HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-9-04Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
SEPTEMBER 4, 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. Resolution in Support of Pride Festival Day.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
Discussion/Action Items:
9. Amendment of County Procurement Manual to Include Alternative Procurement Methods.
10. Draft 2014 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program, David Blount.
11. 2014 Legislative Priorities.
Presentations:
12. 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Process/Status, Sarah Rhodes, MPO Program Manager.
13. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Update, Gary O’Connell.
14. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Update, Tom Frederick.
15. Economic Vitality Action Plan Final Report.
16. Closed Meeting.
17. Certify Closed Meeting.
18. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. - Public Hearings:
19. ZTA-2011-00006. Noise. Ordinance to amend Secs. 4.18.01, Applicability, 4.18.02,
Definitions, and Sec. 4.18.05, Exempt sounds, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. The proposed ordinance would amend Sec. 4.18.01 to clarify the applicability of the noise
regulations in Sec. 4.18; amend Sec. 4.18.02 to add definitions of “agricultural activity” and “place of
public entertainment”; and amend Sec. 4.18.05 to state the exemptions in a manner consistent with
the exemptions in County Code § 7-106.
20. Ordinance to amend Secs. 7-102, Applicability, 7-103, Definitions, 7-105,
Prohibited acts enumerated, and 7-106, Exemptions, of Chapter 7, Health and
Safety, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance would amend Sec. 7-102
to clarify the applicability of the noise regulations in Chapter 7; amend Sec. 7-103 by amending the
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0904/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 4) [10/5/2020 11:45:34 AM]
Tentative
definition of “place of public entertainment” and add definitions of “agricultural activity” and
“outdoor”; amend Sec. 7-105 by prohibiting sound from devices producing outdoor amplified music
or serving as an outdoor public address system, or both, if it is audible off-site in the circumstances
described; amend Sec. 7-106 to state the exemptions in a manner consistent with the exemptions
in County Code § 18-4.18.05, including amending the exemption for sound related to agricultural
activities to apply to sound produced “by,” rather than “during,” an agricultural activity; and to make
other technical amendments necessary to conform to Virginia Code requirements.
21. To consider the approval of a proposed Lease Agreement with Crozet Running,
LLC for 1,697 square feet of space on the ground floor of the new Crozet Library, located at 2020
Library Avenue, Crozet, VA 22932 (TMP 056A2-01-00-01800).
22. Ordinance to establish a tourism zone pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-
3851. Proposed ordinance to establish a tourism zone pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3851. The
proposed ordinance would establish a tourism zone whose boundaries are coterminous with the
boundaries of the Crozet Development Area as depicted in the Crozet Master Plan, designate the
tourism zone as the “Crozet Tourism Zone,” and state that the purpose of the tourism zone is to
provide gap financing as authorized by Virginia Code § 58.1-3851.1.
Presentation:
23. Boys and Girls Club Annual Update, James Pierce, Executive Director, Boys and Girls Club.
24. Request to Use Portion of Water Base Rate for Green Infrastructure to Reduce Sediment in
the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed, Michael Collins, The Center for Natural Capital.
Work Session:
25. Water Resources Program Development (Virginia Stormwater Management Program) –
Work Session #3.
26. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
27. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
28. Adjourn to 3:30 p.m., September 11, 2013.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: July 3 and July 10, 2013.
8.2 ZMA-2005-09. Briarwood PRD - Special Exception to allow variation to the Phasing Plan.
8.3 FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
8.4 FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0904/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 4) [10/5/2020 11:45:34 AM]
Tentative
8.5 FY 14/15 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar.
8.6 “Watch for Children” Signs.
8.7 Agreement with VDOT for County Removal of Illegal Signs from the Highway Rights-of-Way.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.8 September 2013 VDOT Charlottesville Residency Monthly Report for Albemarle County.
8.9 Copy of letter dated August 9, 2013, from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to John
Gilbert Campbell, re: LOD-2013-00011 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD
& DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, Tax Map 105, Parcel 1A (property of John Gilbert Campbell),
Scottsville Magisterial District.
8.10 Copy of letter dated August 9, 2013, from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to Janice
E. Stargell, re: LOD-2013-00012 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD &
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, Tax Map 110, Parcel 7 (property of Janice E. Stargell), Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
8.11 Copy of letter dated August 9, 2013, from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to Ronald
S. Woodson and Kathy Y. Woodson, Trustees, Kathy Y. Woodson Declaration of Trust, re: LOD-
2013-00013 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS, Tax Map 99, Parcel 52 (property of Kathy Y. Woodson Declaration of Trust; Ronald S.
Woodson & Kathy Y. Woodson TRS), Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
8.12 Copy of letter dated August 9, 2013, from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to Joan
Parker Caldwell and Cheryl Lynn Caldwell Ferguson, re: LOD-2013-00014 – OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, Tax Map 18, Parcel
39; Tax Map 19, Parcel 9; Tax Map 19, Parcel 11; Tax Map 19, Parcel 17A (property of Joan
Parker Caldwell and Cheryl Lynn Caldwell Ferguson), White Hall Magisterial District.
