%
Public Works
45 Solid Waste, Recycling 472,800 475,500 135,434 28.48%475,810 475,810 189,069 39.74%
46 Facilities Development 882,895 184,009 54,144 29.42%866,608 866,608 395,590 45.65%
47 General Services 3,117,176 3,128,317 1,549,694 49.54%3,048,693 3,048,693 1,406,455 46.13%
48 Total Public Works 4,472,871 3,787,826 1,739,272 45.92%4,391,111 4,391,111 1,991,114 45.34%
Human Development
49 Social Services 13,589,656 13,658,511 5,985,870 43.83%14,666,002 14,666,002 5,400,667 36.82%
50 Contr. to Agencies & Tx. Relief 4,410,523 4,410,523 2,016,895 45.73%4,303,950 4,361,950 1,991,343 45.65%
51 Total Human Development 18,000,179 18,069,034 8,002,765 44.29%18,969,952 19,027,952 7,392,010 38.85%
Education
52 Piedmont Va. Community College 22,750 22,750 11,375 50.00%22,524 22,524 11,262 50.00%
53 Transfer to Schools CIP 1,245,068 1,921,521 987,720 51.40%88,779 875,250 0 0.00%
54 Transfer to Schools Debt Service 12,685,589 12,639,243 10,257,946 81.16%12,956,228 13,601,102 11,313,126 83.18%
55 Transfer to Schools Fund 100,106,298 100,106,298 25,026,575 25.00%97,245,582 97,245,582 0 0.00%
56 Total Education 114,059,705 114,689,812 36,283,616 31.64%110,313,113 111,744,458 11,324,388 10.13%
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
A B C D E F G H
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 FY 11/12 FY 11/12
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual as %FY 11/12 FY 11/12 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col G/Col F)
Parks, Recreation, and Culture
57 Towe Park 193,698 194,662 37,899 19.47%152,262 152,262 0 0.00%
58 Parks & Recreation 2,172,473 2,180,187 1,226,499 56.26%2,194,476 2,194,476 1,067,411 48.64%
59 Libraries 3,258,054 3,258,054 1,629,027 50.00%3,220,283 3,220,283 1,610,142 50.00%
60 Contributions - Parks 674,258 674,258 348,179 51.64%669,912 869,912 340,923 39.19%
61 Total Parks, Rec. and Culture 6,298,483 6,307,161 3,241,604 51.40%6,236,933 6,436,933 3,018,476 46.89%
Community Development
62 Community Development 3,958,407 3,994,554 1,938,561 48.53%3,865,534 3,877,534 1,868,306 48.18%
63 Housing 462,774 519,441 274,481 52.84%516,952 603,107 295,506 49.00%
64 Soil & Water Conservation 99,376 99,871 49,837 49.90%96,355 96,355 60,811 63.11%
65 Extension Programs 196,311 203,666 47,066 23.11%203,859 203,859 26,242 12.87%
66 Contributions - Comm. Dev.1,400,287 1,400,287 704,084 50.28%1,335,252 1,342,252 674,684 50.27%
67 City/County Rev. Sharing 17,520,948 17,520,948 0 0.00%18,089,812 18,089,812 0 0.00%
68 Total Community Develop.23,638,103 23,738,767 3,014,028 12.70%24,107,764 24,212,919 2,925,547 12.08%
Transfers, Contigencies, and Refunds
69 Transfer Accounts 4,605,871 6,550,233 3,393,178 51.80%4,773,350 4,679,253 829,856 17.73%
70 Contingency Accounts 1,724,298 1,602,203 387,257 24.17%1,661,473 1,838,245 325,003 17.68%
71 Refunds 163,500 163,500 71,343 43.64%173,500 229,776 71,540 31.13%
72 Total Transf, Cont, and Refs.6,493,669 8,315,936 3,851,778 46.32%6,608,323 6,747,274 1,226,399 18.18%
73 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 221,811,866 224,747,370 79,167,049 35.22%215,581,818 218,115,659 49,731,647 22.80%
Excess/(Deficiency) of
74 Revenues over Expends.0 0 19,404,032 0 0 47,267,173
Page 3 of 3
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, January 16, 2013.
ATTACHMENT A
Property Tax, 70.34%
Other Local Taxes, 12.22%
Fines, Fees, Charges, and
Contrib., 3.53%
Rev. from
Commonwealth, 11.95%
Rev. from Fed. Govt.,
1.96%
Albemarle County FY 2012/13 General Fund -YTD Actual Revenues
$98,571,081
ATTACHMENT A
Administration, 5.2%
Judicial, 1.9%
Public Safety, 15.2%
Public Works, 1.7%
Human Dev., 8.0%
Educ. CIP & Tr. to Educ.,
51.0%
Parks & Rec., 2.8%Community
Development, 10.6%
Transf., Conts., and
Refunds, 3.7%
Albemarle County FY 2012/13 General Fund -Revised
Budget Expenditures by Functional Area & Transfers
$224,747,370
Administration, 6.8%Judicial, 2.8%
Public Safety, 19.6%
Public Works, 2.2%
Human Dev., 10.1%
Educ. CIP & Tr. to Educ.,
45.8%
Parks & Rec., 4.1%
Community
Development,
3.8%
Transf., Conts., and
Refunds, 4.9%
Albemarle County FY 2012/13 General Fund -YTD Actual
Expenditures by Functional Area &Transfers
$79,167,049
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, January 16, 2013.
ATTACHMENT A
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, November 13, 2012.
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, January 16, 2013.
ATTACHMENT B
General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report
As of January 31, 2013
ATTACHMENT B
Introduction
The Albemarle County General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (RFPR) reflects staff
estimates, as of January 22, 2013, for the County’s FY 2012/13 revenues and expenditures
through June 30, 2013. The revenue projections contained in this report were developed by
the County’s Revenue Team, consisting of the following members:
Lori S. Allshouse, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Betty J. Burrell, Director, Department of Finance
Mark Graham, Director, Department of Community Development
Steven A. Allshouse, Manager of Economic Analysis and Forecasting, Department of Finance
L. Rocio Lamb, Division Manager of Revenue and Taxation, Department of Finance
Bob Willingham, County Assessor, Department of Finance
Laura F. Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst, Office of Management and Budget
The expenditure projections contained in this report were developed by the County’s Office of
Management and Budget.
Background
The County’s fiscal situation in FY 2012/13 continues to reflect a slightly improved, but still
somewhat challenging U.S. macroeconomic environment. A recent Wall Street Journal survey
of 50 nationally known economists reveals an average forecast of 7.6% for the national
unemployment rate by June 2013 (equal to the December 2012 unemployment rate of 7.6%),
and an average annualized rate of growth in real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) of 1.92%
during the remaining two quarters of the fiscal year.1 These forecasts reflect the slow recovery
that the U.S economy has made in the past few years from the “Great Recession” of 2007-09.
Currently, this recovery faces at least two factors that could have a negative impact on growth
in the U.S. in the coming three quarters. The first factor involves remaining uncertainty about
future federal government expenditures. Weakness in the global economy represents a second
factor that could undermine growth in the U.S. One relatively good piece of news regarding the
U.S. economy involves the inflationary outlook; despite concerns in recent years that the
Federal Reserve System’s monetary policy might lead to an extreme acceleration the rate of
inflation, there is evidence that inflationary pressure in the U.S. remains fairly subdued. On
average, the economists in the Wall Street Journal survey cited above indicated an expected
annualized rate of inflation of about 2% between now and June 2013.2
At the County level, one potentially good piece of news involves the housing market. Based on
the number of months supply of unsold inventory, Albemarle’s single family detached housing
market appears to be approaching equilibrium.3 This situation means that, potentially, home
prices in this segment of the market might bottom out in the next year or so. This result would
ATTACHMENT B
have implications both for the County’s real estate tax revenue, as well as other housing -
related revenue streams.
Discussion
A. General Fund Revenue Projections
Within the context of generally difficult U.S. and global macroeconomic conditions, revenues,
excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, at the end of FY 2012/13 are estimated
to total $220.373 million, or roughly $1.736 million (0.79%) higher than Budget. Combined with
the use of $2.079 million in transfers from other funds and $4.045 million in fund balance,
Revenues, Transfers, and Use of Fund Balances are expected to total $226.497 million, or
$1.750 million (0.78%) more than Budget.
The following points provide a brief revenue analysis for FY 2012/13 through June 30, 2013:
Property Tax Revenue is expected to exceed Budget by $0.985 million (0.70%). Note that
this category includes, among other revenues, Real Property Tax, Personal Property Tax,
and Delinquent Tax Collections.
o Real Property Tax Revenue is forecasted to end the year at $111.889 million,
roughly $0.293 million above Budget.
o Personal Property Tax revenue is expected to equal $20.323 million, or roughly
$0.503 million (2.5%) above budget; this result reflects, in part, the County’s
enhanced collection effort during the course of the past year, as well as a
marked improvement in vehicle sales.4
o Delinquency Collections are expected to come to roughly $3.539 million, in line
with Budget (but substantially above the $2.841 million collected in FY 2011/12,
again a reflection of enhanced efforts).
Other Local Tax Revenue is forecasted to exceed Budget by approximately $0.546 million (or
by 1.21%). Major categories of interest within this broad revenue stream include Sales Tax,
Business License Tax, Consumer Utility Tax, and Food & Beverage Tax.
o Sales Tax revenue is forecasted to be $12.696 million, $0.496 million (4.1%)
higher than Budget. This expected variance is due to a slight increase in
consumer spending seen at the national level (and presumably occurring at the
local level) as well as a modest drop in the local unemployment rate.5
o Business License Tax is estimated to come to $10.032 million, $0.129 million
(1.3%) above budgeted, i.e., with very little variance from Budget.
ATTACHMENT B
o Consumer Utility Tax is forecasted to equal $9.062 million, roughly $0.115 million
(1.28%) above Budget.
o Food & Beverage Tax revenue is estimated to end the year at $0.066 million
(1.1%) below Budget. This result is due to the loss of a relatively high-volume
restaurant to the City. This loss is expected to be counteracted by a gain of
several restaurants in a major new retail center in the County in FY 13/14.
Other Local Revenues (a broad category which includes Permits, Fines & Forfeitures, Use of
Money and Property, Charges for Services, Miscellaneous Revenues, and Recovered Costs)
is expected to come to $6.266 million. This amount exceeds budget by $0.224 million (or
3.7%). This difference reflects stronger-than-expected Inspection and Other Development
fees.
State Revenues are forecast to equal $23.062 million, essentially in line with budget.
Federal Revenues are expected to come to $3.842 million. This amount is essentially in line
with budget.
Transfers from other funds are forecast to be $2.079 million, fundamentally equal to
budget.
Budgeted use of fund balance is $4.045 million. This amount represents primarily transfer
to capital and is expected to be fully utilized. The County is expected, however, to
experience cost savings (see Section B, below) which will result in new fund balance by the
end of the fiscal year.
B. General Fund Expenditure Projections
General Fund expenditures, including transfers, are forecast to total $223.636 million at the
end of the fiscal year. This amount is $1.112 million (or 0.49%) less than budget.
Departmental expenditures are expected to be $83.222 million, roughly $1.021 million (or
1.21%) less than budget.
Non-Departmental expenditures consist of th e County’s revenue sharing payment to the City of
Charlottesville, reserves, and refunds. Collectively, these items are forecast to total $19.202
million, slightly less than budget.
Transfers are expected to equal $121.212 million at the end of the fiscal year. This amount
includes Transfers to the School Division ($100.106 million) and Transfer to Capital, Debt, and
Other Funds ($21.105 million). These transfer amounts essentially are equal to budget.
ATTACHMENT B
C. Budget Impact
The FY 2012/13 Revised Financial Projections Report indicates that forecasted revenues,
including transfers, will be $226.497 million, an excess of $1.750 million over appropriated
revenues and transfers. Expenditures, including transfers, are forecast to be $223.636 million,
$1.112 million less than appropriated expenditures and transfers. In conclusion, excess
revenues and expenditure savings are projected to result in a net of $2.861 million of additional
fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year.
Revised Proj. Rev.
07/01/12 12/31/2012 % Total Revenue Variance as a % of
Revenues Adopted Appropriations Appropriations Projections Proj. - Approp.Approp. Amt.
Property Taxes $140.456 $140.456 62.5%$141.441 $0.985 100.70%
Other Local Taxes 45.216 45.216 20.1%45.762 0.546 101.21%
Permits, Priv. Fees, Licenses 1.645 1.645 0.7%1.960 0.315 119.14%
Fines and Forfeitures 0.840 0.840 0.4%0.943 0.103 112.30%
Use of Money and Property 0.460 0.460 0.2%0.510 0.050 110.84%
Charges for Services 3.348 2.697 1.2%2.394 -0.303 88.77%
Miscellaneous 0.136 0.136 0.1%0.152 0.016 112.07%
Recovered Costs 0.257 0.264 0.1%0.307 0.043 116.10%
State Revenue 22.977 23.017 10.2%23.062 0.045 100.20%
Federal Revenue 3.865 3.907 1.7%3.842 -0.065 98.34%
Subtotal - Revenues 219.200 218.637 97.3%220.373 $1.736 100.79%
Transfers
Use of Other Funds 2.070 2.065 0.9%2.079 0.014 100.67%
Use of Fund Balance 0.542 4.045 1.8%4.045 0.000 100.00%
Subtotal - Transfers $2.612 $6.110 2.7%$6.124 $0.014 100.23%
Total - Revenues & Transfers $221.812 $224.747 100.0%$226.497 $1.750 100.78%
Revised Proj. Exp.
07/01/12 12/31/2012 % Total Expenditure Variance as a % of
Expenditures Adopted Appropriations Appropriations Projections Proj. - Approp.Approp. Amt.
Administration $11.239 $11.592 5.2%$11.424 -$0.168 98.55%
Judicial 4.042 4.170 1.9%4.131 -0.038 99.08%
Public Safety 33.568 34.077 15.2%33.356 -0.721 97.88%
Public Works 4.473 3.788 1.7%3.774 -0.014 99.63%
Human Development 18.023 18.092 8.0%18.059 -0.033 99.82%
Parks, Rec. & Culture 6.298 6.307 2.8%6.309 0.002 100.03%
Community Development 6.117 6.218 2.8%6.170 -0.048 99.22%
Subtotal - Operations $83.760 $84.243 37.5%$83.222 -$1.022 98.79%
Non-Dept. (Rev. share; reserves; refunds)$19.409 $19.287 8.6%$19.202 -$0.084 99.56%
Transfers
Transfer to School Division 100.106 100.106 44.5%100.106 0.000 100.00%
Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 18.537 21.111 9.4%21.105 -0.006 99.97%
Subtotal - Transfers $118.643 $121.217 53.9%$121.212 -$0.006 100.00%
Total - Expenditures & Transfers $221.812 $224.747 100.0%$223.636 -$1.112 99.51%
Projected FY 12/13 Revenue in Excess of Expenditures $2.861
Source: Albemarle County ER system, via AADR, January 17, 2013.
County of Albemarle
General Fund FY 2012/13 Projection Report
as of January 31, 2013
(in $ Millions)
ATTACHMENT D
ENDNOTES
1. Please see the Wall Street Journal, “Economic Forecasting Survey: January, 2013.”
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash08.html?project=EFORECAST07
2. Ibid.
3. As of the end of Q2 of FY 2012/13, the number of months supply of unsold single family
detached housing inventory in the County’s multiple listing service (MLS) was 7.70 months,
compared with 9.51 in Q2 of FY 2011/12. (Source: Albemarle County Department of Finance,
January 2, 2012). These numbers represent a fairly dramatic decline in unsold inventory, and
suggest that the market might achieve equilibrium (roughly a six month supply of unsold
inventory) in the near future. This movement toward equilibrium potentially could encourage
builders to introduce additional housing units into the County’s housing market as the fiscal
year progresses, thereby helping increase revenue streams such as building permits and
construction-related sales tax.
4. Nationally, car unit sales increased 11% between December of 2011 and December of 2012;
unit sales of light-duty trucks rose by 8.3% during this time period; and SUV/Crossover unit
sales gained 8.0% between these months. Please see the Wall Street Journal “Market Data
Center” webpage for U.S. automobile sales, accessed January 12, 2013:
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
Locally, anecdotal evidence provided by automobile dealers confirms that sales have been
stronger in FY 12/13 than in FY 11/12. This anecdotal evidence is supported by the Albemarle
County Department of Finance’s Revenue and Taxation Division.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Grant Application Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary of grant applications submitted and grants
received from November 15, 2012 through January15,
2013
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis and W hite; and Ms. Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the County’s Grants Policy and associated procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the
County’s application for and use of grants.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Grant awards provide funding to support a variety of projects, the majority of which support Goal 5, Ensure the health
and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of two grant applications submitted by the County and five
awards received between November 15, 2012 and January15, 2013.
All grant funds are subject to appropriation by the Board prior to the expenditure of any funds awarded to the County.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Grant Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY THROUGH January 15, 2012
The following grants were awarded since November 2012.
SOURCE GRANT NAME AMOUNT MATCH DEPARTMENT PURPOSE
Virginia Dept. of
Emergency
Management
FY 2012 Emergency
Management
Performance Grant
Federal
$10,232 $10,232
ECC Staffing Budget
ECC Funds support implementing and
maintaining the Local Emergency
Management Plan
Dept of Criminal
Justice Services
(DCJS)
Juvenile Accountability
Block Grant
Federal
$35,995 $4000
County Grant Matching Fund
Police/Schools To develop a risk and needs
assessment relating to gang
involvement in our locality toward
increased family and community
involvement in gang prevention
and intervention.
Virginia Dept. of
Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Farmland Preservation
State
$160,715.64 $160,715.64
Appropriations to ACE
Program
Community
Development
Matching funds for purchase of
easements under the ACE Program
Federal Emergency
Management
Agency (FEMA)
Assistance to
Firefighters Grant
(AFG)
Federal
$107,565 $26,891
$23,391
County Grant Matching Fund
$3,500
F&R Department Budget
Fire & Rescue To provide firefighting training to
volunteers and instructor and
hazmat training to personnel.
Applications were made for the following grants:
There were no grant applications made during this period.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2013 2nd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-
cash proffers for October through December, 2012
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Graham and Higgins; and
Mses. McCulley, Allshouse, L., Ragsdale and Harris
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
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
November 7, 2012, which included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for July
through September, 2012. This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the second quarter of FY
2013 (October-December 2012). The next quarterly report will be on the Board’s May 1, 2013 agenda.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Proffers Activity for Fiscal Year 2013 Second Quarter (October-December, 2012)
A. New Proffered Revenue: ZMA201000011-Estes Park was approved. This rezoning revised the cash proffer
for capital improvement projects and revised the application plan. The proffer change added a cash proffer
amount for single family detached units. Prior to the amendment, the proffer called for the per-unit cash
contribution to be based on single family attached units only. This could potentially increase the amount of
proffer revenue to be received from $754,000 to as much as $1,145,713, depending on the mix of attached
and/or detached units developed.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: The total proffered revenue is $43,232.742.20. This reflects annual adjustments to
anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which annual adjustments were
proffered.
C. 2nd Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $21,851.62 from existing cash proffers during this
quarter from the following developments:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Old Trail $4,000.00 CIP-Crozet Schools/Parks
Wickham Pond $6,451.62 CIP-Crozet
Liberty Hall $6,400.00 CIP-Crozet
Belvedere $5,000.00 Affordable Housing
TOTAL $21,851.62
A correction was made during this quarter to move $12,903 from Wickham Pond II to the Wickham Pond fund.
D. 2nd Quarter Expenditures:
Development Amount Interest Purpose
Stillfried Lane $78,000.00 $5,379.00 Ivy Fire Station
Old Trail Village $24,000.00 $16.44 Crozet Elementary School ADA Entrance Ramp
TOTAL $102,000.00 $5,395.44
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2013 2nd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report
February 6, 2013
Page 2
Current Available Funds: As of December 30, 2012, the available proffered cash on-hand is $2,120,974.13
(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, $1,122,620.64 is currently appropriated (See Attachment A for details). The
net cash balance is $998,353.49. Attachment B provides information on how the net cash may be used for future
appropriations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and they support the
funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash
proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for
other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general
tax revenue.
Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer funds on an on-
going basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is
appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – December 30, 2012 Summary of Cash Proffer Funds Balances
B – Net Available Proffer Funds Summary and Use of Funds
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
UPDATED: 1/7/13FUND # PROFFER NAMETOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS Projects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSREMAINING AVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSACTIVE8547ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD$2,610,000.00$375,000.00$82.32$0.00$375,082.32$375,000.00$0.00Seminole Trail Vol. Fire. Dept. Ren/Add$0.00$82.32$82.328548AVINITY$1,703,712.44$196,215.80$22.01$0.00$196,237.81$0.00$0.00 $196,215.80$22.01$196,237.818534AVON PARK$59,000.00$59,000.00$5,730.17$0.00$64,730.17$59,000.00$0.00Avon Street Sidewalks$0.00$5,730.17$5,730.178536BELVEDERE STATION$400,250.00$111,500.00$841.41($58,009.66)$54,331.75$0.00$0.00 $54,250.00$81.75$54,331.758531ECKERD 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$129,929.29($875,364.10)$6,565.19$0.00$0.00 $1,000.00$5,565.19$6,565.198521GLENMORE$569,000.00$331,000.00$56,330.18($375,000.00)$12,330.18$0.00$0.00 $2,300.00$10,030.18$12,330.188523GRAYROCK$62,500.00$62,500.00$13,300.94$0.00$75,800.94$62,500.00$12,380.00Crozet Regional Stormwater Management $0.00$920.94$920.948527HOLLYMEAD AREA C$210,000.00$169,523.75$5,197.97($112,442.36)$62,279.36$59,523.75$2,741.04Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$14.57$14.578528HOLLYMEAD AREA D$481,000.00$480,999.68$23,865.96($473,712.00)$31,153.64$20,085.18$11,061.19Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$7.27$7.278545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$609,000.00$109,000.00$582.01($28,506.62)$81,075.39$30,733.69$322.73Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$50,000.00$18.97$50,018.978572LEAKE (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$108,800.00$223.20$0.00$109,023.20$102,400.00$199.19Crozet Streetscapes Phase II; Crozet Library$6,400.00$24.01$6,424.018574LIVENGOOD$980,274.47$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$346,250.00$419,144.85$10,441.37$0.00$429,586.22$0.00$0.00 $419,144.85$10,441.37$429,586.228538NORTH 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$123,000.00$1,886.22($75,854.29)$49,031.93$24,000.00$16.44Crozet E S ADA Entrance Ramp/Crozet Greenway$25,000.00$15.49$25,015.498546POPLAR GLEN II$155,600.00$155,600.00$159.11($33,016.05)$122,743.06$89,600.00$82.95Crozet Library$33,006.76$53.35$33,060.118533STILLFRIED LANE$78,000.00$78,000.00$6,358.00($83,379.00)$979.00$0.00$962.07Ivy Fire Station; Crozet Library$0.00$16.93$16.938525UVA RESEARCH PARK$78,178.00$78,718.00$899.75($79,500.00)$117.75$0.00$117.72Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.03$0.038535WESTERN RIDGE$5,000.00$5,159.12$857.46($5,000.00)$1,016.58$159.12$857.46Crozet Library$0.00$0.00$0.008541WESTHALL (1.1)$90,000.00$91,000.00$2,849.29$0.00$93,849.29$51,000.00$2,728.70Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $40,000.00$120.59$40,120.598542WESTHALL (1.2)$30,000.00$37,000.00$923.44($7,000.00)$30,923.44$10,000.00$896.30Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $20,000.00$27.14$20,027.148543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,000.00$3,000.00$167.07$0.00$3,167.07$0.00$0.00 $3,000.00$167.07$3,167.078540WICKHAM POND$345,161.67$292,622.90$4,091.82($59,161.00)$237,553.72$194,853.66$2,948.02Crozet Streetscapes Phase II; Crozet Library$39,704.66$47.38$39,752.048549WICKHAM POND II$405,000.00$53,225.81$11.88$0.00$53,237.69$0.00$0.00 $53,225.81$11.88$53,237.69FUTURE05th 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$0.000BARGAMIN PARK$18,200.00$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$0.000NGIC 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$43,232,742.20$4,958,050.91$319,553.96($3,156,630.74)$2,120,974.13$1,078,855.40$43,765.24$1,122,620.64$964,954.88$33,398.61$998,353.49CASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERS
NET AVAILABLE PROFFER FUNDS SUMMARY AND USE OF FUNDS 1/7/13 FUND # PROFFER NAME NET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS PROFFERED USE OF FUNDS RECOMMENDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS 8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $82.32 CIP-General CIP-General 8548 AVINITY $196,237.81 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5 FY14 Parks Maintenance Project; FY14 - FY15 School Maintenance Project 8534 AVON PARK $5,730.17 CIP-Neighborhoods 4-Pedestrian Improvements Must use for specific project 8536 BELVEDERE STATION $54,331.75 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing 8520 GLENMORE $6,565.19 School CIP/Other CIP-Glenmore FY15 School CIP Maintenance Project / CIP-Glenmore 8521 GLENMORE $12,330.18 CIP-250/Glenmore-Transportation Rt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange 8523 GRAYROCK $920.94 Interest/Jarmans Gap Road Improvements CIP-Crozet Project TBD 8545 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1 $50,018.97 CIP-Hollymead-Greenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing FY16 Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting 8572 LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP $18,755.00 CIP-General FY16 Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting 8573 LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing $2,952.00 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing 8544 LIBERTY HALL $6,424.01 CIP-Crozet CIP-Crozet Project TBD 8529 MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE $429,586.22 CIP-I-64/250 Improvements and Transit FY14 Transportation Projects and Revenue Sharing 8537 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE $25,015.49 CIP-Crozet Parks/Schools CIP-Crozet (Parks/Schools TBD) 8546 POPLAR GLEN II $33,060.11 CIP-General and Affordable Housing Project TBD 8533 STILLFRIED LANE $16.93 CIP-General or Affordable Housing Project TBD 8535 WESTERN RIDGE $0.00 Interest/Stop Light at Western Ridge/240 CIP-Crozet Project TBD 8541 WESTHALL (1.1) $40,120.59 Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIP CIP-Crozet (Transportation Projects) 8542 WESTHALL (1.2) $20,027.14 CIP-Crozet CIP-Crozet Project TBD 8543 WESTHALL (3.3) $3,167.07 Greenway bridge in Westhall Must use for specific project 8540 WICKHAM POND $39,752.04 CIP-Crozet CIP-Crozet Project TBD 8549 WICKHAM POND II $53,237.69 CIP-Crozet CIP-Crozet Project TBD TOTAL $998,353.49
Page 1 of 3
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
February 2013
Special Issues
None at this time
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST
MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder
Widening 0.4 Mi E. of Monticello
Loop Road
Right of Way Advertisement February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project – Shoulder
Widening 0.06 Mi E. of Monticello
Loop Road
Right of Way Advertisement February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 20
Design Public
Hearing Advertisement February 2013
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement May 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 729
Right of Way Advertisement October 2013
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR
Design Public
Hearing Right of Way – May 2013 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR
Design Public
Hearing
Right of Way –August
2013 December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy
Creek
Design Public
Hearing
Right of Way –August
2013 December 2014
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to
Hollymeade Town Center Survey Preliminary Design –
Spring 2013 December 2015
Route 250, Bridge replacement
over Little Ivy Creek Survey Preliminary Design January 2018
Route 774, Bear Creek Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 November 2019
Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved
Road -- Project Scoping –2016 November 2019
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Best Buy Ramp Design Public Hearing Right of Way – Summer
2013 November 2014
Construction Activities
Route 29 Bypass (FO)0029-002-844
Scope: Design and construction 6.2 miles of highway between Route 250 to north of South
Fork of the Rivanna River.
Next major milestone: Submit Environmental Assessment to FHWA
Contract Completion Date: September 16, 2016
Only activities authorized being performed to include IJR/Traffic Studies for northern and
southern termini. Anticipate submission of environmental document revision to FHWA by earl y
December (FONSI request). If FONSI issued by FHWA, remaining PE activities (survey,
geotechnical exploration, environmental delineations, etc.) as well as Final design, RW & CN
activities can be initiated. Additional Public Involvement scheduled: Citizen information meeting
tentatively Feb./Mar. 2013, Design PH tentatively Apr. 2013.
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract Renewal – 2nd term
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2013.
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path.
Next major Milestone: Construct right turn lane from Melbourne Road.
Contract Completion: October 15, 2013
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 250 Ivy Road near Boars Head Inn Guardrail review – Study memorandum complete;
awaiting funding for installation.
Route 250 Richmond Road and 1054 Glenmore Way (E. of Shadwell): Study complete
recommend signing adjustments. Sign installation complete. Pavement markings expected in the
spring. VDOT Study Number- 003-1054-20120410-016
Route 250: Share the road sign evaluation; Sign installation complete 10/30/2012. VDOT Study
Number- 003-0250-20120803-010
Page 3 of 3
Route 20 Scottsville Road @ Route 708 Red Hill Road: Intersection safety review; complete.
Recommendation installation pending available funding. VDOT Study Number- 003-0020-
20120717-007
Route 726 James River Road: Guardrail review; chevrons installation pending. VDOT Study
Number- 003-0726-20120925-003
Route 20 Scottsville Road @ Route 726 James River Road: Intersection safety review; Report
complete, awaiting county comments. VDOT Study Number- 003-0020-20120614-007
Route 762 Rose Hill Church Lane: Speed study complete; resolution pending. Rural rustic road
project, speed reduced to 25 mph. VDOT Study Number- 003-0762-20120719-011
Route 760 Red Hill School Road: Speed complete; resolution pending. VDOT Study Number-
003-0760-20120822-011
Route 250: Passing zone review; complete. VDOT Study Number- 003-0250-20121107-007
Route 20: Passing zone review; complete. Review recommends passing zone remain in-place.
VDOT Study Number- 003-0020-20121126-006
Route 1815 Old Trail Drive: School zone review; sign installation pending. VDOT Study
Number- 003-1815-20121203-010
Route 672 Bluffton Road: Rural rustic review; speed study initiated from review findings. VDOT
Study Number- 003-0672-20121204-019
Under Review
Route 20: Bus Stop Sign review; pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-0020-20130102-010
Route 795 James Monroe Parkway: Safety study at Ash Lawn entrance; pending. VDOT Study
Number- 003-0795-20130109-007
Route 250: Bicycle “Sharrows” pavement markings review; pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-
0250-20130109-006
Route 672 Bluffton Road: Speed study on Rural Rustic Project; pending. VDOT Study Number-
003-0672-20130115-011
Maintenance Activities
Limbing Operations on various Secondary Routes
Machining/ grading/applying stone to non-hard surfaces roadways
Pipe Cleaning and ditching operations
Pothole patching operations
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Access Albemarle: Revenue and Taxation System
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Status of final phase of Access Albemarle to implement
Revenue and Taxation system
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. Burrell
PRESENTER (S):
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In recent months, staff has completed the implementation of major components of the “Access Albemarle” financial
enterprise software system, including purchasing, accounts payable, general ledger/accounting, payroll and human
resources modules. In consultation with Microsoft and its implementation partner, Avastone, local government and
school staff worked together for several years to bring about this very significant operating systems improvement.
Today, as a result of these efforts, the County has the essential components of a dynamic, sophisticated software
program that enhances the County’s reporting and monitoring capabilities, improves business processes, and will
accommodate the demands of the County’s increasingly complex local government and school operations.
Staff is now ready to proceed with the final component of the Access Albemarle systems integration involving the purchase
and implementation of a revenue, taxation and accounts receivable module.
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:
After careful evaluation of various options, the County’s appointed “Process Owners Committee” directed staff to
proceed with the engagement of an outside vendor for the acquisition and implementation of the Revenue and
Taxation module. Accordingly, in August, 2012, an RFP was issued to which three qualified firms responded. After
the Selection Committee reviewed the three proposals, interviewed two firms and checked references, PCI emerged
as the top-ranked provider, and the County issued an Intent to Award to PCI. PCI’s Revenue and Taxation system
has been successfully installed in 20 Virginia localities, including Stafford, Henrico, and Franklin counties, among
others.
This final installation will conclude the “Access Albemarle” project at a total net cost of just over $4.2 million. This final
estimated cost is well within our original cost estimate and compares very favorably to installations at other localities
and institutions around the State of similar size. In summary, the system includes: General Ledger/Financial
Management System, Procurement and Accounts Payable, Fixed Assets, Miscellaneous Billings and Receivables
Management, integration of the Financial Management System (FMS) with Enterprise Reporting, Payroll, Human
Resources and now Revenue and Taxation.
An appropriation request to fund this Revenue and Taxation software system will be presented to the Board for
approval as part of the FY 13 Appropriation request on February 6, 2013. If the Board approves the appropriation on
February 6, implementation of the software will commence immediately and will be substantially completed by the end
of the 2013 calendar year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total cost of the Revenue and Taxation component, including software acquisition, implementation, training and
contract labor, is estimated at $880,000. Funds proposed to support this effort are derived from a number of sources,
including remaining set aside “Albemarle Access” funds and IT salary lapse from prior years, savings from prior and
future obligations for Microsoft support which will not be required as well as reductions in maintenance cost on the
main frame system, and other miscellaneous revenues. $125,000 of these funds and allocations have been closed to
AGENDA TITLE: Access Albemarle: Revenue and Taxation System
February 6, 2013
Page 2
fund balance and transferred to the CIP fund at year end as part of excess fund balance. Accordingly, a separate
appropriation request will be presented to the Board for approval as part of the February 6, 2013, FY 13 Appropriation
Executive Summary to reallocate $187,054.53 from the Access Albemarle fund balance, $250,000 in miscellaneous
revenue and the remaining $442,945.47 from the CIP fund.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to update the Board on the status of the Revenue and Taxation module.
Staff recommends that the Board support the immediate implementation of the Revenue and Taxation module by
approving the associated appropriation request included in the February 6, 2013 FY 13 Appropriation Executive
Summary.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP201200013 Kenridge
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
An amendment to SP200900006 to modify the conditions
approved with the special use permit. Modification
consists of revised conditions to allowed exterior building
materials. Approved residential use remains unchanged.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Benish and Nelson
PRESENTER (S):
N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION:X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: D. Benish
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to Condition #9 of Special Use Permit 200900006 modifying conditions
to allowed exterior materials. The Planning Commission staff report from the December 11, 2012 review of this proposal is
attached (Attachment I) and provides a more detailed analysis of the proposal. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the special use permit with conditions as amended (Attachment II).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 5: Ensure health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
At the December 11th Planning Commission meeting, adjacent property owners requested that the height of future units on
certain lots be limited. As noted in the Planning Commission’s action letter dated December 21, 2012, the Commission
recommended approval with the recommendation that the height limit concern would be addressed by the applicant through
an additional condition. In lieu of an 18th condition, a private written agreement was reached between the developers and
adjacent owners Mr. & Mrs. Richard Hewitt & Mr. & Mrs. L. F. Payne (Attachments III, IV & V). Staff believes this agreement
adequately addresses the Commission’s expectation.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit.
ATTACHMENTS:
I – Planning Commission staff report, dated December 11, 2012
II – Planning Commission action letter, dated December 21, 2012
III – Cannon Properties letter, dated January 9, 2013
IV – Craig Builders letter, dated January 9, 2013
V – L. F. Payne email, dated January 11, 2013
PC minutes
Return to agenda
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Proposal: SP 201200013 Kenridge Staff: Brent Nelson
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 11, 2012
Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owners: Kenridge, LLC Applicant: Kenridge, LLC
Acreage: Approximately 16.5 acres Special Use Permit for: Residential R-15 by special use
permit in CO, Commercial Office districts.
TMP: TM: 60K, Parcels A1, A2, B1, B2, B3
TM 60K, Parcels 1-47, 49-61
Location: Route 250 West across from Birdwood Golf Course
(Attachment A)
By-right use: CO, Commercial Office - offices,
supporting commercial and service uses; and residential
use by special use permit - 15 units/acre;
Section 23.2.2(9) R-15 residential-15 units/acre of the
Zoning Ordinance, which allow for residential uses.
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions: Yes EC: Yes
Proposal: Amendment to SP200900006 to amend the
conditions approved with the special use permit. Modification
consists of revised conditions to allowed exterior building
materials. Approved residential use remains unchanged.
(Attachments C & D)
Approved # of Dwellings: 67
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 7 Comp. Plan Designation: Office Service - office uses,
regional scale research, limited production and marketing
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Rural
Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density
(.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Character of Property: The Kenridge development consists
of single family attached and detached residences, an original
manor house that remains as a single family residence, and
an original carriage house providing office use on the site. The
development is currently under construction with a number of
attached residences completed.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single and multi-family
residences, office uses; Birdwood Golf course is located
across the street.
Factors Favorable:
1. The factors supporting approval of the original special
use permit have not changed.
2. The proposed modification is expected to have
minimal impact on surrounding parcels.
Factors Unfavorable:
None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP201200013.
2
STAFF PERSON: Brent Nelson
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 11, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SP201200013: KENRIDGE
Petition:
PROJECT: SP201200013 Kenridge
PROPOSED: Amendment to SP200900006 to modify conditions approved with the special use permit.
Modification consists of revised conditions to allowed exterior building materials. Approved uses remain
unchanged.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and
service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre)
SECTION: 23.2.2(9) R-15 residential-15 units/acre
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research,
limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities,
and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) in
Neighborhood 7.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: North side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West across from Birdwood Golf Course)
Approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass.
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 60K, Parcels A1, A2, B1, B2, B3; 60K, Parcels1-47, 49-61
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Character of the Area and Adjoining properties:
Kenridge is currently under construction. The development consists mainly of newly constructed
residential units with the exception of the existing manor house, which is a single family residence, and
an existing carriage house used for office purposes. Adjacent to the site to the east is the White Gables
residential development. Adjacent to the site and to the west is a single family residence and business.
The Birdwood Golf Course is located to the south, across Route 250. A rail line for the CSX railway
runs along the rear of the site with the Farmington golf course and residential area located on the north
side of the rail line.
Specifics of Proposal:
The applicant would like approval of a modification to Condition #9 of Special Use Permit 200900006
(Attachments C & D) allowing the following changes to required conditions:
For single family attached structures:
Revise to allow hip roof forms in addition to the previously required gable roof forms.
Continue to require red brick for the exterior and revise to not allow painted brick (including
white painted brick).
Front and rear elevations: continue to require brick to the roof line but revise to allow the
following exceptions:
o Sunrooms, bay or box windows, front entryway and dormers may consist of red brick
and/or composite siding.
Side elevations: revise to require brick to the full eave return and/or roof line, with white
composite siding permitted above the full eave return to the roof line (existing condition
requires brick to the roof line).
Revise to allow the following exceptions:
o Lot 19, rear elevation: require red brick from the ground floor to the first floor with
composite siding permitted from the first floor to the roof line.
o Lots 30, 31 and 32: require red brick from the ground floor to the second floor with
composite siding permitted from the second floor to the roof line.
3
For single family detached structures:
Continue to require red brick for the exterior from the ground to the roof line and revise to not
allow painted brick.
Revise to allow the following exceptions: sunrooms, bay or box windows, front entryway and
dormers may consist of red brick and/or composite siding.
Applicant’s Justification for the Request:
The applicant has stated that the intent of the request is to better define allowable exterior materials
while at the same time keeping with the original intent of the conditions accompanying SP20090006
and to address violations of the design conditions that have occurred on a number of structures. The
applicant has also stated that the existing white composite siding on the rear elevations of lots 19, 30,
31 and 32, in violation of existing Condition #9, will have no negative affect on adjacent properties and
therefore should be allowed to remain. The purpose of Condition #9 is to insure that the appearance of
the new residences will be in keeping with the character of the Entrance Corridor and the historic
buildings located on site.
Planning and Zoning History:
The history of the parcel is as follows: In 1980 this property was zoned CO, Commercial Office. This
site was the former national headquarters for Kappa Sigma Fraternity and a non-profit foundation. The
Planning Commission reviewed Kenridge in a December 14, 2004 work session. The Planning
Commission then held a public hearing on March 29, 2005, where the applicant requested an indefinite
deferral. On July 26, 2005, the Planning Commission held another public hearing and recommended
denial of Kenridge for the following reasons: 1) internal parking, 2) storm water management 3)
affordability issues, and 4) screening. Prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing the applicant
addressed outstanding issues and concerns from the Planning Commission public hearing and on
October 5, 2005, the Board approved SP200400052 - Kenridge with seventeen (17) conditions.
Following the special use permit approval several related site plans, subdivisions, and water protection
ordinance items were processed and approved. On July 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and reviewed Special Use Permit 200900006 - Kenridge, a request by the applicant to
modify the plan approved with Special Use Permit 200400052 - Kenridge. The modification consisted of
a revised location for both the access road and parking serving the office building and the elimination of
one of the single family attached units. The Planning Commission recommended approval with
seventeen (17) conditions to the Board of Supervisors. On September 9, 2009, the Board of
Supervisors approved Special Use Permit 200900006 – Kenridge with seventeen (17) conditions.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Office Service in Neighborhood Seven (7). The
Comprehensive Plan supports both residential and office uses in Office Service designated areas.