8.13 Copy of letter dated August 9, 2013, from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to Henley
Forest, Inc., re: LOD-2013-00015 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD &
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, Tax Map 39, Parcels 4 and 14; and Tax Map 40, Parcels 1 and 27A
(property of Henley Forest Inc), White Hall Magisterial District.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0904/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 4) [10/5/2020 11:45:34 AM]
Tentative
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0904/0.0_Agenda.htm (4 of 4) [10/5/2020 11:45:34 AM]
Variation to Briarwood Phasing Plan
September 4, 2013 BOS
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZMA2005-09_Briarwood PRD
Special Exception
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special Exception to allow a variation to the Phasing
Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish and Mr. Perez
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: September 4, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Briarwood development is located off of Seminole Trail (Route 29) and is zoned Planned Residential Development
(PRD) and has proffers associated with it. The development has been through numerous rezonings (ZMA91-13, ZMA95-
05, ZMA2004-14, and ZMA2005-09). On March 16, 2011 a variation from the approved application plan modified the
phasing plan for the development (reviewed under SDP2010-00084). The applicant is requesting a special exception to
allow for another variation to the phasing plan for the development as authorized by County Code Section 18 -8.5.5.3
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
With this variation the applicant proposes to modify the phasing plan to react to the current market and builder demands.
The total number of townhouse units and single family units in each phase shall remain unchanged for each phase, and
the total number of units within the entire development will also remain unchanged per Proffer #9. Based on market
demands the applicant has updated the lot widths in the development, which has created the nee d to modify some of the
phasing lines within the plan, without any changes to the overall density.
The applicant submitted a request and justification for the variation by letter dated March 25, 2013 (Attachment B) with
revised phasing plan dated April 22, 2013 (Attachment A), and the request has been reviewed for Zoning, Engineering
and Planning aspects of the regulations and staff finds no objection. This variation will allow the revised phases as
depicted on “Briarwood Phasing Letter of Revision” prepared by Collins Engineering, dated April 22, 2013 to become the
phase plan for Briarwood. Section 8.5.5.3(a) authorizes the Director of Planning to grant variations from the approved
application plan. However, due to the State Supreme Court decision, these variations must now be approved by the
Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 33.5 and 33.9. Staff is recommending approval
of the variation.
PHASING PLAN VARIATION:
The applicant submitted the following request: “Overall market and builder demands are the reason for this modification
request. The market demand for this neighborhood is smaller single family houses and smaller townhouse lots. This
change to the overall phasing will allow us to accomplish the changes to the lot demand, while maintaining the same
overall density on the plan.” Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Interconnections, a mix of
housing types, buildings that are close to the street and open space will remain.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development.
The variation will not increase the approved density or intensity of development. The residential units and density
within this development remain within the approved lot mix from ZMA 2004-014 and ZMA2005-09.
Variation to Briarwood Phasing Plan
September 4, 2013 BOS
2
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The variation does not adversely affect any timing or phasing of this or any other development.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning. The development
resulting from the variation continues to pro vide a mixture of housing types, interconnections, and open space in
Briarwood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Exception for a variation to the Briarwood PRD
(ZMA2005-09) Phasing Plan noted as “Briarwood Phasing Letter of Revisio n” prepared by Collins Engineering,
dated April 22, 2013.
Attachments
A) Briarwood Existing and Proposed Phasing Plan
B) Application for Variation
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 Appropriation
#2013105 for school division grants.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 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 appropriation itemized below is $13,000.00. 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 one (1) appropriation as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013105) totaling $13,000.00 for school division grants.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #2013105 to distribute funds received from grants to the proper expenditure
accounts for various school division projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #20130105 $13,000.00
Source: Local Grants $ 2,000.00
Federal Grants $ 11,000.00
The Albemarle County Healthy Students Grant received funds in the amount of $1,500.00 from the United Way. The
Healthy Students Program and the Jefferson Area United Way Smart Beginnings Program jointly sponsored a
summer training focused on elements of the Child Observation Record for preschool educators in the County’s and
the City’s Public Schools. The funds were used for the trainer’s fee, travel, and lodging, and training materials.
The Albemarle County Safe Schools Grant received funds in the amount of $500.00 from Edelman USA AON Center
to participate in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) National Prevention
Week. National Prevention Week is an annual health observance dedicated to increasing public awareness of, and
action around, substance abuse and mental health issues. The funds were used to provide five Prevention Powwows
for the Albemarle/Charlottesville area.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Community Coalition Grant Review Committee awarded the Albemarle County
Schools Safe Schools/Healthy Students Project a grant in the amount of $6,000.00. The Charlottesville/Albemarle
Prevention Coalition and Safe Schools/Healthy Students Project are at the forefront of a collaborative,
multidisciplinary movement to address underage drinking. The goals of this project are to decrease underage drinking
and decrease the incumbent consequences, such as car crashes and arrests. The funds were used to provide
awareness and information about the risk of underage drinking through a variety of activities and marketing
campaigns.
The Albemarle/Charlottesville Gang Steering Committee in conjunction with the Albmearle County Scho ols Safe
Schools/Healthy Students Project was awarded a grant in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Department of Criminal
Justice Services. The Albemarle/Charlottesville region has seen an increase in gang involvement locally with over 160
known active gang members identified. The Gang Reduction through Community Engagement (GRACE) Steering
Committee was created to determine the severity of the local problem and implement a comprehensive approach to
prevention and intervention. These grant funds were used to conduct case file research as part of the comprehensive
gang assessment.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2014024, #2014026, #2014027, #2014028, #2014029,
and #2014030 for local government and school division
programs and projects.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 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 14 budget due to the appropriations itemized below is $73,410.45. 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 six (6) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2014024) to appropriate $8,524.45 for rental income and expenses related to the Old
Crozet Elementary School;
One (1) appropriation (#2014026) to allocate $248,529.00 from the Compensation Plan Reserve to various
departments. This appropriation will not increase the budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2014027) to allocate $17,879.00 for training and professional development for various
departments. This appropriation will not increase the total budget because the funding will be allocated from
the Training Pool funding;
One (1) appropriation (#2014028) to appropriate $20,533.00 to the Department of Voter Registration and
Elections;
One (1) appropriation (#2014029) to appropriate $40,000.00 to the Department of Social Services for the
state-funded Strengthening Families program; and
One (1) appropriation (#2014030) to appropriate $4,353.00 to the Office of Housing for an additional three
months of funding for Virginia Supportive Housing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2014024, #2014026, #2014027, #2014028, #2014029 and #2014030 to
provide funds for various local government projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Appropriation #2014024 $8,524.45
Source: Local Revenue (Rent) $8,524.45
This request is to appropriate $8,524.45 in rental income revenues to provide for preventative maintenance
contracts and fuel oil costs at the Old Crozet Elementary School. T he terms of the recently renewed leases with the
Field School of Charlottesville and the Old Crozet School Arts (OCSA) resulted in an increase of $8,524.45 in
annual total rent revenues over the amount currently budgeted in FY 14. The County anticipates hi gher
maintenance costs than initially budgeted for FY 14.
Appropriation #2014026 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Compensation Plan Reserve $ 248,529.00
During the FY 14 budget development process, the Board approved $290,000.00 in funding for salary increases
associated with the County’s annual performance review process . This request is to appropriate $248,529.00 from
this reserve to various departments based on the results of the annual performance reviews.
Appropriation #2014027 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Training Pool $17,879.00
This request is to appropriate $17,879.00 from the Training Pool to various departments for approved training
opportunities and professional development. The Board approved a Training Pool of $50,000.00 in the FY 14
budget to support the County’s strategic objective to expand opportunities for training and professional
development. After this appropriation, $32,121.00 will remain available in the Training Pool.
Appropriation #2014028 $ 20,533.00
Source: General Fund fund balance $ 20,533.00
This request is to appropriate $20,533.00 to the Department of Voter Registration and Elections from the General Fund fund balance. This funding will (1) provide additional election officials and part-time wages to ensure adequate staffing of voting precincts and assistance for the department’s operations for the November 5, 2013 election and (2) provide training for staff certifications. It is anticipated that the General Fund fund balance monies for this appropriation will be replenished by anticipated unused funds in the Department of Voter Registration and Elections FY 13 budget.
Appropriation #2014029 $ 40,000.00
Source: State Revenue $ 40,000.00 This request is to appropriate $40,000.00 to the Albemarle County Department of Social Services for the state -funded Strengthing Families program. In 2010, the Virginia Department of Social Services launched this program, which focuses on reducing poverty and improving the well-being of mothers, fathers and children across the Commonwealth by reducing non-marital births, connecting and reconnecting fathers with their children, and encouragin g the formation and maintenance of safe, stable, intact, two-parent families. The City of Charlottesville and the County both received $20,000.00 in state fuunding, and the County will serve as the fiscal agent for this program .
Appropriation #2014030 $ 4,353.00
Source: General Fund fund balance $ 4,353.00 This request is to appropriate $4,353.00 to the Office of Housing to provide monthly contributions to Virginia Supportive Housing for rental subsidies at The Crossings for six homeless persons that would otherwise be funded through the federally-funded Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. The FY14 Adopted Budget included two months of funding for this purpose. Pursuant to the Board’s direction at its August 14, 2013 meeting, this appropriation provides an additional three months of funding in FY 14 (for the time period of September through November). Once final approvals are received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and HCV vouchers are issued, local funding will be discontinued. Due to a reduction in the number of rental subsidies utilized in FY 13, it is anticipated that the General Fund fund balance monies required for this appropriation will be replenished by unused funds budgeted for this purpose in FY 13.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 14/15 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set dates related to the development of the FY 14/15
budget
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Walker, Davis, Allshouse L., and Burrell
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The process of developing the County’s Operating Budget for FY 15 and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for
FY15-19 is underway. The proposed calendar is provided to the Board to establish firm dates for Board meetings and
public hearings on the tax rate and budget and the CIP, and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for
planned community meetings, public hearings and work sessions associated with the development of the upcoming
budgets.
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:
There are several dates in the budget presentation and approval process that are driven by Virginia Code
requirements which are reflected in the attached calendar:
Localities with a first-half tax year collection in June must adopt the tax rate on or before April 15th.
There must be at least seven days between the public advertisement of the budget public hearing and the
actual hearing date, and at least seven days between the public hearing and the adoption of the budget.
Localities must provide at least 30 days notice of the tax rate public hearing if the reassessment would result
in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levied compared to the prior year’s tax
levies. Prior to 2009, the requirement was seven days notice.