A full Neighborhood Model Analysis was completed with the approved SP2004-052 and is still
applicable for this amendment request. This site is located along Route 250 West which is designated
as an Entrance Corridor (EC). Only a portion of the site is visible from the EC.
Staff Comment:
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The proposed modification to Condition 9 will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The
requested exception to the rear elevation of Lot 19, allowing white composite siding from the first floor
to the roof line, is the only part of the proposed modification expected to be discernible off-site. Its
visual impact, however, is sufficiently mitigated by its location, limited size and distance from nearby
residential properties.
4
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The character of the zoning district will not change with the proposed modification to Condition 9. The
residential use has already been approved in the zoning district. The County’s Design Planner and staff
for the ARB have reviewed this proposal and the proposed modifications will not have a negative
impact on the Entrance Corridor.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The proposed modification to Condition 9 is not a change to the approved use and is not expected to
have any impact on the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The proposed modification to Condition 9 is not a change to the approved use and will be in harmony
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
There are no additional regulations.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved?
Condition 9, as existing and proposed, has no impact on public health, safety and general welfare of
the community.
Summary:
The purpose of this request is to amend Condition 9 of Special Use Permit – SP20090006 as follows:
The applicant has constructed portions of the rear elevations of Lots 19, 30, 31 and 32 with
white composite siding instead brick as required by the existing condition. The applicant is now
requesting approval of this condition as an exception for those lots to address this violation of
the current conditions.
The applicant has, on various residences in Kenridge, constructed gable ends above the full
return with white composite siding instead of brick as required by the existing condition. The
applicant is now requesting a modification allowing this condition on existing and future attached
residences.
The applicant has constructed sunrooms, bay or box windows, front entryways and dormers, on
residences with white composite siding instead of brick as required by the existing condition.
The applicant is now requesting a modification allowing this condition on existing and future
attached and detached residences.
The applicant has constructed intersecting hip roof forms in various locations throughout
Kenridge and is requesting a modification allowing both primary and intersecting hip roof forms
on existing and future attached residences.
The applicant is requesting the removal of painted brick as an exterior material on any structure
other than the existing manor house and carriage house.
Staff opinion is that the proposed revision to Condition (9) does not have any negative visual
impact to adjacent properties. It does not conflict with the intent of the original condition
providing consistent building appearance in keeping with the Entrance Corridor and historic
buildings located on site. It does not conflict with any goals, recommendations or design
guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The factors supporting approval of the original special use permit have not changed.
2. The requested modification to Condition 9 is expected to have limited visual impact to
surrounding properties.
Staff finds no factors unfavorable to this request.
5
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of SP201200013, Kenridge with Condition (9) as proposed by the
applicant.
1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan
prepared by Collins Engineering, revision date August 25, 2009 (“Conceptual Plan”)
(See Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of
spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office
use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required;
2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy-five (275) feet between the
southern-most structure (the “Main House”) and the property line adjacent to Route 250
as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the
Conceptual Plan;
3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the
Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent
that such streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a
standard consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables property. All streets
and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County
Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A, revised and dated
August 30, 2005 and initialed as CTG;
4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 28)
and across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the
Conceptual Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final
subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval,
the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community
Development to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of
ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel 28;
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and
construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall
pay its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by
traffic from the development as follows:
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in
escrow or provide other security (“security”) acceptable to the County in an
amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be
calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the
security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for
the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special
use permit; security provided that is not in an interest -bearing account shall be
annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year
according to the consumer price index, as determined by the Director of
Community Development; and
(b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use
permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and
the County’s Engineer approve the signal’s installation before the applicant has
obtained a building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant’s
pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay its pro
rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand.
6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the
project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of
Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by Charles J. Stick,
attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress
Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten (10)
feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit
for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on
eight (8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas.
6
Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be
provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent
property and the impact of the railroad on this development;
7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level
documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural
description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation
Planner;
8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made
available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development;
9. As shown on exhibit “Kenridge Amendment to SP 200900006 Condition #9”, prepared
by Kirk Hughes & Associates, latest revision date October 19, 2012:
I.) For all attached single family buildings, future, existing or the reconstruction
thereof, consisting of Lots 1 through 60 and lying within Zones A, B, and C (See
Attachment “C”) the following apply:
a.) Front facing exteriors shall consist of gable and/or hip roofs with red brick to
the roof line. (See Attachments E-1 and E-2)
b.) Side facing exteriors shall consist of gable and/or hip roofs with red brick to
the full eave return and/or roof line (See Attachment E-2). As an alternative to red
brick, white composite siding is permissible above said full eave return to the roof
line.
c.) Rear facing exteriors shall be red brick from the ground floor to the roof line
except as follows (See Attachment E-3):
i.) Lot 19 shall be red brick from the ground floor to the first floor. White
composite siding is permitted from the first floor to the roof line.
ii.) Lots 30, 31, and 32 shall be red brick from the ground floor to the
second floor. White composite siding is permitted from the second floor to
the roof line.
II.) The exteriors of all detached residences for Lots 61 through 65 shall be red
brick from ground to the roof line. The Cottage as indicated on Attachment “C”,
Zone B shall be white painted brick.
III.) Sunrooms, bay or box windows, front entryways and dormers are
permissible non-brick features and may consist of red brick and/or white
composite siding or the combination thereof. Front entryways are defined as that
portion of the building within the covered porch area facing the street. (See
Attachments E-1, E-2, and E-3)
IV.) The exterior of the Manor House and Cottage (See Attachment “C”) shall be
white painted brick.
V.) Exterior materials for all buildings within Zone A, (See Attachment “C”) shall
be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board and by the Director
of Planning or their designee before the issuance of a building permit.
10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate;
11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as
depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick,
Landscape Architect (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided
for and required by the Homeowner’s Association which shall be set forth in the
Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps and walks shall be
constructed of either brick or stone;
12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-
five (275) foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main
house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor), the applicant shall submit for review
and approval by the County’s Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a
state certified arborist that meets the requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance. This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site
plans, and subdivision plats;
7
13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings
that include its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and other
improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the
existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall be included on the grading,
site plans and subdivision plats that state: “The existing site wall shall remain.
Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the opening of
the proposed entrance into the site." Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and
articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the
Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final
block, the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250;
14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to colors,
roofing, siding and foundation material selections, shall be coordinated with the
Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential units, as
determined by the Design Planner;
15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000)
cash per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs
[including the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the
issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit. The acceptance of this special use
permit by the owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution;
Planning Commision Motion – Special Use Permit:
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this
special use permit:
I move to recommend approval of SP 2012-00013, Kenridge with Condition
(9) as proposed by the applicant.
Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special
use permit:
I move to recommend denial of SP 2012-00013 Kenridge. (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for the recommendation of denial).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Vicinity Map
Attachment B – Kenridge Special Use Permit Exhibit, dated August 30, 2012, latest revision date
October 19, 2012
Attachment C – Kenridge Special Use Permit, Existing Condition 9 & Proposed Modification
Return to exec summary
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
SP 2012-00006 , Kenridge
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources December 3, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
281 ft
Existing Condition #9:
Except for those attached single family buildings located in Zone (A) the exteriors
of blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick or white
painted brick, with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single family buildings in
Zone (A) shall be red brick with gable roofs. The features in Zone (A) shall be
reviewed and approved by the A.R.B. during its review of the site plan for these
buildings. The exteriors of detached residences shall be either red brick or
painted white brick. These materials shall be reviewed and approved by the
Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit for the buildings (See
Attachment C).
Amendment to Condition #9 of SP 20090006:
I.) For all attached single family buildings, future, existing or the reconstruction
thereof, consisting of Lots 1 through 60 and lying within Zones A, B, and C (See
Attachment “C”) the following apply:
a.) Front facing exteriors shall consist of gable and/or hip roofs with red brick to
the roof line. (See Attachments E-1 and E-2)
b.) Side facing exteriors shall consist of gable and/or hip roofs with red brick to
the full eave return and/or roof line (See Attachment E-2). As an alternative to red
brick, white composite siding is permissible above said full eave return to the roof
line.
c.) Rear facing exteriors shall be red brick from the ground floor to the roof line
except as follows (See Attachment E-3):
i.) Lot 19 shall be red brick from the ground floor to the first floor. White
composite siding is permitted from the first floor to the roof line.
ii.) Lots 30, 31, and 32 shall be red brick from the ground floor to the
second floor. White composite siding is permitted from the second floor to the
roof line.
III.) The exteriors of all detached residences for Lots 61 through 65 shall be red
brick from ground to the roof line. The Cottage as indicated on Attachment “C”,
Zone B shall be white painted brick.
IV.) Sunrooms, Bay or Box windows, Front Entryways and Dormers are
permissible non-brick features and may consist of red brick and/or white
composite siding or the combination thereof. Front Entryways are defined as that
portion of the building within the covered porch area facing the street. (See
Attachments E-1, E-2, and E-3)
V.) The exterior of the Manor House and Cottage (See Attachment “C”) shall be
white painted brick.
VI.) Exterior materials for all buildings within Zone A, (See Attachment “C”) shall
be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board and by the Director
of Planning or their designee before the issuance of a building permit.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
December 21, 2012
Rob Cummings
220 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: SP201200013 Kenridge
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 60K/A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, 60K/1-47, 49-61
Dear Mr. Cummings:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 11, 2012, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan prepared by
Collins Engineering, revision date August 25, 2009 (“Conceptual Plan”) (See Attachment). Parking for
the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If
additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit shall be required;
2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy-five (275) feet between the southern-
most structure (the “Main House”) and the property line adjacent to Route 250 as shown on the
Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the Conceptual Plan;
3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall
be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such streets on the property
connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard consistent with the connecting street on
the White Gables property. All streets and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard
acceptable to the County Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A,
revised and dated August 30, 2005 and initialed as CTG;
4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 28) and across the
Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, shall be established
as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final
subdivision plat or site plan approval, the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by
the Director of Community Development to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for
purposes of ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel 28;
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and construction of
the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall pay its pro rata share of the
cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by traffic from the development as follows:
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in escrow or provide
other security (“security”) acceptable to the County in an amount equal to its pro rata share of the
cost of the signal which amount shall be calculated by the Director of Community Development in
the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay
for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit;
security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the
amount of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer price index, as
determined by the Director of Community Development; and
(b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use permit, VDOT
authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and the County’s Engineer approve
the signal’s installation before the applicant has obtained a building permit, the County may
demand payment of the applicant’s pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant
shall pay its pro rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand.
6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the project shall
be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of Perimeter Screen and Privacy
Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, attached as Attachment B. The continuous
evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project
shall be installed at ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a
building permit for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted
on eight (8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas. Screening
deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be provided adjacent to the
railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent property and the impact of the railroad
on this development;
7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level documentation to include
black and white photographs and a brief architectural description shall be provided to the satisfaction
of the County's Historic Preservation Planner;
8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made available for use
by all residential and commercial units in the development;
9. As shown on exhibit “Kenridge Amendment to SP 200900006 Condition #9”, prepared by Kirk Hughes
& Associates, latest revision date October 19, 2012:
I.) For all attached single family buildings, future, existing or the reconstruction thereof, consisting of
Lots 1 through 60 and lying within Zones A, B, and C (See Attachment “C”) the following apply:
a.) Front facing exteriors shall consist of gable and/or hip roofs with red brick to the roof line.
(See Attachments E-1 and E-2)
b.) Side facing exteriors shall consist of gable and/or hip roofs with red brick to the full eave
return and/or roof line (See Attachment E-2). As an alternative to red brick, white
composite siding is permissible above said full eave return to the roof line.
c.) Rear facing exteriors shall be red brick from the grou nd floor to the roof line except as
follows (See Attachment E-3):
i.) Lot 19 shall be red brick from the ground floor to the first floor. White composite
siding is permitted from the first floor to the roof line.
ii.) Lots 30, 31, and 32 shall be red brick from the ground floor to the second floor.
White composite siding is permitted from the second floor to the roof line.
II.) The exteriors of all detached residences for Lots 61 through 65 shall be red brick from ground to
the roof line. The Cottage as indicated on Attachment “C”, Zone B shall be white painted brick.
III.) Sunrooms, bay or box windows, front entryways and dormers are permissible non-brick features
and may consist of red brick and/or white composite siding or the combination thereof. Front
entryways are defined as that portion of the building within the covered porch area facing the street.
(See Attachments E-1, E-2, and E-3)
IV.) The exterior of the Manor House and Cottage (See Attachment “C”) shall be
white painted brick.
V.) Exterior materials for all buildings within Zone A, (See Attachment “C”) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Architectural Review Board and by the Director of Planning or their designee before
the issuance of a building permit.
10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate;
11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as depicted on the
Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick, Landscape Architect (See
Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided for and required by the Homeowner’s
Association which shall be set forth in the Covenants for this development. The decorative walls,
steps and walks shall be constructed of either brick or stone;
12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-five (275) foot
front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main house and the Route 250 West
Entrance Corridor), the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County’s Design Planner
a tree conservation plan prepared by a state certified arborist that meets the requirements of Section
32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control
plans, site plans, and subdivision plats;
13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings that include
its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and other improvements shall be adjusted to
insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance.
Notes shall be included on the grading, site plans and subdivision plats that state: “The existing site
wall shall remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the opening
of the proposed entrance into the site." Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and articulated to
blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. Prior
to the issuance of any building permits in the final block, the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new
entrance from Route 250;
14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to colors, roofing, siding
and foundation material selections, shall be coordinated with the Architectural Review Board -
approved designs of the attached residential units, as determined by the Design Planner;
15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) cash per new
dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs [including the Housing Trust
Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such
new unit. The acceptance of this special use permit by the owner shall obligate the owner to make
this contribution;
16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall be provided
to the Manor Home and Carriage House; and
17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets within the development shall conform to the
neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development.
Note: As part of the record there was an expectation by the Commission of an 18th condition based on the
informal work of staff with the applicant to address height concerns raised by the adjacent neighbors to be
developed before the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Return to exec summary
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on a date to be determined.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Brent Nelson
Planner
Planning Division
Cc Kenridge Llc
P O Box 5509
Charlottesville VA. 22905
1
Brent Nelson
From:Payne, L. F. Jr. [lfpayne@mwcllc.com]
Sent:Friday, January 11, 2013 11:04 AM
To:Brent Nelson
Subject:Re: SP201200013, Kenridge Amendment
I have no problem with the agreement.
Thanks very much.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 11, 2013, at 10:39 AM, "Brent Nelson" <bnelson@albemarle.org> wrote:
Mr. and Mrs. Payne,
I am the planner handling the review of Craig Builder’s proposed amendment to the approved
Kenridge special use permit conditions. The purpose of the amendment being to allow certain
modifications to allowed exterior building materials. Just prior to the Planning Commission’s
review on December 11, 2012, a letter was received from your neighbor, Richard Hewitt,
expressing concerns for the building heights of units yet to be built. Mr. Hewitt in a phone
conversation with me indicated that he was in communication with you regarding this issue.
In the Planning Commission’s action (page 3, attached), an expectation was given that the
developers and Mr. Hewitt would establish an agreement on the height concerns prior to the
Board of Supervisor’s review of this proposal. Signed agreements (attachments) with both Craig
Builders, Cannon Properties and Mr. Hewitt were provided yesterday afternoon. I have attached
a Kenridge lot layout drawing (used in the original Kenridge application) merely to assist in
understanding where the referenced lot numbers are located. This is a private agreement and will
not be added to the special use permit conditions the Board will consider.
This Tuesday, January 15th is my deadline for letting the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
(BOS) know that this proposal is ready to go on the February 6, 2013 BOS agenda. Please let me
know by this Monday, January 14th if you have any issues with this agreement. My phone
number and extension are below should you desire to call me.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Brent
Brent W. Nelson
Planner
Planning Services
Department of Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3438
<SP12-13_A. Cannon_1-9-13.pdf>
2
<SP12-13_S. Craig_1-9-13.pdf>
<SP12-13_PC Action Memo_12-21-12.pdf>
<Kenridge_Lot Layout.pdf>
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 11, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 11, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second
Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Richard
Randolph, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman, and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Brent Nelson, Planner;
Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Ron Higgins, Chief of
Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning
Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing Items
SP-2012-00013 Kenridge
PROPOSED: Amendment to SP-2009-06 to change the approved conditions.
Modification to conditions to allow changes to the exterior building materials. Approved
uses remain unchanged.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre)
SECTION: 23.2.2(9) R-15 residential-15 units/acre
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional
scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial,
lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Rural Areas -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) in Neighborhood 7.
LOCATION: North side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West across from Birdwood Golf
Course) Approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By -
pass.
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 60K/A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, 60K/1-47, 49-61
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Brent Nelson)
Brent Nelson summarized the staff report in a PowerPoint presentation , which has the
referenced photographs.
Kenridge is located on the north side of Ivy Road, Route 250 West, across from the
Birdwood Golf Course. The Kenridge development consists of single family attached
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
2
and detached residences, an original manor house that remains as a single family
residence, and an original carriage house providing office use on the site. The
development is currently under construction with a number of attached residences
completed.
Regarding the history of the Kenridge development:
On July 26, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
denial of Kendridge for reasons including 1) internal parking, 2) storm water
management 3) affordability issues, and 4) screening. Prior to the Board of Supervisors
public hearing the applicant addressed outstanding issues and concerns from the
Planning Commission public hearing and on October 5, 20 05, the Board approved
SP2004-00052 - Kenridge with 17 conditions.
On July 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed Special
Use Permit 2009-00006 - Kenridge, a request by the applicant to modify the plan
approved with Special Use Permit 2004-00052 - Kenridge. The modification consisted
of a revised location for both the access road and parking serving the office building and
the elimination of one of the single family attached units. The Planning Commission
recommended approval with 17 conditions to the Board of Supervisors.
On September 9, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved Special Use Permit 2009 -
00006 – Kenridge with 17 conditions.
The purpose of this request is to amend Condition 9 of Special Use Permit – SP-2009-
0006 regarding required exterior building materials and roof forms - to better define
allowable exterior materials while at the same time keeping with the original intent of the
conditions accompanying SP-2009-0006 - and to address violations of the design
conditions that have occurred on a number of structures.
The applicant has constructed portions of the rear elevations of Lots 19, 30, 31 and 32
with white composite siding instead of brick as required by the existing condition. The
applicant is now requesting approval of this condition as an exception for those lots to
address this violation of the current conditions.
A photo shows the white siding on the rear of the residence on Lot 19. A photo shows
the white siding on the 3 residences on Lots 30, 31 & 32.
The applicant has, on various residences in Kenridge, constructed gable ends above
the full return with white composite siding instead of brick as required by the existing
condition. The applicant is now requesting a modification allowing this conditi on on the
existing and future attached residences.
A photo shows the side of the residence on Lot 27 with the white siding above the full
return. A photo of the side of the residence on Lot 1 shows the white siding above the
full return.
The applicant has constructed sunrooms, bay or box windows, front entryways and
dormers, on residences with white composite siding instead of brick as required by the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
3
existing condition. The applicant is now requesting a modification allowing this condition
on existing and future attached and detached residences. A photo shows the white
siding on the dormers and front entryway of a unit located at the rear of the
development. A photo shows the white siding on the rear sunroom of a unit along the
eastern boundary of the development.
The applicant has constructed intersecting hip roof forms in various locations throughout
Kenridge and is requesting a modification allowing both primary and intersecting hip
roof forms on existing and future attached residences.
A photo shows the intersecting hip roof form on a unit located along the rear boundary
of the development. The applicant is requesting the removal of painted brick as an
exterior material on any structure other than the existing manor house and carriage
house.
And finally, for single family detached structures: the applicant is requesting that the
condition continue to require red brick for the exterior from the ground to the roof line
and revise to not allow painted brick and revise to allow the following excepti ons:
sunrooms, bay or box windows, front entryways and dormers may consist of red brick
and/or composite siding.
Staff opinion is that the proposed amendment to Condition (9) does not have a negative
visual impact to adjacent properties. It does not confl ict with the intent of the original
condition providing consistent building appearance in keeping with the Entrance
Corridor and historic buildings located on site. It does not conflict with any goals,
recommendations or design guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
The factors supporting approval of the original special use permit have not
changed.
The requested modification to Condition 9 is expected to have limited visual
impact to surrounding properties.
Staff finds no factors unfavorable to this request.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of SP-2012-00013, Kenridge with amended condition (9) as
proposed by the applicant and listed in the staff report.
Condition 9 references a drawing in the applicant’s exhibit, which includes the lot layout,
elevation drawings that are referenced in the amended condition, and photos of existing
conditions for clarification.
Yesterday county staff and the applicant were contacted by the Mr. Richard Hewitt,
resident owner of the adjoining parcel to the west known as “Boxwood”, with a request
for height restrictions on certain units yet to be built in Kenridge. A letter was received
from Mr. Hewitt today outlining the request. The request includes lim iting the height of
units on lots 49 thru 60 along the western boundary to the height of the existing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
4
buildings on lots 1 thru 6 along the eastern boundary as shown in a photo. The request
also includes limiting the height of units on lots 37 thru 43 located behind the manor
house to the height of the existing buildings on lots 27 thru 29 shown in the photo.
While both the applicant and Cannon Properties, the owner of the majority of the lots in
question, have indicated they are agreeable to the intent of the height limitation
expressed in Mr. Hewitt’s letter, staff has not been able to develop a worded condition
that they are agreeable to at this time. Any such condition is not necessitated by the
Special Use Permit under review tonight. If the Planning Commission believes that
such a condition should be pursued by the applicant and staff, staff’s recommended
motion can be amended to include that.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty noted staff mentioned the original intent of the special use permit. He
questioned what the original intent of the Planning Commission was to act as an ARB.
Mr. Nelson replied they only have design preview over the section of this development
reviewed by the ARB in the back. The boundary line for Entrance Corridor review by
the ARB runs through the manor house and along the ridge line. From that point
forward is reviewed. Otherwise they do not have design preview over the remainder of
the development.
Mr. Lafferty noted they are being asked to change the things in the back of the lot near
the railroad tracks.
Mr. Nelson replied the conditions entered into consideration what was proposed by the
applicant and not something required by staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked what the intent was.
Mr. Nelson replied that he thought it was to provide a unified appearance to the
development. The ARB staff did comment on the front portion.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the units in the back were consistent with the units in the front.
Mr. Nelson replied that some of them are a different design. They were supposed to
have the same materials outlined in the original condition. However, as he explained in
the introduction there have been some changes. That is what they are reviewing
tonight. It largely involves the use of the white siding.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the contiguous property owners have rights like Monticello with the
viewshed.
Mr. Loach noted that staff pointed out a number of violations in the pictures. He asked
how staff found out about the violations.
Mr. Nelson replied a complaint was filed by a nearby property owner which brought it to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
5
the County’s attention and then the violation found.
Mr. Loach asked if the person who lodged the complaint understood there would be a
certain specification for the buildings with the brick.
Mr. Nelson replied yes and that they are present.
Mr. Loach said regarding the note on the height was there some indication on the part
of the applicant that they propose a height change or is this just a preempt of the motion
on the part of the homeowner here to prevent that from happening.
Mr. Nelson replied that the adjacent owner’s concern was the material change they are
talking about tonight. However, he brought up his concern yesterday regarding the
height of the structures and asked whether it was possible to have a condition for that at
this time.
Mr. Loach asked if staff had no intention on record from the builder that he plans on
changing the heights of these buildings.
Mr. Nelson replied that he had been verbally told that the applicant and Cannon
Properties are willing to work with the height limitation wording on what would occur.
However, that was a concern for the applicant and Cannon Properties. Staff did not
have time to work through that completely and get a condition that was agreeable.
Mr. Morris pointed out what was before the Commission this evening actually does not
include anything regarding the request for controlling heights. They are talking about if
the Commissioners desire to add that.
Mr. Nelson agreed that was correct.
Mr. Morris pointed out in the staff report there were only 15 conditions.
Mr. Nelson apologized that the last two conditions were left off mistakenly in the report .
However, the 2 conditions were in the presentation.
Mr. Franco noted this is R-15 by special use permit in the Commercial Office District.
He asked what the maximum height is allowed.
Mr. Nelson replied it was 65 feet.
Mr. Randolph asked if the Architectural Review Board provided recommendations on
this project in the 2009 special use permit or if everything being discussed tonight has
been a design of the builder and has nothing to do whatsoever with previous community
input or Architectural Review Board recommendations.
Mr. Nelson replied that the Architectural Review Board did comment on the original
special use permit conditions for Kenridge. The ARB reviewed the buildings in the front.
ARB staff has reviewed the current amendment to the conditions and do not have any
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
6
issues with it. The main thing staff wanted to accomplish was to make sure everything
was clearly written so there was no more confusion. The building on lot 1, which was
on the south elevation on the east side closest to the Route 250 Entrance Corridor, was
one of the requested changes tonight to allow the white siding above the full return.
The ARB staff does not feel that is an issue and they are supportive.
Mr. Loach noted on page 6 in condition 9 III. says, “Sunrooms, bay or box windows,
front entryways and dormers are permissible non-brick features . . .” However, when he
showed the Commission the sunroom with the white siding was that not in violation.
Mr. Nelson replied that by strict interpretation of the current conditions it is a violation,
which was why the applicant was asking for that change to be allowed as a non-brick
feature.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and
invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Rob Cummings, with Kirk Hughes and Associates, said other present were Alex
Cannon of Cannon Properties and Sam Craig representing Kenridge, LLC. Cannon
Properties has ownership of approximately 50 percent of Kenridge lots primarily along
the western side of Kenridge. They are available for questions. He presented the
Kenridge amendment to condition 9 of SP-2009-00006, as follows.
- In the upper right hand corner of the exhibit is a portion of the original special use
permit, which he specifically refers to condition 9 that was under review tonight.
This condition primarily refers to exterior materials for roof shapes and materials
for sidings in attached homes and detached dwellings. It would appear at a quick
glance that the original intent was to have brick houses with gable roofs. On the
left side of the exhibit on the second picture down is a side of lot 1, which Mr.
Nelson made a reference to earlier. When the first approved set of units
comprising of lots 1 – 4 were constructed the architectural style or mode was set.
This has been carried throughout the subdivision as the spirit of the
neighborhood. This is represented by other pictures on the exhibit as well.
- This style consists of dormers and white siding, full and part eave returns, front
and side gable roofs, hip roofs over garages, bay and box windows, and a blend
of siding and brick for entry ways. It is just a multiple of alternate choices for
homebuyers to choose from. A variety in design is a good thing. Just imagine if
they had just brick houses with gable roofs attached in a row. His concern would
have been coming late one night from a Planning Commission meeting to find
his key did not work in the door of what he thought was his house. It is not a
good thing.
- They have created this amendment simply by using existing conditions to better
define the exterior materials for front, rear, side, and roofs for all future units.
This will permit future construction to closely conform to existing units. So variety
here has been very beneficial for this neighborhood. He thinks Kenridge is a
prime example for like developments in the future. This is why they ask for the
Commission to support the staff’s recommendation for approval of the
amendment to condition 9 and their goal to continue the spirit of the
neighborhood.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
7
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Smith asked who built the first four.
Mr. Cummings replied it was Ryan Homes.
Mr. Lafferty said he understood that the applicant came up with these conditions about
the way they would build the units. He asked why they did not stick with them.
Mr. Cummings replied that the special use permit was in place. So when the first unit
was built the special defined a brick building with gable roofs. On lot one the first
building that was built, which set the mode for the entire subdivision, had the full return,
siding and dormers with the siding. The original special use permit was kind of vague.
So there had been an interpretation along the way and they came to a point where they
need to make this solid so there is no misunderstanding of what the intent and spirit of
this subdivision to look like.
Mr. Lafferty said apparently there has been a misunderstanding.
Mr. Loach asked to hear from zoning. He asked if the conditions the gentleman just
referred to as being vague were vague in the eyes of the zoning when staff looked at
these things. Zoning staff had defined them as violations.
Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, said he will say that in the time he has been here when
this first came up, which was about this time last year, they called the county and an
inspector was sent out. There was enough concern in that particular condition that they
actually could not agree on what was included and whether the side dormer was part of
the wall or is it a gable end. They actually concluded that the dormers and the gable
ends were not included in the condition. He thinks there was vagueness to it. They
actually worked with the applicant to try to come up with a solution to the other units to
see what it would take to physically make them comply with the brick requirement. After
not being able to get that to happen they ended up pursuing a special use amendment.
So they will let that run its course and then they will deal with the four offending units
accordingly.
Mr. Randolph asked how common in this area would one build a dormer with brick on
the exterior.
Mr. Cummings replied he had yet to see a brick dormer without it going through extreme
architectural measures to do so. He did not think it would be very b eneficial for the cost
of the house personally.
Mr. Smith asked if the first four units set the precedence.
Mr. Cummings replied that was pretty much true. They have taken those that have
been built, units 7 – 11 and Ryan Homes on the back, and looked at everything to come
up with a note to continue the architectural mode that is out there.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
8
Mr. Morris asked the applicant to address the item in relation to the request by a
neighbor that the heights of dwellings on parcels 49 – 60 have a height restriction. The
Commission is being asked to consider that this evening also.
Mr. Cummings noted that their first goal was to just deal with the original special use
permit. They have not had time to look into it because it had just been b rought up
yesterday. There is a definition of how to define building heights. There are a lot of
thought that really needs to go into it. So it is not something that they would be able to
do overnight. However, it is some that Sam Craig and Alex Cannon are looking to work
with the neighbors and maybe come up with something between now and the Board of
Supervisors meeting to see if there is a compromise that can come into play. Or , they
can look at keeping the spirit of what exist s and how they are proposing to keep the
model continued throughout. He suggested maybe that would suffice the adjacent
property owner.
Mr. Morris asked if he was hearing correctly that between now and this going before the
Board of Supervisors the applicants will be willing to work with the staff and the
neighbors.
Mr. Cummings agreed.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Len Mailloux said that he was not an adjacent property owner, but lived behind the
property. The railroad track is behind it, the fairway for Farmington, and then there is
his residence. He has been very involved with this project from the first day it was
submitted to the Planning Commission. Therefore, he knows quite a bit about this
project. He hopes he can answer their question regarding intent.
The first meeting the developer presented a plan and the buildings were all hardy plank
or a type of white siding with asphalt shingle roofs. There were not many people
objecting. However, he has been with this project since day one because he did not
want to look at the back of a building that has white siding. So the developer agreed to
put brick siding. There was never any discussion about the dormers. E veryone knows
that dormers are usually siding. So that was a given. It was the brick siding on four
sides. The developer agreed to synthetic slate roofs or copper roofs if his memory
serves him right. However, he thought that was it. So that was the intent of that special
use permit in condition 9. That is how it came about. He agreed to it before the Board
of Supervisors. This is all on public record.
The pictures he has are a little better and at a different angle than what Mr. Nelson
provided earlier with one shot. So he is looking at this and has some concern about
how it looks from back there where everything is in brick. The thing that is not being
discussed here is that at least the first 12 buildings were built by Ryan Homes. Then
Ryan Homes left the project. Maybe they built 14 buildings. They lived by the letter of
the law of the special use permit and the conditions. Then when Craig Builders came in
Sam Craig made a few changes. However, the biggest change that he made has to do
with roof lines and the height of the roofs. Again, h e was here to object to that and was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
9
shot down and told since the zoning was Commercial Office those roofs could be 62’
high. The Ryan Home roofs had a nice short roof line. Sam Craig put a much higher
roof in that blocked the views from the White Gable’s project of the mountains, but it
was accepted. So he would say before they address th is other issue he would object to
including that roof heights into this amendment tonight. He thought a precedent has
already been set about those roofs.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing and the
matter was before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lafferty said first he did not think the Commission should consider the letter as part
of this. That is a whole separate thing and they just got the letter. He guessed they
were stuck with these conditions and now they are making a judgment whether to alter
the conditions or not because the past Planning Commission agreed to them. He would
go with the staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Smith pointed out that he thinks the buildings look good.
Mr. Loach noted the question is do they have a situation here where one builder was
compliant and built them according to the specifications in the special use permit a nd
then another builder came and decided that he would not. Now they have a complaint
from this gentleman well based in history that he knew what the building criteria were
supposed to be under the special use permit. He thinks this is problematic.
Mr. Franco disagreed with Mr. Loach on this particular one. He thinks that a project can
be dynamic over time. He thinks the fact that the buildings have evolved and that being
different is not necessarily a bad thing. What he got out of this is that they could have
been white in the back, but they would have had to be en painted brick. He asked if that
is correct. They could see essentially the same picture, but it would have been painted
brick as opposed to siding.
Mr. Nelson noted that in the original condition it could have been white painted brick.
Mr. Franco said it was a really a question in some of the pictures just distributed from a
distance. What he did not find great is that there is that much white on that building.
But, again, it was part of the original condition and it could have been white. He is less
inclined to be concerned about the fact that the first builder stuck to the letter of the law.
He was willing to live with it being dynamic. Again, if they were doing a straw p oll he
was inclined to take staff’s recommendation to move this forward. Also, with the height
of the building he would encourage tha t if they are going to talk about consistency as
part of the reason why they were moving this forward, then the height of the buildings
ought to be kept to a consistent height with what has been built. He suggested that
possibly they say that they can be no taller than what has been built today.
Mr. Morris asked if that would be an 18th condition.
Mr. Franco replied that he would be comfortable with that. He would like to ask the
applicant before they made that a condition.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
10
Mr. Morris asked the applicant if he would like to take advantage of the five minute
rebuttal.
Mr. Cummings said speaking on the property referred to by the gentleman, lot 19 which
has the siding on the rear, that was brought up to Craig Enterprise before. Right behind
that house is a stone retaining wall. On the other side of the retaining wall they planted
a row of Leyland Cyprus that can grow 20’ to 40’ to direct some screening for the back
of that house to knock down some of the white. That was something that was above
what was in the original covenants and restrictions in Attachment B, which is showing
some plantings, trees and everything else that was requested for the site. Regarding
condition 18 that would be something they would be willing to support to look at for staff
approval.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved for approval of SP-2012-00013, Kenridge, with condition (9)
as proposed by the applicant and with condition 18 added that no future construction
will be any taller than the highest existing structure on the site.
Mr. Morris noted that they would be working with staff and the people to work this out.
Mr. Franco agreed it would be to get the right language. However, the intent is that it
would be consistent with the rest of the units that have been built.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the lot slopes down in the back.
Mr. Franco pointed out the height of a building is measured from the main entrance.
The height of the front of the buildings to the back of the building is not applicable.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out that the 18th condition was brought in at the last minute and he
was uncomfortable putting that on them. He thinks it behooves them to have the
building heights congruent with what they have now just from an aesthetic point of view.
He would rather have them work with the neighbors on this i n an informal basis and if
they have problems bring it back to us than to put it in the condition at the last minute.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable with the discussion that it being part of the record
that goes to the Board to indicate that is our expectation to leave it as a n instruction to
go work with the adjacent neighbor and come up with something that makes everybody
happy. Therefore, he modified the motion to drop condition 18.
Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg reiterated that they were talking about 17 conditions and the expectation
of a potential 18th condition based on the work of the staff with the applicant and the
adjacent neighbors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
11
Mr. Morris agreed that was exactly what he heard.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00013 Kenridge would go to the Board of Supervisors on
a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval, wit h staff’s recommended
amended condition nine (9) as included in the following conditions and the expectation
as noted.
1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised
Conceptual Plan prepared by Collins Engineering, revision dat e August 25, 2009
(“Conceptual Plan”) (See Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited
to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional
parking is required for the office use, an amendment of this special permit s hall
be required;
2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy-five (275) feet
between the southern-most structure (the “Main House”) and the property line
adjacent to Route 250 as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards
shall be as shown on the Conceptual Plan;
3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the
Conceptual Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with
the intent that such streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will
be built to a standard consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables
property. All streets and pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard
acceptable to the County Engineer in accordance with the highlighted section s of
Attachment A, revised and dated August 30, 2005 and initialed as CTG;
4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel
28) and across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on
the Conceptual Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with
the final subdivision plat or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site
plan approval, the applicant shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the
Director of Community Development to assure the public's right to use the
connecting road for purposes of ingress to and egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel
28;
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design
and construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan, and shall pay its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this
infrastructure contributed by traffic from the development as follows:
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place fun ds in
escrow or provide other security (“security”) acceptable to the County in
an amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which
amount shall be calculated by the Director of Community Development in
the year in which the security is provided. The security shall continue so
that it is available to pay for the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after
the date of approval of this special use permit; security provided that is not
in an interest-bearing account shall be annually renewed, and the amount
of the security shall be adjusted each year according to the consumer
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
12
price index, as determined by the Director of Community Development;
and
(b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special
use permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and
VDOT and the County’s Engineer approve the signal’s installation before
the applicant has obtained a building permit, the County may demand
payment of the applicant’s pro rata share of the co st of the traffic signal,
and the applicant shall pay its pro rata share of the cost to the County
within thirty (30) days of that demand.
6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides
of the project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual
Diagram of Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by
Charles J. Stick, attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees
noted as Leyland Cypress Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the
project shall be installed at ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot
grading but prior to issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit
construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on eight (8) foot
centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas.
Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall
be provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on
adjacent property and the impact of the railroad on this development;
7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level
documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural
description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic
Preservation Planner;
8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be
made available for use by all residential and commercial units in the
development;
9. As shown on exhibit “Kenridge Amendment to SP 200900006 Condition #9”,
prepared by Kirk Hughes & Associates, latest revision date October 19, 2012:
I.) For all attached single family buildings, future, existing or the reconstruction
thereof, consisting of Lots 1 through 60 and lying within Zones A, B, and C (See
Attachment “C”) the following apply:
a.) Front facing exteriors shall consist of gable and/or hip roofs with red
brick to the roof line. (See Attachments E-1 and E-2)
b.) Side facing exteriors shall consist of gable and/or hip roofs with red
brick to the full eave return and/or roof line (See Attachment E -2). As an
alternative to red brick, white composite siding is permissible above said
full eave return to the roof line.
c.) Rear facing exteriors shall be red brick from the ground floor to the roof
line except as follows (See Attachment E-3):
i.) Lot 19 shall be red brick from the ground floor to the first floor.
White composite siding is permitted from the first floor to the roof
line.
ii.) Lots 30, 31, and 32 shall be red brick from the ground floor to
the second floor. White composite siding is permitted from the
second floor to the roof line.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
13
II.) The exteriors of all detached residences for Lots 61 through 65 shall be red
brick from ground to the roof line. The Cottage as indicated on Attachment “C”,
Zone B shall be white painted brick.
III.) Sunrooms, bay or box windows, front entryways and dormers are
permissible non-brick features and may consist of red brick and/or white
composite siding or the combination thereof. Front entryways are defined as that
portion of the building within the covered porch area facing the street. (See
Attachments E-1, E-2, and E-3)
IV.) The exterior of the Manor House and Cottage (See Attachment “C”) shall be
white painted brick.
V.) Exterior materials for all buildings within Zone A, (See Attachment “C”) shall
be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board and by the Director
of Planning or their designee before the issuance of a building permit.
10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate;
11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally
as depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J.
Stick, Landscape Architect (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas
shall be provided for and required by the Homeowner’s Association which shall
be set forth in the Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps
and walks shall be constructed of either brick or stone;
12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred
seventy-five (275) foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located
between the main house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor), the
applicant shall submit for review and approval by the County’s Design Planner a
tree conservation plan prepared by a state certified arborist that meets the
requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. This plan shall be
required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site plans, and subd ivision
plats;
13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all
drawings that include its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and
other improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall on ly
include closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall
be included on the grading, site plans and subdivision plats that state: “The
existing site wall shall remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the
existing entrance and the opening of the proposed entrance into the site." Any
changes to the wall shall be minimal and articulated to blend with the character of
the existing wall to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board. Prior to the
issuance of any building permits in the final block, the stone pillars shall be
replaced at the new entrance from Route 250;
14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to
colors, roofing, siding and foundation material selections, sh all be coordinated
with the Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential
units, as determined by the Design Planner;
15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars
($3,000) cash per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing
programs [including the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid
at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit for such new unit. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 11, 2012
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00013 KENRIDGE
14
acceptance of this special use permit by the owner s hall obligate the owner to
make this contribution;
16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community
Development shall be provided to the Manor Home and Carriage House; and
17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets with in the development shall
conform to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director
of Community Development.