In addition to these Virginia Code requirements, the School Board has requested that the second public hearing be
scheduled so that it does not coincide with Spring Break.
Attachment A provides a preliminary budget calendar for the FY 15 budget process that meets the Virginia Code
requirements and the School Board’s request. Given that the economy is strengthening, this calendar assumes that
the reassessment would result in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levied in FY 15
compared to FY 14, and schedules for the necessary 30 days of notice.
This schedule requires the Board to hold two additional meetings on April 8th for the budget and the tax rate public
hearings and on April 15th to adopt the budget and to set the tax rates.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the preliminary budget calendar set forth in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Proposed FY 14/15 Budget Development Calendar
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
September 2013
Monday 2 CIP Financial Review Team meetings begin
Monday 9 Operating budget manual and instructions available for County departments
Tuesday 24 CIP Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings begin
October 2013
Thursday 10 Department Budget Presentations to Board of Supervisors (BOS)
Thursday 10 BOS/School Board Compensation meeting with BOS and School Board
Friday 11 Department/office FY 14/15 budget requests due to OMB
Thursday 17 Final CIP TRC meeting
November 2013
Monday 4 Joint CIP Oversight Committee/TRC meeting
Friday 8 Community agency applications due to OMB
Wednesday 13 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan – General Government
Thursday 14 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan – School Division
Monday 18 CIP Oversight Committee meeting
Tuesday 19 Employee Town Hall meeting (COB McIntire)
Thursday 21 Employee Town Hall meeting (COB 5th)
Monday 25 CIP Oversight Committee meeting (if needed)
December 2013
Wednesday 4 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan
Wednesday 11 BOS Work Session – Approve the Five-Year Financial Plan
Wednesday 11 Joint CIP meeting with BOS and School Board
January 2014
Friday 24 General fund and special revenue funds balanced
February 2014
Friday 21 Budget briefing to Board
Friday 21 Budget briefing to employees
Monday 24 Public Hearing on County Executive’s Recommended Budget
Wednesday 26 BOS Work Session #1 – CIP
Friday 28 BOS Work Session #2 – General Government
March 2014
Monday 3 BOS Work Session #3 – School Division
Monday 3 BOS determines tax rate for advertisement
Monday 3 Tax Rate Ad submitted to Daily Progress for April 8 hearings
Sunday 9 Tax Rate Ad runs in Sunday’s Daily Progress for April 8 hearings
Wednesday 12 BOS Work Session #4 (if needed)
Monday 24 Budget Ad Submitted to Daily Progress
Sunday 30 Budget Ad runs in Daily Progress
Monday 31 Spring Break begins
April 2014
Tues-Fri 1-4 Spring Break
Tuesday 8 Public Hearing on Board’s Proposed Budget
Tuesday 8 Public Hearing on the 2014 calendar year tax rate
Tuesday 15 BOS sets the 2014 calendar year tax rate
Tuesday 15 BOS adopts the FY 14/15 budget and FY 14-23 CIP Amendment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
“Watch for Children” Signs
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Installation and Maintenance Costs of Additional “Watch
for Children” Signs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and Freitas
PRESENTER (S): Michael Freitas
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County has received requests in the past two months for the installation of two new “Watch for Children” signs. Until
recently, Virginia Code § 33.1-210.2 provided that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) would install and
maintain “Watch for Children” signs requested by localities. In 2012, Virginia Code § 33.1-210.2 was amended to make
localities responsible for the installation and maintenance cost of new “Watch for Children” signs. See Attachment A for a
diagram of a “Watch for Children” sign.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The Virginia Supplement to the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) authorizes the installation
of “Watch for Children” signs in residential areas on VDOT-maintained secondary routes to alert motorist that children
may be in the vicinity. As recently amended, Virginia Code § 33.1-210.2 now allows localities to assume responsibility
for the installation and maintenance of these signs. VDOT will no longer install or maintain new signs. To assume this
responsibility, localities must enter into an agreement with VDOT (Attachment B) identifying the specific locations of
any new sign(s). VDOT retains the authority to approve the location of the signs. If the locality’s agreement is
approved by VDOT, the locality would be responsible for all costs associated with the installation and maintenance of
the new signs. For future additional signs, the locality would submit an addendum to the original agreement to VDOT
for its approval. A land use permit (Attachment C) is also required.
The VDOT Agreement specifies that these signs may be installed in two locations:
Within a subdivision: a single sign may be placed on streets that are major entry points if the statutory or
posted speed limit is 35 mph or less.
Not within a subdivision: a single sign may be placed beyond the speed limit sign at the major approach to a
residential development where there is ⅓ mile or more residential development (either side of roadway) with
direct frontage/access if the speed limit is 35 mph or less.
These signs may not be installed:
On any roadway where the speed limit exceeds 35 mph
In lieu of a standard Playground sign used to warn motorist of a designated playground
At a location where school warning signs are in place
In combination (same pole) with any other regulatory or warning signs
Preceding any existing regulatory or warning signs
Closer than 200 feet to any existing regulatory or warning signs
Maintenance of existing signs that were previously installed by VDOT will remain the responsibility of VDOT until such
signs have reached the end of their useful life or until its current inventory of signs is exhausted.