Note: As part of the record there was an expectation by the Commission of an 18 th
condition based on the informal work of staff with the applicant to address height
concerns raised by the adjacent neighbors to be developed before the Board of
Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Mallioux asked why do they go through all of these steps if a builder can come
along and build what he wants and then they approve it. He just does not get it.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 29, 2013
Brian P. Smith, PE
105 West High Street
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: PROJECT: SP201200023 Faith Christian Center International
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000047A0
Dear Mr. Smith:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 8, 2013, by a vote of 4:2,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Faith Christian
Center International Special Use Permit – Concept Plan” prepared by Brian P. Smith Civil
Engineering, Inc., and dated May 13, 2010 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design
of the development:
• building orientation
• building mass, shape, and height;
• location of buildings and structures
• turn lane design;
• location of parking areas;
• relation of buildings and parking to the street.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The maximum number of children shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) or the number of
students as approved by the Health Department or the Department of Social Services, whichever is
less;
3. Side and rear setbacks shall meet commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7 of the
Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, of fifty (50) feet for structures (excluding signs) and twenty (20) feet for
parking lots and loading spaces adjacent to residential uses or residentially zoned properties;
4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval shall be required prior to
approval of the final site plan;
5. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems shall be required prior to approval of the
final site plan;
6. The area labeled “Re-planting Area” on the Conceptual Plan shall be replanted according to
“Restoration/Establishment Table A” in Appendix D of the “Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation
Manual,” published by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation’s Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance program. This area shall be replanted with species listed in the brochure titled
“Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,” published by the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation;
7. The hours of operation for the day care shall not begin earlier than 7:00 A.M. and shall end not later
than 6:00 P.M., each day, Monday through Friday, provided that occasional day care-related events
may occur after 6:00 P.M.; and
8. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced
by September 1, 2014, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted
thereunder shall thereupon terminate.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on February 6, 2013.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc Faith Christian Center International Inc.
P O Box 2306
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
SP2012-00023 Faith Christian Center International
Staff:
Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 8, 2013
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBA
Owner/s: Faith Christian Center International Inc Applicant: Faith Christian Center International Inc
Acreage: 9.48 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.7, Day care, child care or
nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
TMP: 07800-00-00-047A0
Location: 2184 Richmond Road
Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA Rural Areas -
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions or Proffers: Yes
RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Proposal: Amendment of SP200700029 to increase
day care attendance from 50 to 120 . No changes to the
previously-approved conceptual plan for the site are
proposed.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas -
preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5
unit/ acre in development lots)
Character of Property: The site is a former mobile
home park that has been cleared for construction of the
approved church on the site, with some wooded areas
remaining at the north end.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The properties on
the north side of US250 include a mix of residential
and commercial uses. Across US250 to the south is
the Shadwell property, which is under a historic
preservation easement held by the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources.
Factors Favorable
1. The increased enrollment can be
accommodated with no additional facilities on
the site beyond what has already been
approved.
2. The Virginia Department of Transportation
has found that the proposed road
improvements on the original conceptual plan
are sufficient to accommodate the additional
traffic generated by the increased enrollment.
Factors Unfavorable
No unfavorable factors were found.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit request, with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Scott Clark
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 8, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBA
PETITION:
PROPOSAL: Amendment of SP200700029 to increase day care attendance from 50 to 120
ZONING: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre)
SECTION: 10.2.2.7, Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre)
LOCATION: 2184 Richmond Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000047A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The properties on the north side of US250 include a mix of residential and commercial uses.
Across US250 to the south is the Shadwell property, which is under a historic preservation
easement held by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
ZMA 338: This 1975 request to rezone the property from B-1 Commercial to A-1 Agricultural,
in order to bring the then-extant mobile home park on the property into conformity, was
withdrawn. The property was subsequently rezoned to RA (Rural Areas) in the County’s 1980
comprehensive rezoning.
SP2007-00028: On September 1, 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved this request for a
church with a 399-seat sanctuary, administrative offices, classrooms, and a playground.
SP2007-00029: On September 1, 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved this request for
daycare for up to 50 children in the church building approved under SP2007-00028. This is the
approval that would be amended by the current request.
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION
The applicant wishes to increase the maximum attendance for daycare from 50 to 120 children.
As noted above, the original special use permits for the church and daycare were approved in 2010. The
current request is an amendment of the daycare permit to increase capacity. The church facility has not
been constructed yet. No site plan has been submitted for the development to date.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
As noted by staff before the original approval, the day care use could have noise impacts
on nearby properties. However, the adjacent parcel to the east is in light-industrial use,
and the nearest dwelling is approximately 400 feet away from the site and not in line of
sight. The increase from the already-approved 50 children to 120 children is not expected
to have a significant impact on adjacent properties.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
Prior to the original special use permit approvals, staff noted that Rural Area daycare
facilities are typically small, but that at least one other 50-child facility had been
approved in the Rural Areas. Given the particular character of this site, which lies on a
major arterial and in close proximity to an interstate interchange, the proposed increase in
enrollment is not expected to change the character of the zoning district.
The property is located in the Entrance Corridor overlay zoning district. As no physical
changes to the site would be needed in order to accommodate the requested increase, the
request would have no impact on the Entrance Corridor. As usual, the Architectural
Review Board will examine the development of the site in detail once the applicants
submit a site development plan.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Day care does not directly support the purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district.
However, the increased enrollment would not create a conflict with those purposes.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Day care provides a service to occupants of residences in this and other zoning districts.
The property’s location between two major highways and in an area of residential and
light-industrial development means that its impacts on agriculture, forestry, and
conservation would be minimal.
Will the use be in harmony with additional regulations provided in section 5?
5.1.06 DAY CARE CENTER, FAMILY DAY HOME
Each day care center or family day home shall be subject to the following: (Added
10-3-01)
a. No such use shall operate without the required licensure by the Virginia
Department of Social Services. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the original
license. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the
provisions of this chapter; (Amended 10-3-01)
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County
fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for
such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of
this chapter; (Amended 10-3-01)
c. c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be
deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Social Services, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State
Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. (Amended 10-3-01)
These regulations are performance standards that would be applied after the applicants
began the use on the site.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed the applicant’s traffic study for
the site, and finds the proposed improvements (250-foot left turn lane and 200-foot left-
turn taper, 220-foot right-turn taper) shows on the original conceptual plan to be
sufficient to accommodate the traffic for the increased enrollment.
Before the original special use permit approvals, the applicant’s soil evaluator found
suitable septic sites on the property. As before, staff is recommending a condition of
approval requiring Health Department approval of the water supply and the septic system
before the use can commence.
SUMMARY AND ACTION
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The increased enrollment can be accommodated with no additional facilities on the site
beyond what has already been approved.
2. The Virginia Department of Transportation has found that the proposed road improvements
on the original conceptual plan are sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic
generated by the increased enrollment.
No unfavorable factors were found.
The proposed increase in enrollment would not have significant additional impacts on this rural
location, adjacent properties, or US250. Staff recommends approval of this request. The
recommended conditions of approval listed below are the same as those approved with the
original special use permit, except for (1) the change in maximum enrollment, and (2) the
addition of the word “general” before “accord” in condition 1, to be consistent with current
practices.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP2012-00023 Faith Christian Center
International based upon the analysis provided herein, with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Faith
Christian Center International Special Use Permit – Concept Plan” prepared by Brian P.
Smith Civil Engineering, Inc., and dated May 13, 2010 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements
within the development essential to the design of the development:
• building orientation
• building mass, shape, and height;
• location of buildings and structures
• turn lane design;
• location of parking areas;
• relation of buildings and parking to the street.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The maximum number of children shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) or the
number of students as approved by the Health Department or the Department of Social
Services, whichever is less;
3. Side and rear setbacks shall meet commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section
21.7 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, of fifty (50) feet for structures (excluding signs)
and twenty (20) feet for parking lots and loading spaces adjacent to residential uses or
residentially zoned properties;
4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away
from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no
greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their
designee for approval shall be required prior to approval of the final site plan;
5. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems shall be required prior to
approval of the final site plan;
6. The area labeled “Re-planting Area” on the Conceptual Plan shall be replanted according
to “Restoration/Establishment Table A” in Appendix D of the “Riparian Buffers
Modification & Mitigation Manual,” published by the Virginia Department of
Conservation & Recreation’s Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance program. This area shall
be replanted with species listed in the brochure titled “Native Plants for Conservation,
Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,” published by the Virginia Department
of Conservation and Recreation;
7. The hours of operation for the day care shall not begin earlier than 7:00 A.M. and shall end
not later than 6:00 P.M., each day, Monday through Friday, provided that occasional day
care-related events may occur after 6:00 P.M.; and
8. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not
commenced by September 1, 2014, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the
authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2012-00023 Faith Christian Center
International with the conditions recommended by staff.
B. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2012-00014 Free Union Baptist Church. Should a
commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for
recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Vicinity Map
Attachment B – Site Map
Attachment C – Conceptual Plan
Return to PC actions letter
Attachment C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 08, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on
Tuesday, January 08, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane
Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Ed Smith, Richard Randolph, Thomas
Loach, Bruce Dotson, and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Don Franco was absent. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virgini a was absent.
Other officials present were Trevor Henry, Director of Facilities Development; Lindsay
Harris, Budget Analyst of Office of Management and Budget; Montie Breeden, Office of
Facilities Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner, Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning
Commission & Planning Boards, Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:29 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at
7:35 p.m.
Public Hearing Item
SP-2012-00023 Faith Christian Center International
PROPOSAL: Amendment of SP200700029 to increase day care attendance from 50 to
120
ZONING: RA – Rural Areas: agricultural, forestall, and fishery uses; residential density
(0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 10.2.2.7, Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestall,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 units/ acre)
LOCATION: 2184 Richmond Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000047A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark summarized the staff report.
Proposal: This is a special use permit amendment request. The Board of Supervisors
approved the original special use permit for daycare on this site in 2010 for 50 children.
The current request is to expand that to 120 children. The site is located on US Route
250 in Shadwell across the road from the Shadwell Estates. It is close to the US 250/
I-64 Interchange. This property was the Sleepy Hill Trailer Park a few years ago and is
in the process of being cleared out.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
2
ZMA-338: This 1975 request to rezone the property from B-1 Commercial to A-1
Agricultural, in order to bring the then -extant mobile home park on the property into
conformity, which was withdrawn. The property was subsequently rezoned to RA (Rural
Areas) in the County’s 1980 comprehensive rezoning.
SP-2007-00028: On September 1, 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved this
request for a church with a 399-seat sanctuary, administrative offices, classrooms, and
a playground.
SP-2007-00029: On September 1, 2010, the Board of Supervisors approved this
request for daycare for up to 50 children in the church building approved under SP-
2007-00028. This is the approval that would be amended by the current request.
CURRENT PROPOSAL:
• Increase daycare attendance from 50 to 120
• No physical site changes necessary
• No changes proposed to original conceptual plan that was approved in 2010 for
the two uses.
Within the building, which has not been built yet, there would be a daycare facility. No
site plan has been submitted. The amendment request has come along before the use
has actually been started.
Traffic Impacts:
One of the significant issues that came up due to the change in numbers was the traffic
impacts.
• Proposal would use traffic improvements already designed for approved church
facility
• VDOT requested a turn-lane analysis for this proposed daycare expansion –
concern over stacking in left-turn lane
• Analysis showed that stacking would be insignificant (<= 1 car waiting at morning
peak). VDOT feels that the concern has been addressed.
• VDOT has recently improved traffic-light timing at the US250/I-64 intersection to
reduce westbound congestion during morning peaks
Joe DeNunzio, VDOT representative, asked the applicants to provide an analysis of
how the turn lanes and the traffic stacking up into the turn lanes would be affected by
the increase in numbers. The applicants provided that study and Mr. DeNunzio
approved its findings. Generally the study said the already approved improvements,
which are a 200’ left turn lane, a 200’ left turn taper and an extended right turn taper
where the bridge is over Shadwell Creek, would be sufficient to accommodate the
increased traffic. Mr. DeNunzio’s main concern was about people coming east on 250
stacking up for left turns waiting to get into the site during the morning peak. The
analysis showed there would be very little stacking going on due to the volume of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
3
use not being high enough to create a back up. He also mentioned there have been
some improvements to the traffic light timing at the intersection of the federal highway
and the interstate to the west so that they were having fewer problems with traffic
backing up this far. However, he was sure that it still does. Given all of that VDOT was
happy with the already approved improvements for the site being sufficient for the
increase to 120 children for daycare.
Favorable factors
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The increased enrollment can be accommodated with no additional facilities on
the site beyond what has already been approved.
2. The Virginia Department of Transportation has found that the proposed road
improvements on the original conceptual plan are sufficient to accommodate the
additional traffic generated by the increased enrollment.
No unfavorable factors were found.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP-2012-00023 Faith Christian
Center International based upon the analysis provided herein, with the conditions, as
amended and shown. Condition 1 was changed to state in general accord and
condition 2 to increase the number of students to 120.
Note: One thing that has come up is that condition 8, which was approved in 2010,
would have allowed a four-year period for construction to begin on the site. In an effort
to give the applicants a bit more time since they still are at the site plan stage the
simplest thing staff could recommend is to remove that condition from the
recommendation to the Board. That would give the applicants two years from whatever
day the Board approves this permit, presuming they do, to begin construction. It could
gain them a few months that they might well need.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Smith asked if the word general accord is going to create a problem.
Mr. Clark replied that general accord is the standard language they apply to all special
use permits. The idea is to give a reasonable amount of flexibility.
Mr. Cilimberg noted one of the things that they now do that pairs with the general
accord is they specifically list the major elements that have to be reflected so they are
focused on those elements and then giving some flexibility beyond.
Mr. Morris clarified what the Commission was being asked to do is really just increase
the number of students that are allowed from 50 to 120 children.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
4
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Planning
Commission.
Pastor Wayne Frye, founder and Pastor of Faith Christian Center International and the
co-founder of Faith Christian Academy, said they are here to request an amendment to
the special use permit to go from 50 to 120 students. Regarding background, the
daycare has been going since August of 2005. They started with one student and have
grown to a maximum student population of 86 students. Presently they have a student
enrollment of 73 students and a waiting list for some of the classes. They have already
outgrown the approved number on the approved special use permit. They don’t want to
downsize going to the new facility because they will have ample space and more
opportunity to entertain and educate more children, which is the reason for the request
to increase the attendance.
Mr. Frye said they believe their program is unique and useful to community. They not
only take care of children everyday but they also educate them. They have had a track
record where their students come out of their facility sometimes one grade level ahead
of their peers of the same age. Therefore, they take pride in what they do. So the
facility they are building will give them an opportunity to minister and educate more
children at a greater level. He would be happy to answer any questions. In addition, his
engineer, Brian Smith, is here to answer technical questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Randolph asked where the church is currently situated.
Pastor Frye replied the church is currently in the City of Charlottesville on Carlton Road
in Cathy’s Shopping Center in the same facility as Charlottesville Market.
Mr. Smith asked that the two-year time limit be explained again.
Mr. Clark replied when there is no condition specifying a deadline for a special use
permit the applicant has two years from the Board of Supervisors approval date to begin
construction.
Mr. Smith asked the applicant if they had a problem with the two-year limit.
Pastor Frye replied no, sir.
Mr. Morris asked with the current enrollment population do they have any idea as to
how many are coming west on Route 250 into the city to get to the location from eastern
Albemarle, Louisa, etc. and how many are coming from the west to the east.
Pastor Frye replied that more would be coming from Charlottesville towards the
property, which will be traveling east. Less would be coming from Keswick into
Charlottesville. He did not know the exact numbers. However, that is the break down.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
5
Mr. Randolph asked if he would say that was about a 50/50 balance that they would see
down the line.
Pastor Frye replied no, he would see more of a 70/30 balance. That population will
change because they only go up to a certain age level. Then they have younger
children come in since they presently go from birth to third grade.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. Since he was on the
Commission in 2010 when the original special use permit was heard he would feel more
comfortable if they had some data related to the flow of traffic and so on of the 50
children approved in 2010. Of course, they can’t do that because the building is not
built. He has a hard time considering going from 50 to 120 children without any solid
data.
Mr. Lafferty noted when considering this the Commission’s real question was the traffic
and the potential of getting blindsided there. If VDOT says it is okay he did not think
they have a right to question that.
Mr. Morris noted the only right or concern he was thinking about when he says this is
that he travels that road. His wife travels back and forth doing volunteer work at the
women’s prison and there is a line up and very hard to turn left. Mr. Randolph lives out
there and he did not know what he has seen in the past.
Mr. Randolph said that he has serious issues with increasing the number of students to
120 for the following reasons.
- Having lived out there for 7 years he knows in terms of traffic moving east at
night that often times though the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour that
traffic especially in the left lane of 250 going underneath I-64 and heading east
will be approaching that turn where the traffic then merges into one lane often
times at close to 60 miles an hour. From the standpoint of public safety for the
children and their parishioners he has real concerns about anyone attempting to
make a left hand turn.
- If they do a 30/70 split then out of 120 potential students 36 students would be
exiting going east out of the facility at night. There is no problem coming east in
the morning. He feels there is still a problem going east in the morning for people
from Charlottesville in attempting to make a left hand turn into all of the traffic that
is proceeding out of Louisa, Orange, Lake Monticello, Keswick and beyond
coming down on Route 250.
- He loved the idea of the daycare and trying to meet the needs of the people in
the community whether they live in Charlottesville or on the eastern part of the
county. However, his primary concern is when people are dropping off and
picking up children around rush hour. He sees a situation where this is going to
be a prime accident zone. He would feel terrible about having any children
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
6
injured as a result of this. He regrets that he cannot support this application to
move from 50 to 120 at this site.
- If they were looking at a site further down 250 where there is a third lane that has
been established at least to the turn for UPS that would address his concern.
However, his concern representing the Scottsville District would be that they
would be embracing a public safety hazard to allow 120 children to be dropped
off and picked up. The reality is that 120 children would come down to
approximately 100 cars, give or take 10 cars. That is a lot of traffic seeking to
make a very dangerous ingress or egress out of this proposed location.
- He has looked at the site and drove by it repeatedly since he picked up the
application. He has communicated his concern with Mr. Clark who communicated
with Joel DeNunzio. Mr. DeNunzio addressed the concern with traffic coming
east on 250. However, he did not address the speed issue especially at night,
which is a primary issue. He did not address the issue thereby of traffic trying to
leave at night and making a left hand turn out of this daycare facility into traffic
onto 250. He just sees major problems with the location.
Mr. Clark noted a couple of comments not included in the staff report.
- From the applicant’s turn lane analysis report, which was prepared by a traffic
engineer, they show the typical trip generation during the morning and evening
peak hours. The estimate in the morning would be that about 49 vehicles would
arrive during that peak hour and 44 would depart. That is a total of 93 trips.
Obviously, that is not the 100 vehicles that they would expect largely because as
he understands the assumption is that unlike a regular school a daycare does not
have everybody arrive at the same time. That may give some sense of the
numbers of vehicles they would be seeing during that peak hour. Mr. DeNunzio
pointed out the intense part of the peak on that road tends to last about 10 to 15
minutes rather than a full hour.
- The other concern he heard was about night time traffic. There is a condition on
this permit that most of the daycare activity, except for occasional events, would
have to end by 6 p.m. There are times of the year when it is dark at 6 p.m.
Mr. Kamptner asked if staff has a drawing that better shows the improvements that are
going to be required for Route 250. There is a turn lane referenced in the staff report
and the two tapers.
Mr. Clark presented an aerial view of the current situation and described the
improvements. There is a lot of striping on the existing pavement where traffic at this
point does not normally go. The majority of the work is actually just restriping the
existing median area to have a 200’ full width storage lane and beyond that a 200’ taper
for pulling into that. For the right turn side there would be improvements needed and to
widen the bridge slightly to accommodate a taper from where the adjacent entrance
starts up to where their entrance would be under the current plan. The taper was in the
range of 175’ to 200’. He would defer that question to their engineer, Brian Smith.
Mr. Ed Smith asked what the normal hours of operation are.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
7
Pastor Frye replied that it would be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. The drop off time would be from 7
a.m. to 10 a.m. Therefore, parents would have an option to drop off anytime during the
first 3 hours.
Mr. Ed Smith asked if there would only be two lanes with one out and one in. He asked
if they don’t have a left turn lane since this plan did not show it.
Brian Smith, engineer for the applicant, replied there was only one lane in and one lane
out.
Mr. Lafferty said there was the same concern last time with the 50 students as they now
have with the 120 students. If they take a different approach with having 120 students
and approximately 50 cars using Route 250 maybe they will be more used to seeing
cars stopped there than they would if they just had 20 cars stop there . He felt they
have to accept VDOT’s recommendation that it should be okay.
Mr. Morris pointed out his problem goes along with Mr. Randolph in that is precisely the
statement that was made almost 2 1/2 years ago that if VDOT says then it must be
alright. He was sorry but he travels the road and he has a concern for the congregation
and children.
Mr. Morris invited the applicant to use the rebuttal time.
Mr. Brian Smith, engineer for the applicant, said that he did not have anything formal to
present. He just wanted to add some additional items they were not aware of that may
help them. He also lives east of town in Boyd Tavern and has since 1979. He comes to
town on Interstate 64, but a lot of times he mixes it up and come s along Route 250. He
sees the patterns as well. He remembers when that road was 55 miles an hour with just
two lanes. First he would talk about the left turn lane. The report was done by the
Timmons Group in Richmond. They gave a recommendation of a left turn and taper of
200’. When that was presented to Joel DeNunzio he increased that to 250’ of storage
and 200’ of taper. That is what he has designed back in his office and waiting to finish
to submit to him. There is plenty of room further on back if they wanted to make that
250’, 300’ or something like that. So they may not be aware of that. He wanted to
make that point clear.
Mr. Brian Smith continued pointing out when he came in this morning to work the road
was very busy with a lot of traffic. It was 8 a.m. when he was creeping along in front of
where the church entrance is proposed, which is where the cars split into two lanes.
Usually people at that speed are very kind and conscientious and kind of create a gap
to let people in. He is a civil engineer doing the site plan process and not a traffic
engineer. He thinks that is a safer time when the traffic is going slow rather than when
they are coming into town at rush hour at 45 miles an hour. Fortunately , the traffic light
down in Shadwell now creates sort of a gap. So if people are coming from town to drop
off their children in the morning they have that gap. Hopefully they are patient and
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
8
everybody else is driving at the right speed and not tailgating and that sort of thing and
allows them to turn in. He did not know what more he could add. Howe ver, he wanted
to tell them that the storage lane is longer.
Mr. Morris invited questions for Mr. Brian Smith.
Mr. Ed Smith asked what the distance was on the westbound decal lane.
Mr. Brian Smith replied that Joel DeNunzio has allowed them not to extend that huge
box culvert that is under Route 250 that takes the water. Therefore, they are going to
start right at the edge of that and go quickly to a 12’ lane and then have a radius going
in.
Mr. Ed Smith asked how long it was.
Mr. Brian Smith replied he would guess it would be around 100’ to 125’. It is not the
175’.
Mr. Ed Smith said it was a short taper and then 120’ stack.
Mr. Brian Smith noted that there was no stacking.
Mr. Ed Smith asked if they would have a full lane.
Mr. Brian Smith pointed out there was no full lane. It is a taper that goes to 12’ off the
pavement and then the 45’ radius begins right after that. So there is no 12’ wide by 100’
of turn lane for the right turn lane.
Mr. Ed Smith asked if there was no westbound acceleration lane exiting the church
other than the taper.
Mr. Brian Smith replied that was correct since there is the middle turn lane that the
people could turn on.
Mr. Ed Smith pointed out that was eastbound.
Mr. Brian Smith agreed that was eastbound.
Mr. Ed Smith asked if there was no thought of having three lanes coming down the hill.
Mr. Brian Smith replied there was some discussion the last time they were here for the
special use permit about pulling out and it possibly being safer to have two lanes with
one for the left and one for the right. However, he f elt it was actually safer to go one car
at a time. If someone is in the right lane and stopped at Route 250 looking to the left
towards Shadwell they might be blocked out by the car sitting ther e waiting to go out.
He liked the idea of one car at a time and being patient.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
9
Mr. Ed Smith said that was a good argument.
Mr. Morris noted that this request was not an easy one. There being no further
discussion he asked if there was a motion.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of SP -
2012-00023 Faith Christian Center International with the conditions recommended by
staff amended as shown tonight, as follows
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled
“Faith Christian Center International Special Use Permit – Concept Plan”
prepared by Brian P. Smith Civil Engineering, Inc., and dated May 13, 2010
(hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development:
• building orientation
• building mass, shape, and height;
• location of buildings and structures
• turn lane design;
• location of parking areas;
• relation of buildings and parking to the street.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The maximum number of children shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) or
the number of students as approved by the Health Department or the
Department of Social Services, whichever is less;
3. Side and rear setbacks shall meet commercial setback standards, as set forth in
Section 21.7 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, of fifty (50) feet for structures
(excluding signs) and twenty (20) feet for parking lots and loading spaces
adjacent to residential uses or residentially zoned properties;
4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut -off fixtures and shielded to reflect light
away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property
lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator or their designee for approval shall be required prior to approval of
the final site plan;
5. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems shall be required prior
to approval of the final site plan;
6. The area labeled “Re-planting Area” on the Conceptual Plan shall be replanted
according to “Restoration/Establishment Table A” in Appendix D of the “Riparian
Buffers Modification & Mitigation Manual,” published by the Virginia Department
of Conservation & Recreation’s Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance program. This
area shall be replanted with species listed in the brochure titled “Native Plants for
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau,” published by
the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation;
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 11, 2011
DRAFT MINUTES – Submitted to BOS
10
7. The hours of operation for the day care shall not begin earlier than 7:00 A.M. and
shall end not later than 6:00 P.M., each day, Monday through Friday, provided
that occasional day care-related events may occur after 6:00 P.M.; and
8. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not
commenced by September 1, 2014, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and
the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4:2. (Morris & Randolph voted nay)
Mr. Morris noted for the record that the nays were in relation to public safety.
Mr. Morris noted SP-2012-00023 Faith Christian Center International would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval to a date to
be determined.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they were looking at the first meeting in February, but it has not
been confirmed.
Return to PC actions letter
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Board of Supervisors
From: V. Wayne Cilimberg
Division: Planning
Date: January 30, 2013
Subject: SP201100002 Castle Hill Cider
On January 16, 2013, the Board of Supervisors deferred the above referenced special use permit to February 6,
2013. While the Board indicated it did not need any further staff analysis or information, it did ask for updated
conditions agreed to by the applicant during the public hearing which are provided in the attached. In summary,
the substance of the amended conditions stipulate that conditions regarding sound management (#4) and traffic
management (#6) apply to the events permitted in Conditions #2 and #3 as well as any farm winery event,
wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11).
The amended conditions also include technical changes for clarification to allow for their proper implementation
and enforcement. Should the Board choose to approve this special use permit based on conditions agreed to by
the applicant during the January 16th public hearing, staff recommends the approval be subject to the attached
conditions.
Attachment A – Conditions of Approval
Attachment B – Conditions of Approval Compare Version
Return to agenda
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special Use
Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion Engineering, and dated
8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features
essential to the design of the development:
o Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events
o Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing Entrance”)
o Location of parking
o Location of “Event Vicinity”
Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the central features above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Up to 8 single-day farm winery events, weddings or wedding receptions (hereinafter, collectively,
“these events”) for more than 200 persons may be held per calendar year, with a maximum total daily
attendance of 350 persons. Attendance at these events shall be by prior reservation, ticket sales, or
invitation only.
3. One single-day farm winery event for 351 to 1,000 persons (hereinafter, “this event”) may be held per
12-month period or calendar year.
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and Turkey
Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the permittee shall provide, police officers or other trained
personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at the intersection of
Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and departing traffic if this event’s
attendance may exceed 500 persons based on reservations received or tickets sold. This
approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator no less than three (3) weeks before the
scheduled date for this event.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator prior to
holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less than three (3)
weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of the zoning clearance will be contingent upon the
Zoning Administrator determining that all conditions of this special use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event,
wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2),
(10) or (11) (hereinafter, collectively, “event subject to this condition”) at which there is amplified
sound, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound management plan which has
been prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer acoustical consultant and approved by the
Zoning Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring amplified sound levels at the
property lines of the site and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to reduce sound levels
to no more than the allowed maximum provided in this condition. As part of the implementation of this
plan, no event subject to this condition shall commence before the screened openings on the
northeast side of the Event Barn are replaced with glass panels approved by the licensed acoustical
engineer. Sound levels at the property lines of the site shall not exceed an average of 52 decibels
(dBA) for any five-minute period, or a more restrictive applicable maximum sound level established in
the Albemarle County Code. At any event subject to this condition, the sound at the source of the
amplified music shall not exceed 95 decibels (dBA) and the volume shall be monitored by an on-site
sound meter. The sound limit for any band shall be limited by contract to not exceed 95 decibels
(dBA). The glass panels on the openings of the Event Barn shall remain closed while amplified
sounds are produced.
5. Outdoor amplification systems shall not use amplifiers with more than 200 watts RMS output, and
shall not be used after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified sound systems shall be contained within the
Event Barn.
6. At any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event, wedding, wedding
reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), traffic-
management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward to Virginia Route 231.
These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic-management personnel required under Condition
3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go eastward on Turkey Sag Road, except for
those vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag R oad.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of each event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above
to all owners of properties that contain dwellings within one-half mile of the Event Barn and to the
Zoning Administrator. A notification letter shall be sent by mail at least 14 days before each event.
The letter shall include:
a. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event.
b. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event.
c. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it as such.
8. No parking for any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above shall be permitted within 200 feet
of any stream.
9. Any new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot
candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or her designee for approval.
10. SP 2011-00002 shall be valid until December 31, 2014.
Return to memo
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special Use
Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion Engineering, and dated
8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features
essential to the design of the development:
o Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events
o Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing Entrance”)
o Location of parking
o Location of “Event Vicinity”
Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the central features above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Up to 8 single-day farm winery events, weddings or wedding receptions (hereinafter, collectively,
“these events”) for more than 200 persons may be held per calendar year for two years and be re-
evaluated at the end of 2014, with a maximum total daily attendance of 350 persons. Attendance at
these events shall be by prior reservation, ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One single-day farm winery event for 201351 to 1,000 persons (hereinafter, “this event”) may be held
per 12-month period or calendar year for two years and be re-evaluated at the end of 2014..
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and Turkey
Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the permittee shall provide, police officers or other trained
personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at t he intersection of
Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and departing traffic for any event
whoseif this event’s attendance exceedsmay exceed 500 persons based on reservations
received or tickets sold. This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator no less than
three (3) weeks before the scheduled date for the festival. this event.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator prior to
holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less than three (3)
weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of the zoning clearance will be c ontingent upon the
Zoning Administrator determining that all conditions of this special use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing the useany event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery
event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-
5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11) (hereinafter, collectively , “event subject to this condition”) at which there is
amplified sound, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound management plan to
bewhich has been prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer acoustical consultant and approved by
the Zoning Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring amplified sound levels at the
property boundarieslines of the site and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to reduce
sound levels to no more than the requiredallowed maximum. provided in this condition. As part of the
implementation of this plan, the useno event subject to this condition shall not commence before the
screened openings on the northeast side of the barnEvent Barn are replaced with glass panels
approved by the licensed acoustical engineer. Sound levels at the property lines of the site shall not
exceed an average of 5552 decibels (dBA) for any five-minute period, or a more restrictive applicable
maximum sound level established in the Albemarle County Code. At any event subject to this
condition, the sound at the source of the amplified music shall not exceed 95 decibels (dBA) and the
volume shall be monitored by an on-site sound meter. The sound limit for any band shall be limited by
contract to not exceed 95 decibels (dBA). The glass panels on the openings of the Event Barn shall
remain closed while amplified sounds are produced.
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Font color: Black
Formatted: Font color: Black
5. Amplified sound for the farm winery event permitted under condition 3 shall not begin before noon
and shall end not later than 11:00 p.m. 5. Outdoor amplification systems shall not use amplifiers
with more than 200 watts RMS output, and shall not be used after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified sound
systems shall be contained within the Event Barn.
6. At every event,any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event,
wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2),
(10) or (11), traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward to
Virginia Route 231. These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic -management personnel
required under Condition 3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go eastward on Turkey
Sag Road, except for those vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag Road.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of each event permitted under conditionsConditions 2
orand 3 above to all owners of properties that contain dwellings within one -half mile of the Event Barn
and to the Zoning Administrator. A notification letter shall be sent by mail at least 14 days before each
event. The letter shall include:
a. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event .
b. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event .
c. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it as such.
8. No parking for the eventany event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above shall be permitted within
200 feet of any stream.
9. Any new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot
candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or her desig nee for approval.
10. SP 2011-00002 shall be valid until December 31, 2014.
Return to memo
Formatted: Font color: Black
Formatted: Tab stops: 0.25", Left
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2011-2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Acceptance of the FY 2011-2012 CAFR
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. Burrell
PRESENTER (S):
Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Every year the Board of Supervisors is presented a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for its review and
acceptance.
DISCUSSION:
Attached for the Board’s review is the recently completed FY 2011 -2012 CAFR. As in previous years, the Report
contains a detailed accounting of the County’s financial operations for the 2011 -2012 fiscal year. Highlights of the
Report include:
The Transmittal Letter to the Board of Supervisors and the Citizens of Albemarle County (pages vii – xiii) that
provides a summary of the County’s geographic, demographic, economic, and financial features. It also
includes a discussion of current and future County initiatives.
The Independent Auditor’s Report (pages 1 – 2) that notes that the financial statements are “in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America”.
The Management’s Discussion and Analysis (pages 3 – 14) that provides a summary of the County’s
financial activity for the fiscal year, including tables an d graphs that accompany the summaries.
The remainder of the Report includes detailed information about the County’s financial activity for the fiscal year,
statistical tables providing historical economic and demographic information, and the outside audit or’s Compliance
Report.
The Report was presented to the County’s Audit Committee at its meeting on January 10, 2013 by Mr. David Foley of
the County’s external auditing firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the FY 2011 -2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
FY 2011-2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (on file in Clerk’s Office)
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Access Albemarle: Revenue and Taxation System
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Status of final phase of Access Albemarle to implement
Revenue and Taxation system
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. Burrell
PRESENTER (S):
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In recent months, staff has completed the implementation of major components of the “Access Albemarle” financial
enterprise software system, including purchasing, accounts payable, general ledger/accounting, payroll and human
resources modules. In consultation with Microsoft and its implementation partner, Avastone, local government and
school staff worked together for several years to bring about this very significant operating systems improvement.
Today, as a result of these efforts, the County has the essential components of a dynamic, sophisticated software
program that enhances the County’s reporting and monitoring capabilities, improves business processes, and will
accommodate the demands of the County’s increasingly complex local government and school operations.
Staff is now ready to proceed with the final component of the Access Albemarle systems integration involving the purchase
and implementation of a revenue, taxation and accounts receivable module.
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:
After careful evaluation of various options, the County’s appointed “Process Owners Committee” directed staff to
proceed with the engagement of an outside vendor for the acquisition and implementation of the Revenue and
Taxation module. Accordingly, in August, 2012, an RFP was issued to which three qualified firms responded. After
the Selection Committee reviewed the three proposals, interviewed two firms and checked references, PCI emerged
as the top-ranked provider, and the County issued an Intent to Award to PCI. PCI’s Revenue and Taxation system
has been successfully installed in 20 Virginia localities, including Stafford, Henrico, and Franklin counties, among
others.
This final installation will conclude the “Access Albemarle” project at a total net cost of just over $4.2 million. This final
estimated cost is well within our original cost estimate and compares very favorably to installations at other localities
and institutions around the State of similar size. In summary, the system includes: General Ledger/Financial
Management System, Procurement and Accounts Payable, Fixed Assets, Miscellaneous Billings and Receivables
Management, integration of the Financial Management System (FMS) with Enterprise Reporting, Payroll, Human
Resources and now Revenue and Taxation.
An appropriation request to fund this Revenue and Taxation software system will be presented to the Board for
approval as part of the FY 13 Appropriation request on February 6, 2013. If the Board approves the appropriation on
February 6, implementation of the software will commence immediately and will be substantially completed by the end
of the 2013 calendar year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total cost of the Revenue and Taxation component, including software acquisition, implementation, training and
contract labor, is estimated at $880,000. Funds proposed to support this effort are derived from a number of sources,
including remaining set aside “Albemarle Access” funds and IT salary lapse from prior years, savings from prior and
future obligations for Microsoft support which will not be required as well as reductions in maintenance cost on the
main frame system, and other miscellaneous revenues. $125,000 of these funds and allocations have been closed to
AGENDA TITLE: Access Albemarle: Revenue and Taxation System
February 6, 2013
Page 2
fund balance and transferred to the CIP fund at year end as part of excess fund balance. Accordingly, a separate
appropriation request will be presented to the Board for approval as part of the February 6, 2013, FY 13 Appropriation
Executive Summary to reallocate $187,054.53 from the Access Albemarle fund balance, $250,000 in miscellaneous
revenue and the remaining $442,945.47 from the CIP fund.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to update the Board on the status of the Revenue and Taxation module.
Staff recommends that the Board support the immediate implementation of the Revenue and Taxation module by
approving the associated appropriation request included in the February 6, 2013 FY 13 Appropriation Executive
Summary.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Work Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Annual review of Community Development Department’s
priorities with Board of Supervisors
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Brooks, and Fritz; and Ms. McCulley
PRESENTER(S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the Community Development Department provides the Board and the public a summary of major projects,
progress on initiatives, and achievements, as well as an overview of workload meas ures and a synopsis of proposed
projects to be undertaken by the Department over the following 12 to 18 months. The purpose of this Board work session
is to review the Community Development Department’s activities in 2012 and request the Board’s direction on priorities for
2013. The Board approved the 2012 work program priorities on May 2, 2012. Although the work program is typically
reviewed in February each year, there was a delay in 2012 to determine whether to include the reprioritization of the
Comprehensive Plan update. A copy of the approved 2012 work program is provided as Attachment A.
DISCUSSION:
2012 Development Activity
A five year history of departmental workload measures is provided as Attachment B. The history shows that workload and
development activity have slowly trended upward since 2009. In this same period, Community Development has
continued to improve in its key performance measures without any staffing increase. While the workload is still less than
that seen prior to 2009, the first graph in Attachment B shows that staffing levels were reduced over the period of 2007 to
2009 and have not increased since then. As shown in the bottom graphs for each program, starting on the second page
of Attachment B, the number of applications per staff member frequently exceeds those seen during the height of the
building boom in 2007. Community Development’s ability to maintain performance measures with this increase d workload
is attributed to ongoing efforts to improve development review processes and improved staff retention. In particular, the
ability to recruit and retain highly qualified staff has been critical to this success. However, th e workload increase is
difficult to sustain and increasingly limits the staff time that is available for work program priorities.
2012 Work Program Review
The 2012 Community Development work program was established following Board discussions in May , 2012 with the
following priorities:
1. Comprehensive Plan Update – Staff planned to present a draft of the Comprehensive Plan to the Board in
the first quarter of 2013. The draft Plan is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission and staff
anticipates the draft Plan will be presented to the Board in the second quarter of 2013.
2. Stormwater Management – State mandated program changes are required as a result of the Chesapeake
Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The changes must be adopted before July 1, 2014 and are
required to be approved by the State prior to implementation. Staff planned to present amendments to
the Board in the second quarter of 2013. Staff recommends the amendment process start in the second
quarter of 2013 with staff providing the Board a review of the State requirements and local options.
3. Economic Vitality Action Plan –
a. Industrial Uses Phase 3 (Broaden allowed uses) – The Board held a work session on the draft
ZTA on December 5, 2012. A public hearing is scheduled on March 13, 2013.
b. Industrial Uses Phase 4 (Land use changes based on the updated Comprehensive Plan) –
Potential land use changes based on the updated Comprehensive Plan are anticipated to begin in
2014.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program
February 6, 2013
Page 2
c. Ministerial Process Changes (Site Plans/Subdivisions) – The site plan ministerial process ZTA
was adopted in October, 2012 to be effective in January, 2013. The process changes to the
Subdivision Ordinance were deferred to evaluate the site plan process changes. Staff anticipates
the subdivision processes STA to begin in the second quarter of 2013.
d. Legislative Process Changes (Rezonings/Special Use Permits) – The ZTA was adopted in
December, 2012 to be effective in April, 2013.
4. Critical Slopes Modifications – This was reviewed with the Board in the fourth quarter of 2012 with a
recommendation for public input process prior to Board consideration. The Board requested additional
information from staff regarding the costs and time anticipated to be saved by the County and the
developer with revised regulations due to the e xpense of developing a new process. Staff is providing
that analysis in a separate executive summary on February 6, 2013.
5. Wireless Policy and Ordinance Changes – The study has been completed. Phase 1 of the changes will be
presented to the Board in the second quarter of 2013. Phase 2 will be presented to the Board in the fourth
quarter of 2013.
6. Transient Lodging/B&B’s in the Rural Areas – The ZTA was adopted in June, 2012.
7. Inoperable Motor Vehicles – This was deferred to 2013 to allow proposed legislation to expand the
County’s authority to remove inoperable vehicles to be introduced to the 2013 General Assembly.
8. Noise – The text amendments are still pending while alternative solutions are investigated.
9. Rural Areas Churches – The priority and schedule for this ZTA will be considered with the Comprehensive
Plan implementation.
10. Zoning Ordinance Recodification – This will be a m ajor task. Work is underway, but resources are limited
for this initiative.
2013 Work Program
Community Development’s work program for policy-related matters is typically driven by two factors. First, priority is given
to allocating available staff resources to address the plan reviews and permit inspections, which is the department’s core
function. Once mandated needs are met, all policy-related work program initiatives are staffed/addressed based on
available resources and the initiatives’ respective priorities. Second, the amount of public participation affects resource
demands and capacity to undertake initiatives. Pu blic participation is essential for quality products and public trust, but is
also time consuming and resource intensive. Staff attempts to designate the amount of public participation based on the
nature of the initiative, with a more extensive process us ed for potentially controversial decisions.
Staff’s recommended 2013 Work Program is provided as Attachment C. In drafting the proposed work program, staff has
prioritized initiatives based on: 1) mandates, 2) existing County policy, 3) ongoing efforts, and 4) Board direction on new
initiatives. Staff’s prioritization reflects previous Board input and ongoing priorities that it had previously established a nd is
more fully described below:
1. Comprehensive Plan Update – Staff anticipates that this will be presented to the Board in the second
quarter of 2013 and that Board review will take six months.
2. Stormwater Management – State-mandated program changes are required as a result of the TMDL. The
changes must be adopted before July 1, 2014 and are required to be approved by the State prior to
implementation. Staff now anticipates this will start in the second quarter of 2013 with staff providing the
Board a review of the State requirements and local options.
3. Economic Vitality Action Plan –
a. Industrial Uses Phase 3 (Broaden allowed uses) – The Board held a work session on this ZTA on
December 5, 2012 and a public hearing is scheduled for March 13, 2013 .
b. Industrial Uses Phase 4 (Land use changes based on the updated Comprehensive Plan) – Staff
anticipates beginning this process in 2014 upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan update.
c. Ministerial Process Changes (Site plans/Subdivisions) – Process changes to the Subdivision
Ordinance are anticipated to be presented to the Board in the third quarter of 2013.
4. Critical Slopes Modifications – This was reviewed with the Board in the fourth quarter of 2012 with a
recommendation for public input process prior to Board consideration. The Board requested additional
information from staff regarding the costs and time anticipated to be saved by the County and the
developer with revised regulations due to the expense of developing a new process. Staff is providing
that analysis in a separate executive summary on February 6, 2013.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Wo rk Program
February 6, 2013
Page 3
5. Wireless Policy and Ordinance Changes –
a. Phase 1 to be presented to the Board in the second quarter of 2013
b. Phase 2 to be presented to the Board in the fourth quarter of 2013
6. Inoperable Motor Vehicles – Resources are limited for this initiative; staff anticipates this ZTA will
be presented to the Board in 2013 if the 2013 General Assembly adopts the County’s proposed
legislation to expand the County’s authority.
7. Noise – Resources are limited for this initiative; A Board work session is tentatively scheduled for
March or April, 2013 to set direction.
8. Rural Areas Churches (Remove special use permit requirement for most situations) – Resource
are limited for this initiative; prioritize as part of Comprehensive Plan update.
9. Zoning Ordinance Recodification – Resources are limited for this initiative; work is underway.
New Initiatives – The following are proposed initiatives to be added to t he work program.
10. Dam Break Inundation Zone - State mandated program requires changes to the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. State law was adopted in 2008, but the mapping of dam break inundation zones for State
review has been slowly coming.
11. Off-site Signs, Special Use Permit requirements (Simplify process for signs with commercial centers and
clarify the circumstances when off-site may be permitted) – Work is underway.
12. Zoning and Water Protection Ordinance Fees – The regular biennial review of fees has been delayed due
to process changes
BUDGET IMPACT:
The work program is intended to rely on available staff resources. With the exception of additional public hearing costs,
no budget impact is anticipated. This analysis does not consider any “soft” costs (e.g. public confidence in County
processes).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed 2013 Work Program (Attachment C) and concur with its program
phasing and prioritization.
ATTACHMENTS
A – 2012 Work Program
B – 2012 Community Development Workload Measures
C – Proposed 2013 Work Program Priorities
Return to agenda
Attachment A
2012 Community Development Work Program
2013 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 FTEs Staffing - Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Expenditures - $ Million Community Development
Budgeted Expenditures
2013 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 # of Applkications Building Permits Applications
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 # / FTE Building Permit Applications per FTE
Applications /
Building Inspector
Applications /
Zoning Inspector
Applications /
intake Specialist
2013 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ARB Applications
ARB
Applications
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ARB Applications per Planner
ARB
Applications
per Planner
2013 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
Note: 2011 applications per FTE high due to staffing vacancies
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Site Plan & Subdivision Applications
Total Site
Plans &
Subdivisions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Site Plan Applications per FTE
Site Plans /
Planner
Site Plans /
Engineer
2013 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Legislative Applications
Legislative
Applications
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Legislative Applications / Planner
Legislative
Applications /
Planner
2013 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
Note: 2011 applications per FTE high due to staffing vacancies
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Water Protection Ordinance Applications
WPO
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
WPO Applications per Engineer / Inspector
WPO Applications /
Engineer
WPO Applications /
Inspector
2013 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Zoning Workload
Zoning
Violations
Home Occ
Permits
Zoning
Clearances
Sign Permits
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Zoning Violations / Inspector
Violations /
Inspector
2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM - Proposed February 2013 Attachment C
STATUS 2012 2013 2014 2015
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Comp Plan
Comp Plan Update With Planning Commission ***
Placeholder for Implementation
Master Plans
Places 29 5 year Update Adopted in 2011, update in 2016
Rivanna - 5 year Update Adopted in 2010, update in 2015
Crozet Update Updated in 2011, next in 2016
Pantops - 5year update Adopted in 2008, update in 2013
Southern Urban With Comp Plan Update
Advisory Councils ONGOING
Econ Vitality
LI Uses Original Schedule
PHASE 1 COMPLETE
PHASE 2, COMPLETE
PHASE 3, With Board
PHASE 4, Comp Plan Implementation *
Process Impvovements Minsterial- Site Plans Complete
Ministerial - Subdivision Delayed
Legislative Complete
Other MPO, PACC, Etc ONGOING
Initiatives Dam Safety - State Mandate START - State Mandate
Stormwater Management START - State Mandate
Wireless, Phase 1 Concept Reviewed by Board
Wireless, Phase 2 Concept Reviewed by Board
Critical Slopes Concept Reviewed by Board
RA Uses - Churches Comp Plan Implementation
RA Uses - Part 2 Comp Plan Implementation
WPO & Zoning Fees Update Fee Policy
Noise Amendments Resource Limited **
Inoperative Vehicles Resource Limitied **
Zoning Ord Recodification Resource Limited **
ARB - Updated Design Guide Resource Limited **
Natural Heritage Modeling Resource Limited **
Offsite Signs Resource Limited **
Neighborhood Model Amendments Reource Limited **
LEGEND * Phase 4 is placeholder for Targeted Industry and Comp Plan Strategies,
Staff Work ** Resource limited indicates staff priorities as resources become available
Planning Commision Work *** Comp Plan schedule was slightly delayed with 2012 by review of priorities
Board Work
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: January 30, 2013
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through January 30, 2013.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Architectural Review Board, Crozet Community Advisory
Council, Economic Development Authority, Equalization Board, Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council,
Places 29 Community Advisory Council, Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, RWSA Citizens Advisory Committee and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be appointed and/or reappointed to
the respective committees:
Architectural Review Board: One Vacancy
Victor Schiller
Steven Meeks
Charles Battig
Crozet Community Advisory Council: One Vacancy
Beth Bassett
Economic Development Authority
Vernon Jones, term expired January 19, 2013
Equalization Board: Jack Jouett District
Tammie Moses
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council: One Vacancy
Gary Grant
Places 29 Community Advisory Council: One Vacancy
Paul Fox
Kimberly Swanson
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority: One Vacancy
Michael Gaffney, term expired December 31, 2012
Christopher Lee
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: Three Vacancies
William Hines
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority: One Vacancy
Michael Gaffney, term expired December 31, 2012
Christopher Lee
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
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Mark Gorlinsky 5/5/2010 4/17/2014 Resigned
Architectural Review Board Paul Wright 11/14/2014 Resigned Advertised, 3 applications recv'd
Architectural Review Board Following applications received:Victor SchillerSteven MeeksCharles Battig
Crozet Community Advisory Council Chuck Johnston 3/31/2012 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013 Resigned
Crozet Community Advisory Council Following application received:
Beth Bassett
Economic Development Authority Vernon W. Jones 1/19/2013 1/19/2017 Yes
Equalization Board Alan Collier 12/31/2012 12/31/2013 Ineligible Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Equalization Board David Cooke 12/31/2012 12/31/2013 Ineligible
Following application received:Tammie L. Moses
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
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Terry Rephann 7/8/2012 7/8/2014 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council Naomi Ryan 5/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council Following application received:
Gary Grant
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Susan Jacobson 12/1/2012 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No applications 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 Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Places29 Community Advisory Council Joseph Barnes 1/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, 2 application recv'd
Places29 Community Advisory Council Following application received:
Paul Fox
Kimberly Swanson
PRFA Joseph Henley 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Michael Gaffney 12/31/2012 12/31/2014 Yes (Joint City/County)
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Following application received:
Christopher Lee
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Vincent Day 12/31/2013 Resigned
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.David Ward 12/31/2012 12/31/2014 No
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Following application received:
William Hines
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Michael Gaffney 12/31/2012 12/31/2014 Yes (Joint City/County)
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Following application received:
Christopher Lee
Workforce Investment Board Sue Goldman 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 No Recommendations to come from TJPED
Revised 01/30/2013
Board‐to‐Board
February, 2013
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Chairman and Vice Chairman Elected – At its January 10, 2013 the School Board elected Steve Koleszar as chairman,
and Ned Gallaway as vice chairman.
Budget –During its January 22 work session, the School Board received Superintendent Pam Moran’s funding request for
the 2013-14 school year. Proposing a “maintenance of effort” budget, meaning no significant new spending initiatives
other than those to support student enrollment growth and state and federal mandates, the funding request proposes an
increase of less than three percent in expenditures, at $155.44 million. Projected revenues are $153.97 million, leaving an
initial funding gap of $1.47 million. Per pupil revenues, normalized for inflation, would be $1,000 below 2008’s level.
The School Board received receive public comment regarding the funding request on Thursday, January 31, 2013.
Health and Medical Sciences Academy Recognized - The Virginia Department of Education (DOE) designated the
Health and Medical Sciences Academy at Monticello High School as a regional Governor’s Health Services Academy.
The division will receive a $10,000 state planning and implementation grant as a result of the designation. The Academy
opened in August 2012 and serves students interested in exploring health sciences career opportunities. It is open to all
public school students in Albemarle County. The Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of UVA’s Medical Center,
Mr. Ed Howell was a guest lecturer at the academy on January 23. Among the academy’s strengths are its partnerships
with UVA, Martha Jefferson Hospital and the Virginia Biotechnology Association.
Principals Appointed – The School Board announced the appointment of James Asher as principal for Burley Middle
School and Craig Dommer as Yancey Elementary School’s principal. Both served in an interim capacity at their
respective schools since July 1, 2012. Mr. Asher holds degrees from Old Dominion University and the University of
Virginia. Mr. Dommer holds degrees from the University of Buffalo and the University of Virginia. The gentlemen are
strong educational leaders and have served the division in several increasingly responsible assignments.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards – Eleven Albemarle County public school teachers have earned
certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, nearly doubling the number of teachers in the
division who have successfully completed the rigorous, year-long process for demonstrating classroom excellence.
Nationally, only three percent of teachers earn certification and in Virginia, only two percent of all teachers are certified to
national standards. Albemarle County is among the leading divisions in Central Virginia with 25 certified teachers and
there is an additional 36 teachers in the division seeking certification, which is a year-long process.
The newest Albemarle County public school teachers to be nationally certified include:
Rebecca Bergey, Jouett Middle School
Amanda Brookman, Cale Elementary School
Bill Daly, Albemarle High School
Stefanie Herbert, Albemarle High School
Buffie Holley, Albemarle High School
Kristina Fulton, Monticello High School
Kimberly Kennedy, Sutherland Middle School
Beth Evans, Sutherland Middle School
Linda Pease, Sutherland Middle School
Kate Meier, Henley Middle School
Darcy Sanderson, Henley Middle School
Strategic Plan Review – Albemarle County Public Schools is initiating a review of the division’s strategic plan.
Community members and division stakeholders have been invited to an initial group discussion Monday, February 4th,
between 6:00-8:00 p.m. at Monticello High School. The plan will drive decisions about the budget, curriculum,
instructional methods and resources, including the division’s investment in and use of technology as well as future
relationships with business, academic, service and civic organizations. The overarching goal is to continually improve
how well the division prepares graduates for success in their higher education and professional careers. In addition, Town
Hall meetings open to the public are scheduled during February at the following middle schools with all sessions between
6 p.m. and 8 p.m.:
Tuesday, February 12 at Jouett
Wednesday, February 13 at Henley
Tuesday, February 19 at Walton
Wednesday, February 20 at Burley, and
Tuesday, February 26 at Sutherland
A summary meeting will be scheduled for March.
General Assembly Update – The School Board is monitoring several bills at the Virginia General Assembly that could
impact education. During the School Board’s annual meeting with legislators in November 2012, there was energetic
discussion regarding the opportunity for alternative assessments in elementary and middle schools. Delegate David
Toscano supported the Board’s discussion and introduced HJR 676 to direct a statewide study of alternative assessments
for measuring student performance other than strictly using SOL tests.
The School Board supported the Board of Supervisors interest in Senator Hanger’s SB 1096 regarding adjustment of the
composite index formula for a locality by including the use value of real property in the place of the true fair market value
of property for property that is taxed under land use taxation. Chairman Koleszar was present for the Senate Education
and Health Committee’s review of the legislation.
School Calendar – Prior to beginning work to develop a proposed 2013-14 school calendar, input from families, staff, and
community members was collected via the division’s website beginning November 6, 2012. Albemarle County Public
Schools and Charlottesville City Schools cooperate to coordinate the school calendar. The Board anticipates adopting
next year’s school calendar in the near future.
Redistricting Update -The two community advisory subcommittees that have been studying the redistricting of students in
the northern and western feeder patterns since October, 2012, met with Superintendent Pam Moran January 23, 2013 to
present their recommendations. The Superintendent will review these proposals before sending her recommendations to
the School Board. The Board will hold a public hearing next month on what if any changes will be made with any
approved changes not taking effect until next August.
School Safety - A community discussion on school safety policies and practices, led by Safe Schools/Healthy Students, is
planned for Thursday, February 21, 2013, 6:30-8:30 p.m. in Lane Auditorium. The discussion will include
representatives from county and city school divisions, county and city law enforcement, other first responders, social
service agencies and University of Virginia experts on school safety and members of the community
Golden Apple Awards – For the 12th straight year, Better Living Building Supply & Better Living Furniture is sponsoring
Golden Apple Awards to recognize outstanding teachers in the community. The awards are presented to faculty members
from public and private schools in Albemarle County and Charlottesville City. One winner will be selected from each
school. Nominations are available on the ACPS website, and are due by February 12.
Donations to Albemarle County Public Schools – The School Board received the following donations at its January 24,
2013 meeting:
Monticello Music Boosters donated $638.77 to fund the MCHS band field trip on 10/06/2012.
Brownsville PTA donated a total of $15,667.00. The donor requested that $150.00 help fund any expenses in the
Kindergarten class at Brownsville, and $217.00 be used to help with any instructional expenses at Brownsville.
Finally, the Brownsville PTA donated $15,300.00 to fund the Core Annual Operating Expenditures. These funds
are local.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,722.40 from the Meriwether Lewis
PTO. These funds are local. The donor requested that these funds be used to help fund the Kids Night Out event at
Meriwether Lewis.
Roger West donated an HP Designjet 500 Color Plotter to Albemarle High School. This plotter can be used by the
Graphic Communication and Architectural Drawing and Engineering Drawing Classes in the CTE – Tech Ed
Department. The Graphic Communication students will now be able to produce 18” x 24” posters. The
Architectural Drawing and Engineering Drawing students will be able to produce E size (22 x 17) drawings to
place in their portfolios. The donors asked that their contribution be used in the CTE – Tech Ed Department at
Albemarle High School.
Club Yancey has received donations totaling $10,900.00 from the various donors listed below. These funds will
be used to cover operating expenses for the program. These are local funds.
Bonnie & William Cooper $ 100.00
CACF-Susan Davenport & W. Edgar Spigle Fund $ 300.00
Cary & Mary Moon $ 100.00
Chris Yates or Denise Williams $ 250.00
Crystal Thacker or Allen Birckhead III $ 200.00
Eleanor Winsor $ 100.00
Friends of SAIC $ 600.00
Gray Ogden Inc. $ 1,000.00
Janice M. Karon $ 1,000.00
John & Angela Needham $ 150.00
Judith Brown $ 500.00
Katie Kasubick $ 250.00
Lucian Jackson $ 100.00
May Lythgoe $ 100.00
Mary Jo & Clifton McCleskey $ 100.00
Melissa Anderson Morgan $ 500.00
Mt. Zion United Methodist Church $ 300.00
Mt. Alto Baptist Church $ 200.00
Pavilion Properties, Inc. $ 500.00
Robert & Jamie Prusak $ 1,000.00
Sallie & William Tunner $ 50.00
South Garden Baptist Church $ 2,400.00
Steven & Martha Reilly $ 50.00
Sugar Hollow Builders, Inc. $ 200.00
Thomas Rourke & Pod Ruth Bogan $ 100.00
Townsquare Associates $ 500.00
Virginia Coffey $ 250.00
Walton Middle School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $7,000.00 from The Freas Foundation. These
funds will be used to create a MakerSpace/Commons a transparent central ground adjacent to the school’s library.
In this space students will come together, undivided by grade, content area, or ability/disability, to imagine,
search, collaborate, make, and share internally and globally. These are local funds.
Baker Butler Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from Wells Fargo. These
funds will be used towards an addition of a Bear Sculpture to the school’s Sculpture Park founded by the late
Isabelle Ramsey. These are local funds.
Jennifer Whitenack a teacher at Baker Butler Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of
$1,000.00 from the Dominion Foundation. These funds will be used to implement her project titled "Energize
Me!". Through this project fourth grade students will develop an understanding of the potential and limitations of
renewable energy sources. These are local funds.
The Freas Foundation has awarded the Health and Medical Sciences Academy at Monticello High School with a
grant in the amount of $8,125.00. The funds will be used to purchase lab equipment, software, probeware, and
other specialized equipment used in both Healthcare and Biotechnology. These are local funds.
The School Board received the following donations during its January 10, 2013 Board meeting:
Stone Robinson Elementary School received $500.00 for 5 mainstream students in the preschool classroom. Each
parent sends in $100.00. These funds are local.
Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $125.00 from Don Soechting. These funds are local.
The donor has requested that his contribution be used to help with expenses for Student Snack/Meals.
Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $4,069.17 from the Murray Elementary PTO.
These funds are local. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to cover the costs with the M3
Program at Murray Elementary School.
Henley Middle School (HMS) received a check totaling $549.02 from the HMS PATSO. These funds are local.
The HMS PATSO would like these funds to pay for their Enrichment Time before 9 program for the months of
November/December.
Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $125.00 from Don Soechting. These funds are local.
The donor has requested that his contribution be used to help with expenses for Student Snack/Meals.
Stony Point Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,368.30 from the Stony Point PTO. These
funds are local. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to pay for the staff instructors for SPACE
Camp and FICA at Stony Point Elementary School.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Vitality Action Plan Quarterly Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on Major Activities of the Economic Vitality Action
Plan, Including Economic Indicators
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Foley, Ms. Catlin, Ms. Stimart, and Mr. Allshouse, S.
PRESENTER (S): Ms. Lee Catlin and
Mr. Steve Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010 following extensive public discussion
and review. That plan established a schedule for staff to provide quarterly reports to the Board on staff’s progress and
activities related to the Plan. Staff will present the first quarterly report (October-December, 2012) of the Plan’s third
year of implementation at this meeting.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3 – Promote Economic Vitality
DISCUSSION:
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image
Continued involvement with state partners, including co-hosting Virginia Economic Developers Association
(VEDA) 2013 Spring Conference with City of Charlottesville and serving on existing business retention and
expansion task force for Virginia Economic Development Partners (VEDP).
Provided update on first two years of the Vitality Action Plan to the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors .
Participating in the Piedmont Council of the Arts (PCA) Cultural Plan.
Conducted Board of Supervisors/Economic Development Authority joint work session which focused on the
new Economic Development Authority fee arrangement and funding priorities for FY 14.
Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform
Adopted the legislative review process improvements ZTA, which will go into effect on April 1, 2013.
Implemented the ministerial review process improvements ZTA on January 1, 2013.
Continued offering drop-in opportunities twice each month for individuals to meet with economic development
staff.
Made presentation to the Central Virginia Business Owners group.
Successfully implemented the priority track review process for target industry project that met applicant time
constraints.
Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities
Developing approaches to support identified target industry clusters, including holding the second meeting of
the newly established Biotech Council.
Working with community partners to plan a VA Bio (Virginia Biotech) educational symposium to focus on
developing workforce and career opportunities in the local life sciences industry.
Supporting entrepreneurial opportunities through involvement in Community Investment Collaborative and
Start Up Weekend Edu (Education).
Serving on Community Advisory Board for the Monticello High School Health and Sciences Academy.
Made 51 Albemarle Business First calls, with specific concentration on target industries.
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan Quarterly Update
February 6, 2013
Page 2
Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options
Scheduled a Board public hearing on zoning text amendments to modernize uses in industrial and
commercial areas in March, 2013.
Considering comprehensive voluntary rezoning for LI land uses following the adoption of the zoning text
amendments.
Tentatively scheduled a Planning Commission public hearing on complete Comprehensive Plan update,
including additional LI land designations, on March 5, 2013.
Objective 5 - Promote Rural Economy/Tourism
Co-sponsored first local Agribusiness Marketing Conference with the Chamber of Commerce, which “sold out”
at 60 attendees.
Launched second year of the Monticello Artisans Trail.
Worked with regional partners to establish the Lewis & Clark Eastern Legacy Trail.
Working with Monticello Wine Trail businesses to plan the 2013 Wine Festival and Monticello Cup wine
competition.
Finalized the new brand for the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau, scheduled for
launch on February 27, 2013.
Data reporting
As stated in the Plan, it is critical that the County regularly monitor and assess the economy and the local business
climate in order to proactively and effectively promote economic vitality. The most recent quarterly data is included in
Attachment A.
Progress on Strategic Plan Goal 3 -
Recognizing that the Economic Vitality Action Plan is a three year plan that will conclude in September, 2013, the
Board included an objective in its 2013-2017 Strategic Plan goal regarding economic vitality as follows:
Goal 3 – Promote Economic Vitality
Objective 2 – Establish a fully functioning economic development program for the County.
The economic vitality goal team has researched a variety of localities in Virginia to assess how their programs operate
and what services they offer. In addition, staff has researched basic best practices as determined by the Virginia
Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) to understand what those practices recommend regarding the mission,
objectives and operations of an effective local government economic development function. Based on this research,
as well as existing County policies and the major elements of the Economic Vitality Action Plan, the goal team has
developed a draft approach to establishing an economic development program that is outlined in Attachment B.
Program comparison information from selected benchmark counties is provided in Attachment C to give insight into
the level of resources and types of incentives being dedicated to economic development in localities across the state.
Staff is sharing this preliminary material with the Board to solicit initial feedback and guidance regarding the
parameters for establishing a fully functioning economic development program as called for in the Board’s Strategic
Plan. Staff recommends that a roundtable involving community stakeholders be scheduled to solicit feedback on this
issue prior to any final direction being provided by the Board. Timing of this initial discussion with the Board will allow
consideration of any recommendations that may have a resource implication to be incorporated into the upcoming
budget discussions for FY 14.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no immediate budget impact associated with this item. Because the adopted Economic Vitality Action Plan
will conclude in September, 2013, staff intends to include a placeholder amount to support the establishment of the
economic development program in the FY 14 budget for the Board’s further discussion during the upcoming budget
process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide general reaction and guidance regarding the draft Economic Development
Function Outline (Attachment B) and direct staff to schedule a roundtable discussion with community stakeholders.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Economic Indicators
Attachment B – Draft Economic Development Function Outline
Attachment C – Program Comparison Data
Return to agenda
Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data
January 22, 2013
Same Qtr.Same Qtr.Same Qtr.Time Period Beginning Ending 2011-12
4 Yrs. Ago 3 Yrs. Ago 2 Yrs. Ago Comparison Quarter Quarter Change
Tax Revenue
*Sales Tax 3,276,257 3,049,262 3,245,290 Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 3,060,356 3,168,752 + 3.5%
Food & Beverage Tax 1,310,669 1,365,553 1,151,217 Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 1,477,817 1,412,369 - 4.4%
Transient Occupancy Tax 180,886 205,022 302,302 Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 249,910 275,149 + 10.1%
Jobs
*Unemployment Rate 3.5%5.3%5.4%Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 5.1%4.7%- 0.4 pp
*Total Number of Jobs 51,289 50,276 50,138 Q2 CY 11 & Q2 CY 12 50,427 50,740 + 0.6%
Workforce Center Clients Q4 CY 2011 & Q4 CY 12 3,979 5,889 + 48%
General Business Activity
ABC Wine Sales (taxable liters)Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 73,432 92,932 + 27%
ABC Cider Sales (Taxable liters)Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 3,017 4,274 + 42%
*Small Business Development Center Clients Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 25 14 - 44%
Small Business Development Center Training Participants Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 8 26 +225%
Real Estate Market
Number of Single Family Homes for Sale Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 488 426 - 62
Monthly Average Number of Single Family Homes Sold Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 51.33 55.33 + 4.00
*Number of Months Supply of Unsold Single Family Homes Q4 CY 11 & Q4 CY 12 9.51 7.70 - 1.81 Mos.
FHFA Home Price Index for Charlottesville MSA Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 208.25 206.19 - 0.99%
Residential Foreclosure Rate per 10,000 Properties Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 5.79 5.16 - 0.63 pp
Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators -- Quarterly Data (Cont.)
January 22, 2013
Time Period Beginning Ending 2011-2012
Comparison Quarter Quarter Change
Development Activity
*$ Value of New Commercial Building Permits Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 10.688 M 8.990 M - 15.9%
*$ Value of New Residential Building Permits Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 37.292 M 27.113 - 27.3%
Number of New Residential Building Permits Q3 CY 11 & Q3 CY 12 205 200 - 5
Annual Data
Beginning Ending 2011-2012
Year Year Change
*Total Number of Business Licenses CY 11 & CY 12 4,395 4,425 + 0.68%
County of Albemarle
Establishing An Economic Development Function for Albemarle County
Background:
Albemarle County’s economic development efforts have been guided by a three year Economic Vitality
Action Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in August, 2010, which outlines five goals and related
strategies and actions. The Board’s recently adopted Strategic Plan recognizes the need to transition
from this Plan which will end in September, 2013, to an established economic development function
that operates as a regular and ongoing operation of County government. The Strategic Plan
incorporates the following goal and objectives:
Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
a. Complete all objectives of last two years of the Economic Vitality Action Plan.
b. Establish fully functioning economic development program for the County.
c. Assess and implement appropriate incentive options to support economic development in the
County.
Contributing Policies/Documents:
Existing county policies and documents provide an overarching structure and parameters to help define
how an economic development function should operate:
County’s Vision Statement:
A thriving County, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system, that honors its rural
heritage, scenic beauty and natural and historic resources while fostering attractive and vibrant
communities.
Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Policy:
“The purpose of this economic development policy is, first and foremost, to provide the local citizenry an
improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life. Economic growth and vitality are required to
sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. By
creating and sustaining a high quality, diversified economic environment, citizens will enjoy improved job
opportunities, competitive wages, work force development opportunities, and the community will enjoy
a growing and diversified tax base.”
Economic Vitality Action Plan Preamble:
“The Economic Development Policy of the County’s Comprehensive Plan has a stated purpose to “provide
the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life.” This Action Plan is
intended to translate the purpose and goals of the Economic Development Policy into concrete and
measureable actions, being very mindful of the need to adhere to already established growth
management objectives and natural resource protections. While this Plan is focused on accomplishing
specific action items within the next three years, the County recognizes the need for a long term
commitment to economic vitality. This Plan is intended to establish a sustainable pathway for the long
term health of our local economy.”
County of Albemarle
Target Industry Study:
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development directed consultant work on a Target
Industry Study for its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County, which was completed in April,
2012. This study identifies types of industries that have the strongest potential to succeed and offer the
best prospects for "good jobs," meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of life (security, higher wages,
opportunities for advancement, training, flexibility), both in our larger region and specifically in
Albemarle County. The Board of Supervisors endorsed the targets recommended for Albemarle County in
May, 2012.
Program Definition:
Several defining elements are important in establishing the broad outlines of the County’s economic
development function:
Draft Albemarle County Economic Development Mission:
To foster and encourage responsible economic development activities that maintain the county’s
competitive position and result in job creation and career employment opportunities, increased tax base
and an improved quality of life for citizens while respecting Albemarle County’s natural resources and
unique character.
Draft Albemarle County Economic Development Guiding Principles:
Economic Diversity: Provide a diverse and vibrant economy that offers a broad range of job
opportunities while supporting the delivery of high quality government services to its residents
Respect for Heritage and Environment: Promote a quality of life that embraces our heritage,
preserves the environment and effectively manages and protects resources based on guidance
provided by the Comprehensive Plan.
Organizational Collaboration: Collaborate on all levels (local, region, and state) to maximize the
economic opportunities for the area in a cost-effective manner including close partnership with
the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.
Entrepreneurship: Create an environment that encourages, values and supports
entrepreneurship and fosters collaboration and a vibrant, creative community.
Organic Growth: Build value from within by supporting those businesses or assets who have
been a contributor to our community.
Build Awareness of Local Opportunities: Build a strong level of awareness amongst students
and young adults of the availability of local career and economic opportunities that keep young
people here in our community.
Educational Partnership: Recognize and support the strength of our local educational
institutions and promote lifelong learning opportunities.
Leverage Intellectual Capital: Strengthen and diversify Albemarle’s economy by leveraging our
intellectual capital to promote expansion of business interests to attract investment and
enhance the livability of our community (and not detract from it).
Social Infrastructure: Support business offerings that recognize family, educational and cultural
needs and that help people be successful and productive employees .
County of Albemarle
Target Industries:
The list of target sectors is a list of optimal targets and should not be considered to exclude related
sectors. It is critical to emphasize that the Target Industry Study supports the cultivation and nurturing
of existing businesses and considers employment of current residents as its most important outcome.
The recommended target industries are:
Bioscience and Medical Devices
Business & Financial Services
Information Technology and Defense & Security
Agribusiness and Food Processing
Complementary targets are:
Health Services
Arts, Design and Sports & media
Major Program Components:
In order to achieve the stated mission and guiding principles, the following program components would
comprise an established, ongoing economic development function for Albemarle County. Many of these
components are underway to some extent based on the goals and objectives of the Economic Vitality
Action Plan, so the current status of the efforts is described as are potential future directions that would
establish a program that is more comparable to the majority of our benchmark communities. Priority
should be given to ensuring that these components support the County’s strategic focus on target
industries:
Existing Business Retention/Expansion
Description/Rationale:
The purpose of an existing business retention, expansion and assistance program, the heart of successful
economic development, is to promote, retain and expedite the profitable growth of targeted existing
businesses. A healthy and vibrant local economy depends on the well-being of a community's existing
firms, and a comprehensive business retention, expansion and assistance program gathers information
and develops plans to help the county better support job retention, job creation, and increased
investment in the community. A proactive and aggressive contact and visitation program is integral,
along with focused activities to encourage engagement and information sharing.
Current Status:
Albemarle’s Business First program targets 100 visitations annually
Coordination with Department of Business Assistance and other local partners
Target industry sector roundtables – initial focus on biotechnology companies for the first year
Potential Future Direction:
More aggressive visitation schedule to reach out in a timely manner to our 1500 identified
business targets
Analysis and reporting of existing business trends and issues with specific follow up action plans
developed
A specific focus on critical and/or challenged industries – i.e. defense industry/federal
contractors
County of Albemarle
Additional engagement activities with existing businesses , particularly target industries, to
support their expansion and keep them anchored in our community
New Business Start ups
Description/Rationale:
The economic development program should help create an environment conducive to the start up and
growth of new business ventures, working with community partners to develop a strong and vibrant
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Efforts should focus on helping prospective entrepreneurs and investors
access resources for available business support resources and on helping new ventures grow into long-
term, viable, competitive businesses in the Albemarle County community, including leveraging
technology transfer/commercialization possibilities associated with UVA. Support services should help
potential new business ventures consider appropriate sites, navigate the county’s approval and
permitting processes and access appropriate incentive programs.
Current Status:
Single point of contact program to assist small businesses unfamiliar with our processes
Training opportunities and regular drop in hours to consult with economic development staff
Relationships with the Charlottesville Business Innovation Council, the UVA Office of Innovation
and VA Bio among others that help connect the County with the entrepreneurial community
Potential Future Direction:
More focused partnership with UVA, including entities like the School of Engineering, to
leverage technology transfer/commercialization possibilities and build the entrepreneurial
ecosystem
More proactive approach in helping businesses take advantage of grant programs and state and
federal financing opportunities available to startups
Business Attraction
Description/Rationale:
Primary leadership for business attraction/ lead generation activities lies with our regional partner, the
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, and at the state level with the Virginia
Economic Development Partnership. The County should be well prepared to respond to inquiries of
interest referred by state and regional partners as well as to inquiries that come directly to Albemarle
staff, and to participate as appropriate in marketing initiatives that align with our target industries. The
County should be an effective single point of contact for business development information, providing
data relevant to business location decisions including economic indicators, workforce information,
industrial and commercial real estate information, development review processes and customized
business development data. This requires a close alliance with the City of Charlottesville and University
of Virginia to highlight our shared attributes for targeted industries.
Current Status:
Respond to inquiries that come to us directly or that are forwarded to the County by TJPED and
VEDP
Continued updating of our website
Potential Future Direction:
County of Albemarle
Proactive research and data analysis to prepare information packets that appeal specifically to
desired target industries
Comprehensive site selection information and location possibilities geared towards our target
industries, including more sophisticated web-based tools
Identification of potential new markets to keep pace with the transitioning Virginia economy,
i.e. international trade opportunities
Participate as requested in regional marketing efforts
Cooperative marketing program with UVA and Charlottesville that positions our sub-region as
attractive to our target industries
Workforce Development
Description/Rationale:
Workforce development and the cultivation of a skilled and motivated labor force is a critical
component of economic development for the County. A robust knowledge-based economy is emerging
in Albemarle, building on our target industry sectors and driven by ideas, services and innovation. In
addition, the County is anxious to support employment in our many basic industries and businesses. In
order to compete in this fast paced workplace, and ensure continued profitability for our employers,
Albemarle County must continually build a skilled workforce through lifelong learning and worker
training. County economic development must work closely with education and other community
partners to ensure that the continuously evolving Albemarle County workforce is competitive on a
global scale. Quality education at all levels and specialized training and retraining prepares individuals
for better careers and personal enrichment, provides employers with on-demand availability of skilled
workers, and supplies industry with a steady pipeline of talent development.
Current Status:
Active involvement in the Piedmont Workforce Network
Engagement with education partners at the secondary and post-secondary levels
Potential Future Direction:
Support workforce training programs (in partnership with PVCC, Workforce Training Center,
UVA and the County school system) tied to target enterprises or key sectors that build
employment pipelines for a full spectrum of skill levels
Agribusiness
Description/Rationale:
Because of Albemarle’s heritage and emergence as a major local producer within the regional food
network, economic development efforts to enhance the agricultural sector by assisting both new and
existing agri-businesses are critical. Agribusiness has been identified as a target industry for Albemarle,
and the success of this industry depends on presenting the County as an attractive, viable region for
agriculture and value-added product opportunities and for the tourism value these types of businesses
create. The protection of the County’s rural areas requires that these economic development
opportunities do not harm the essential nature and important natural resources of rural Albemarle.
County of Albemarle
Current Status:
Work with partners like Food Hub, Piedmont Environmental Council, Monticello Wine Trail and
others to expand visibility of local products and agritourism venues
Cosponsor programs like the Agribusiness Marketing Conference and Monticello Artisans Trail to
help build customer base and business profitability
Potential Future Direction:
Leverage state and federal grant opportunities to support agricultural and forestal industry
Actively market local products and promote/assist start up business ventures that support
agricultural industry
Build on our community’s visibility and reputation for quality local products to develop
successful agricultural business ventures
Economic Development Authority (EDA) Liaison
Description/Rationale:
Recent changes to the EDA’s Rules and Regulations established a fee arrangement that will generate
some level of ongoing funding for economic development . The need to develop, implement and
monitor EDA funding initiatives will create a new economic development responsibility for County staff.
Current Status:
Meeting with EDA when required for project consultation
Potential Future Direction:
Working actively with the EDA to identify appropriate funding initiatives, develop and monitor
the annual EDA budget, and assist with program development and implementation
Other Areas of Consideration:
Tourism
While not specifically an economic development program element, tourism efforts must be closely
aligned with economic development goals and objectives.
Communications/Marketing
While not specifically an economic development program element, communications and marketing
efforts related to economic development must be closely aligned with the County’s overall
communications program and high level goals and objectives.
Return to exec summary
City/County Comparing Economic Development Programs- Virginia
Fauquier County Staffing/Structure – The Office of Economic Development consists of 4 members: Director, Business Coordinator, Tourism
Coordinator and administrative assistant
Target Industries – none listed
Hanover County Staffing/Structure – The Office of Economic Development consists of 5 members : director, deputy director, existing business
manager, marketing analyst and administrative assistant
Incentives – economic development zones, fast track review
Henrico County Staffing/Structure - The Economic Development team consists of 7 members including; Executive Director, Administrative Director,
Director of Marketing, Research Coordinator, Marketing Representative, Administrative Assistant, and Executive Assistant.
Target Industries - Corporate and Regional Headquarters, Leading Edge Technology-Oriented Companies, Advanced Manufacturing,
Back Office Operation (Data Centers, Call Centers), Life Sciences, Securities and Financial Services.
Incentives-
Infrastructure Improvement Incentives including utility extensions, connection fees, and road access.
Enterprise Zones
Henrico has 2 enterprise zones; West Broad Street Zone and Nine Mile Road Sub-Zone, East/Central.
Local incentives include Architectural Design Assistance, Building Façade Grants, Paving Grant, Landscaping Grant,
Building Demolition Grant, Off-Site Improvement Grants (drainage, water, sewer system), and Rehabilitation Real
Estate Tax Exemptions.
Foreign Trade Zone #207
James City County Staffing/Structure - The Office of Economic Development consists of 4 members; Economic Development Director, Economic
Development Assistant Director, Business Development and Retention Coordinator, Economic Development Assistant.
Target Industries - Not Listed
Incentives-
Enterprise Zone
Local Incentives include the Economic Development Authority of James City Grants, Improvement Fee Waivers,
Sewer Transmission Fee Reduction, Use of Process Water, Job Incentives, and EDA Fee Waiver.
State incentives include job grants and real property investment grants.
James City County Business & Technology Incubator (JCCBTI)- Program designed to ensure the success of businesses and
accelerate growth.
Tourism Zone Ordinance
Zone boundaries include all of James City.
A tourism business is defined as a business whose primary purpose is to provide tourism products, processes or
related services, and establish a desirable destination to attract tourists from outside the community.
Incentives like reduced development fees, BPOL grant, Business Tangible Personal Property grant, and expedited
review process are offered to new and old businesses for up to two 5-year incentive periods.
Loudoun County Staffing/Structure – The economic development team consists of 18 full time staff divided between Office of Economic
Development (Commercial Development)and Office of Rural Economic Development
Target Industries
Loudon County Office of Rural Economic Development
Agriculture, Horticulture, and Animal Husbandry
Tourism
Business (including retail, service, and light manufacturing and assembly establishments)
Loudon County Office of Economic Development
Information Communication Technology (ICT)
Data Centers
Federal Government Contractors (FGC)/Aerospace
Cargo/Freight Forwarders
Life & Health Services
Incentives-
Loudon County Office of Economic Development
Targeted Tax Incentives for Aerospace/Information & Communications Technology
State Incentive Packages
Governor’s Opportunity Fund
The New Jobs Program
The Small Business New Jobs Program
Sales and Use Tax Exemptions
Montgomery County Staffing/Structure - The Department of Economic Development consists of four staff members: a Director, a Program Manager for
Existing Industries, a Program Manager for Business Development and Marketing, and an administrative support staff
Target Industries -Information Technology, Materials & Chemistry, Biotechnology & Life Sciences, Advanced Manufacturing,
Research & Development, and Defense Technologies.
Incentives-
Local Economic Development Grant
To be qualified for the grant expanding or new businesses must fall under one of the county’s target industries and
maintain above average wage jobs.