Prior to July 1, 2012, the Board considered every “Watch for Children” sign request because a Board Resolution
requesting VDOT to install and maintain those signs was required. If the Board would like for the County to install new
“Watch for Children” signs at the County’s expense, staff recommends that County staff administer the program by (a)
evaluating each request to determine whether it meets the criteria listed above, (b) submitting the completed
AGENDA TITLE: “Watch for Children” Signs
September 4, 2013
Page 2
agreement or addendum and required land use permit to VDOT for its approval, and (c) installing and maintaining any
approved signs.
Under this approach, signs would be installed and maintained at County expense without additional Board review or
approval if the request meets the siting criteria.
BUDGET IMPACT:
VDOT estimates the cost for materials and labor to install each sign in FY 11 dollars to be approximately $850.00.
VDOT has no historical data regarding the number of signs it installed during any given year or the number of
existing signs that had to be repaired. If the Board wishes to assume the cost of additional signs, staff proposes
reallocating $4,250.00 of the General Services Department’s existing funding to cover the cost of any signs
installed during this fiscal year. For signs in future years, the funding for the program would need to be included in
the operating budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
If the Board would like for the County to assume responsibility for installing new “Watch for Children” signs, at the
County’s expense, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) authorizing the
County to administer the program and authorizing the County Executive to execute VDOT’s Agreement for the
Installation and Maintenance of “Watch for Children” Signs in a form approved by the County Attorney and future
Addendums to that Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – “Watch for Children” Sign
B – Agreement for the Installation and Maintenance of “Watch for Children” Signs
C – Land Use Permit
D – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Commonwealth of Virginia LUP-A
Department of Transportation LAND USE PERMIT
3/2010 Application
APPLICATION is hereby made for permit as shown on the accompanying plan or sketch and as described below. Said activity(s) will be done under and in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commonwealth Transportation Board of Virginia, in so far as said rules are applicable thereto and any agreement between the parties herein
before referred to. Where applicable agreements may be attached and made a part of the permit assembly including any cost responsibilities covering work under permit. Applicant agrees to
maintain work in a manner as approved upon its completion. Applicant also hereby agrees and is bound and held responsible to the owner for any and all damages to any other installations
already in place as a result of work covered by resulting permit. Applicants to whom permits are issued shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the Commonwealth Transportation
Board members of the Board, the Commonwealth and all Commonwealth employees, agents, and offices, from responsibility, damage, or liability arising from the exercise of the privileges
granted in such permit to the extent allowed by law. In consideration of the issuance of a permit the applicant agrees to waive for itself, successors in interest or assigns any entitlements it
may otherwise have or have hereafter under the Uniform Relocation and Assistant Act of 1972 as amended in event the Department or its successor, chooses to exercise its acknowledged
right to demand or cause the removal of any or all fixtures, personality of whatever kind or description that may hereafter be located, should this application be approved.
TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY
Request Permission: To perform the following activity(s)
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________as per attached plans.
Location: Tax Map Number _________________________________Applicant Job No.______________________________
Geographically in County / Town / City of_______________ On Highway Route and /or Name________________________
Between Route ________ St. Name _____________________________ Latitude _____________Longitude_____________
And Route___________ St. Name_____________________________Latitude_____________Longitude____________
[ ] IF APPLICABLE, I AGREE TO PAY THE FULL SALARY AND EXPENSES OF A STATE ASSIGNED INSPECTOR IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT, COVERED BY ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE NUMBER.
Signature of applicant ___________________________________ Title___________________ Date ______________
Signature of agent ___________________________________ Title___________________ Date ______________
All applicable items on this form must be completed to avoid delay in processing the issuance of a VDOT Land Use Permit.
Prepayment Required - make Remittance payable to Virginia Department of Transportation.
VDOT USE ONLY
Receipt is hereby acknowledged for: CHECK No. ____________ COUPON No. _____________ M.O. No._______________
In The Amount of $___________________ for Permit Fee $_________________ Cash Surety $ ________________________
Authorized VDOT Signature: _____________________________________________________ Date____________________
Driver’s license or Tax ID number _______________________________ Contact Name ____________________________________
Owner Name _________________________________________________ E-mail Address ___________________________________
Address _____________________________________________________ Phone Number ( ______ ) _______-____________
City ________________________State ______Zip Code_____________ Emergency Number ( ______ ) _______-________
Fax Number ( ______ ) _______-__________
Driver’s license or Tax ID number ______________________________ Contact Name ____________________________________
Agent Name _________________________________________________ E-mail Address ___________________________________
Address _____________________________________________________ Phone Number ( ______ ) _______-____________
City ________________________State ______Zip Code_____________ Emergency Number ( ______ ) _______-________
Fax Number ( _____ ) _______-__________
Permit Term Requested ________ Fees Enclosed $____________ Check Number _______________ Coupon Number(s) ___________________________
Money Order ___________________ Other __________ Estimated cost of work to be performed on VDOT Right of Way $_____________________
Surety Information: Surety Company Name ________________________________
Amount of Surety $ ____________________ Obligation Amount $_______________
Check # __________ Bond #_________________ ILC # _________________
[ ] Corporate Surety [ ] Resolution [ ] Ordinance [ ] Waived
Applicant has provided proof of the following requirements in accordance as defined in Code of Virginia section 2.2-1151.1.
(1) The utility company has registered as an operator with the appropriate notification center.
(2) Attached is a notarized affidavit, stating that the utility owner has notified the commercial and residential developer, owner of commercial or
multifamily real estate, or local government entities with a property interest in any parcel of land located adjacent to the property over which the land
use is being requested, that application for the permit has been made.
The Surety posted by Owner ( ) or Agent ( )
Surety Refunds paid to Owner ( ) or Agent ( )
RESOLUTION TO ASSUME THE
“WATCH FOR CHILDREN” SIGNS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-210.2 was amended in 2012 to make localities
responsible for the installation and maintenance of “Watch for Children” signs, which was
previously the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); and
WHEREAS, any locality that wishes to assume the responsibility for the installation and
maintenance of new “Watch for Children” signs must enter into an agreement with VDOT
identifying the specific location of any new signs, which must be approved by VDOT, and must
submit addendums for any future additional signs to VDOT for its approval; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the best interest of the County for the County to
assume the responsibility for the installation and maintenance of new “Watch for Children” signs
in the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County to administer the “Watch for Children” signs program
and authorizes the County Executive to execute VDOT’s Agreement for the Installation and
Maintenance of “Watch for Children” Signs in a form approved by the County Attorney and to
execute future Addendums to that Agreement to be submitted to VDOT after determining that
the sign request meets the siting criteria.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of
______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Agreement with VDOT for County Removal of Illegal
Signs from the Highway Rights-of-Way
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to approve new Agreement between the
County and VDOT to remove illegal advertisements and
signs from the VDOT rights-of-way and to retain the
associated penalties and costs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Herrick, McCulley, Burbage
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In response to ongoing concerns about illegal advertisements in highway rights-of-way, the Board approved an agreement
with the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner (VDOT) in December 2008 authorizing the County to act as
VDOT’s agent in removing illegal advertisements from VDOT-maintained rights-of-way (Attachment A). Since that time,
Community Development staff has removed illegal advertisements from priority Entrance Corridors.
Since the County entered into its Agreement with VDOT in 2008, the relevant state law has been amended twice. First, a
2012 amendment to Virginia Code § 33.1-373 (Attachment B) replaced all references to “advertisements” with “signs or
advertisements,” enabling localities to remove all signs, including political signs, not just “advertisements,” as defined in
Virginia Code § 33.1-351. Second, as a result of the County’s legislative initiative, Virginia Code § 33.1-373 was further
amended in 2013 to allow localities to retain any penalties or costs they collect from illegal sign or advertisement violations.
Though the statutory definitions of “sign” and “advertisem ent” are similar, the definition of “advertisement” had earlier been
amended specifically to exclude political signs. In other words, because localities could remove only “advertisements,” and
“advertisements” specifically did not include political signs, localities previously could not remove political signs. However,
the recent amendment to Virginia Code § 33.1-373 would bring political signs within the scope of a permissible local
agreement with VDOT.
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; and Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
VDOT has provided a proposed Agreement (Attachment C) to reflect the recent changes in Virginia Code § 33.1-373.
Under the Agreement, the County will continue to act as an agent of VDOT in removing advertisements from VDOT
rights-of-way and would now be authorized to remove all illegal signs and to retain any penalties and costs collected
from either advertisement or sign removal.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The retention of civil penalties and costs is not expected to offset the staffing costs associated with sign and
advertisement removal. Staff intends to utilize this deterrent only in cases of recurring violations when voluntary
compliance is not successful. Based on past experience, staff does not anticipate that substantial revenue will be
collected and retained.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving the proposed Agreement
and authorizing the County Executive to execute the Agreement in a form approved by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – December 3, 2008 Executive Summary
B – Virginia Code § 33.1-373
C – Agreement
D – Resolution Approving Proposed Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Partnership with VDOT for County Removal of Illegal
Advertising Signs in the Highway Right-of-Way
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Board Approval of Agreement with Commonwealth
Transportation Commissioner
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Graham,
Schlothauer, and Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2008
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The proliferation of signs in highway rights-of-way is both distracting and visually unattractive. Multiple unpermitted signs
along designated entrance corridors detract from the very purposes of entrance corridors, inc luding conserving the
County’s scenic resources and enhancing economic vitality and the quality of life.
This issue has been an ongoing County concern. In the summer and fall of 2005, staff conducted a pilot program to
reduce the number of unpermitted signs. That program involved five sign sweeps, general public information, and
individual letters to those responsible for the specific unpermitted signs. Because education and voluntary compliance
had limited success, County staff is now seeking to be authorized to actually remove illegal advertisements, which only
VDOT can do currently. This approach has been successful in such other localities as Henrico and Chesterfield
counties and the City of Lynchburg.
Virginia Code § 33.1-373 allows VDOT to remove and impose a $100 civil fine for each illegal advertisement in highway
rights-of-way. Virginia Code § 33.1-375.1(D) in turn enables VDOT to enter into agreements authorizing localities to act
as agents for VDOT in removing illegal advertisements.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Protect the County’s Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources
Enhance the qualify of life for all Albemarle County citizens
DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared a proposed Agreement with VDOT for the removal of illegal advertisements. The Agreement.has
been reviewed by and is acceptable to VDOT.