Grant amounts are based on the percentage of new taxes paid on new investment (land, building, machinery and
tools of business personal property) for up to 10 years.
MCEDA Industrial Revenue Bonds
MBC Revolving Loan Fund
Prince William County Staffing/Structure - The Office of Economic Development consists of ten staff members: Executive Director, 2 Business Development
Managers, Management and Fiscal Analyst, Communication Manager/Departmental Spokesperson; Director of Marketing and
Research; Director of Existing Business; 3 administrative support staff
Target Industries – data centers and IT companies, biotech and life sciences companies, government contractors and facilities,
corporate facilities, high technology firms
Incentives – fast track permitting, economic development opportunity fund, hub zones
City of Charlottesville Staffing/Structure - The Office of Economic Development consists of four staff members; director of economic development, 2
economic development specialists, and an office administrator.
Target Industries - Bioscience and Medical Devices, Information Technology and Defense & Security, Business & Financial Services,
and Health Services and Arts, Design, Sports & Media (complementary target).
Incentives-
o Technology Zone
A qualified technology business may receive a rebate on any license fee provided that the gross receipts are $50,000
or less and a 50% tax reduction provided that the gross receipts are more than $50,000.
o Hub Zone
Incentive program encourages economic development in historically underutilized/distressed areas through the
establishment of preference for small businesses seeking federal contracting opportunities.
Businesses must receive Hub Zone Certification from the U.S. Small Business Administration to qualify for incentives.
Requirements include being a small business by SBA standards, owned/controlled at least 51% by U.S.
citizens/community development corporation/agriculture cooperative/Indian tribe, the business principle office
must be located in a historically underutilized business zone, and at least 35% of its employees must reside in a Hub
Zone.
Roanoke County Staffing/Structure - The Department of Economic Development consists of 4 staff members; Director, Manager Existing Business
Program, Economic Development Specialist, and Administrative Assistant.
Target Industries - None Listed
Incentives-
o Foreign Trade Zone
o Typically, Roanoke County offers incentives on a case by case basis but packages may include; utility extension/connection
fee consideration, site preparation assistance, site acquisition assistance, and public private partnership fund.
Spotsylvania County Staffing/structure – The Department of Economic Development consists of 6 staff members : Director, Deputy Director, Business
Assistance Manager, Tourism Manager, Economic Development Specialist, Administrative Assistant
Target industries
Incentives – technology zones, tourism zones, target industry review process
Staunton, Virginia Staffing/Structure - The Economic Development Department consists of three staff members; a director, assistant director, and
administrative assistant.
Target Industries - Research, value-added/agriculture-based business, health/biosciences, advanced manufacturing, performing and
visual arts, information technology, engineering, architecture, marketing, media, and other professional services.
Incentives-
o Enterprise Zone
o Special tax breaks and financial incentives available at the state/local level.
Quarterly Capital Projects Status Report
February 2013
Prepared By:
Document Owner(s) Project/Organization Role
Trevor Henry Director, Office of Facilities Development (OFD)
Pam Shifflett Management Analyst, OFD
Project Status Report Version Control
Version Date Author Change Description
1.0 1/22/2013 OFD Document created
PROJECT STATUS REPORT PURPOSE
The purpose of the Quarterly Capital Project Status Report is to establish a means of formal,
regular reporting on the status of Capital Projects to key stakeholders, including the Board of
Supervisors and County Executive. OFD tracks its projects using the shared services site
(SharePoint). The information contained herein is pulled from information tracked and reported
monthly during the project reviews attended by the Assistant County Executives, Department
Heads, and Director of Building Services.
This reporting format stems from multiple discussions the BOS has had over the past year on
Capital Projects in general and directly in response to recent discussions this fall regarding the
Change Order policy. Being the first formal report delivered to the Board on status of multiple
projects, OFD is seeking feedback on both the form and information provided to ensure it
adequately informs the BOS and County Executive at the level of detail expected. The format of
the report provides summary level information on all projects managed by OFD, both Capital
Projects and Capital Maintenance Projects.
For purposes of this report a “Capital Project” has been approved through the CIP process and is
a planned expense for a facility or physical item requiring a minimum expenditure of $20,000 by
the County, having a useful life span of 10 years or more, and meets one or more of the following
definitions:
Involves the acquisition or construction of any physical facility for the community;
Involves the acquisition of land or an interest in land for the community;
Involves the acquisition or construction of public utilities;
Involves modifications to facilities, including additions to existing facilities, which
increases the square footage, useful life, or value of the facility.
OFD Update
OFD operates as an Internal Service Fund, as approved by the BOS during their June 6, 2012
meeting, to provide a method to recover the entire operational budget of OFD and only bill
projects managed by OFD, therefore, capturing all costs related to the project. OFD has replaced
two Project Managers over the past year, with the most recent hiring of Frank Pohl. Frank comes
to the department with a PE in Civil Engineering and has a wealth of experience in both site and
building construction. Frank is most closely working with General Services on Stormwater
Management projects and with our Transportation Engineer (Jack Kelsey) to move through the
backlog of several Sidewalk/Crosswalk projects on the priority list. With the Addition of Frank and
Blake Abplanalp, at the start of last summer, OFD is currently staffed at 5 PM’s, 1
PM/Transportation Engineer, a Management Analyst and Director. OFD has one open FTE that
provides the ability to add additional temporary support during the summer construction surge
supporting Schools work.
The following sections provide a summary on all projects and more detailed information of select
Capital Projects. During the meeting on February 6th, Trevor Henry will provide a summary level
review of projects and he along with the individual PM’s will be available for any detailed
questions.
As a follow up to the November 7th meeting, included at the end of this report is a list of Change
Orders approved by the County Executive office during calendar year 2012 that exceeded the
25% OR $50,000.00 threshold as defined by the Purchasing Manual. There were 9 CO’s that
required this review of which 3 exceeded the $50K threshold.
Office of Facilities Development
Page 1 of 8
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Substantially Complete
CY 2012 Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet Stormwater Project Stormwater management
through pipe and channel
improvements and
construction of a
stormwater wetland system
to treat runoff from existing
and future development in
Downtown Crozet.
Substantially complete
September 2012
Remainder of woody
vegetation to be planted
January 2013
$1,358,648 Spring time review
of vegetation for re-
seeding/
replacement
(warranty)
Greer Elementary School
Addition/Renovation Phase 2
One-story addition includes
six new classrooms, art room
with kiln, fully developed
courtyard, one story
connector to existing school,
and additional parking.
Renovation includes
developing lower level
common areas (3) into
storage/teaching spaces,
replacing existing toilet
partitions, renovating upper
level cabinets, refinishing
handrail, adding tack strips,
and new classroom signage.
Substantially complete
August 2012
Contractor completing
punch list items
Finalizing change orders
Several Small scope
items de-scoped form
original procurement due
to budget.
$4,356,524 Close-Out /
Warranty
Old Mills Trail Pedestrian
Bridges
Construction of 3 pedestrian
(foot) bridges on Old Mills
(Rivanna) Trail.
Construction and punch
list complete October
2012
$149,584
Simpson Park Pavilion Construction of a new wood
framed park pavilion with
composition shingle roof,
concrete slab and minor site
work, including grading and
sidewalk construction.
Construction and punch
list complete April 2012
$75,726
Office of Facilities Development
Page 2 of 8
In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet Library Construction of a 23,000
square foot, LEED certified
library building, which will
include space for
complementary uses such
as public meeting rooms
and community space.
Construction underway;
approximately 40%
complete as of
December 2012
Working to resolve fiber
conflict with storm sewer
$8,867,491 Substantial completion
July 2013
Occupancy August
2013
Crozet Streetscape Phase II Relocation of overhead
electric and utility lines from
Crozet Avenue, new
stormwater drainage system,
first block of Main Street
(Library Avenue), and
pedestrian, vehicular, and
streetscape enhancements
along Crozet Avenue from
The Square to Tabor Street.
Notices to Proceed
issued to utility
companies – relocation
to begin mid-February
Submit streetscape plans
to VDOT by end of
February and obtain
authorization to bid
$4,409,565 Utility relocation
complete – 1st Quarter
2013
Streetscape –
Bid/award 2nd Quarter,
~ 12-14 months
construction
Library Ave accepted
in State system
Ivy Fire Station A 24/7 fire & rescue facility
of roughly 5,800 square feet,
within an existing warehouse
(owned by the University of
Virginia), consisting of 3
apparatus bays (2 engines, 1
ambulance) and support
facilities for a crew of 6.
Construction/renovation
underway
Finalizing details for
emergency signal control,
IT systems, and
procurements such as
generator and fuel
tank/pump
Working with Community
Development and
adjacent property owners
to resolve easement
deficiency issue
$2,221,029 Substantial completion
April 2013
On-Line July 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Page 3 of 8
COB McIntire Brick Repointing Three (3) projects involved in
scope: 1) Brick Repointing;
2) Masonry Repairs; and 3)
Front Stairs Waterproofing
Brick Repointing: Work
underway; approximately
95% complete
Masonry Repairs: Final
completion achieved
September 2012
Front Stairs
Waterproofing: Bid
opening scheduled for
2/7/13
$948,460 Brick Repointing:
Completion Jan/Feb
2013
Masonry Repairs:
Complete
Front Stairs
Waterproofing: Bid 1st
Quarter 2013, ~ 30
days construction
In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet North Sidewalk Replacing or constructing
approximately 1100 feet of
sidewalk and drainage
improvements along the
west side of Crozet Avenue
from Saint George Avenue to
Crozet Elementary School. A
Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Grant provides
improved pedestrian crossing
at the school and extends
sidewalk to Ballard Drive.
Completing right-of-way
& easement plats for 3
parcels (Crozet North);
SRTS right-of-way and
easement acquisition
completed
Submit plans to VDOT for
SRTS February 2013 and
Crozet N Sidewalk April
2013 and request
authorization to bid
$852,408
(Crozet North
$662,408;
SRTS
$190,000)
Crozet North –
Bid/Award 3rd Quarter
2013, ~ 4 months
construction
SRTS – Bid/Award 2nd
Quarter 2013, ~ 3
months construction
South Pantops Drive/State
Farm Boulevard Sidewalk
Improvements
Construction of 3500 feet of
curb, gutter and sidewalk
which will serve several
residential, business, and
commercial establishments.
Construction partially funded
with FY13 Revenue Sharing
Funds.
Project Manual and 95%
plans currently under
review
Utility locating company
hired to field locate
waterline at proposed
drainage inlets (ACSA)
Submit plans to VDOT
April 2013 and request
authorization to bid
$883,764 Bid/Award 3rd Quarter
2013, ~ 4 months
construction
Office of Facilities Development
Page 4 of 8
Fontaine Avenue Sidewalk Construction of a short
sidewalk (~160') from the
Research Park to the City
line. This project closes
gaps between sidewalks
which may create safety
issues if left uncorrected.
Anticipate starting design
2nd Quarter 2013
$87,525 Bid 3rd Quarter 2013,
~ 1 month
construction
Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive
Sidewalk
Completion of the sidewalk
connection from Hollymead
to Sutherland Schools. The
required right-of-way has
been donated.
Anticipate starting design
2nd Quarter 2013
$194,499 Bid 3rd Quarter 2013,
~ 1 month
construction
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire
Department (STVFD)
Addition/Renovation
Addition (10,500 sq. ft.) to
STVFD and full renovation of
the existing facilities (~7,500
sq. ft.). Includes 2-bay
addition, expansion of living
quarters and full renovation
of existing facility to bring it
to code and improve the
facilities to properly support
the highest call volume
station in the County.
Design currently
underway; anticipate
complete bid documents
March 2013
Site plan submittal to
Community Development
end of January 2013
Continuing cost
review/value engineering
to assure estimated
project costs remain
within budgeted funds
$3,836,670 Bid 2nd Quarter 2013,
~ 12 months
construction
Police Firing Range Design and construction of a
firearms training facility on
the site of the closed Keene
Landfill. The range will be
an outdoor facility,
approximately 300 feet long
by 150 feet wide and
enclosed on three sides with
20-foot high earth berms to
contain fired rounds and
reduce noise; also includes a
A/E currently working
on sound model study
Draft Environmental
Stewardship Plan
under review
Board of Supervisors
scheduled to hear
public comment on
2/13/13
Final site plan
submitted and in
$1,614,208 Bid 2nd Quarter 2013
(Pending BOS
authorization), ~ 5
months construction
Office of Facilities Development
Page 5 of 8
semi-permanent classroom
building, a small sheltered
area, and a vault toilet.
review cycle;
anticipate approval by
end of February
Belvedere Phase I Complete the Belvedere
Boulevard and Residential
"Block" roads, drainage,
water, sanitary sewer and
related construction
according to the approved
development plans. Phase 1
of the work is Belvedere
Boulevard from Rio Road to
Free State Road (RR bridge);
Phase 2 is the remaining
Belvedere Boulevard (Free
State Rd. to the Village
Green) and the residential
"Blocks" (3, 4A, 5A, 6B &
9A). Funds for this project
are from the developer’s
performance bonds.
Phase 1 Work:
VDOT determined that
existing base asphalt is
of an inferior quality and
removal of all base
asphalt will be required
Bond proceeds not
sufficient to cover work;
project on hold
Phase 2 Work:
Final draft plans and
Project Manual under
review
$3,675,790 Phase 1 Work –
Resolve funding issues
Phase 2 Work –Bid 1st
Quarter 2013, ~ 6
months construction
Lewis & Clark Exploratory
Center
Construction of an
educational building
(including transportation
exhibits and river history), an
access road and parking
area, and a connecting trail
network, all located at
Darden Towe Park. Funded
by a grant through the VDOT
Transportation Enhancement
Fund Program ($800,000)
combined with other funds
raised by the Lewis & Clark
Exploratory Center.
Review revised
Reimbursement No 4
request for accuracy;
then submit request to
VDOT
Coordinate DVP deed &
plat review/signature by
County & City.
Coordinate ACSA and
Sewer Force Main deed
& plat review/approval
by County & City.
$800,000
(Grant only)
Planned Completion
March/April 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Page 6 of 8
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
Substantially Complete
CY 2012 Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Lift Replacement Phase 1
Replacement of one bus lift
and two car lifts.
Substantial completion
August 2012
Final completion
November 2012
$182,843 Warranty until August
2013
Monticello High School Parking
Lot Improvements
Revise existing parking lot
layout to incorporate
improvements to the parent
drop-off lane and to the
general traffic flow pattern.
Substantial completion
September 2012
Punch list complete
October 2012
A/E preparing drawings
for design revisions to
Bio-Filter
$531,860 Complete Bio-Filter
revisions 2nd Quarter
2013
Western Albemarle High School
Track & Tennis Renovations
Resurface the existing 8-lane
track and 6 tennis courts.
Substantial completion
October 2012
Punch list complete
$763,889 Warranty until October
2013
AHS Field House Plaza Reconfigure an existing entry
plaza at the Field House to
remove and expand an area
of concrete paving and to
incorporate improvements to
the drainage of that area of
the football stadium
Substantial completion
July 2012
Punch list complete
August 2012
$54,935 Warranty until August
2013
County Courthouse Brick
RePointing
Removal and replacement of
existing damaged mortar and
caulk joints and minor
masonry repairs at the
exterior of the Albemarle
County Courthouse.
Substantial completion
November 2012
Final contractor payment
will be held until
verification/confirmation
that sub-contractor has
been paid.
$147,663 Punch list approval
and close out
Ivy Creek Natural Area Barn
Renovation
Permanent repairs to the
barn to ensure structural
integrity.
Substantial completion
April 2012
Final completion June
2012
$171,360 Warranty until April
2013
Office of Facilities Development
Page 7 of 8
In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
County Courthouse ADA
Accessible Ramp
Installation of a new ADA
accessible ramp and entry
door. Work will involve
demolition of an existing
window and portion of
masonry wall; a new door
will be installed in the
opening. The new ramp will
be installed as a continuation
of the existing ramp.
Project delayed due to
door delivery delay
Anticipate substantial
completion by end of
January 2013
$32,638 Close out project 2nd
Quarter 2013
In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
VMF Lift Replacements Phase
II
Replace 1 bus lift. Secure A/E for design
January 2013
$153,504 Secure lift January
2013
Bid project March
2013
Substantial Completion
July 2013
Albemarle High School New
Gym & Gym Addition
Re-Roofing
Tear- off and re-roofing of
new gymnasium and
gymnasium addition roofs.
Gymnasium is 21,800 square
feet and gymnasium addition
is 10,000 square feet.
Design underway;
anticipate complete bid
documents end of
February 2013
$391,560 Bid March 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Cale Elementary School Main
Building and ’97 Addition Re-
Roofing
Tear-off and re-roofing of
main building and 1997
addition roofs. Main building
is 52,851 square feet and
new addition is 7,100 square
feet.
Design underway;
anticipate complete bid
documents end of
February 2013
$726,820 Bid March 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Building Services Main Building
Re-Roofing
Tear-off and re-roofing of
Building Services' main
building. Main roof is 9,440
square feet.
Design underway;
anticipate complete bid
documents end of
February 2013
$136,710 Bid March 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Page 8 of 8
Scottsville Elementary School
Cafeteria & Gym
Structural Repairs
Perform structural repairs to
CMU walls that appear to
have been damaged during
earthquake. Work will
include structural
reinforcement and
architectural work to improve
the aesthetic value of the
structural work.
Design underway;
anticipate complete bid
documents end of March
2013
$107,100 Bid April 2013
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: Crozet Library Building
Description:
Design and construction of a 23,000 square foot, LEED certified library building, which will include
space for complementary uses such as public meeting rooms and community space. The primary
mission of the new facility is to serve the library needs of the defined Western Albemarle service area
with a concerted focus on both existing and emerging technologies and solutions that will support the
library’s programming and best serve its patrons.
Status:
Construction underway, anticipate substantial completion July 2013. Construction contract approximately
40% complete as of December 2012. Work planned for January 2013 includes: pour slab on deck (2nd
level); masonry on east elevation; complete roof deck; install parking lot utilities; resolve fiber optic cable
line conflict with storm sewer; coordinate furniture procurement with JMRL. Project remains on schedule
for occupancy by the Library in August 2013. Meetings are ongoing with Library representatives and
Friends of the Library (FOL) coordinating the furniture, fixtures and books purchase (funded by FOL).
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Bid Opening Date 03/28/12 03/28/12 0
Notice to Proceed 07/01/12 07/01/12 0
Excavation Complete 11/09/12 11/12/12 3
Structural Elements Complete 01/24/13 01/24/13 0
Building Dried-In 04/23/13 04/30/13 7
Finishes Complete 05/14/13 05/25/13 11
Site Work Complete 06/13/13 06/25/13 12
Substantial Completion 06/30/13 07/15/13 15
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
June 1, 2012
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ -
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 1,703,199 $ 1,760,225 $ (57,026)
Hard Costs $ 6,596,550 $ 6,784,000 $ (187,450)
Contingency $ 567,742 $ 323,267 $ 244,475
Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,867,491 $ -
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 3,981,919
Paid to Date: $ 3,949,800
Change Orders:
A/E Contract (Grimm+Parker Architects) Construction Contract (MB Contractors)
Original Agreement $585,000 Bid Award $5,810,000
Approved Changes $409,369 Approved Changes $76,924
Pending Changes $2,500 Pending Changes $36,000
TOTAL $996,869 TOTAL $5,922,924
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Increase size; change schedule
(FY09)
$226,755
2 – Add geotechnical investigation
(FY09)
$8,945
3 – Add LEED service (FY10) $120,450
4 – Change to phased plan, delete
FFE design & reduce CA (FY10)
($161,295)
5 – Parking lot SWM & ARB
review (FY12)
$7,590
6 – Restore CA & FFE design;
adjust for scope & schedule
(FY13)
$206,915
Pending: sidewalk change to
ADA-compliant
$2,500
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Slope drain & waterline
revisions
$5,323
2 – Waterline changes in Crozet
Ave; credit for 2500lb elevator vs
3000lb
$54,374
3 – Locate fiber optic line Crozet
Ave; additional waterproofing at
basement
$2,865
4 – Increase column size; floor box
revisions (electrical)
$14,362
Pending: revise conduits through
parking lot; ditch improvements at
Crozet Ave; revise sidewalk to be
ADA compliant
$36,000
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: Crozet Streetscape Enhancements Phase II
Phase 2 (Crozet Avenue) and 2A (Main Street and Alleys)
Description:
Phase 2 and 2A of the Crozet Streetscape Enhancements includes relocation of overhead electric and
utility lines from Crozet Avenue, new stormwater drainage system, first block of Main Street (Library
Avenue), and pedestrian, vehicular, and streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from The
Square to Tabor Street.
Status:
Phase 2 – Crozet Avenue:
• Notices to Proceed issued to CenturyLink, Dominion Virginia Power, (DVP) and Comcast. Utility
relocation to begin mid-Feb 2013 and anticipate completion by end of March. Obtaining electrician
quotes to make final electric connections to DVP’s relocated lines.
• All but two of the required right-of-way/construction easement signatures have been obtained. Both
parties have signed and currently coordinating remaining signatures.
• Final design plans currently under review by OFD. Anticipate VDOT authorization to bid/award by
2nd quarter 2013.
Phase 2A – Main Street and Alleys:
Library Avenue construction completed and street opened to public in late June 2011. Board of
Supervisors adopted resolution 12/12/12 requesting VDOT accept street into State secondary system.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 08/30/12 02/14/13 168
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 08/30/12 02/28/13 182
VDOT Approval to Advertise 10/04/12 03/31/13 178
Utility Relocation Complete 10/30/12 03/15/13 136
Bid Opening Date 11/01/12 05/15/13 195
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 11/30/12 06/15/13 197
Ph-A Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk
Complete
06/01/13 11/15/13 167
Ph-B Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk
Complete
11/01/13 07/01/14 242
Paving Complete 12/01/13 08/01/14 243
Substantial Completion 01/30/14 08/15/14 197
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 3,380,213 $ 3,380,213 $ -
Future Appropriations $ 319,787 $ * 1,029,352 $ (709,565)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,409,565 $ (709,565)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 590,000 $ 798,001 $ (208,001)
Hard Costs $ 2,770,000 $ 3,461,468 $ (691,468)
Contingency $ 340,000 $ 150,095 $ 189,905
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,409,565 $ (709,564)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 981,525
Paid to Date: $ 1,431,317
* Future Appropriation includes a transfer of $617,000 from SWM fund and $181,900 from the Crozet Library
project; and $230,452 in Revenue Sharing still to be appropriated
Change Orders:
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract (Ph 2A – Library Ave)
Original Agreement $379,000 Bid Award $641,695
Approved Changes $163,761 Approved Changes $138,473
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $542,761 TOTAL $780,168
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Jarmans Gap Road interim storm
system & historic resources (FY09)
$41,500
2 – Additional plats & transportation
planning services (FY09)
$12,625
3 – Main Street extension to proposed
Library entrance (FY09)
$24,000
4 – Conceptual Downtown Plaza
improvements (FY09)
$9,750
5 – Additional plats (FY10) $2,750
6 – Temporary tie-in of new Main
Street (FY10)
$21,000
7 – Water & sewer relocation design
(FY10)
$7,300
8 – Library storm sewer advance
work (FY12)
$5,961
9 – Finalize const. documents (FY13) $38,875
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Sidewalk revisions, additional
asphalt, power conduit/pull boxes in
alleys
$73,625
2 – Add parking spaces, revise
storm sewer outfall, temporary
electric service for lighting
$43,455
3 – Raise ACSA meter, extend
project schedule
$21,393
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: Crozet North Sidewalk
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety by replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of sidewalk and
drainage improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet
Elementary School. County and Revenue Sharing funds are being used to provide the sidewalk from St.
George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School. A Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant provides
improved pedestrian crossing at the school and extends sidewalk to Ballard Drive.
Status:
Crozet North Sidewalk: Completing right-of-way & easement plats for 3 parcels. Per ACSA requirements,
will need to provide waterline relocation plan, profile and ACSA easement to relocate 250' of existing
waterline to provide acceptable separation from new retaining wall. Providing updated plan review
comments to A/E. Anticipate submitting plans to VDOT by April 2013 and request authorization to bid.
Safe Routes to School Sidewalk: Right-of-way and easement acquisition completed. ACSA located
section of existing waterline near Ballard Drive; waterline locations at Old Crozet School entrance must be
field located before ACSA provides comment or approval - utility locating company hired to perform
location service. Anticipate submitting plans to VDOT by February 2013 and request authorization to bid.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Revenue Sharing Project
(St. George to Crozet ES)
Design Complete 02/14/13 03/31/13 45
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 04/30/13 46
VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 05/31/13 46
Bid Opening Date 05/31/13 07/15/13 45
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 06/30/13 08/15/13 46
Curb & Drainage Complete 08/31/13 10/15/13 45
Sidewalks Complete 09/30/13 11/15/13 46
Paving Complete 10/15/13 11/30/13 46
Substantial Completion 10/15/13 11/30/13 46
SRTS Grant Project
(Crozet ES to Ballard Dr.)
Design Complete 04/30/12 02/14/13 290
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 05/31/12 12/30/12 213
VDOT Approval to Advertise 06/30/12 03/15/13 258
Bid Opening Date 08/15/12 04/30/13 258
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 09/15/12 05/30/13 257
Curb & Drainage Complete 11/15/12 07/30/13 257
Sidewalks Complete 11/30/12 08/15/13 258
Paving Complete 12/15/12 08/30/13 258
Substantial Completion 12/15/12 08/30/13 258
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 564,808 $ 564,808 $ -
Future Appropriations $ 96,592 $ 287,600 $ (191,008)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 661,400 $ 852,408 $ (191,008)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 104,200 $ 222,564 $ (118,364)
Hard Costs $ 497,200 $ 619,400 $ (122,200)
Contingency $ 60,000 $ 10,444 $ 49,556
Total $ 661,400 $ 852,408 $ (191,008)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 17,846
Paid to Date: $ 94,676
Change Orders:
A/E Contract – Sidewalk (Kimley-Horn & Assoc.) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $40,000 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $1,600 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $41,600 TOTAL $
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 - Eliminate bid/construction
observation; add plats & final
engineering services
$1,600
A/E Contract – SRTS (Anhold Associates)
Original Agreement $20,697
Approved Changes $2,524
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $23,221
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Prepare documents to relocate
existing waterline conflicting with
proposed stormwater utilities
$2,524
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: Police Firearms Training Facility
Description:
Design and construction of a firearms training facility on the site of the closed Keene Landfill in Keene,
Virginia. The range will be an outdoor facility; approximately 300 feet long by 150 feet wide and
enclosed on three sides with 20-foot high earth berms to contain fired rounds and reduce noise. The
facility will include a semi-permanent classroom building, 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 range at the southern portion of the property;
access to the property will be from Fortune Lane.
Status:
A/E currently working on sound model study, construction of a 3 dimensional computer model to
determine sound levels within a 2 mile radius, and review of feasibility and cost for 3 noise
mitigation construction options. Draft Environmental Stewardship Plan currently under review.
Continue community outreach and firing range education efforts; ACPD working with community
committee to develop operating guidelines. Board of Supervisors scheduled to hear public comment
on February 13, 2013. Final Site plan submitted and in review cycle. Anticipate approval by end of
February and bid in April 2013 assuming BOS direction on Feb. 13th.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Pre-design Complete 06/01/12 06/01/12 0
Design Complete 01/28/13 02/15/13 18
Bid Opening Date 04/22/13 05/06/13 14
Notice to Proceed 05/01/13 05/15/13 14
Excavation Complete 07/24/13 07/24/13 0
Site Work Complete 09/16/13 09/16/13 0
Substantial Completion 09/30/13 09/30/13 0
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[September 2011]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 1,140,300 $ 1,132,890 $ 7,410
Future Appropriations $ - $ 481,318 $ (481,318)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 1,140,300 $ 1,614,208 $ (473,908)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 163,904 $ 228,952 $ (65,048)
Hard Costs $ 849,040 $ 1,359,693 $ (510,653)
Contingency $ 127,356 $ 25,562 $ 101,794
Total $ 1,140,300 $ 1,614,208 $ (473,908)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 42,793
Paid to Date: $ 133,630
Change Orders:
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $121,920 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $31,690 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $34,508 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $188,118 TOTAL $
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Wetland delineation,
environmental permitting
$17,929
2 – Environmental stewardship
plan; geotechnical investigation
$13,761
Pending: Sound/noise model $34,508
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: Ivy Fire Station
Description:
A 24/7 fire & rescue facility of roughly 5,800 square feet, within an existing warehouse (owned by the
University of Virginia), consisting of 3 apparatus bays (2 engines, 1 ambulance) and support facilities
for a crew of 6. A fire/rescue station is needed to meet the response time goals in this portion of the
County’s development area and to provide services to this densely populated rural area of the County.
Status:
Construction/renovation underway, anticipate substantial completion April 2013, with station on-line July
2013. Working with Community Development and adjacent property owners to resolve easement
deficiency issue. Finalizing details for emergency signal control, IT systems, and procurements such as
generator and fuel tank/pump.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Bid Opening Date 09/27/12 09/27/12 0
Notice to Proceed 10/19/12 10/22/12 3
Demolition Complete 11/12/12 11/15/12 3
Building Infrastructure Complete 03/01/13 03/01/13 0
Finishes Complete 04/01/13 04/01/13 0
Site Work Complete 04/01/13 04/01/13 0
Substantial Completion 04/01/13 04/01/13 0
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
July 2011
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 2,173,793 $ 2,221,029 $ (47,236)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 2,173,793 $ 2,221,029 $ (47,236)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 332,139 $ 422,310 $ (90,171)
Hard Costs $ 1,650,000 $ 1,535,340 $ 114,660
Contingency $ 191,654 $ 191,654 $ -
Total $ 2,173,793 $ 2,149,303 $ 24,490
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ 71,726
Encumbered: $ 656,091
Paid to Date: $ 456,405
Change Orders:
A/E Contract (LeMay Erickson Willcox Architects) Construction Contract (Coleman-Adams Const.)
Original Agreement $165,730 Bid Award $724,000
Approved Changes $9,320 Approved Changes $ 0
Pending Changes $ 11,315 Pending Changes $43,500
TOTAL $186,365 TOTAL $767,500
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Structural evaluation &
reinforcement design (FY12)
$6,600
2 – Site plan coordination w/
adjacent property (FY13)
$2,720
Pending: sprinkler redesign,
generator, structural evals
$11,315
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
Pending: column piers corrections;
grease trap; front footer revisions;
mezzanine storage area; apparatus
area floor slab replacement
$43,500
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Addition/Renovation
Description:
Addition (10,500 sq. ft.) to Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) and full renovation of
the existing facilities (~7,500 sq. ft.). Total scope includes a 2-bay addition, an expansion of living
quarters and full renovation of the existing facility to bring it to code and improve the facilities to
properly support the highest call volume station in the County.
Status:
Design currently underway – Completed design review of 65% architectural drawings and ~ 90% site
drawings on 24 Jan 2013. Anticipate site plan submittal to Community Development end of January 2013
and complete bid documents by end of March. Site Plan approval is critical path on the project.
Continuing cost review/value engineering to assure estimated project costs remain within budgeted funds.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Pre-design Complete 01/11/13 01/18/13 7
Design Complete 03/22/13 03/22/13 0
Bid Opening Date 04/12/13 04/12/13 0
Notice to Proceed 05/03/13 05/03/13 0
Renovation Demo Complete 06/21/13 06/21/13 0
Excavation Complete 07/05/13 07/05/13 0
Structural Elements Complete 09/06/13 09/06/13 0
Building Dried-In 11/29/13 11/29/13 0
Finishes Complete 02/28/14 02/28/14 0
Site Work Complete 03/21/14 03/21/14 0
Substantial Completion 04/04/14 04/04/14 0
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
May 2012
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 3,824,947 $ 3,824,947 $ -
Future Appropriations $ 11,723 $ 11,723 $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,836,670 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 426,320 $ 481,596 $ (55,276)
Hard Costs $ 3,126,500 $ 3,126,500 $ -
Contingency $ 283,850 $ 228,574 $ 55,276
Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,836,670 $ -
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 267,385
Paid to Date: $ 165,183
* Our most recent estimate that was provided by the design firm on 11/6/12 shows a cost estimate of $3,954,101. This is
$117,431 over our appropriated budget but we just received 65% complete preliminary drawings and we are awaiting the
subsequent updated estimate per these drawings that will incorporate recent changes that should result in the cost estimate
moving toward that appropriated budget figure. This combined with the favorable bidding climate and effective use of
alternates in the bid process makes us confident that this project will come in under budget once the bids are received.
Change Orders:
A/E Contract (DJG, Inc. – includes Add. & Renov.) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $394,819 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $394,819 TOTAL $
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: South Pantops Drive/State Farm Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety along the north side of South Pantops Drive and west side of State Farm
Boulevard by constructing 3500 feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk which will serve several residential,
business, and commercial establishments. Construction will be partially funded with FY13 Revenue
Sharing Funds.
Status:
Appropriation of Revenue Sharing Funds pending receipt of fully executed agreement. Project Manual and
95% plans currently under review. Anticipate submitting plans to VDOT by April 2013 and request
authorization to bid. Waterline at proposed drainage inlets must be field located before ACSA provides
comment or approval - utility locating company hired to perform location service. County Attorney Office
obtaining title searches and coordinating BB&T and Union Bank right-of-way dedications.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 12/31/12 02/28/13 59
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 04/30/13 46
VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 05/31/13 46
Bid Opening Date 06/01/13 07/15/13 44
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 07/01/13 08/15/13 45
Curb & Drainage Complete 09/01/13 10/15/13 44
Sidewalks Complete 10/01/13 11/15/13 45
Paving Complete 10/15/13 11/30/13 46
Substantial Completion 10/31/13 11/30/13 30
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
July 2008
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 512,000 $ 526,664 $ (14,664)
Future Appropriations $ - $ 357,100 $ (357,100)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 512,000 $ 883,764 $ (371,764)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 60,000 $ 128,311 $ (68,311)
Hard Costs $ 410,000 $ 717,150 $ (307,150)
Contingency $ 42,000 $ 38,303 $ 3,697
Total $ 512,000 $ 883,764 $ (371,764)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 3,880
Paid to Date: $ 61,086
Change Orders:
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $39,116 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $9,369 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $3,500 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $51,985 TOTAL $
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Update survey (FY09) $600
2 – Additional survey (FY09) $6,950
3 – Add topo survey, plats & final
engineering; eliminate bidding/
construction observation (FY12)
$1,819
Pending: Bidding/construction
phase
$3,500
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: McIntire County Office Building Brick Repointing
Description:
There are three projects involved in the scope. 1) Brick Repointing: removal and replacement of
existing damaged grout joints and expansion/caulk joints, also includes masonry repairs at concrete
banding/precast sills, helical pier installation and a thorough cleaning of all the masonry walls. 2)
Masonry Repairs: partial brick veneer replacement and installation of new spiral ties, includes
installation of steel lintels, replacement of existing precast concrete sills and partial replacement of
painted wood frieze board. 3) Front Stairs Waterproofing: removal of the existing masonry
waterproofing layer, repair of existing concrete substrate and installation of new 20 year warranty
waterproofing membrane.
Status:
Brick Repointing: Work is underway and approximately 95% complete; anticipate substantial completion
by end of January 2013. During demolition of the walls, it became apparent that brick ties were never
installed in the building during the original construction. A change order was processed to install helical
brick ties in order to stabilize brick façade and prevent further movement.
Masonry Repairs: Work complete – final completion achieved September 2012.
Front Stairs Waterproofing: Project out to bid. Bid opening scheduled for February 7, 2013. Anticipate
issuing Notice to Proceed first of March and project will take approximately 30 days to complete.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Brick Repointing:
Design Complete 02/29/12 02/29/12 0
Bid Opening Date 03/29/12 03/29/12 0
Notice to Proceed 05/15/12 05/21/12 6
Demolition Complete 11/12/12 01/11/13 60
Finishes Complete 11/12/12 01/31/13 80
Substantial Completion 11/12/12 01/31/13 80
Masonry Repairs:
Design Complete 02/29/12 02/29/12 0
Bid Opening Date 04/05/12 04/05/12 0
Notice to Proceed 05/15/12 05/15/12 0
Finishes Complete 11/06/12 08/23/12 -75
Substantial Completion 11/06/12 08/23/12 -75
Front Stairs Waterproofing:
Design Complete 01/03/13 01/03/13 0
Bid Opening Date 02/07/13 02/07/13 0
Notice to Proceed 03/07/13 03/07/13 0
Finishes Complete 04/06/13 04/06/13 0
Substantial Completion 04/06/13 04/06/13 0
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
July 2011
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ -
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 28,460 $ 57,099 $ (28,639)
Hard Costs $ 750,000 $ 824,539 $ (74,539)
Contingency $ 170,000 $ 66,822 $ 103,178
Total $ 948,460 $ 948,460 $ -
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 44,867
Paid to Date: $ 716,312
Change Orders:
A/E Contract – 3 projects (Heyward Boyd Architects) Construction Contract (Dominion Waterproofing)
Original Agreement $33,728 Bid Award (Repointing) $308,458
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $185,586
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $33,728 TOTAL $494,044
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Installation of helical brick ties $183,770
2 – Additional driven pile $1,816
Construction Contract (Simpson Unlimited)
Bid Award (Masonry) $178,480
Approved Changes $31,868
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $210,348
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – CMU repair, EIFS repair,
window head & sill flashing
$26,253
2 – Cut brick at bow in wall, credit
for parking lot gouges
$5,615
Page 1 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project: Greer Elementary Addition/Renovation Phase2
Description:
Phase 2 of an Addition/Renovation project to the Greer Elementary School. The one-story addition will
include six new classrooms, art room with kiln, fully developed courtyard, one story connector to
existing school, and additional parking. The renovation to the existing building will include developing
lower level common areas (3) into storage/teaching spaces, replacing existing toilet partitions,
renovating upper level cabinets, refinishing handrail, adding tack strips, and new classroom signage.
Status:
Construction substantially complete in August 2012. Contractor completing punch list - several minor
outstanding items: a) installation of additional landscape screen in courtyard; b) installation of diverter and
spigot on rain barrel; and c) gravel surround at playground drains.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Bid Opening Date 09/21/11 09/21/11 0
Notice to Proceed 11/02/11 11/02/11 0
Substantial Completion 08/10/12 08/16/12 6
Page 2 of 2 February 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
July 2011
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 4,327,760 $ 4,356,524 $ (28,764)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 4,327,760 $ 4,356,524 $ (28,764)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 475,895 $ 376,077 $ 99,818
Hard Costs $ 3,500,000 $ 3,943,383 $ (443,383)
Contingency $ 351,865 $ 37,065 $ 314,800
Total $ 4,327,760 $ 4,356,524 $ (28,764)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 64,689
Paid to Date: $ 4,175,460
Change Orders:
A/E Contract (Rancorn Wildman Architects) Construction Contract (Nielsen Builders)
Original Agreement $119,235 Bid Award $3,388,300
Approved Changes $22,775 Approved Changes $(53,104)
Pending Changes $3,500 Pending Changes $20,532
TOTAL $145,510 TOTAL $3,355,728
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
Change Orders 1-3 related to
Phase I project.
4 –Bid & Construction Phases $21,679
5 – Design/specification of exterior
lights for new parking lot
$1,096
6 – Pending: Fire exit/drill plans,
interior painting
$3,500
CO History:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Reconcile owner contingency use $(6.36)
2 – Light switch change; add shades
& casework
$14,345
3 – Asbestos removal allowance $(12,500)
4 – Acoustical wall panel allowance $(2,215)
5 – Various unused balances $(4,870)
6 – Credit for mulch at playground $(5,250)
7 – Various items; use of owner
allowance for glass shelving
$9,043
8 – Miscellaneous site items; rock
removal credit
$(63,209)
9 – Sidewalk/sod at west end of
addition; various interior items
$11,558
Pending: Lights @ new parking lot;
shelving, tack strips, etc.
$20,532
Project Vendor Contract Type Amount CO No.Scope
Date Approved
by CE Office
Reason:
>25% or >$50K
$5,961.00 8
Modify the design of the proposed Crozet Avenue
storm sewer system between the end of the Library
Avenue system and the new VDOT system at the
corner of Jarmans Gap Road; provide for rough
grading of the streetscape improvements along the
Library’s frontage on Crozet Avenue; and provide plan
sheets that may be incorporated into the Library
project.
05/01/12 >25%
$38,875.00 9
Finalize construction documents for the project and
make revisions to address comments and concerns of
property owners during right-of-way/easement
negotiations, address changes necessary to comply
with VDoT’s new lighting standards, coordinate with
completion of Jarmans Gap Road and Library Avenue
improvements, and coordinate with new library
construction.
07/02/12 >25%
Grimm+Parker Architects A/E $206,915.00 6
Restore Construction Administration scope that was
reduced with Change Order #4, and adjust fees for
increased building scope and extended project
scheduled; Restore Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment
Design scope that was deleted with Change Order #4,
and adjust fees for extended project schedule.
08/10/12 >25%
MB Contractors Construction $54,374.00 2
Waterline changes in Crozet Avenue to maintain
water service while relocated segment installed, and
material changes required by ACSA after bid
documents released (add $57,329.00); provide 2500-
lb. capacity elevator in lieu of 3,500-lb elevator (credit
$2,955.00)
10/05/12 >$50k
$47,749.10 1
Extend and increase the number and size of steel
girders for bridges #2 and #3 to allow for bridge
footings to sit on suitable soils;add 300'of additional
silt fence and additional stone weirs.
05/08/12 >25%
$6,665.00 3 Install 1,100 linear feet of silt fence along the new
section of the Old Mills (Rivanna) trail. 09/07/12 >25%
$183,770.00
1
Installation of helical brick ties in order to stabilize
brick facade and prevent further movement, and
minimize the need for more costly repairs in the
future.
09/13/12 >25%
$1,815.73
2
Installation of additional pile (driven pile) to augment
helical pile that was not able to meet proper bearing
capacity due to rock.
11/05/12 >25%
Police Firing Range Kimley-Horn & Associates A/E $13,761.00 1
Provide geotechnical investigation services,
environmental stewardship plan, and additional
public meeting support
12/07/12 >25%
Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Phase II Kimley-Horn & Associates A/E
Crozet Library
Change Orders Requiring County Executive Office Approval
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012
Old Mills Trail Pedestrian Bridges C & B Construction Services Construction
COB McIntire Brick RePointing Dominion Waterproofing &
Construction Services Construction
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Courts Study
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of Courts Study Results
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri and Henry
PRESENTER (S): Trevor Henry
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At its January 5, 2011 meeting, the Board authorized staff to proceed with issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to
engage an Architectural/Engineering (A/E) firm to perform a limited, Phase I study to assist the County in determining its
next step in addressing the space needs for the courts. An RFP was issued in February 2011 seeking qualified firms or
individuals to conduct a needs assessment and develop renovation and/or new building options for the provision of court
facilities, to include the Circuit, General District and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts. PSA-Dewberry Architects
was selected to perform the study due to their courts expertise and experience in conducting a thorough and detailed
analysis process. The purpose of this executive summary and work session is to present the results of the study and to
seek input from the Board on the preferred courts development option.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The scope of the PSA-Dewberry study was to:
Assess the County’s long term needs for the General District and Circuit Court operations (2030+)
Analyze three courts development options as follows:
o Downtown Option (renovation of existing courts and development of Levy site);
o Split Location Option (Circuit Court downtown, General District Court at McIntire location);
o County Complex Option (new courts complex on County site).
Develop “order of magnitude” cost estimates for each option.
The full PSA-Dewberry report is attached (Attachment A). Section 4 of the report details each option studied by the
consultants, including scope, design concept, pros/cons, and conceptual square foot cost estimates.
Staff and the consultants had multiple meetings to review the County’s population growth, caseload growth
assumptions, and the resultant programming information that led to the option development. The options were
reviewed for design concepts, projected costs, and overall effectiveness in addressing court needs and operations.
After receiving the report, staff considered the complexities associated with relocating the Circuit Court to a County
location, including the requirement of a referendum, among other issues, which led to the conclusion that the County
Complex Option is perhaps less feasible and not recommended. Staff also discounted the Split Location Option
wherein the General District Court would be relocated to the McIntire location due to limitations of future expansion
needs in the 2030+ horizon and higher initial construction cost to include shell space for limited growth.
Based on all factors considered, staff recommends Board consideration of either the Downtown Option or a modified
Split Location Option involving the relocation of the General District Count to County-owned property at Mill Creek
Drive. Notable differences between these options include costs of construction, parking, short-term and long-term
capacity issues and operational impacts. Staff will review these differences in more detail at the work session. As
regards operational impacts, staff met with the Circuit Court and General District Court judges, the Commonwealth
Attorney and the Sheriff. All three groups believe that separation of the General District Court will create process and
potential staffing inefficiencies, scheduling concerns and perhaps some level of confusion to the public. Staff
recognizes that further study to quantify operational impacts will be necessary; however, such impacts must be
AGENDA TITLE: Courts Study
February 6, 2013
Page 2
weighed carefully against the likely premium costs of building downtown, the lack of convenient parking and the risk of
eventually outgrowing the more restricted building capacity of a downtown location. In addition, split court operations
exist in a number of other localities in Virginia. Attachment B provides a list of Commonwealth court districts and
highlights those areas with split operations.
Staff will outline the various options during the work session, including more detailed discussion of the cost
differences, operational implications and comments from court users.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total budget impact is dependent upon which option the Board chooses to pursue. Early estimates, based on
conceptual level drawings, suggest that the Split Location Option would cost approximately $39 million ($41 million
less an estimated $2 million from the sale of Levy). The Board has indicated a preference for convenient parking
in any scenario, therefore, if we include an allowance of $3 million for a parking solution downtown (assuming we
can find one), and in this way create two scenarios that are comparable, then the cost difference between the Split
Location Option and the Downtown Option is at least $5 million and as much as $15 million depending on the
extent of the initial buildout.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is not making a formal recommendation at this time, but is presenting the consultant’s report and seeking Board
feedback on the merits of the two options primarily being considered: to remain downtown or to renovate the Circuit
Court in Court Square and relocate the General District Court to the Mill Creek Site. Staff requests that the Board
identify any additional analysis it requires as soon as possible to allow staff to provide the final analysis and
recommendation to the Board in May, 2013 so this project can be included in the CIP process and a final
determination can be made regarding the sale or future use of the Levy building site.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Albemarle County Courts Master Plan Report
B: Locations with Split Court Functions
Return to agenda
Courts Master Plan Study
FINAL REPORT Courts Master Plan Study
September 2012
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
Courts Master Plan Study
Table of Contents
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
TOC-1
Table of Contents
Section 1 ‐ History and Overview _____________________________________________________________ 1‐1
Circuit Courthouse ______________________________________________________________________ 1‐1
The General District Courthouse ___________________________________________________________ 1‐2
The Levy Building _______________________________________________________________________ 1‐3
Existing Conditions ________________________________________________________________________ 1‐4
Circuit Courthouse ______________________________________________________________________ 1‐4
General District Courthouse ______________________________________________________________ 1‐10
Levy Building (Town Hall – Levy Opera House) _______________________________________________ 1‐11
Projected Maintenance ____________________________________________________________________ 1‐12
Section 2 ‐ Population and Case Filing Analysis __________________________________________________ 2‐1
Historic and Projected Population Estimates __________________________________________________ 2‐1
Future Caseload Estimates ________________________________________________________________ 2‐3
Future Staffing Requirements _____________________________________________________________ 2‐8
Summary of Estimated Future Staffing ________________________________________________________ 2‐13
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program _______________________________________________________ 3‐1
Overview ________________________________________________________________________________ 3‐1
Grossing Factors __________________________________________________________________________ 3‐1
1.000 Building Entrance and Lobby _________________________________________________________ 3‐4
2.000 Clerk Areas _______________________________________________________________________ 3‐4
3.000 – Court Sets _______________________________________________________________________ 3‐6
4.000 – Security and Holding _____________________________________________________________ 3‐10
5.000 Court Services/Probation ___________________________________________________________ 3‐11
6.000 Commonwealth’s Attorney _________________________________________________________ 3‐12
7.000 – Building Shared _________________________________________________________________ 3‐13
Section 4 – Option Development _____________________________________________________________ 4‐1
Downtown Option _________________________________________________________________________ 4‐2
Overview ______________________________________________________________________________ 4‐2
Historic Courthouse _____________________________________________________________________ 4‐2
Levy Building ___________________________________________________________________________ 4‐7
Design Challenges ______________________________________________________________________ 4‐11
Costs ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐11
Pros _________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐11
Cons ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐12
COB‐McIntire Option ______________________________________________________________________ 4‐13
Design Challenges ______________________________________________________________________ 4‐15
Costs ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐15
Courts Master Plan Study
Table of Contents
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
TOC-2
Pros _________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐15
Cons ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐15
Green Field Site Outside City Limits Option ____________________________________________________ 4‐16
Design Challenges ______________________________________________________________________ 4‐17
Costs ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐17
Pros: ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐18
Cons: ________________________________________________________________________________ 4‐18
Section 5 – Recommendations _______________________________________________________________ 5‐1
Court Storage Report ______________________________________________________________________ 5‐1
Urgency for Determining Long‐Term Direction for Courts __________________________________________ 5‐1
Additional Information Gathering Steps _______________________________________________________ 5‐2
Timeline to Action _________________________________________________________________________ 5‐3
Section 6 – Appendix _______________________________________________________________________ 6‐1
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-1
Section 1 ‐ History and Overview
The Albemarle County courts complex consists of the Circuit Courthouse, the General District, the Levy
Building and the recently renovated/expanded Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Located in the
Court Square area of Charlottesville, the courts complex is roughly bounded by High Street to the north,
Jefferson Street to the South, Park Street to the east and 4th Street to the west. Organized around a public
park or green and surrounded by 19th century brick structures, the complex is a part of the Charlottesville
Albemarle Courthouse Historic District and is listed by the National Park Service on the National Register of
Historic Places. These court facilities are also proximate to the City of Charlottesville’s Circuit and General
District courts, which are located in separate facilities on the other side of Court Square.
The first court was organized in 1744 with Joshua Frye as president and with five magistrates and
continued as a magistrate system until roughly 1850. In 1761, Dr. Thomas Walker offered a 50 acre parcel
of land for the site of a new courthouse. In 1762, the General Assembly passed a law establishing this 50
acre site as a new town, Charlottesville. Work on the new courthouse, located approximately where the
Confederate monument is sited, was completed in 1763. Construction of the courthouse stimulated other
economic activity, and soon the Eagle and Swan taverns were soon constructed nearby. The court square
was enclosed in 1792, establishing the general boundaries of the current precinct. It is interesting to note
that in addition to being the site where three United States Presidents served as magistrates or practiced
law, the courthouse served as the only polling place for over 100 years.
Circuit Courthouse
By order of the court, it was determined that a new courthouse was necessary and the core of the current
historic courthouse was constructed in 1803, replacing the 1763 wood frame structure. Modeled on the
Henrico County Courthouse, the new courthouse served as a community meeting space and was shared by
local denominations as a church (until the construction of Christ Episcopal in 1825) in addition to providing
space for legal proceedings. Jefferson attended church services in this structure and is said to have coined
the term “common temple” to describe its civic role. The courthouse is said to have served as a meeting
place for the University of Virginia Board of Visitors until the Rotunda was ready for use in 1826. The cost
for the new courthouse was five thousand dollars. The courthouse was upgraded with various
improvements, such as bars on the office windows (1807), cupola repairs (1815), lightning rods (1818) and
a new tin roof (1825) and an interior renovation in 1849.
In 1859, George Spooner contracted for the construction of an addition to the courthouse. The addition
was designed by William A. Pratt, the former Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds at UVA and
consisted of a two storey structure oriented at right angles to the existing structure. The addition was
flanked with towers and was similar in appearance to structures at the Virginia Military Academy with its
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-2
exterior clad in stucco and with door and window detailing of similar design. It appears that the original
structure was painted presumably to more closely coordinate with the new stucco addition. The cost for
this addition was nine thousand four hundred dollars.
In the 1870s the towers and much of the detailing were removed and the current portico and Ionic
columns were constructed. The stucco finish and the detailing around the entry and the window directly
above were still retained at this time and appear in historic photographs of the courthouse
The courthouse remained in this configuration until 1938, when Grigg & Johnson undertook a renovation.
The stucco exterior was covered with a brick veneer closely matching the brick of the 1803 structure,
detailing around the entrance and the window above were modified to more closely match the 1803
structure. The paint was removed from the 1803 structure and the courthouse achieved its current
appearance. During this renovation, some renovations and upgrades were made to the interior including
new seating and wall and floor finishes.
In 1940 Milton Grigg undertook renovations to the north (1803) structure although the scope of that effort
is not clear. The courthouse was renovated in 1964 by the firm of Johnson, Craven, Gibson and again in
1986. The 1986 renovation included the construction of a sallyport at the lower level of the General
District Courthouse and a connecting hyphen between the Circuit Courthouse and the General District
Courthouse.
Currently the Circuit Courthouse contains the Main Courtroom (Courtroom No. 1), Judge’s Chambers, Jury
Assembly Room, Lawyers’ Conference room, Bailiff’s Office, Conference rooms (2), Security Station, and
restrooms on the first floor and Alternate Court Room (Courtroom No 3), Judge’s Chambers, Jury Assembly
and Jury restrooms on the second floor.
Vertical circulation in the Circuit Courthouse is by means of a single stair.
The General District Courthouse
Constructed as part of the 1938 renovation of the Circuit Courthouse the General District Courthouse is a
three storey structure with a basement level opening up onto High Street. The courthouse was renovated
in 1986 into its current configuration with smaller modifications made as various needs developed.
Currently the General District Courthouse contains the Commonwealth’s Attorney offices, holding cells and
mechanical equipment rooms at the basement level, General District Courtroom (Courtroom No 2),
Judge’s Chambers, a small Hearing room (previously the Witness Room and Lawyers’ conference room),
the Clerk of the General District Court, Public Lobby, Security Station, restrooms and vestibule/airlock on
the first floor.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-3
A hyphen connector between the General District Courthouse and the Circuit Courthouse opens onto the
lobby outside the General District Courtroom. This space provides access from the sallyport and holding
cells on the lower level of the general District Courthouse to either the Circuit or General District Courts.
This space also serves as a communicating corridor between the two buildings. The second floor contains
the Clerk of the Circuit Court offices and provides facilities for historic and current record storage, Deed
Index, Law and Chancery Files, service counters and research areas as well as restrooms and support
spaces. The third floor contains Judge’s Chambers and associated library, clerk and secretarial spaces as
well as restroom, storage and mechanical spaces.
Vertical circulation in the General District Courthouse is by either a stair or a single elevator, both of which
are accessible to the public. The stair also opens to the exterior on the west side of the building at the
courtroom level.
The Levy Building
The 1850 session of the General Assembly authorized construction of a Town Hall to be located northeast
of the courthouse. Constructed 1851, this tall Classical Revival building was designed to seat 600 on
movable benches and had a balcony. The Town Hall was the center of cultural entertainment, association
events, and meeting for the area and its proximity to Richmond by rail facilitated a wide range of
entertainment. The first documented opera was held in the building in 1861.
In 1887, Jefferson M. Levy, then the owner of Monticello, purchased the Town Hall, renovated it and
opened it as the Levy Opera House in 1888. The renovated opera house featured a new larger stage with
rigging to fly sets, an orchestra pit with dressing rooms below, a sloping “theater style” floor and a
horseshoe gallery accessed by a pair of stairs on each side of the entrance. The Opera House continued
serving as an entertainment facility until approximately 1912.
The Opera House apparently stood vacant for some time as other theaters took over its place as an
entertainment venue and motion picture technology replaced stage performances. The Opera House
changed ownership and at some time was renovated and became the Parkview apartments. Paralleling
the decline of the urban center of Charlottesville the apartments were converted into rooms to be rented
to men on subsistence.
In 1972, the Perry Foundation acquired the structure, ostensibly to prevent its demolition for the
construction of a service station. In 1977, a group of civic leaders formed the Town Hall – Levy Opera
House Foundation with the intention of purchasing the Opera House and undertaking its adaptive re‐use.
At this time the federal courts were housed in the Post Office Building on Market Street and the County
was seeking to purchase the Post Office for the Jefferson Madison Library causing the General Service
Administration to seek quarters for the courts. Discussions proceeded between GSA and the Town Hall ‐
Levy Opera House Foundation, and architects were retained to develop renovation plans. Complications in
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-4
the planning and financing ultimately led to the GSA seeking other accommodations for the growing
federal office needs, and the Perry Foundation demanded return of the property.
In 1981, the Hedgerow Corporation purchased the Opera House from the Perry Foundation and
announced plans to renovate and add to the building to create a data processing center for
Michie/Bobbs/Merrill. The project was completed and dedicated in 1987.
The Opera House was subsequently purchased from the Hedgerow Corporation by the City and the County
for $5.38 and has served a variety of uses. In 2002 the Opera House was renovated to provide temporary
facilities for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts during the renovation of their facility on High
Street. Currently a portion of the modern addition is being used for document storage by the Clerk of the
Circuit Court. The remainder of the building is “mothballed” until a suitable use can be identified.
Existing Conditions
The team visually inspected the Circuit Courthouse, General District Courthouse, and the Levy Building
during the course of this planning effort. As the County had recently (2011) commissioned a facilities
survey and evaluation for the Circuit and General District Courthouses, the inspection was general in
nature and did not involve detailed physical inspection or testing. As a result, the inspection focused more
on operational issues and their relation to the physical plant.
Circuit Courthouse
The 2011 survey noted that the general condition of the exterior envelope was good with some
degradation of brick consistent with the age of the structure. The existing roof system was noted as
generally being in good condition as well. The report noted that limited provisions for the mobility
impaired were available which, again, is not surprising given the age of the structure, upgrades to the
restrooms were recommended. Life safety systems were found to be basic but some attention was
needed in terms of the operation and maintenance of fire rated doors and frames, again since these
systems are over 25 years old some maintenance/replacement should be expected. In terms of building
systems, the general observation was that most of the 1986 era systems are approaching the end of their
designated service life and planning for replacement should be given consideration. Notable among those
systems was the recommended replacement of the air handler unit and distribution ductwork serving the
courthouse. Presumably the control systems would be upgraded simultaneously with the air handler
replacement. Interior painting and replacement of carpet were also recommended.
Operationally, deficiencies noted were generally grouped around circulation, building security, and space
allocation. While each of these may be considered a separate element, the relationship between them is
significant.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-5
In terms of circulation, it was noted that there is only the basic separation between defendants, judges and
the public circulation paths. Currently the judge must travel from the chambers on the third floor of the
General District Courthouse through the hyphen connector and into the Circuit courtroom. This path
utilizes a public stair or elevator, crosses the public circulation path in the General District Courthouse as
well as the inmate circulation path coming up from the sallyport or holding cells. Security for the judge is
provided by an escort team from the Sheriff’s Department. Recommended practice is to separate each of
these users into distinct and secure circulation systems for the safety and security of each group.
Building security presents another issue. The primary public entrance opens into a vestibule which is
staffed by security officers and is equipped with a magnetometer for metal detection. Side doors on the
east side of the building appear to be secured in a manner to prevent entry from the outside and still allow
the doors to be used for emergency egress. On the west side of the building, a door provides access for
the mobility impaired by way of a ramp system and also serves as access for potential jurors assembling for
jury selection. Given that the first floor jury assembly room is small, potential jurors must line up outside
as they are checked in creating a congestion point. Once inside the door, access is available to the corridor
leading to the hyphen (inmate and judge access) as well to the stair and the courtroom and jury room on
the second floor.
As noted above, space allocation is also an issue, particularly as it relates to spaces for jury assembly and
access for the mobility impaired.
Circulation paths in the circuit and general district courthouses are shown in the images on the following
pages. Public or open access circulation is indicated in blue; secure (judge and prisoner) circulation is
indicated in red. No color is applied to areas which can be accessed equally by anyone. These images
illustrate the fragmented nature of the paths of circulation, the limited public waiting areas, and the
distinct operations at the two separate buildings.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-6
Figure 1 – Historic Courthouse – Basement (Circuit Court)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-7
Figure 2 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Second Floor (General District [L] and Circuit [R])
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-8
Figure 3 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Second Floor (General District [L] and Circuit [R])
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-9
Figure 4 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Third Floor (Circuit Court)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-10
General District Courthouse
As with the Circuit Courthouse, the 2011 survey noted that the general condition of the exterior envelope
was good with some degradation of brick consistent with the age of the structure. The existing roof
system was noted as generally being in good condition. The report noted that limited access and
provisions for the mobility impaired were available which, again, is not surprising given the age of the
structure, upgrades to the restrooms were again recommended. Life safety systems were found to be
basic and some attention was needed in terms of the operation and maintenance of fire rated doors and
frames, again since these systems are over 25 years old some maintenance/replacement should be
expected. Additional issues of impaired operations were noted such as flammable items stored in egress
corridors and in mechanical spaces, knob style latching devices on fire rated doors, and deficiencies related
to the HALON fire suppression system. In terms of building systems, the general observation was that
most of the 1986 era systems are approaching the end of their designated service life and planning for
replacement should be given consideration. Notable among those systems was recommended
replacement of the air handlers, ductwork distribution, and air intake systems serving the courthouse.
Presumably the control systems would be upgraded simultaneously with the air handler replacement.
Interior painting and replacement of carpet were also recommended.
Operationally, deficiencies noted were generally similar to the Circuit Courthouse, i.e., circulation, building
security, and space allocation. Given the additional operations of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the
Clerk of the General District Court, a higher level of use by the public tends to exacerbate circulation and
security issues.
In terms of circulation, there is little separation between judges and the public circulation paths. Currently
the judge must travel from the chambers on the third floor of the General District Courthouse through the
hyphen connector and into the Circuit courtroom. This path utilizes public stair or elevator, crosses the
public circulation path in the General District Courthouse as well as the inmate circulation path coming up
from the sallyport or holding cells.
Building security presents another issue. There are multiple access points to the courthouse either
through the High Street entrance to the Commonwealth’ Attorney offices, at the south (main) entrance, or
on the west side of the building accessing the public stair. The High Street and south entrance open onto
public corridors each of which has access to the public stair or elevator. There are no security provisions at
any of the exterior entrances. Security for the General District Courtroom is provided by a security station
equipped with a magnetometer at the entrance to the courtroom.
With the higher level of public traffic, space allocation is more of an issue particularly in the General
District Courthouse than in the Circuit Courthouse. For the public, there is very little space available for
people waiting for their case in the courtroom. These people must either wait in the courtroom or gather
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-11
in the public corridor. For the public transacting business with either of the Clerks, the path to the service
counters crosses the public waiting for their case. For the Clerks and their staff there is a real shortage of
archive storage space. This seems to be less of an issue with the Clerk of the General District Court, where
a purging protocol allows the volume of records in long term storage to be managed. For the Clerk of the
Circuit Court, the need for archiving of records is much greater. Additionally, the historic nature of some
of the documents to be archived places an enhanced need for storage with proper environmental controls
and enhanced security.
Levy Building (Town Hall – Levy Opera House)
As noted in the discussion above, the Levy Building has undergone a variety of modifications in its trip from
an entertainment venue, to an apartment building, to an office/data center to a temporary facility for the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts. Currently, most of the building is “mothballed” awaiting a
determination of a suitable re‐use for the structure and site.
Basically, the Levy Building consists of two structures, the historic structure at the corner of Fifth Street
and High Street (circa 1851), and the addition completed in 1987 for the Michie/Bobbs/Merrill data
processing center located east of the historic structure and extending perpendicular toward the south.
As noted above the Levy Building was renovated in 2002 to provide temporary facilities for the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Courts (JD&R). This renovation included creation of hearing rooms, waiting
spaces, offices and associated support spaces. It also involved the creation of secure holding facilities
including a vehicle sallyport constructed on the south side of the historic structure at the connection to the
1987 addition. Once the JD&R Courts were completed, it appears that a portion of the 1987 addition may
have been used for offices for city or county departments. Once these occupants left, the building was
essentially closed and the environmental systems were either shut off or reduced in operation,
presumably to save on operational cost.
Recently, a portion of the lower level of the 1987 addition has been utilized for the storage of records from
the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s office. This effort essentially involved the installation of metal shelving and
the transfer of files in bulk to these spaces. At the time of our inspection, no environmental control
systems or environmental monitoring were in place and the files appeared to be in the process of being
organized and cataloged. At some recent point, the fire sprinkler system developed a leak and a good
portion of the 1987 addition was soaked. The leak was repaired and portions of the gypsum board walls
were removed to open up the wall cavities in an effort to aid in the drying of the building.
In terms of building condition, the building envelope and basic structure of the historic structure appears
to be sound, with no evidence of settlement or failure. The building systems are of a similar vintage as
those in the Circuit and General District Courthouse and may be assumed to be near the end of their
projected services life. The 1987 addition likewise may be expected to have systems that could be
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 1 – History and Overview
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
1-12
approaching the end of their service life. Additionally, with the inundation from the sprinkler system,
there may be additional environmental issues requiring remediation before the addition could be put back
into service. It is also our understanding that some deferred maintenance is still outstanding on the
building.
Projected Maintenance
Based on information provided by the County projected maintenance costs for the Circuit and General
District Courthouses for the years FY13/14 through FY21/22 are as follows:
FY 13/14 $198,511
FY 14/15 $381,076
` FY 15/16 $ 82,756
FY 16/17 $105,003
FY 17/18 $143,911
FY 18/19 $484,965
FY 19/20 $100.084
FY 20/21 $385,755
FY 21/22 $128,987
FY 22/23 $ 0
These costs total to $2,011,012 and average $201,101 per year. On an annual basis per square foot the
maintenance costs for both buildings would be approximately $6.70 per year per square foot.
The Levy Building is currently in a “mothballed” status with operational costs reduced to a minimum.
County projections for costs are as follows:
Foundations $141,831
Exterior Enclosure $732,736
Roofing $74,259
Interior Construction $325,543
Stairs $194,622
Interior Finishes $530,371
Conveying $413,528
Plumbing $131,977
HVAC $545,504
Fire Protection $129,513
Electrical $787,990
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-1
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Population and Case Filing Analysis
Staffing and space needs for the courts are strongly related to the staff workloads, therefore historic and
projected County populations as well as historic case filing trends in the Circuit and General District Courts
were analyzed to establish a possible future range of new case filings being entered into the court by year
2030.
Historic and Projected Population Estimates
The 16th Judicial District is composed of nine court locations – Albemarle, Culpeper, Fluvanna, Goochland,
Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Charlottesville, with Albemarle County physically surrounding the
city of Charlottesville. Because Albemarle County surrounds the city of Charlottesville, there is a possibility
of city residents affecting the number of new cases being entered into the county and subsequent court
staff workload. Because of this, the project team will look at two population sets – Albemarle County only
and the combination of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville‐ and the possible relation these
two populations have had on historic case filings and possible future case filing estimates.
Historic Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville populations were obtained from the U.S. Census, and
future population projections from the V.E.C. published in 2007 and the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority’s Regional Water Demand Forecast as prepared by AECOM in August 2011 were reviewed.
During the review process, it was determined that the population estimates as published by the V.E.C. in
2007 are not an accurate population estimate source, as the projections were completed prior to the most
recent 2010 U.S. Census data release, which estimates both Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville at higher levels of population than is reported in the V.E.C. estimates. The project team will
use the population projections as prepared by AECOM in the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority’s
Regional Water Demand Forecast.
Table: Albemarle County Pop. and Combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville Pop. 1992‐2010
Year
Albemarle
County
Population
Albemarle County
Population Annual
Growth
Albemarle County
Average Annual
Growth Rate
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Population
Albemarle County
Population and City
of Charlottesville
Annual Growth
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Average Annual
Growth Rate
1992 69,977 110,185
1995 75,744 4.38% 113,538 0.99%
2000 84,196 5.05% 124,285 6.26%
2005 90,376 1.85% 131,203 1.33%
2010 98,970 4.28% 1.95% 142,445 3.88% 1.45%
Total
Growth
from year
1992
41.43% 29.28%
Source: U.S. Census
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-2
Between years 1992 and 2010, Albemarle County had an average annual population growth rate
0.5% higher than that of the combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville average
annual growth rate; at 1.95% and 1.45% respectively.
This difference in annual growth rates may be attributed to the fact that the City of Charlottesville
is surrounded by the County of Albemarle, and therefore, the City is much more limited in its
ability to expand.
Table: Projected Albemarle County Population and Combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
Population 2010‐2030
Year
Albemarle County
Population
Albemarle County
Population Annual Growth
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Population
Albemarle County Population
and City of Charlottesville
Annual Growth
2010 98,970 142,445
2015 107,445 1.60% 152,629 1.35%
2020 115,919 1.48% 162,813 1.27%
2025 124,394 1.38% 173,132 1.21%
2030 132,868 1.29% 183,451 1.14%
Total Growth
from Year 2010 34.25% 28.78%
Source: 2010 population: U.S. Census Bureau; 2015‐2030 populations: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority: Regional Water Demand Forecast,
August 24, 2011.
Projected Albemarle County population, as published by the Regional Water Demand Forecast,
indicate that the County will continue to grow but at a slower annual rate than has been seen in
the past; slowing to 1.29% annually by year 2030. Total growth from year 2010 to year 2030 is
estimated to be 34.25%.
Projected Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville combined populations, as published by the
Regional Water Demand Forecast, indicate that both the County and the City will continue to grow
annually at slower rates than have been seen historically. Total growth from year 2010 to 2030 is
estimated to be 28.78%; an average annual growth of 1.44%.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-3
Future Caseload Estimates
Three projection models were used to develop forecasts of case filing trends through year 2030, as used in
2010 County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville: Feasibility Study for the Use of the Levy Building as a
General District Court Facility by Moseley Architects. Historic case filings were obtained from the Virginia
Supreme Courts for the years 1992‐2010.
1. Linear Regression – This approach uses a formula to project a linear trend of future case filings
based upon the actual trend as seen in the past. This approach is based on the assumption that
the historical trend in case filings will continue into the future. City and County populations are not
factored into this model.
2. Fixed Ratio of Case Filings to Population – This model projects future case filings with the
assumption that they will change in proportion to changes in the populations with the number of
filings per population will remain constant over the time frame examined. There are two ratios
examined for this analysis, the first is the average number of filings per 1,000 Albemarle County
population for the years 1992‐2010, the second is the average number of filings per 1,000
combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville populations for the years 1992‐2010.
3. Exponential Smoothing and Dynamic Regression Average – This model calculates the annual
changing ratios of number of cases in relation to yearly population and projects that changing
average forward. For this project, two projections were created, the first with the Albemarle
County population, the second with the combined Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
populations.
Court caseloads can be affected not only by population, but also by changes in law enforcement staffing or
priorities, new legislation and other demographic trends. Such factors are not entirely predictable and
their analysis is beyond the scope of this study. The case filing projections for all three models for the
Albemarle Circuit Court, General District Court and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court are as follows.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-4
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE FILINGS
Actual Projected
Growth from
2010‐2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Albemarle County Population 75,744 84,196 90,376 98,970 107,445 115,919 124,394 132,868 34.25%
Albemarle County and City of
Charlottesville Population 113,538 124,285 131,203 142,445 152,629 162,813 173,132 183,451 28.79%
Case Filings
Linear Trend 1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,433 2,628 2,824 3,019 34.65%
Fixed Ratio to County Population 1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,393 2,582 2,733 2,960 32.02%
Fixed Ratio to County and City Population 1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,297 2,450 2,606 2,761 23.15%
NCSC Exponential Smooth and Dynamic
Regression Average with County Population
1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,438 2,599 2,763 2,928 30.61%
NCSC Exponential Smooth and Dynamic
Regression Average with County & City
Population
1,664 1,932 1,934 2,242 2,411 2,557 2,707 2,858 27.49%
From year 2010, the Albemarle County Circuit Court could expect new case filing growth to be within
the range of 23.15% and 34.65% by year 2030.
‐100.00%
‐80.00%
‐60.00%
‐40.00%
‐20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
3,000
3,250
199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Albemarle County CIrcuit Court Case Filing Trends 1992‐2030
Linear Extension Total New Circuit Court Case Filings Albemarle County Population Fixed Ratio Projected Case Filings
Combined Population Fixed Ratio Projected Case Filings NCSC Exponential Smooth and Dynamic Regrssion Average with County Popualtion
NCSC Exponential Smooth and Dynamic Regrssion Average with County and City Popualtion Historic Total Circuit Court Case Filings
Projection Begins
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-5
ALBEMARLE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT CASE FILINGS
Actual Projected
Growth from
2010‐2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Albemarle County Population 75,744 84,196 90,376 98,970 107,445 115,919 124,394 132,868 34.25%
Albemarle County and City of
Charlottesville Population 113,538 124,285 131,203 142,445 152,629 162,813 173,132 183,451 28.79%
Case Filings
Linear Trend 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 40,526 45,074 49,623 53,506 39.25%
Fixed Ratio to County Population 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 35,894 38,725 41,556 44,387 15.52%
Fixed Ratio to County and City Population 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 34,427 36,724 39,052 41,379 7.69%
Changing Ratio to County Population 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 41,373 46,647 52,244 58,224 51.53%
Changing Ratio to County and City
Population 23,629 25,429 32,936 38,424 41,910 47,334 53,192 59,496 54.84%
From year 2010, the Albemarle County General District Court could expect new case filing growth to
be within the range of 7.69% and 54.84% by year 2030.
‐60.00%
‐40.00%
‐20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030Albemarle County General District Court Case Filing Trends
Linear Extension Total New District Court Case Filings Albemarle County Population Fixed Ratio Projected Case Filings
County and City Combined Population Fixed Ratio Projected Case Filings Changing Ratio to Albemarle County Popualtion
Changing Ratio to City and County Population Historic Total District Court Case Filings
Projection Begins
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-6
ALBEMARLE COUNTY J & DR COURT CASE FILINGS
Actual Projected
Change from
2010‐2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Albemarle County Population 75,744 84,196 90,376 98,970 107,445 115,919 124,394 132,868 34.25%
Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
Population 113,538 124,285 131,203 142,445 152,629 162,813 173,132 183,451 28.79%
Case Filings
Linear Trend 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 3,838 3,839 3,839 3,840 7.53%
Fixed Ratio to County Population 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 4,864 5,247 5,631 6,015 68.43%
Fixed Ratio to County and City Population 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 4,678 4,990 5,306 5,622 57.44%
Changing Ratio to County Population 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 3,868 3,889 3,907 3,923 9.87%
Changing Ratio to County and City Population 3,985 4,098 3,455 3,571 3,910 3,940 3,970 3,996 11.91%
From year 2010, the Albemarle County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court could expect new case
filing growth to be within the range of 7.53% and 68.43% by year 2030.
‐110%
‐90%
‐70%
‐50%
‐30%
‐10%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Albemarle County Juvenile and Domestic Court Case Filings
Linear Extension Total New J & DR Court Case Filings Albemarle County Population Ratio Projected Case Filings
Combined Population Ratio Projected Case Filings Historic Total J and DR Court Case Filings
Changing Ratio to County Population Changing Ratio to Combined City and County Population
Projection Begins
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-7
TOTAL 16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT J & DR COURT CASE FILINGS
Actual Projected
Change from
2010‐2030 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
16th Judicial District Total Population 248,231 274,729 307,163 334,887 373,051 411,214 447,731 484,247 44.60%
Case Filings
Linear Trend from Year 1992 16,504 21,044 20,048 20,292 24,250 26,051 27,853 29,654 46.14%
Linear Trend From Year 1997 16,504 21,044 20,048 20,292 21,385 21,747 22,108 22,470 10.73%
Fixed Ratio to Judicial District Population 16,504 21,044 20,048 20,292 25,170 27,744 30,208 32,672 61.01%
Changing Ratio to Judicial District Population 16,504 21,044 20,048 20,292 25,144 27,707 30,156 32,604 60.68%
From year 2010, the Total 16thJudicial District J & DR Court case load could expect new case filing
growth to be within the range of 10.73% and 61.01% by year 2030.
‐65.00%
‐55.00%
‐45.00%
‐35.00%
‐25.00%
‐15.00%
‐5.00%
5.00%
15.00%
25.00%
35.00%
45.00%
55.00%
65.00%
6,000
11,000
16,000
21,000
26,000
31,000
16th Judicial District Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Case Filing Trends
Historic Total J & DR Cases Total J & DR Cases Linear Projection
Total J & DR Cases Fixed Ratio to Population Total J & DR Cases Changing Ratio to Population
Linear Projection from Year 1997
Projection Begins
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-8
Future Staffing Requirements
Once population and court caseload projections are developed, they can be used to determine future
staffing requirements. Staffing projections are to be used solely for long‐range planning purposes, as they
are estimates of the likely needs that might be expected over the planning time span, based largely upon
historical trends and qualitative assessments of the future. These estimates should not be construed as
being the sole justification for funding additional staff positions. It is assumed that before any personnel
or staff are added to any court or court‐related office, whether they are judges, clerks, or administrative
personnel, a thorough staffing analysis will be done by the Court and County and that staff will be added
only if the additional positions can be justified.
It is important to recognize that NCSC’s prognosis about judicial officer and court staff position growth is
largely based on current realities and business practices. It is presumed that the existing workforce has
been scrutinized over many years through the politics of the court’s budgetary process. Quantitative case
filing projections and qualitative planning elements are then synthesized to assist in projecting future
staffing requirements. The projections consider current staff workload and future court workload increases
with the assumption that the current staff has reached their full workload capacity. Future efficiencies will
need to be studied on a case by case basis to determine the individual effect on the required staffing.
Resultantly, the projected staffing growth will increase in proportion to the workload increase.
The following tables indicate the number of judges and clerical staff that can be anticipated through year
2030 for each of the Courts using the following scenarios:
Circuit Court and General District Court
Scenario 1 – 2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Judge. This scenario assumes that the number of
cases that will be filed annually for each full time judge will not exceed the current year 2010 District‐
wide average.
Scenario 2 – 2010 State‐wide Caseload per Judge. This scenario assumes that the number of cases that
will be filled annually for each full time judge will not exceed the current state‐wide average.
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Scenario – This scenario assumes that the percentage of the district’s
total number of judges allocated to the Albemarle County J & DR Court and the City of Charlottesville J
& DR Court will remain the same and applies this ratio to the future growth of the court.
Clerical Staffing
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-9
Clerical staffing is forecasted for each of the three Courts based upon projected total case filings in the
respective court, regardless of caseload per judge ratios.
Albemarle Circuit Court Judicial FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/ High
Case Filings
2,242 Cases
2,761 / 3,019
Cases
23.15% / 34.65% Albemarle Circuit Court Case Filings
FTE Need
2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Judge 1,825 cases/ Judge 1.23 FTEs 1.51 / 1.65 FTEs
2010 State‐wide Caseload per Judge 1,843 cases/ Judge 1.22 FTEs 1.50 / 1.64 FTEs
Albemarle Circuit Court Clerical FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/High
Case Filings
2,242 Cases
2,761 / 3,019
Cases
23.15% / 34.65% Albemarle Circuit Court Case Filings
FTE Need
2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Staff 249 cases/ Staff 9 FTEs 11.08 / 12.12 FTEs
The 2010 caseload per judge for both the 16th Judicial District and the state‐wide average are
within 1% of each other; therefore creating nearly identical projection results.
Corresponding to the projected Circuit Court caseload increase between 23.15% and 34.65% by
year 2030, it is estimated that the judicial FTE requirement will be within the range of 1.51 and
1.65 FTEs by year 2030.
Circuit Court clerical staff FTEs need, correspondingly, could grow to be within the range of 11 and
12 by year 2030.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-10
Albemarle District Court Judicial FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Case Filings Low/ High Low/ High
Albemarle District Court Case Filings 38,424 Cases
41,379 / 59,496
Cases
7.69% / 54.84%
FTE Need
2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Judge 30,298 cases/ Judge 1.27 FTEs 1.37 / 1.96 FTEs
2010 State‐wide Caseload Per Judge 25,716 cases/ Judge 1.49 FTEs 1.61 / 2.31 FTEs
Albemarle General District Court Clerical FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/High
Case Filings
38,424 Cases
41,379 / 59,496
Cases
7.69% / 54.84%
Albemarle District Court Case Filings
FTE Need
2010 16th Judicial District Caseload per Staff 5,123 cases/ Staff 7.5 FTEs 8.08 / 11.61 FTEs
General District Court Judicial Officer and clerical staff projections correspond to the projected
District Court caseload increase between 7.69% and 54.84% by year 2030. To determine the
possible future judicial officer requirements for the General District Court, the 2010 caseload per
judge for both the 16th Judicial District and the State‐wide average were examined.
Using the 16th Judicial District 2010 caseload per judge of 30,298 cases per judge, results in a year
2030 FTE need within the range of 1.37 and 1.96 judicial FTEs.
The state‐wide 2010 caseload per judge is slightly lower that the 16th Judicial District ratio at
25,716 cases per judge. This lower ratio results in a year 2030 FTE need within the range of 1.61
and 2.31 judicial FTEs.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-11
General District Court clerical staff FTEs need, correspondingly, could grow to be within the range
of 8.08 and 11.61 FTEs by year 2030.