Please note that the law and Agreement apply only to illegal advertisements and not to all signs. By law, an
“advertisement” is defined as:
“any writing, printing, picture, painting, display, emblem, drawing, sign, or similar device which is posted or
displayed outdoors on real property and is intended to invite or to draw the attention or to solicit the patronage or
support of the public to any goods, merchandise, real or personal property, business, services, entertainment, or
amusement manufactured, produced, bought, sold, conducted, furnished, or dealt in by any person; the term shall
also include any part of an advertisement recognizable as such.”
Note also that the 1993 General Assembly explicitly removed political signs from this definition of “advertisement,”
meaning that political signs may not be removed under this law or proposed Agreement. While VDOT still has the
authority to remove any unauthorized sign from VDOT rights-of-way, Virginia Code § 33.1-373 and the proposed
Agreement only provides the County with the authority to remove signs that are advertisements from VDOT rights-of-
way.
This program will be conducted in partnership with VDOT; with both VDOT and the County responding to the
complaints that each receives. County staff will prioritize and focus on illegal advertising along designated entrance
corridors.
Prior to beginning advertisement removal in January 2009, staff plans to provide public information, including a press
release and an informational letter to various groups like the Chamber of Commerce, the realtors’ association, and the
North 29 Business Council.
AGENDA TITLE: Partnership with VDOT for County Removal of Illegal Advertising Signs in the Highway Right -of-Way
December 3, 2008
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
Because this program will be conducted by existing staff (primarily Building Inspectors) as part of their regular
duties, this work can occur without the need for overtime (at current building permit levels), and is therefore
unlikely to have a budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed Agreement with the Commonwealth Transportation
Commissioner (VDOT) for the removal of illegal advertisements (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Agreement between Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner and the Board
Return to exec summary
§ 33.1-373. Signs or advertising on rocks, poles, etc., within limits of highway; civil penalty.
Any person who in any manner (i) paints, prints, places, puts or affixes any sign or advertisement upon or
to any rock, stone, tree, fence, stump, pole, mile-board, milestone, danger-sign, guide-sign, guidepost,
highway sign, historical marker, building, or other object lawfully within the limits of any highway or (ii)
erects, paints, prints, places, puts, or affixes any sign or advertisement within the limits of any highway
shall be assessed a civil penalty of $100. Each occurrence shall be subject to a separate penalty. All civil
penalties collected under this section shall be paid into the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund.
Signs or advertisements placed within the limits of the highway are hereby declared a public and private
nuisance and may be forthwith removed, obliterated, or abated by the Commissioner of Highways or his
representatives without notice. The Commissioner of Highways may collect the cos t of such removal,
obliteration, or abatement from the person erecting, painting, printing, placing, putting, affixing or using
such sign or advertisement. When no one is observed erecting, painting, printing, placing, putting, or
affixing such sign or advertisement, the person, firm or corporation being advertised shall be presumed to
have placed the sign or advertisement and shall be punished accordingly. Such presumption, however,
shall be rebuttable by competent evidence. In addition, the Commissioner or his representative may seek
to enjoin any recurring violator of this section. The Commissioner of Highways may enter into agreements
with any local governing body authorizing local law-enforcement agencies or other local governmental
entities to act as agents of the Commissioner for the purpose of (i) enforcing the provisions of this section
and (ii) collecting the penalties and costs provided for in this section. Any such agreement may provide
that penalties and costs collected pursuant to such agreement shall be paid as agreed.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to signs or other outdoor advertising regulated under
Chapter 7 (§ 33.1-351 et seq.) of this title.
(Code 1950, § 33-319; 1970, c. 322; 1993, c. 538; 1994, c. 696; 2012, c. 739; 201 3, c. 457.)
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
________ COUNTY, VIRGINIA
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS REGARDING ILLEGAL SIGNS AND
ADVERTISING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE HIGHWAY
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of ________, 20__, between the Commissioner of
Highways of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Commissioner), and the County of
, Virginia, acting by and through its Board of Supervisors (Board).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 33.1, Chapter 7, Article 1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended (Code), the Commissioner, as the chief executive officer of the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT), enforces the prohibition on the placement
of signs and advertising within the limits of highways in the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, the Board, as the governing body of _______ County, has an interest in protecting
the public health, safety, and welfare, and in protecting the appearance of the
County, in general; and
WHEREAS, the Board has found that the proliferation of signs and advertising in the rights-of-
way of highways in _______ County threatens the public safety and the welfare of
the County, and has a negative effect on the appearance of highways; and
WHEREAS, by an appropriate resolution adopted by the Board at its meeting on
[DATE] , and attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Board expressed its
desire and agreement to enter into an agreement with the Commissioner to enforce
the provisions of § 33.1-373 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and to
collect the penalties and costs provided therein and has authorized execution of said
agreement by a County representative; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner desires the Board’s assistance in removing signs and advertising
from the VDOT-maintained highways in ______ County.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived from this
Agreement, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The Commissioner hereby authorizes the Board to act as the Commissioner’s agent for the
purposes of removing any signs or advertising located within the VDOT-maintained
rights-of-way, in violation of §33.1-373 of the Code; and
2. The Commissioner further authorizes the Board to act as the Commissioner’s agent for the
purposes of collecting the penalties and costs from the person, firm, or corporation
responsible for signs or advertising located within the VDOT-maintained rights-of-way in
violation of and as provided for in §33.1-373 of the Code; and
3. The Board may authorize local law-enforcement agencies or other local governmental
entities (“hereinafter designee(s)”) to act as agents of the Commissioner for the purpose
of fulfilling the terms of this Agreement; and
4. The Board shall be entitled to retain, in full, all sums lawfully collected by the Board or its
designees as penalties and costs for removal of signs and advertising and enforcement of
§33.1-373 pursuant to this Agreement; and
5. The Board, or its designee, when collecting the penalties and costs referenced in
Paragraph 2, above, shall:
a. Issue an invoice to the person, firm, or corporation being advertised for collection
of any and all penalties and costs, as provided in §33.1-373 of the Code, which
shall provide that within 30 days, 33 days if the invoice is sent by mail, the person,
firm, or corporation being advertised shall either (a) remit payment of the invoice
to the Board, or its designee, or (b) notify the Board or its designee in writing that
the matter and/or the penalties and costs are disputed.