Albemarle J & DR Court Judicial FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/ High
Case Filings
22,470 / 32,672
Cases
10.73% / 61.01% 16th Judicial District J & DR Case Filings 20,292 Cases
Albemarle County J & DR Case Filings 2,242 Cases
City of Charlottesville J & DR Case Filings 2,834 Cases
FTE Need
Total 16th Judicial District J & DR Judges 4 FTEs 4.43 / 6.44 FTEs
Percent of Total 16th J.D. Judges Allocated to
Albemarle County J & DR Court 15.00% 0.60 FTEs 0.66 / 0.97 FTEs
Percent of Total 16th J.D. Judges Allocated to
City of Charlottesville J & DR Court 32.50% 1.30 FTEs 1.44 / 2.09 FTEs
Albemarle J & DR Court Clerical FTE
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/ High
Case Filings
20,292 Cases
22,470 / 32,672
Cases
10.73% / 61.01% 16th Judicial District J & DR Case Filings
Albemarle County J & DR Case Filings 2,242 Cases
City of Charlottesville J & DR Case Filings 2,834 Cases
FTE Need
Clerical Staff Allocated to Albemarle County J & DR Court 5.00 FTEs 5.54 / 8.05 FTEs
Clerical Staff Allocated to City of Charlottesville J & DR Court 4.00 FTEs 4.43 / 6.44 FTEs
The 16th Judicial District currently has four Judicial Officer FTEs allocated to handle all J & DR cases
for the entire District. Based upon the current staffing allocation, 0.60 FTEs (15% of total District
FTEs) are allocated to the Albemarle County J & DR cases and 1.30 FTEs (32.5% of total District
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-12
FTEs) are allocated to the City of Charlottesville. For the purposes of future planning, these
percentage allocations will remain constant.
The J & DR Court is expected to grow within the range of 10.73% and 61.01% by year 2030. This
growth represents a Judicial Officer need within the range of 0.66 and 0.97 FTEs allocated to the
Albemarle County J & DR Court and within the range of 1.44 and 2.09 Judicial Officer FTEs for the
City of Charlottesville J & DR Court by year 2030.
J & DR Court clerical staff ratios will also remain constant for the purposes of space planning.
Albemarle County J & DR Court could expect the need for clerical staff to be within the range of
5.54 and 8.05 FTEs by year 2030. The City of Charlottesville J & DR Court could expect the need for
clerical staff to be within the range of 4.43 and 6.44 FTEs by year 2030.
Albemarle Commonwealth’s Attorney Office
Current
Year 2010
Projected
Year 2030
Percent Growth
from Year 2010
Low/ High Low/ High
Case Filings
8.54% / 53.33% Combined Albemarle Circuit Court and General District Court Cases 40,666 Cases 44,140 / 62,354
Cases
FTE Need
Commonwealth’s Attorney Office Staff 9.00 FTEs 9.76 /13.79 FTEs
The Albemarle Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office handles the caseload from both the Circuit and
General District Courts. The combined growth of the two courts from year 2010 is expected to be
within the range of 8.54% and 53.33% by year 2030.
Correspondingly, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office should expect future staffing needs to be
within the range of 9.76 and 13.79 FTEs by year 2030.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-13
Summary of Estimated Future Staffing
The final summary of future staffing begins with a forecast of Judicial Full Time Equivalencies (JFTEs), which
drive the anticipated number of courtrooms and chambers in the courthouse.
According to the forecast completed, there will be a need for two circuit courtrooms in 2030, either two or
three general district courtrooms, and one J&DR courtroom plus a hearing room (for overflow and some
specific cases). These needs would be the same in 2040, with the confirmation of the third general district
courtroom. The space program in Chapter 3 was completed based on these forecasted numbers of
courtrooms.
Summary of Future Courtroom Needs
Current JFTEs
Forecast (2030)
low‐high JFTEs
How many
court sets?
(2030)
How many
court sets?
(2040)
When do we
need another
court set (est.
at .x.5 JFTEs)?
What if
population
reaches 150,000?
Circuit 1.22 to 1.23 1.50/1.51 1.64/1.65 2 CR 2 CR Approx. 2070 1.81 in 2030
NO CHANGE
General
District
1.29 to 1.49 1.37/1.61 1.96/2.31 2 or 3 CR 3 CR Approx. 2060 2.55 in 2030
PLAN FOR 3 CR
J&DR 0.66 to 0.97 0.66 0.97 1 CR plus
1HR
1 CR plus
1HR
Approx. 2080 1.0 CR plus 1 HR
NO CHANGE
Staff needs are summarized as follows:
Current FTEs 2030 FTEs ‐ low/high
Circuit Court Clerk’s Office 9.0 11.08/12.12
General District Clerk’s Office 7.5 8.08/11.61
J&DR Clerk’s Office 5.0 5.54/8.05
Commonwealth’s Attorney 9.0 9.76/13.79
TOTAL 30.5 34.46/45.57
Future space and parking estimates in Chapter 3 were based on these total numbers.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 2 – Forecast – Caseload and Staff
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
2-14
This page intentionally left blank
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-1
Section 3 ‐ Architectural Space Program
This architectural space program summarizes the space requirements into the future for all functions
currently located within the historic Albemarle County Courthouse. The contents of this program were
created based on user interviews; plan reviews; tours of the spaces currently occupied by these groups;
and were based on national best practice standards for similar spaces. The nature of space planning is that
a space program is typically a bit more generous and flexible than design, as the level of detail has not
been as completely refined at this stage. Additionally, each group was programmed independently of the
others, and although each department was “assembled” programmatically, the manner and space
assumed in this program is based on ideal operations.
Once a final concept is selected, design will be undertaken. At that stage, consolidation of shared spaces
(conference rooms, equipment closets, work/photocopy rooms) can occur and may result in adjustments
up or down for the various components. Staff restrooms were included at a rate of one per functional
area in this draft, with the idea in mind that when the building is pulled together conceptually, adjacencies
will likely permit two staff restrooms to be co‐located and designated for males and females.
The summary table in this section shows the total preliminary space needs for a new or renovated
Courthouse for the functional components included. According to this preliminary estimate, a maximum
of 94,990 Building Gross Square Feet will be required for the functions shown.
Grossing Factors
Spaces are programmed in the order in which they are likely to occur within the building(s), and areas
within each space are similarly organized with the front entrance to the suite or area listed first, and other
spaces listed and grouped in the order one would encounter them while walking through the suite.
Three measures of space are used in this program – Net Square Feet (NSF), Departmental Gross Square
Feet (DGSF), and Building Gross Square Feet (BGSF). Spaces are included in the tables in NSF, which equals
the area from interior wall‐to‐wall area within each room.
To account for interior wall thicknesses, hallways, and/or other circulation within a functional area made
up of a number of rooms, a departmental grossing factor is added to estimate the Departmental Gross
Square Footage (DGSF) of an area. This factor can range from 15% (for large rooms with few interior
divisions, such as gymnasiums, courtrooms, or auditoriums) to 45% (for correctional facilities where cells
are small and support services must be plumbed through adjacent chases). The typical departmental
grossing factor for a standard office area comprised of 85% workstations and 15% private offices is 35%.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-2
The departmental grossing factors used in this program are those which have proven applicable to the
courthouse function in question.
Building Grossing is added to account for the exterior wall thicknesses, building shared circulation, and
various mechanical and other areas within the building which occupy space, and which are shared by all
building occupants. This final grossing factor ranges from 15%‐50%, depending on the level of detailed
programming that has accounted for spaces which would typically be included in the building grossing.
The main building entrance, lobby, public restrooms, security screening stations, and vertical circulation
(elevator, stairs, and escalator) will drive a building circulation close to the 50% range, if they are not
programmed separately. A building program with building grossing of 15% is one which typically has all
spaces programmed, including mechanical chases, electrical closets, and janitorial spaces. The building
grossing factor used for this facility was 35%, because some shared areas have been programmed and
others have not.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-3
Program
Summary - Court Program - Long-Term Buildout, All Court Components
Number Space NSF
Departmental
Grossing DGSF Total (DGSF) BGSF (35%)
25%3,331 4,497
1.100 Entrance 2,665 666 3,331
2.000 - CLERK AREAS 35%16,085 21,715
2.100 Circuit Court Clerk 6,230 2,181 8,411 11,354
2.200 General District Court Clerk 3,260 1,141 4,401 5,941
2.300 Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Clerk 2,295 803 3,098 4,183
2.400 Support Spaces 130 46 176 237
3.000 - COURT SETS 30%No. 30,451 41,109
3.100 Circuit Court Set 8,773 2,632 11,405 1 2 Ct Rms
3.200 General District Court Set 9,567 2,870 12,437 1 2 Medium and 1 small ct rms
3.300 Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Set 5,084 1,525 6,609 1 One Ct Rm, 1 Hearing Rm
3.400 Hearing and Mediation Set - - - -
4.000 - SECURITY AND HOLDING 35%2,917 3,938
4.100 Intake and Holding 1,365 546 1,911
4.200 Security Staff Areas 745 261 1,006
5.000 - COURT SERVICES/PROBATION 35%3,017 4,073
5.100 Public Areas 765 268 1,033
5.200 Court Services Office 1,470 515 1,985
6.000 - COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 35%4,797 6,475
6.100 Entrance/Lobby 480 168 648
6.101 Staff Work Areas 2,443 855 3,298
6.102 Shared Staff Areas 630 221 851
7.000 - BUILDING SHARED 35%9,765 13,182
7.100 Shared Public Areas 800 280 1,080
7.200 Jury Assembly 1,030 361 1,391
7.300 Shared Staff Areas 200 70 270
7.400 Loading Dock/Warehouse 3,984 1,394 5,378
7.500 Trash Removal 225 79 304
7.600 Building Maintenance 844 295 1,139
7.700 Janitorial 150 53 203
Summary 53,135 17,228 70,363 70,363 94,990
1.000 - BUILDING ENTRANCE AND LOBBY
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-4
1.000 Building Entrance and Lobby
The building entrance will include queuing and security screening for all building visitors. Two screening
stations are included for this purpose. The entrance area also includes the central control for the building,
which is the security and life‐safety center for the building. Public restrooms are sized here as
placeholders; final size will be determined by anticipated building occupancy and visitors in the design
phase.
2.000 Clerk Areas
This program groups the clerk areas for the three court divisions (Circuit, General District, and Juvenile &
Domestic Relations) together. Ideally, all clerk areas should be located low in the building near or adjacent
to the lobby, and while it is uncertain at this time which and how many of the divisions of the Albemarle
County Courts will be located together, this program assumes some efficiency of shared facilities (see
2.400 Support Spaces). Because it is likely there will be some separation of divisions in different buildings
(at least in the short run), the program has included staff restrooms with the individual clerk areas.
A total of 16,100 DGSF will be required to accommodate all three divisions of the court. Approximately
half of that space (8,400 DGSF) is required by the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, which includes the land
records and archives areas (open to the public for research). The archives are not currently staffed
separately from the clerk’s office, and could be separated in the building, but doing so would imply
separate staffing.
Another 4,400 DGSF would be required for the District Court Clerk’s Office and 3,100 DGSF for the J&DR
Court Clerk’s Office. The remaining 200 DGSF would be for shared areas, in this case janitors’ closets.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
1.100 Entrance
1.101 Vestibule 1 1 200 200
1.102 Lobby 1 1 800 800
1.103 Security Screening Station w/ Queuing 1 2 220 440
1.104 Building Central Security Control 1 1 200 200
1.105 Building Administration 1 0 150 0
1.106 Elevator Vestibule 1 2 90 180
1.107 Vending 1 2 10 20
1.108 Information/Directory Display 1 1 100 100
1.109 Public Restrooms 1 2 240 480
1.110 Janitors' Closet 1 1 45 45
1.111 General Storage 1 1 200 200
2,665
666
3,331 TOTAL AREA
1.000 - BUILDING ENTRANCE AND LOBBY
Total Area (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 25%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-5
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
2.100 Circuit Court Clerk
2.101 Clerk of Court 1 1 250 250
2.102 Deputy Clerk of Court 1 1 120 120
2.103 Courtroom Clerk 1 0 80 0
2.104 Deputy Clerk Office Workstation 1 10 80 800
2.105 Cashier Station 1 1 30 30
2.106 Service Counter Workstations 1 2 30 60
2.107 Active File Storage 1 1 1000 1,000 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.107 Public Counter Waiting Area 1 3 90 270
2.108 Archived Storage (Land Records) 1 1 1200 1,200
2.109 Archived Storage (Vault) 1 1 1600 1,600
2.110 Work Counter/Work Room 1 1 150 150 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.111 Supply/Form Storage 1 1 120 120 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.112 Staff Toilet 1 2 65 130 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.113 Staff Break Room 1 1 250 250 Staff break room with chairs, table, sink, and refrigerator
2.114 Public Microfiche/File Viewing Area 1 1 250 250 Adj. to service counter, microfiche viewer
6,230
2.200 General District Court Clerk
2.201 Clerk of Court 1 1 250 250
2.202 Deputy Clerk of Court 1 1 120 120
2.203 Courtroom Clerk 1 0 80 0
2.204 Deputy Clerk 1 10 80 800 total staff projection is 12 FTE, including management staff
2.205 Cashier Station 1 1 30 30
2.206 Meeting Room 1 1 200 200 Connects to the District Courtroom
2.207 Service Counter Workstations 1 2 30 60
2.208 Intern Workstation 1 1 80 80
2.209 Active File Storage 1 1 600 600 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.210 Work Counter/Work Room 1 1 200 200 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.211 Supply/Form Storage 1 1 150 150 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.211 Staff Break Area 1 1 250 250
2.212 Staff Toilet 1 2 65 130 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.213 Public Waiting at Service Counter 1 3 90 270 Public side of service counters
2.214 Public File Viewing Area 1 1 120 120
3,260
2.300
2.301 Clerk of Court 1 1 180 180
2.302 Deputy Clerk of Court 1 0 120 0
2.303 Courtroom Clerk 1 0 80 0
2.304 Deputy Clerk 1 6 80 480 Staff estimate is 7 positions, including clerk
2.305 Cashier Station 1 0 25 0
2.306 Service Counter Workstations 1 2 30 60
2.307 Intern Workstation 1 1 80 80
2.308 Active File Storage 1 1 800 800 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.3XX Staff Break Area 1 1 180 180
2.309 Work Counter/Work Room 1 1 150 150 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.310 Supply/Form Storage 1 1 120 120 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.311 Staff Toilet 1 1 65 65 Could be shared with other clerks' areas if adjacent
2.312 Waiting/Service Counter 1 2 90 180 Public side of service counters
2,295
2.000 - CLERK AREAS
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Clerk
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-6
3.000 – Court Sets
Court sets include not only the courtrooms, but all adjacent spaces required to make the courtroom
operate as it should. Spaces which comprise a court set include the following:
Public Waiting (can be shared with adjacent courtrooms)
Soundlock vestibule at entrance
Attorney/Client interview/meeting rooms (sometimes also used as Victim/Witness waiting)
Victim/Witness waiting rooms
Equipment Storage
Trial Evidence Storage (usually in the courtroom)
Jury Deliberation Room (optional for some case types, otherwise adjacent to the courtroom, with
restrooms and beverage station)
Judge’s Chambers (which typically include a suite of associated spaces)
Staff Restroom (can be shared with other functions along the secure corridor).
The sizes of the courtrooms and whether or not jury deliberation rooms are required are features which
are determined by the type of action to be heard in the courtroom. In this courthouse, a total of two
Circuit courtrooms (large), three General District courtrooms (two medium and one small), and two J&DR
courtrooms (one small and one hearing room) are forecasted to be needed. An additional
hearing/mediation suite is recommended, as an alternative venue where caseload can be handled. Used
for alternate dispute resolution, this suite has one large room where all parties can meet, and smaller
adjacent breakout rooms for private discussions to occur. Having a suite like this in the courthouse can
help facilitate resolution of some cases outside of the courtroom, which in turn improves the efficiency of
processing caseload.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
2.000 - CLERK AREAS
2.400 Support Spaces
2.401 Video Instruction Room 1 0 150 0
2.402 Staff Break Area 1 0 200 0
2.403 Staff Toilet 1 0 100 0
2.404 Janitors' Closet 1 2 65 130
130
11,915
4,170
16,085
Total Area (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 35%
TOTAL AREA
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-7
Although in this program the courtrooms and chambers are programmed together, it is increasingly
common for chambers to be separated from the courtrooms, sometimes by vertical circulation (i.e. the
chambers are on one floor; the courtrooms on another.) In the design phase examination should occur to
determine if the traditional courtroom‐chambers pairing results in the most efficient and flexible
alignment of space, or if the Albemarle County standard of a more flexible assignment of courtrooms
should be encouraged through creation of a separate (i.e. not adjacent to the courtrooms) collegial judges’
floor or area.
The programmed sizes and spaces required are approximately 5,700 DGSF for a circuit court Set; 4,535
DGSF for a large general district court set; 4,145 DGSF for a small general district court set; and
approximately 6,500 DGSF for a combined J&DR courtroom/hearing room pair similar to what is provided
in the new J&DR courthouse. Some efficiencies can be achieved (and are indicated in the general district
court set program through reduced numbers of certain spaces) when courtrooms are paired, or where
there are three or more of a similar type of courtroom.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
3.100 Circuit Court Set
3.101 Courtroom 1 2 2,100 4,200
3.102 Vestibule 1 2 80 160
3.103 Attorney/Client Meeting Room 1 4 100 400
3.104 Equipment Storage 1 2 60 120
3.105 Evidence/Attorney File Storage 1 2 45 90
3.106 Holding Cell - Small 1 2 100 200
3.107 Holding Cell - Group 1 1.0 150 150
3.108 Secure Interview Room 1 2 80 160
5,480
3.109 Jury Deliberation Room 1 2 300 600
3.110 Jury Deliberation Vestibule 1 2 55 110
3.111 Jury Toilets 1 4 55 220
3.112 Jury Beverage Station 1 2 20 40
970
3.113 Public Waiting in the Hall 1 2 200 400 Pro-Rata Share
3.114 Victim/Witness Waiting 1 2 120 240
640
3.115 Judge's Chambers 1 2 350 700
3.116 Judge's Secretary 1 2 150 300 Provision for a support staff space.
3.117 Judge's Bailiff's Station 1 1 60 60 Provision space
3.118 Storage 1 2 60 120
3.119 Court Reporter 1 - 120 - Contract employee works in courtroom
3.120 Law Clerk's Office 1 - 150 -
3.121 Staff Toilet 1 1 55 55
3.122 Conference Room 1 2 224 448
1,683
8,773
1 8,773 For two courtrooms and two chamber sets.
3.000 - COURT SETS
Subtotal (NSF per Court Set)
Number--Subtotal NSF
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-8
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
3.000 - COURT SETS
3.200 General District Court Set
3.201 Courtroom - medium 1 2 1,824 3,648 Medium, GDC non-jury courtroom, seats 100 spectators.
3.202 Courtroom -small 1 1 1,524 1,524 Small GDC non-jury courtroom, seats 50 spectators.
3.203 Vestibule 1 3 80 240
3.204 Attorney/Client Conference Room 1 4 100 400
3.205 Equipment Storage 1 3 60 180
3.206 Evidence/Attorney File Storage 1 3 45 135
3.207 Holding Cell - Small 1 3 70 210
3.208 Holding Cell - Group 1 2 150 300
3.209 Secure Interview Room 1 2 80 160
6,797
3.210 Public Waiting 1 3 200 600
3.211 Victim/Witness Waiting 1 2 120 240
840
3.212 Judge's Chambers 1 3 350 1,050
3.213 Judge's Secretary 1 2 150 300 Provisional space
3.214 Judge's Bailiff's Station 1 - 60 -
3.215 Storage 1 3 60 180
3.216 Court Reporter 1 - 150 -
3.217 Clerk's Office 1 - 150 -
3.218 Staff Toilet 1 - 65 -
3.219 Conference Room 1 2 200 400 Two judges share a conference room
1,930
9,567
1 9,567
Subtotal (NSF per Court Set)
Number--Subtotal NSF
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
3.300
3.301 Courtroom 1 1 1,624 1,624 Seats 60
3.302 Vestibule - Courtroom 1 1 80 80
3.303 Attorney/Client Conference Room 1 3 100 300
3.304 Equipment Storage 1 1 60 60
3.305 Hearing Room 1 1 1,040 1,040 Seats 25
3.306 Vestibule - Hearing Room 1 1 60 60
3.306 Evidence/Attorney File Storage 1 2 60 120
3.307 Holding Cell - Small 1 2 100 200
3,484
3.308 Public Waiting 1 2 200 400
3.309 Victim/Witness Waiting 1 2 120 240
640
3.310 Judge's Chamber 1 1 350 350
3.311 Visiting Judge's Office 1 1 350 350
3.312 Judge's Secretary 1 - 150 -
3.313 Judge's Bailiff's Station 1 - 60 -
3.314 Storage 1 1 60 60
3.315 Court Reporter 1 - 150 -
3.316 Clerk's Office 1 - 150 -
3.317 Staff Toilet 1 - 65 -
3.318 Conference Room 1 1 200 200
960
5,084
1 5,084 1 judge, 1 courtroom, and 1 hearing room.Number--Subtotal NSF
Subtotal (NSF)
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Set
Subtotal (NSF per Court Set)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-9
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number
of
Areas
Space
Standard
(NSF)
Net Square
Feet Comments
3.000 - COURT SETS
3.400 Hearing and Mediation Set
3.401 Hearing Room 1 0 600 0
3.402 Vestibule 1 0 80 0
3.403 Mediation Room 1 0 200 0
3.404 Secure Room 1 0 70 0
3.405 Secure Room Vestibule 1 0 35 0
3.406 Waiting 1 0 200 0
3.407 Interview Room 1 0 80 0
3.408 Equipment Storage 1 0 60 0
0
0
1 0
23,424
7,027
30,451 TOTAL AREA
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF per Court Set)
Number--Subtotal NSF
Total Area (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 30%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-10
4.000 – Security and Holding
The security and holding areas in the building are those dedicated to the Sheriff’s Deputies and the
prisoner movement. From the point at which they enter the courthouse to the point at which they enter
the courtroom, prisoner movement should be secure and restricted, in other words completely separate,
from all other paths of circulation taken by staff and the public. These spaces comprise the Intake and
Holding areas of the building, as well as the courtroom holding cells adjacent to the courtrooms (included
in 3.000 Court Sets). Separation from “sight and sound” must be provided for male and female prisoners,
and between adults and juveniles. This separation implies that four distinct populations (adult males,
adult females, juvenile males, and juvenile females) may potentially be held in a full‐service courthouse.
Security Staff areas are the administrative and muster areas for Sheriff’s Deputies, who oversee building
security and prisoner movement. In this scenario it is assumed that at a minimum, the program must
provides a muster room for deputies at shift change, locker/changing rooms, and one shift commander
office. Sheriff’s Office administration is assumed to remain at its current location.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number of
Areas
NSF Space
Standard Square Feet Comments
4.100 Intake and Holding
4.101 Vehicle Sallyport 1 1 600 600
4.102 Security Vestibule 1 1 120 120
4.103 Deputy Station/Fingerprint and ID 1 1 100 100
4.104 Drug Testing Holding/Waiting 1 0 100 0
4.105 Drug Testing Toilet 1 0 65 0
4.106 Staff Toilet 1 0 65 0
4.107 Inmate Toilet 1 1 65 65
4.108 Single Cells 1 0 70 0 Single wet cells, total capacity of 10
4.109 Medium Group Holding 8 2 25 400 Holds 8 to 12 individuals per cell
4.110 Large Group Holding 15 0 25 0 Holds 15-20 individuals
4.111 Isolation Cell 1 1 80 80 dry cell, camera
Subtotal (NSF) 1,365
Dept. Gross @ 40% 546
TOTAL AREA (DGSF) 1,911
4.200 Security Staff Areas
4.201 Deputy Muster Room 15 1 15 225 Classroom style
4.202 Mailbox/Mail Room 1 0 200 0 Mailboxes to hall side; sorting tables to inside
4.203 Male Locker Room 12 1 12 144 2' wide lockers with 2' in front and 1' bench
4.204 Female Locker Room 8 1 12 96 2' wide lockers with 2' in front and 1' bench
4.205 Male Restroom 1 1 65 65
4.206 Female Restroom 1 1 65 65
4.207 Shift Commander Office 1 1 150 150 Private Office
4.208 Fingerprint Room 1 0 100 0 Sink, counter
Subtotal (NSF) 745
Dept. Gross @ 35% 261
TOTAL AREA (DGSF) 1,006
4.000 - SECURITY AND HOLDING
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-11
5.000 Court Services/Probation
The Court Services Unit provides probation supervision and aftercare, investigations, and intake services
for youth and juveniles associated with the J&DR courts. Currently located in leased space near the new
J&DR courthouse, this component would need to move to retain its adjacency to that court if the J&DR
court function were to move.
This office consists of a public waiting/reception area and a staff office area, indicated below with space
needs of approximately 3,000 DGSF.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number of
Areas
Space
Standard
Square
Feet Comments
5.100 Public Areas
5.101 Waiting Room 1 1 300 300
5.102 Children's Alcove 1 1 100 100
5.103 Victim's Waiting 1 1 150 150
5.104 Receptionist 1 1 80 80
5.105 Toilet 1 1 100 100
5.106 Janitor's Closet 1 1 35 35
765
5.200 Court Services Office
5.201 Director's Office 1 1 150 150
5.202 Senior Secretary Office 1 1 120 120
5.203 Supervisor Office 1 1 120 120
5.204 Probation Office 1 4 100 400
5.205 Intake Officer 1 0 100 0
5.206 Clerical Workstation 1 0 80 0
5.207 Drug Screening Room 1 1 80 80
5.208 File Room 1 1 600 600
1,470
2,235
782
3,017 TOTAL AREA (DGSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
5.000 - COURT SERVICES/PROBATION
Total Area (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 35%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-12
6.000 Commonwealth’s Attorney
The Commonwealth’s Attorney has a close relationship in Albemarle County with all three divisions of the
court, and as such, should retain co‐location as much as possible with all divisions of the courts they serve.
Currently co‐located with the circuit and general district courts in the historic courthouse, the
Commonwealth’s Attorney requires an estimate of 5,000‐6,000 DGSF of space for full anticipated future
growth.
Depending on the solution selected for housing the court functions in the long term, the Commonwealth’s
Attorney may be located in the courthouse, in adjacent renovated space, in newly constructed space, or in
nearby leased space. If leased space is considered, the departmental gross square footage should be used
as the rentable square footage required.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number of
Areas
Space
Standard
Square
Feet Comments
6.100 Entrance/Lobby
6.101 Lobby 0 1 120 120
6.102 Reception Desk 1 1 120 120
Office adjacent to the entrance and the visitor
lobby.
6.103 Beverage Station 1 0 10 0
6.104 File Review/Small Conference 0 0 150 0 For defense attorney file review
6.105 Conference Room 0 1 240 240 12 person conference room
480
6.200 Staff Work Areas
6.201 Commonwealth Attorney's Office 1 1 300 300 Seating for four at a table
6.202 Ass't Com. Attorney Offices 1 8 140 1,120 Lockable, file storage in offices
6.203 Administrative/Paralegal Workstations 1 4 80 320 Oversized workstations
6.204 Galley 1 1 25 25
6.205 Closed File Storage - 0.5 500 250 Closed records storage, lockable
6.206 Active File Storage - 1 300 300 Active records storage, lockable
6.207 Intern/Volunteer Workstation 1 2 64 128 Shared
2,443
6.300 Shared Staff Areas
6.301 Work/Storage Room 1 1 200 200
6.302 Toilet 1 2 65 130 Individual toilets
6.303 Equipment Storage 1 1 100 100
6.304 Break Area 1 1 200 200
630
3,553
1,244
4,797
Subtotal (NSF)
Dept. Gross @ 35%
TOTAL AREA (DGSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
6.000 - COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-13
7.000 – Building Shared
The following areas are spaces within the building which enhance or support all functions, either directly
or indirectly. These are the areas which, if not programmed today, are accommodated in the building
grossing factor. Most would be designed into the lower floor(s) of a building for delivery or access
purposes.
Space # Space Name
Persons or
Items Per
Area
Number of
Areas
Space
Standard
Square
Feet Comments
7.100 Shared Public Areas
7.101 Building Shared Conference Room 1 0 800 0
7.102 Storage Closet 1 2 100 200
7.103 Beverage Station 1 1 100 100
7.104 Public Restroom 1 2 250 500 six stalls/urinals, six sinks
800
7.200 Jury Assembly
7.201 Jury Assembly check in and waiting 1 1 900 900 Capacity for 60 jurors @ 15 NSF each
7.202 Toilet 1 2 65 130
7.203 Toilet w/Shower 1 0 80 0
1,030
7.300 Shared Staff Areas
7.301 Work/Storage Room 1 1 200 200
7.302 Toilet 1 0 50 0
7.303 Toilet w/Shower 1 0 80 0
200
7.400 Loading Dock/Warehouse
7.401 Loading Dock - 1 120 120
7.402 Staging Area - 1 150 150
7.403 Old Record Storage - 1 2,000 2,000
7.404 Building Storage - 1 1,500 1,500
7.405 Commissary Storage - 1 150 150
7.406 Inventory Workstation - 1 64 64
3,984
7.500 Trash Removal
7.501 Dumpster Area - 0.5 300 150 Near loading dock, est. @ 50% (exterior space)
7.502 Recycling Area - 0.5 150 75 Near loading dock, glass, paper, plastic; @50%
225
7.600 Building Maintenance
7.601 Maintenance Leader 1 1 100 100
7.602 Maintenance Spec. 1 1 64 64
7.603 Staff Toilet - 65 -
7.604 Maintenance Equipment Storage - 1 250 250
7.605 Workshop - 1 350 350
7.606 Chemical Storage - 1 80 80
844
7.700 Janitorial
7.701 Janitor Storage - 1 150 150 Storage room with fixed shelving, mop holders
7.702 First Aid Station - - 10 - Eye wash, shower, wall supply cabinet
7.703 Chemical Mixing - - 60 - Well-ventilated, wall sink and counter, shelving
150
7,233
2,532
9,765
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
7.000 - BUILDING SHARED
Dept. Gross @ 35%
TOTAL AREA (DGSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Subtotal (NSF)
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 3 – Architectural Space Program
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
3-14
This page intentionally left blank
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-1
Section 4 – Option Development
Three options were explored, to give a spectrum of solutions and determine a range of viable solutions.
The three options were studied for massing, operations, and fit on the site(s) in question. Of particular
interest was future expansion beyond the period of the planning study (through 2030). Although the
conceptual plans only required massing and an understanding of how the facilities would be organized on
the proposed sites, the proposal for the re‐use of existing buildings for the downtown option required
digging deeply into the ability of existing facilities to accommodate the three paths of circulation required
for secure court operations. As such, the downtown scenario provides a great deal of detail about the
internal layout of spaces. The other two options provide simple blocking on a site, as more of a site test‐fit
than a conceptual building design.
The three options were as follows.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-2
Downtown Option
Overview
The downtown option focused on maintaining all Albemarle County court components on or near the
current courthouse complex, within the Court Square area of downtown Charlottesville. This option also
examined the possibility of maximizing re‐use of the historic courthouse for court use, to determine
whether or not that facility could be used for modern court functions. The resulting solution makes use of
County‐owned (or partially owned) facilities within the City of Charlottesville, and attempts to maintain
the closest proximity possible between court functions in the downtown context. This option included a
massing study of the Levy Building site, a site proximal to the historic courthouse site, to determine the
maximum size of court facilities which could be located there long‐term.
Some assumptions included in development of this option were that the Juvenile & Domestic Relations
(J&DR) court will remain in the recently completed J&DR Courthouse, along with the Sheriff’s Office
administration. Court Services will remain in its current location adjacent to the J&DR courthouse. The
components left for inclusion in the exploration of a solution were
Circuit Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office, including land records/archives)
General District Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Commonwealth’s Attorney
Sheriff (holding and court security only)
The downtown reuse concept developed for this study proposes to dedicate the existing Historic
Courthouse and Annex for the use of the Circuit Courthouse, with supporting Sheriff’s office functions
associated with in‐custody defendant holding being the only other function located within the building.
This solution requires the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and the District Court to vacate the existing
facility. It is proposed that both these components would be located on the present site of the Levy
Building. To accommodate their needs the present day addition to the rear of the Levy Building is
proposed to be demolished and a more appropriately designed structure to house new courtrooms would
be built in its place. The new structure housing the courtrooms would support the district courts while the
historic Levy building would be used in its entirety to house the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office.
Historic Courthouse
In approaching the renovation of the Historic Courthouse complex, the team sought to meet the projected
space needs, enhance safety and security for the judiciary, the public and the defendants and to respect
the historic qualities of the existing buildings and grounds. Particular attention was paid to the Circuit
Courthouse as Jefferson’s “Common Temple”. .
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-3
Figure 1 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Basement
Starting with the Basement level of what is now the General District Courthouse, three distinct circulation
paths will be established for the judiciary, the public and the in‐custody defendants. Secure vertical
circulation for the judiciary is provided by a stair and elevator located on the west side of the building,
essentially in the location of the current stair and elevator. For in‐custody defendant circulation, the
existing sally port is enlarged to provide vertical access to an anteroom adjacent to the courtroom. The
existing secure corridor to the holding cells and the cells remains.
Public access to the basement level Land Records area will be directly from High Street. This public area
will be connected to the rest of the building only by a public elevator.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-4
Figure 2 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ First Floor
The first floor of the courthouse contains the main public lobby and public circulation elements.
On this level, the main public entrance is established at what is now the General District Courthouse, with
security screening for all court visitors. Access to the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office customer service area is
directly off the public lobby from this entrance, as are the public restrooms for the complex. The historic
courthouse (including the courtroom) is renovated to re‐establish the proportions of the Jeffersonian
courtroom. New adjacent chambers and jury deliberation room are provided in an addition to the north of
the historic courtroom, directly contiguous to the courtroom with restricted access.
A secondary public building entrance and security screening area is provided in the portico addition, which
also contains vertical access to the jury assembly room on the level above. The existing hyphen connector
between the two buildings has been enlarged to provide a large public stairway from the second floor to
the first floor.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-5
Figure 3 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Second Floor
The second floor of the existing General District Courthouse contains the jury assembly room as well as the
upper level of the Jeffersonian courtroom. An elevator has been added to mitigate accessibility issues.
The original courtroom balcony has not been restored; however, it could be if desired.
At the hyphen connector between the buildings, the stair from the second floor of the current General
District Courthouse leads to the building entrances below.
In the existing Circuit Courthouse space, a new Circuit Courtroom is created with contiguous chambers and
jury deliberation room on the north end of the building. On the south end, a jury assembly room has been
created to support the court room in this building. Public access to the second floor lobby is by either
public elevator or public stair. Judiciary access is to the second floor secure spaces is by secure stair from
level above or by secure elevator from the lower levels.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-6
Figure 4 ‐ Historic Courthouse ‐ Third Floor
The third floor of the Circuit Courthouse contains the upper portion of the courtroom to the north and a
judicial suite to the south, which provides two additional chambers for a total of four chambers in the
building. The suite is composed of two private offices with a shared library/conference room as well as
secretarial and reception space.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-7
Levy Building
The addition proposed as a part of this option is a five story structure (four stories plus a basement) with
Central Holding and Judicial Parking being located on the Basement Level (which would be partially
underground). Level One would be the main public entry and would support the District Court Clerk with
Levels Two and Three designed to accommodate two courtrooms each. The District Court requires three
courtrooms. The fourth courtroom and associated chambers shown in this concept could be built now (as
indicated in this plan diagram) or shelled out for construction at a later date.
Level Four of the building provides additional future expansion. It is shown in this concept as
accommodating additional judicial chambers. As a result, the addition to the Levy Building is sized to
accommodate future expansion beyond the planning horizon of this study. This is proposed as a part of
the initial construction associated with this project, as there will be no way to expand this facility in the
future, leaving the courts land‐locked when they eventually need more space. This additional space will
provide additional long term expansion for the District Courts beyond the planning horizon of this study.
Figure 5 ‐ Levy Building ‐ Basement
The Basement Level includes the building Sallyport and some limited holding for in‐custody defendants. In
addition secure parking for the judiciary is also located on this level. The Basement level is partially below
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-8
grade taking advantage of the sloped grade of the site which allows for vehicular access to the rear of the
building at the Basement Level while allowing public entrance to the building on Level One.
Figure 6 ‐ Levy Building ‐ First Floor
The First Floor of the Courthouse addition provides the main public entrance to the proposed District
Courts/Commonwealth’s Attorney courts building. A central security screening area is provided in the
Lobby to screen both public and staff as they enter the building. The new entry faces the existing courts
complex working to create a campus like feel for the courts family. The entry level would be raised above
grade to provide a strong civic presence to the building and to align the first floor of the new addition with
the existing first floor of the Levy Building. The District Court Clerk’s Office would be housed on this Level.
The Levy Building would house the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s
space requirements will back‐fill all three levels of the Levy Building.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-9
Figure 7 ‐ Levy Building ‐ Second Floor
The Second Floor of the proposed District Court/Commonwealth’s Attorney courts building houses two
courtrooms and associated meeting rooms/ chambers for the District Court. Courtroom holding for in‐
custody defendants, and courtroom associated conference/witness waiting rooms are also provided. A
communicating stairway linking the lobby with the Second Floor is proposed to take some pressure off of
the elevators.
The Third Floor of the proposed District Court/Commonwealth’s Attorney courts building repeats the
functions housed on the second floor. This includes two courtrooms and associated chambers for the
District Court. As in the Second Floor, courtroom holding for in‐custody defendants, and courtroom
associated conference/witness waiting rooms are also provided. The communicating stairway linking the
lobby with the Second Floor is proposed to extend to this floor.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-10
Figure 8 ‐ Levy Building ‐ Third Floor
Figure 9 ‐ Levy Building ‐ Fourth Floor
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-11
The Fourth Floor of the District Court/ Commonwealth’s Attorney Court building provides for additional
future expansion of Court functions beyond the planning horizon of this study. It is shown as potential
judicial chambers for the purposes of this report. Alternatively, this space could be shelled out in the
interim until the time this space is needed by the courts. This would provide flexibility for the use of this
space in the future.
Design Challenges
Circulation
Separability
Accessibility
Preservation
Restoration
Footprint
Costs
Estimated Cost (pre‐SD): $526 per SF
Estimated Total Construction Cost: $46.3M (includes a fourth finished general district courtroom,
estimated at approximately $500,000 to $600,000 over shell cost)
Pros
Maintains the historic location of the courts in downtown Charlottesville and continues a viable
use of the historic courthouse complex and Levy Building/Jail Building.
Reuse of Levy Building or jail building for Commonwealth Attorney’s Office offers proximal, yet
separate operation from the courts and mitigates accessibility issues at the front of the Levy
Building.
Infill of underutilized site behind Levy for new facility for General District courthouse offers
expansion possible beyond the 2030 planning window.
Redesign of Levy or jail building offers opportunity to preserve historical scale and relationship
between buildings and the street, continuing park context and feel across Park and High Streets.
Provides maximum space needs beyond the 20‐year planning horizon for all components.
Optimizes existing downtown locations for Sheriff’s Office, Court Services, and J&DR Court.
Leaves future open for potential long‐term consolidation of either J&DR or Circuit Court
operations with General District Courts in new Levy General District Courthouse.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-12
Renovation costs must acknowledge a range of unknowns at this pre‐design stage, including
hazardous materials and outdated MEP infrastructure. Further study is required to narrow the
range of costs.
Continued public reliance on existing downtown parking; new parking provided is for staff only.
Less than ideal layout for Circuit Court due to small floor plates and limitations of existing historic
structure.
Although future internal growth is possible, no future facility expansion is possible beyond this
build‐out.
Court operations are split in three locations, with potential future reconsolidation of General
District & J&DR.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-13
COB‐McIntire Option
The site of the County Office Building (COB) along McIntire has a vacant parcel which is currently used by
Parks & Recreation. This parcel was explored to determine how much of the court operations could be re‐
located to this site, and whether this site might offer an alternative to retaining all court components
downtown. At a minimum, the viability of relocation of the general district function was explored, as this
split would not require moving the County Seat. Maximum stacking and massing were also explored to
determine whether this site might offer a potential long‐term re‐location/co‐location of J&DR with general
district court. Circuit Court was assumed to remain downtown in the historic courthouse or other site for
this analysis.
The components which were included in the COB‐McIntire analysis included the following:
General District Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Commonwealth’s Attorney
Sheriff (holding and court security only)
J&DR Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Court Services Unit
In this scenario, the Circuit Court remains downtown in the historic courthouse, using the same scenario
for that component as the downtown option.
The proposed concept for the COB McIntire site developed for this study utilizes both the present parking
area and the ball parks along McIntire Road, with the new courthouse proposed to be sited to the eastern
side of the property with the public parking located to the west, where it can be shared with the County
Office Building. The foot print indicated in the concept site plan for the courthouse is approximately
25,000 square feet, which is an efficient footprint for a courthouse, yet can allow for up to four court sets
to be accommodated on a floor. The concept anticipates a three‐story court facility with the district court
clerk’s functions on the first level and the courtrooms and chambers on the upper levels. The
Commonwealth’s Attorney could be located in this new structure, or could be located closer to the circuit
court, either in newly constructed space or in leased space.
The new courthouse building would have a prominent civic presence along McIntire Road which would run
parallel with the building’s main entrance. Public parking is accommodated by a two level parking
structure which makes use of the natural grade to offer an extended tray of on‐grade parking for the
County Office Building at the top of the hill, and a lower level of on‐grade parking for the courthouse
below. A total of 195 spaces would be available to support the public parking needs for the new
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-14
courthouse facility while maintaining (or expanding) parking for the COB by approximately 195 spaces on
the higher deck.
Staff parking is located to the north and east of the new courthouse, providing separate and secure
parking for the staff. The conceptual site plan provides the 83 spaces estimated as needed for staff
parking. It is proposed that parking for the judges would be provided within the footprint of the
courthouse in a level below the main entry level to the facility. Building service, and access to the judge’s
parking would all occur along the north (or back) side of the courthouse. The sheriff’s in‐custody
defendant delivery is proposed to be provided on the east side of the courthouse. This location effectively
screens all these back‐of‐house functions from the public and completes the three separates access points
to the building for public, staff, and prisoners.
Future expansion of the facility beyond the planning horizon of this study is accommodated through the
physical expansion of the facility to the west at some point in time. The allotted expansion space is
proposed to be used as interim surface parking until the point in time when expansion of the facility is
required. 53 parking spaces are indicated in this area.
Figure 10 ‐ COB‐McIntire Option
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-15
Design Challenges
Site Access
Orientation
Separability
Staffing (Security, Commonwealth’s Attorney)
Parking
Costs
Estimated Cost (pre‐SD): $555 per SF
Estimated Total Construction Cost: $43.4M + $3M structured parking + $2.78M new
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office (5,000 SF).
Pros:
Small Green Field Site allows for customized design for General District court.
Provides maximum space needs beyond the 20‐year planning horizon for General District Court.
Relocation not required for Sheriff’s Office Administration or Court Services.
Circuit Court remains operational in the historic courthouse, with long‐term growth and security
issues addressed through improved circulation and layout. All courts remain downtown.
Potential Co‐Location is possible for General District and J&DR in the long run, with expansion
possible beyond the 2030 planning window.
Parking is ample and can advantage the County Office Building as well as the high volume General
District Court.
Cons:
The COB‐McIntire site is the last buildout on that portion of County property. Building the site out
for courts precludes any other future County facility expansion on that site and requires
abandonment of the existing ball fields.
No underground parking (secure parking for Sheriff or staff) is included in this option.
Four options are available for the Commonwealth’s Attorney, with a potentially wide range of
costs.
No parking solution is included for the Circuit Court, unless tied to the Commonwealth’s Attorney
solution (Levy or Jailer’s House).
This solution provides the same combinations of new and renovated space as the Downtown
Scenario, but with greater implications for long‐term separation of court components.
Court operations are split in three locations, with potential future reconsolidation of General
District & J&DR.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-16
Green Field Site Outside City Limits Option
The third option which was explored was a hypothetical green field site, owned by the County, outside the
City of Charlottesville limits. This solution assumed that in the long run, all County court components
would be relocated to this location in one consolidated justice center. For cost estimate and massing
purposes, a new custom‐designed building was assumed.
Because this hypothetical site was not limited by the sizes or shapes which characterize actual land parcels,
the ideal site was assumed.
Components included in the massing exercise for this option were:
Circuit Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office, including land records/archives)
General District Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Commonwealth’s Attorney
Sheriff (holding and court security only)
J&DR Court (courtrooms/chambers and clerk’s office)
Court Services Unit
The conceptual plan for this option assumes a site large enough to accommodate both future expansion
and all surface level parking with adequate green space and storm water retention to avoid any parking
decks or structured storm water retention facilities. A building foot print of approximately 30,000 square
feet is indicated. This is slightly larger than shown for COB McIntire as it is anticipated the actual site
selected for this option would allow for a larger first floor foot‐print. As at, COB McIntire this would
accommodate up to four courts per floor on the upper levels of the courthouse. Dependant on the actual
design and final size of the building footprint it is anticipated that a building ranging anywhere from three
to five stories (dependant on the foot‐print of the first floor) could support the needs of the courts.
A surface public parking area sized for 250 spaces is located to the front of the courthouse. 100 Staff
spaces are located to the rear of the facility. Parking for the judiciary is proposed to be located within the
footprint of the new courthouse in a lower level. Staff, judicial, sheriff’s in‐custody defendant and service
entrances to the building are all located to the rear of the courthouse to provide both visual and physical
separation of these functions from the public. The concept design also provides for an 80 foot vehicular
stand‐off distance around the courthouse for anti‐terrorist/ force protection measures, which is
recommended where it can be provided.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-17
Expansion for the facility is shown as a free standing annex dedicated for the use of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Courts on space set aside for this purpose. Expansion could also be accommodated by
an addition to the courthouse. A decision in regards to the best method to provide for needed space
beyond the planning horizon of this study would be made at a later date. In either case the concept
diagram accommodates expansion beyond the initial construction of the proposed courthouse.
Figure 11 ‐ Green Field Option
Design Challenges
Site Access
Separability
Staffing (Security, Commonwealth’s Attorney)
Parking
Preservation
Restoration
Costs
Estimated Cost (pre‐SD): $557 per SF
Estimated Total Construction Cost: $52.1M
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 4 – Option Development
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
4-18
Pros
Ample Green Field Site allows for customized design with few site or footprint limitations.
Potential Co‐Location is possible for all court components in the long run, with expansion possible
beyond the 2030 planning window.
Provides maximum space needs beyond the 20‐year planning horizon for all components.
Potential to be a catalyst for economic development in the surrounding area. Additional research
is needed to confirm/quantify this assumption.
Setbacks from roadways allow for optimal blast protection distances.
All new construction offers ease of state‐of‐the‐art technological integration.
Cons
The Existing Courthouse and Levy Building are left vacant, abandoning the historical court context
and all existing infrastructure. The Circuit Court Judge has indicated a preference for not moving
the Circuit Court out of the Jefferson Courthouse.
Long‐term, this scenario also abandons the recently constructed J&DR Court.
A referendum is required to approve moving the courts outside the County Seat.
Relocation is required for Sheriff’s Office Administration and Court Services, both in relatively new
space downtown.
Interim solutions assume up to 20 years or more of split court operations, with J&DR downtown
and Circuit and General District Courts at the new facility.
Construction costs must acknowledge a range of unknowns at this pre‐design stage, including site
development costs, finishes, and the operational costs associated with courts separated by
physical distance. Further study is required to narrow the range of costs.
Court operations are split in two locations, with potential future reconsolidation of
Circuit/General District & J&DR
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 5 – Recommendations
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
5-1
Section 5 ‐ Recommendations
A number of recommendations have emerged during the course of this study. The recommendations
range from simple suggestions to implement in the short‐term to broad scope recommendations for a
long‐term courthouse solution. This chapter is an attempt to summarize the consultant team’s
recommendations to Albemarle County for moving forward, both short‐ and long‐term, and to proceed in
making the best informed decisions on behalf of the citizens of Albemarle County.
Court Storage Report
A court storage report was conducted concurrent to this study for the circuit court, general district court,
and Commonwealth’s Attorney to determine short‐term space mitigation strategies to improve the
constraints currently affecting court operations. This report produced some short‐term recommendations
which can be implemented immediately, and which will hopefully help to improve conditions in the
interim, while decisions are made and phasing is determined for a more long‐term approach.
Urgency for Determining Long‐Term Direction for Courts
Current space shortfalls and quality of that space determine the urgency of need for implementing a
solution.
The analysis of current caseload per judge/courtroom indicates that the Circuit Court needs 1.25 full‐time
courtrooms right now. They are currently using one courtroom (with questionable circulation, no holding,
and inadequate jury facilities) and one approximately 600 SF “hearing” type room (on the third floor, in a
location that does not meet accessibility or life safety standards, and which cannot accommodate a jury or
large groups). The forecast shows the need growing to between 1.5 and 1.65 courtrooms by the year
2030.
Current General District Court caseload indicates a need for 1.27 to 1.49 courtrooms right now. This
division is currently using one courtroom and one “hearing” type room, which is approximately 400 SF in
size. As with the circuit court, the general district court set offers little or no separation of circulation, and
little or no holding. The hearing room is located across a small public waiting area from the main
courtroom, forcing the judge and all parties to matriculate through the same open area to enter the room.
Although the cases processed in this division are limited jurisdiction cases, in‐custody defendants and
witnesses are common, and the lack of secure holding adjacent to the courtroom is a concern. The
forecast shows the need for general district courtroom space growing to between 1.37 and 2.31
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 5 – Recommendations
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
5-2
courtrooms by 2030. Project leadership has opted to use the higher number for the purposes of this
planning study.
Fractions of courtrooms are rounded up to the nearest whole courtroom when sharing is not possible.
With both divisions in one building, the current need totals approximately three full‐time courtrooms (1.25
circuit + 1.27 general district = 2.52, rounded to 3.0). If circuit and general district divisions continue to be
housed in the same building (Green Field Site Outside City Limits Option), it could be possible to design and
build uniform courtrooms which could be used for all case types, so that courtroom sharing can continue.
These courtrooms would need to be uniformly designed as large trial courtrooms, but efficiencies may be
achieved through sharing. In this case, the need totals approximately four full‐time courtrooms by 2030
(1.65 circuit + 2.31 general district = 3.96, rounded up to 4.0). Beyond this growth window, there is no
additional courtroom time available, so if the assumptions behind this forecast hold, it can be anticipated
that more courtrooms will be required shortly after 2030. Note that the solution which was developed and
priced in this study did not assume this type of sharing, in order to provide equal comparison of price and
space with the other two scenarios.
If, however, the two divisions are separated (Downtown Option, COB‐McIntire Option), sharing cannot
occur, and circuit and general district courtroom needs must be assessed separately. Circuit will require
two full time courtrooms by 2030 (1.65 rounded up to 2.0) and general district will require three full time
courtrooms by 2030 (2.31 rounded up to 3.0) for a total of 5.0 courtrooms. In this case, the two circuit
courtrooms must be designed as large trial courtrooms, but the general district courtrooms can be
designed for their purpose, and can be slightly smaller. There is also available dark time beyond the 2030
window (0.35 of a circuit courtroom and 0.69 of a general district courtroom) to absorb future growth.
Security and life safety conditions at the courthouse, combined with current courtroom space shortfalls,
press for a rapid decision about a future path forward. The decision must determine which of the three
options presented in this study is right for Albemarle County, and the issue of courtroom sharing is just
one of several subordinate pre‐design decisions which will need to be made to hone in on the scope of
work to follow.
Additional Information Gathering Steps
Some steps have been identified, which could be undertaken to further inform the group prior to making a
final decision. These include:
o Conduct community involvement meetings to assess the values and priorities of the
citizens
o Conduct a broader cost analysis of three options
Bring on economic impact analysis specialists
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 5 – Recommendations
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
5-3
Bring on life‐cycle analysis specialists to enhance the cost estimate beyond
construction/project costs
o If new construction, work to create a vision for the whole complex. Bring on a developer
team‐mate and establish a clear vision and steps forward.
It is strongly recommended that as many of these steps be taken as possible, so that the decision‐makers
can rest comfortably in their selection, knowing they have tapped all relevant information prior to
selecting a future path.
Timeline to Action
This report has documented the existing security and capacity issues which exist at the historic courthouse,
and which can only be fully resolved through renovation of the existing facility or moving at least a part of
the courts elsewhere. The concurrent court storage needs study has documented record storage and
archival concerns which can only be completely resolved through a long‐term strategy.
Although the forecasted space needs are not pushing for immediate action, current space shortfalls and
compromised security press for immediate steps to be taken toward a long‐term solution. While it is fair
to expect such a solution to take years to completely implement, it is reasonable to expect steps to be
taken from this point forward to move toward some alleviation of current problems.
Some issues which should be considered pressing include the following:
o Security, infrastructure, life safety, and capacity issues at the historic courthouse
o Circuit court archives are un‐searchable at Levy
o The Commonwealth Attorney’s office is in a poor location, split by public corridor, with no
security
o Some costly infrastructure needs will occur shortly – such as elevators in the historic
courthouse.
o The courts are implementing operational compromises to the space limitations which affect
security.
a. Judge walks in public space to CR
b. Tiny hearing room off of public space for general district hearings
c. Prisoner movement is not restricted
d. No holding in courthouse to speak of
e. Multiple entrances so just secure the courtrooms
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 5 – Recommendations
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
5-4
All of these factors push toward immediate action of some kind. Even if a built solution is the long‐term
fix, design and interim mitigating strategies will need to occur during the intervening 2‐3 years prior to
groundbreaking, and the 5‐7 years prior to completion of construction.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-1
Appendix A – Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville Historic and Projected Population 1992‐2030
Year
Albemarle
County
Population
Albemarle County
Population Annual
Growth
Albemarle County
Average Annual
Growth Rate
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Population
Albemarle County Population
and City of Charlottesville
Annual Growth
Combined
Average Annual
Growth Rate
1992 69,977 110,185
1993 71,340 1.95% 111,419 1.12%
1994 72,569 1.72% 112,425 0.90%
1995 75,744 4.38% 113,538 0.99%
1996 76,935 1.57% 114,544 0.89%
1997 77,615 0.88% 115,445 0.79%
1998 79,417 2.32% 116,405 0.83%
1999 80,145 0.92% 116,960 0.48%
2000 84,196 5.05% 124,285 6.26%
2001 85,666 1.75% 126,416 1.71%
2002 86,366 0.82% 127,537 0.89%
2003 87,341 1.13% 128,071 0.42%
2004 88,736 1.60% 129,481 1.10%
2005 90,376 1.85% 131,203 1.33%
2006 92,007 1.80% 133,046 1.40%
2007 92,751 0.81% 134,014 0.73%
2008 94,287 1.66% 135,905 1.41%
2009 94,908 0.66% 137,126 0.90%
2010 98,970 4.28% 1.95% 142,445 3.88% 1.45%
2011 100,665 1.71% 144,482 1.43%
2012 102,360 1.68% 146,519 1.41%
2013 104,055 1.66% 148,555 1.39%
2014 105,750 1.63% 150,592 1.37%
2015 107,445 1.60% 152,629 1.35%
2016 109,139 1.58% 154,666 1.33%
2017 110,834 1.55% 156,703 1.32%
2018 112,529 1.53% 158,739 1.30%
2019 114,224 1.51% 160,776 1.28%
2020 115,919 1.48% 162,813 1.27%
2021 117,614 1.46% 164,877 1.27%
2022 119,309 1.44% 166,941 1.25%
2023 121,004 1.42% 169,004 1.24%
2024 122,699 1.40% 171,068 1.22%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-2
2025 124,394 1.38% 173,132 1.21%
2026 126,088 1.36% 175,196 1.19%
2027 127,783 1.34% 177,260 1.18%
2028 129,478 1.33% 179,323 1.16%
2029 131,173 1.31% 181,387 1.15%
2030 132,868 1.29% 1.48% 183,451 1.14% 1.27%
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-3
Appendix B – Albemarle Circuit Court Case Filings, 1992‐2010
0
500
1,000
1,500
1992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Number of New Case FilingsYear
Albemarle County Circuit Court Case Filing Trends by Case Type
1992‐2010
Total Civil Cases Total Criminal Cases
Civil Cases Criminal Cases
Total
Circuit
Court
Cases Year
GD
APLS/REM
Other
Law Divorce
Other
Equity
J&DR
Appeals
Total
Civil
Cases
1&2
Felony
Other
Felony Misdemeanor
Total
Criminal
Cases
1992 33 473 297 132 18 953 21 366 194 581 1,534
1993 35 473 336 128 16 988 12 451 187 650 1,638
1994 29 441 326 103 35 934 12 308 202 522 1,456
1995 37 447 309 156 30 979 36 339 310 685 1,664
1996 35 327 307 126 48 843 20 516 294 830 1,673
1997 34 375 307 141 34 891 32 508 371 911 1,802
1998 20 444 291 136 44 935 6 587 358 951 1,886
1999 33 400 325 123 44 925 12 709 380 1,101 2,026
2000 24 402 276 115 45 862 7 710 353 1,070 1,932
2001 36 392 244 118 47 837 8 666 292 966 1,803
2002 27 292 232 139 34 724 10 791 270 1,071 1,795
2003 27 290 268 115 42 742 18 761 255 1,034 1,776
2004 23 405 234 165 40 867 4 723 232 959 1,826
2005 22 560 220 142 33 977 0 699 258 957 1,934
2006 24 738 150 29 37 978 0 928 279 1,207 2,185
2007 15 619 217 25 28 904 9 744 335 1,088 1,992
2008 21 706 209 26 40 1,002 5 947 390 1,342 2,344
2009 31 746 221 18 39 1,055 9 908 347 1,264 2,319
2010 17 782 225 23 62 1,109 3 862 268 1,133 2,242
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-4
Appendix C – Albemarle General District Court Case Filings, 1992‐2010
New Case Filings
Year
Criminal
Cases
Traffic
Cases
Civil
Cases
Total New
District Court
Case Filings
1992 3,196 10,207 9,206 22,609
1993 3,302 11,367 10,526 25,195
1994 3,241 9,388 10,190 22,819
1995 3,440 10,566 9,623 23,629
1996 3,377 11,306 6,789 21,472
1997 3,540 12,007 7,381 22,928
1998 3,388 12,436 8,871 24,695
1999 3,627 12,654 8,545 24,826
2000 3,150 11,618 10,661 25,429
2001 3,408 13,007 11,698 28,113
2002 3,400 13,042 13,466 29,908
2003 3,204 10,781 12,175 26,160
2004 2,954 11,790 13,217 27,961
2005 2,952 13,671 16,313 32,936
2006 3,388 13,013 16,729 33,130
2007 3,510 16,987 18,278 38,775
2008 3,161 17,627 17,993 38,781
2009 3,348 18,131 16,932 38,411
2010 3,136 18,635 16,653 38,424
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
1992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Numebr of New Case FilingsYear
Albemarle County General District Court Case Filing Trends by Case Type
1992‐2010
Criminal Cases Traffic Cases Civil Cases
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-5
Appendix D – 2009 State‐Wide Circuit Court Case Filing Workloads
*Note: Currently the Albemarle County Circuit Court new case filings for year 2010 are 2,242.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-6
Appendix E – 2009 State‐Wide District Court Case Filing Workloads
*Note: Currently the Albemarle County General District Court new case filings for year 2010 are 38,424.
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-7
Appendix F – Comparable County Populations to Albemarle County
District/
Circuit
Counties Within
District
Total Number of
Judges In
Circuit/District
Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Counties of Virginia
Geographic Area Population Estimates Census
2009 2005 2000
23 Roanoke County 6 Circuit Court
5 General District
Court
.Roanoke County 91,011 88,483 85,776
Roanoke City .Roanoke City 94,482 92,506 94,912
Salem
27 Bland
5 Circuit Court
5 General District
Court
.Montgomery County 91,023 87,020 83,631
Carroll
Floyd
Giles
Grayson
Montgomery
Pulaski
Wythe
Radford
Galax
16 Albemarle
5 Circuit Court
4 General District
Court
.Albemarle County 94,908 90,376 84,196
Culpeper (2010 Census:
Fluvanna 98,970)
Goochland
Greene
Louisa
Madison
Orange
Charlottesville
3 Portsmouth 5 Circuit Court
3 General District
Courts
.Portsmouth City 99,321 100,783 100,566
15 Caroline
8 Circuit Court
6 General District
Court
.Hanover County 99,933 96,473 86,320
Essex
Hanover
King George
Lancaster
Northumberland
Richmond County
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Westmoreland
Fredericksburg
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-8
Appendix G – Comparable County Populations to Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville
District/
Circuit
Counties Within
District
Total Number of
Judges In
Circuit/District
Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Counties of Virginia
Geographic Area Population Estimates Census
2009 2005 2000
15 Caroline
8 Circuit Court
6 General District
Court
.Spotsylvania County 120,977 114,909 90,395
Essex .Stafford County 124,166 116,672 92,446
Hanover
King George
Lancaster
Northumberland
Richmond County
Spotsylvania
Stafford
Westmoreland
Fredericksburg
16 Albemarle
5 Circuit Court
4 General District
Court
Albemarle and City of
Charlottesville
137,126 131,203 124,285
Culpeper
Fluvanna (2010 Census:
Goochland 142,445)
Greene
Louisa
Madison
Orange
Charlottesville
8
Hampton City
4 Circuit Court
3 General District
Court
.Hampton city 144,236 147,051 146,437
18
Alexandria City
3 Circuit Court
2 General District
Court .Alexandria city 150,006 137,602 128,351
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-9
Appendix H – Albemarle Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Case Filings, 1992‐2010
New Cases Hearings
Year
Juvenile
Cases
Domestic
Relations
Cases
Total New
Juvenile & DR
Cases
Juvenile
Hearings
Held
Juvenile
Hearings
Per case
Domestic
Hearings
Held
Domestic
Hearings
Per case Judges Clerks
1992 1,600 1,625 3,225 2,810 1.76 2,752 1.69 0.6 5
1993 1,734 1,844 3,578 3,388 1.95 3,346 1.81 0.6 5
1994 1,677 1,843 3,520 3,556 2.12 7,327 2.08 0.6 5
1995 2,087 1,898 3,985 4,944 2.37 4,454 2.35 0.6 5
1996 2,114 1,694 3,808 5,118 2.42 4,342 2.56 0.6 5
1997 2,595 1,538 4,133 6,185 2.38 3,906 2.54 0.6 5
1998 2,705 1,687 4,392 7,226 2.67 4,297 2.55 0.6 5
1999 2,927 1,734 4,661 7,089 2.42 7,702 2.54 0.6 5
2000 2,502 1,596 4,098 7,478 2.99 4,180 2.62 0.6 5
2001 2,251 1,535 3,786 5,667 2.52 3,781 2.46 0.6 5
2002 2,247 1,567 3,814 5,268 2.34 4,068 2.60 0.6 5
2003 2,316 1,529 3,845 5,567 2.40 3,649 2.39 0.6 5
2004 1,864 1,591 3,455 4,725 2.53 3,742 2.35 0.6 5
2005 2,137 1,562 3,699 5,256 2.46 3,854 2.47 0.6 5
2006 2,159 1,465 3,624 6,155 2.85 4,000 2.73 0.6 5
2007 2,539 1,579 4,118 6,773 2.67 4,012 2.54 0.6 5
2008 2,381 1,567 3,948 6,546 2.75 4,203 2.68 0.6 5
2009 2,022 1,622 3,644 5,598 2.77 4,013 2.47 0.6 5
2010 2,003 1,568 3,571 5,169 2.58 4,190 2.67 0.6 5
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Number of New Case FilingsYear
Albemarle County General District Court Case Filing Trends by Case Type
1992‐2010
Juvenile Cases Domestic Relations Cases
Courts Master Plan Study
Section 6 – Appendices
Dewberry ǀ FPW Architects ǀ NCSC
A-10
Appendix I – 16th Judicial District Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Case Filings, 1992‐2010
Year
Historic
Juvenile
Cases
Historic
Domestic
Relations
Cases
Historic
Total J &
DR Cases
Juvenile
Hearings
per Case
Domestic
Relations
Hearings per
Case
Number
of
Judges
Number
of J&DR
Clerks
1992 6,436 6,865 13,301 1.88 1.86 4 9
1993 6,833 8,064 14,897 1.95 2.01 4 9
1994 7,158 7,955 15,113 2.09 2.32 4 9
1995 8,348 8,156 16,504 2.28 2.49 4 9
1996 9,090 8,261 17,351 2.36 2.64 4 9
1997 10,692 8,688 19,380 2.39 2.57 4 9
1998 11,195 9,356 20,551 2.45 2.58 4 9
1999 12,295 9,377 21,672 2.37 2.44 4 9
2000 11,971 9,073 21,044 2.58 2.57 4 9
2001 10,666 9,236 19,902 2.42 2.37 4 9
2002 10,959 9,135 20,094 2.28 2.41 4 9
2003 10,390 9,476 19,866 2.43 2.39 4 9
2004 9,392 9,434 18,826 2.41 2.31 4 9
2005 10,490 9,558 20,048 2.38 2.36 4 9
2006 10,836 9,866 20,702 2.48 2.33 4 9
2007 11,529 10,640 22,169 2.48 2.42 4 9
2008 11,416 10,458 21,874 2.48 2.42 4 9
2009 10,888 10,439 21,327 2.51 2.51 4 9
2010 10,126 10,166 20,292 2.55 2.64 4 9
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Number of New Case FilingsYear
16th Judicial District Juvenile and Domestic Relations Case Filing Trends by Case Type
1992‐2010
Historic Juvenile Cases Historic Domestic Relations Cases
Analysis of Separation VA Courts.xlsx
Key Green = different address Yellow = non walkable
District Name Distance Circuit-Gen Dist.Circuit Court Address General District Court Address J&DR Court Address
25 Augusta County 1 East Johnson Street, Staunton 6 East Johnson Street, Staunton
25 City of Staunton 113 E. Beverly Street, Staunton 113 E. Beverly Street, Staunton
25 Highland County
25 Waynesboro 250 South Wayne Ave, Waynesboro 250 South Wayne Ave, Waynesboro 237 Market Avenue, Waynesboro
25 Bath Courthouse, Warm Springs
25 Lexington/Rockbridge 20 S. Randolph ST, Lexington VA 20 S. Randolph ST, Lexington VA 20 S. Randolph ST, Lexington VA
25 Buena Vista 2039 Sycamore, Buena Vista
25 Botetourt Courthouse, Main Street, Fincastle
25 Craig 182 Main Street, New Castle, VA
25 Allegheny 266 West Main Street, Covington, VA
2A Accomack .09 miles 23316 Courthouse Avenue, Accomac VA 23371 Front Street, Accomac, VA 23371 Front Street, Accomac, VA
2A Northamption 5229 The Hornes, Eastville, VA 5229 The Hornes, Eastville, VA 5229 The Hornes, Eastville, VA
2A Virginia Beach 2425 Nimmo Parkway, Bldg 10, Virginia Beach 2425 Nimmo Parkway, Virginia Beach 2425 Nimmo Parkway, Bldg 10, Virginia Beach
18 Alexandria 520 King Street, Alexandria, VA 520 King Street, Alexandria, VA 520 King Street, Alexandria, VA
11 Amelia Courthouse Square, Amelia VA
11 Powhatan 3880 Old Buckingham road, suite C, Powhatan VA
11 Nottoway 328 West Courthouse Road, Nottoway, VA
11 Dinwiddie Courthouse, 14008 Boydton Plank Rd, Dinwiddie, VA
11 Petersburg 0.12 miles 7 Courthouse Avenue, Petersburg, VA 35 East Tabb Street, Petersburg, VA 27 East Tabb Street, Petersburg, VA
24 Amherst 113 Taylor Street, Amherst, VA 113 Taylor Street, Amherst, VA 113 Taylor Street, Amherst, VA
24 Nelson 84 Courthouse Square, Lovingston, VA 84 Courthouse Square, Lovingston, VA 84 Courthouse Square, Lovingston, VA
24 Lynchburg 900 Court Street, Lynchburg, VA 905 Court Street, Lynchburg VA 909 Court Street, Lynchburg, VA
24 Bedford 123 East Main Street, Bedford, VA 123 East Main Street, Bedford, VA 123 East Main Street, Bedford, VA
24 Campbell 732 Village Highway, Rustburg 732 Village Highway, Rustburg 732 Village Highway, Rustburg
10 Appomattox 297 Court Street, Appomattox, VA 297 Court Street, Appomattox, VA 297 Court Street, Appomattox, VA
10 Buckingham 13061 W. James Anderson Highway, Buckingham, VA
10 Charlotte 0.11 miles 125 David Bruce Avenue, Charlotte Cthse, VA 111 Legrande Avenue, Charlotte Cthse, VA 420 Thomas Jefferson Highway, Charlotte Cthse, VA
10 Halifax .02 miles Main Street, Halifax, VA 8 S. Main Street, Halifax, VA Courthouse Building, Halifax, VA
10 Cumberland 1 Courthouse Circle, Cumberland, VA
10 Prince Edward Courthouse Building, North Main St, Farmville VA
10 Lunenburg 0.37 miles (8 minutes walking)11435 Courthouse Road, Lunenburg VA
10 Mecklenburg 0.47 miles (11 minutes walking)393 Washington Street, Boydton VA 911 Madison Street, Boydton, Va 911 Madison Street, Boydton, Va
17 Arlington 1425 North Courthouse Rd, Arlington VA 1425 North Courthouse Rd, Arlington VA 1425 North Courthouse Rd, Arlington VA
17 City of Falls Church 5.48 miles (not practical to walk)1425 North Courthouse Rd, Arlington VA
27 Bland 612 Main Street, Bland VA
27 Pulaski 42 3rd Street NW, Pulaski, VA 42 3rd Street NW, Pulaski, VA 42 3rd Street NW, Pulaski, VA
27 Wythe 225 S. 4th Street, Wythville, VA 245 S. 4th Street, Wythville, VA 225 S. 4th Street, Wythville VA
27 Grayson New Grayson Cthse, 129 Davis Street, Independence
27 Carroll 605 Pine Street, Hillsville, VA 605 Pine Street, Hillsville, VA 605 Pine Street, Hillsville, VA
27 Galax
27 Floyd 100 East Main Street, Floyd, VA
27 Radford 619 Second Street, West, Radford, VA
27 Montgomery 55 East Main Street, Christiansburg, VA 55 East Main Street, Christiansburg, VA 55 East Main Street, Christiansburg, VA
27 Giles .08 miles 501 Wenonah Ave, Pearisburg, VA
28 Bristol 497 Cumberland St., Bristol, VA 497 Cumberland St., Bristol, VA 497 Cumberland St., Bristol, VA
28 Washington 189 E. Main Street, Abingdon VA 191 E. Main Street, Abingdon VA 187 E. Main Street, Abingdon VA
28 Smyth
9 York 300 Ballard Street, Yorktown, VA 300 Ballard Street, Yorktown, VA 300 Ballard Street, Yorktown, VA
9 King William 351 Courthouse Lane, King William, VA 351 Courthouse Lane, King William, VA
9 King & Queen Courthouse, King & Queen, VA 242 Allens Circle, Courthouse, King & Queen VA
9 Middlesex 0.19 miles (4 mins walking)Routes 17 and 33, Courthouse, Saluda, VA 23149
9 Mathews 22.94 miles (not practical to walk)10622 Buckley Hall Road, Mathews, VA
9 Gloucester 7400 Justice Drive, Gloucester, VA 7400 Justice Drive, Gloucester, VA
9 New Kent 12001 Courthouse Circle, New Kent VA 12001 Courthouse Circle, New Kent VA 12001 Courthouse Circle, New Kent VA
9 Charles City 10870 Courthouse Road, Charles City VA
9 James City County/Williamsburg 5201 Monticello Avenue, Williamsburg VA 5201 Monticello Avenue, Williamsburg VA 5201 Monticello Avenue, Williamsburg VA
VA Commonwealth Court Locations
300 Park Avenue, Falls Church VA
100 E. Main Street, Floyd, VA
6 East Johnson Street, Staunton
73 Bowden Street, Saluda, VA 23149 7400 Justice Drive, Gloucester, VA
351 Courthouse Lane, King William, VA
619 Second Street, Radford, VA
120 North Main St., Pearisburg, VA
10780 Courthouse Road, Charles City VA
111 South Street, Courthouse Bldg, Farmville, VA
160 Courthouse Square, Lunenberg VA
612 Main Street, Bland VA
New Grayson Cthse, 129 Davis St, Independence, VA
353 N. Main Street, Galax, VA
Courthouse, Cumberland, VA
2039 Sycamore Avenue, Buena Vista
Courthouse, Warm Springs
165 W. Main Street, Monterey
20 East Back Street, Fincastle
182 Main Street, New Castle, VA
266 West Main Street, Covington VA
16441 Court Street, Amelia VA
3880-D Old Buckingham Road, Courthouse, Powhatan, VA
328 West Courthouse Road, Nottoway, VA
Dinwiddie Courthouse, Dinwiddie, VA
Courthouse, Buckingham, VA
Page 1 of 3
Analysis of Separation VA Courts.xlsx
Key Green = different address Yellow = non walkable
District Name Distance Circuit-Gen Dist.Circuit Court Address General District Court Address J&DR Court Address
VA Commonwealth Court Locations
6 East Johnson Street, Staunton 30 Wise
30 Norton
30 Lee Courthouse, Main Street, Jonesville VA
30 Scott 202 W. Jackson Street, Gate City, VA
26 Winchester/Frederick Jud. Ctr, 5 N. Kent Street, Winchester, VA Jud. Ctr, 5 N. Kent Street, Winchester, VA Jud. Ctr, 5 N. Kent Street, Winchester, VA
26 Clarke 102 North Church St., Berryville VA 104 North Church St., Berryville VA 105 North Church St., Berryville VA
26 Warren Cthse, One E. Main St., Front Royal, VA Cthse, One E. Main St., Front Royal, VA Cthse, One E. Main St., Front Royal, VA
26 Page 116 S. Court St., Luray, VA 116 S. Court St., Luray, VA 116 S. Court St., Luray, VA
26 Shenandoah 0.74 miles (not practical to walk)112 S. Main Street, Woodstock, VA 215 Mill Road, Woodstock, VA 215 Mill Road, Woodstock, VA
26 Rockingham
26 Harrisonburg
15 Westmoreland Courthouse, Montross, VA 111 Polk Street, Montross, VA 111 Polk Street, Montross, VA
15 Stafford 1300 Courthouse Rd, Stafford, VA 1300 Courthouse Rd, Stafford, VA 1300 Courthouse Rd, Stafford, VA
15 Fredericksburg 815 Princess Anne Street, Fredericksburg VA 615 Princess Anne Street, Fredericksburg, VA 601 Caroline Street, Fredericksburg VA
15 Spotsylvania 9107 Judicial Center Lane, Spotsylvania 9111 Courthouse Rd, Spotsylvania VA 9113 Courthouse Rd, Spotsylvania VA
15 Caroline .09 miles (2 minutes walking)112 Courthouse Lane, bowling Green Va 111 Ennis St., Bowling Green, VA Cthse, Bowling Green, VA
15 Hanover .04 miles (53 seconds walking)7507 Library Drive, Hanover, VA District Ct, 7515 Library Dr., Hanover District Ct, 7515 Library Dr., Hanover
15 Essex 305 Prince St, Tappahannock, VA
15 Lancaster 8265 Mary Ball Rd, Lancaster, VA 8265 Mary Ball Rd, Lancaster, VA Courthouse, Lancaster, VA
15 Richmond County 101 Court Circle, Warsaw, VA
15 Northumberland 39 Judicial Place, Heathsville, VA 39 Judicial Place, Heathsville, VA 39 Judicial Place, Heathsville, VA
15 King George 9483 Kings Highway, King George, VA
7 Newport News 2500 Washington Ave, Newport News 2500 Washington Ave, Newport News 2501 Huntington Ave, Newport News, VA
4 Norfolk 0.23 miles (5 minutes walking)100 St. Paul's Boulevard, Norfolk, VA 811 East City Hall Ave, Norfolk VA 800 East City Hall Ave, Norfolk VA
13 City of Richmond 400 N. 9th St., Richmond Civil/Traffic GD - 400 N. 9th St, Richmond VA
13 City of Richmond - General District (Criminal)1.70 miles (not practical to walk)920 Hull St, Northside, Richmond VA
13 Richmond/Manchester 1.70 miles (not practical to walk)n/a 920 Hull St., Southside, Richmond VA
13 City of Richmond- J&DR n/a n/a Oliver Hill Courts Bldg, 1600 Oliver Hill Way, Richmond
23 Salem 2 East Calhoun Street, Salem, VA
23 Roanoke County 305 E. Main St, Salem, VA 305 E. Main St, Salem, VA 305 E. Main St, Salem, VA
23 City of Roanoke 315 W. Church Ave, S.W. Roanoke, VA 315 W. Church Ave, S.W. Roanoke, VA 315 W. Church Ave, S.W. Roanoke, VA
20 Loudoun County 18 E. Market St., Leesburg, VA 18 E. Market St., Leesburg, VA 18 E. Market St., Leesburg, VA
20 Fauquier County 0.09 miles (2 minutes walking)29 Ashby Street, Warrenton VA 6 Court Street, Warrenton, VA 14 Main Street, Warrenton VA
20 Rappahannock 238 Gay Street, Washington VA
19 Fairfax County 4110 Chain Bridge Rd, Fairfax
19 City of Fairfax 0.22 miles (5 minutes walking)10455 Armstrong Street, Fairfax VA
12 Colonial Heights 401 Temple Ave, Colonial Heights, VA
12 Chesterfield County 9500 Courthouse Rd, Chesterfield VA 9500 Courthouse Rd, Chesterfield VA 7000 Lucy Corr Blvd, Chesterfield, VA
22 Danville 401 Patton St., Danville, VA 401 Patton St., Danville, VA 401 Patton St., Danville, VA
22 Franklin County 275 S. Main St., Rocky Mount, VA 275 S. Main St., Rocky Mount, VA 275 S. Main St., Rocky Mount, VA
22 Pittsylvania 0.07 miles (one minute walking)One North Main Street, Chatham VA 11 Bank Street, Chatham VA 5 Bank Street, Chatham VA
5 City of Franklin 10.17 minutes (not practical to walk)
5 Southampton
5 Isle of Wight 17000 Josiah Parker Circle, Isle of Wight 17000 Josiah Parker Circle, Isle of Wight 17000 Josiah Parker Circle, Isle of Wight
5 Suffolk 150 N. Main St., Suffolk, VA 150 N. Main St., Suffolk, VA 150 N. Main St., Suffolk, VA
6 Brunswick 216 N. Main St., Lawrenceville VA
6 Sussex 15088 Courthouse Road, Sussex VA
6 Greensville
6 Emporia
6 Prince George 6601 Courts Drive, Prince George VA
6 Hopewell 100 East Broadway, Hopewell VA
6 Surry 0.34 miles (8 minutes walking)28 Colonial Trail, East, Surry VA
29 Tazewell .06 miles (one minute walking)101 East Main Street, Tazewell VA 104 Court St. Suite 3, Tazewell, VA Courthouse, Main Street, Tazewell VA
29 Buchanan Courthouse, Grundy VA
29 Dickenson 293 Main Street, Clintwood, VA
29 Russell 53 East Main Street, Lebanon VA 121 East Main Street, Lebanon VA
315 S. Main St., Emporia, VA337 S. Main St., Emporia, VA
6601 Courts Drive, Prince George, VA
100 East Broadway, Hopewell, VA
Surry Government Center, 45 School St., Surry VA
1012 Walnut Street, Grundy, VA
293 Main Street, Clintwood, VA
250 Gay Street (Cthse), Washington VA
202 N. Main St., Lawrenceville, VA
53 Court Square, Harrisonburg VA 53 Court Square, Harrisonburg VA
State Route 735, Sussex VA
1020 Pretlow St., Franklin VA22350 Main St., Courtland, VA 22350 Main St., Courtland, VA
201 Court Circle, Warsaw, VA
9483 Kings Highway, King George VA
2 East Calhoun St, Salem, VA
4110 Chain Bridge Rd, Fairfax4110 Chain Bridge Rd, Fairfax
Lee County Courthouse, Main Street, Jonesville VA
202 W. Jackson Street, Gate City, VA
80 Court Square, Harrisonburg VA
300 Prince St, Tappahannock, VA
206 East Main Street, Wise VA206 East Main Street, Wise, VA Courthouse, Main Street, Wise, VA
Page 2 of 3
Analysis of Separation VA Courts.xlsx
Key Green = different address Yellow = non walkable
District Name Distance Circuit-Gen Dist.Circuit Court Address General District Court Address J&DR Court Address
VA Commonwealth Court Locations
6 East Johnson Street, Staunton 1 Chesapeake 307 Albemarle Drive, Chesapeake VA 307 Albemarle Drive, Chesapeake VA 307 Albemarle Drive, Chesapeake VA
8 Hampton 0.13 miles (3 minutes walking)101 King's Way Mall, Hampton, VA 236 North King Street, Hampton VA 220 N. King Street, Hampton VA
14 Henrico 4301 East Parham Road, Henrico VA 4301 East Parham Road, Henrico VA 4201 E. Parham Rd, Henrico VA
3 Portsmouth 1345 Court Street, Portsmouth VA 1345 Court Street, Portsmouth VA 1345 Court Street, Portsmouth VA
21 Patrick 0.18 miles (4 minutes walking)101 Blue Ridge Street, Stuart, VA 106 Rucker Street, Stuart VA 106 Rucker Street, Stuart VA
21 Henry 3160 Kings Mountain Road, Martinsville, VA 3160 Kings Mountain Road, Martinsville, VA 3160 Kings Mountain Road, Martinsville, VA
21 Martinsville 55 West church Street, Martinsville VA 55 West church Street, Martinsville VA 55 West church Street, Martinsville VA
31 Prince William 9311 Lee Ave, Manassas Va 9311 Lee Ave, Manassas Va 9311 Lee Ave, Manassas Va
28 Smyth 109 West Main Street, Marion VA 109 West Main Street, Marion VA 109 West Main Street, Marion VA
Page 3 of 3