b. In the event that a person, firm or corporation disputes the matter and/or penalties
and costs provided in such invoice, the Board shall be responsible for resolving the
dispute in accord with all applicable laws.
6. The Board shall require local government employees and others who are authorized to act
or perform services pursuant to this agreement to comply with the provisions of this
Agreement and all applicable laws; and
7. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless sooner terminated upon 30-
days’ written notice by either party to the other party; and
8. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the written agreement of the parties.
In WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized representatives:
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ___________ COUNTY, VIRGINIA
BY:_________________________ BY:___________________________
Emmett R. Heltzel, P.E. Printed Name:___________________
State Maintenance Engineer County Administrator of ___________
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(VDOT) FOR ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS REGARDING ILLEGAL SIGNS AND
ADVERTISING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE HIGHWAY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 33.1, Chapter 7, Article 1 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended (Code), the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), as
its chief executive officer, enforces the prohibitions on the placement of signs and advertising
within the limits of highways in the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of Albemarle County, has
an interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare, and in protecting the appearance
of the County, in general; and
WHEREAS, the Board has found that the proliferation of signs and advertising in the
rights-of-way of highways in Albemarle County threatens the public safety and the welfare of the
County, and has a negative effect on the appearance of highways; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires and agrees to enter into an Agreement with the
Commissioner to enforce the provisions of § 33.1-373 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, and to collect the penalties and costs provided therein; and
WHEREAS, the Commissioner desires the Board’s assistance in removing signs and
advertising from the VDOT-maintained highways in Albemarle County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the proposed Agreement, and authorizes the County Executive to
sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the proposed Agreement for enforcement of
laws regarding illegal signs and advertising within the limits of the highway.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of
_______ to _______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on ___________________.
Return to exec summary
Page 1 of 4
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
September 2013
Special Issues
None at this time.
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Award Begin Construction --
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 –
September 2013 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
September 2013 December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy Creek Design Public Hearing Right of Way –
September 2013 December 2014
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to
Hollymeade Town Center Preliminary Design Public Hearing December 2015
Route 250, Bridge replacement over
Little Ivy Creek Preliminary Design Public Hearing 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
Route 643 – Reconstruction -- Project Scoping –
2015 --
Route 606 – Dickerson Rd. over North
Fork of Rivanna River
-- Project Scoping January 2020
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Best Buy Ramp Design Public Hearing Right of Way – Fall
2013 November 2014
Page 2 of 4
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 IMR/Traffic Studies for northern and
southern termini. If FONSI issued by FHWA, remaining PE activities such as Final design,
RW & CN activities can be initiated. Citizen Information Meeting occurred on May 23, 2013.
Public Hearings to be scheduled at a later date. Additional NTP 1 activities have been
authorized including limited non-destructive geotechnical services in support of the EA Re-
evaluation, surveying activities in support of the EA Re-evaluation, and stream and wetland
delineations. These services are ongoing and will be completed within the next month.
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250
Next Major Milestone: Completion of Phase 1A by October 2013 which includes Gas &
Sanitary Sewer Installations, Dominion Utility Relocations, D602 Box Culvert near the
C.A.R.S. facility, McIntire Road construction-Sta.199+00 to 209+50, and construction for the
Hillcrest and Birdwood areas.
Contract Completion date: July 2, 2015.
Project Construction started on March 4, 2013.
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract Renewal – 3nd term
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2014.
McCormick Road 0302-002-152,B650
Scope: Superstructure replacement.
Next Major Milestone: Project Completed.
Contract Completion: Accepted July 31st 2013.
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path.
Next major Milestone: Completed June 10, 2013
Contract Completion: October 15, 2013
Ballards Mill Road 0671-002-6059
Scope: Superstructure replacement, State Forces.
Next Major Milestone: Road Closure, November 4th.
Proposed Completion: November 29, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Surface Treatment Schedule
Scope: Surface Treat various roads.
Next Major Milestone: Routes 600 and 640 to be treated in August
Contract Completion: Completed
Slurry Seal Schedule
Scope: Slurry Seal various roads.
Next Major Milestone: Albemarle County Complete
Contract Completion: October 31, 2013.
Plant Mix Schedule
Scope: Plant mix overlay of various roads.
Next Major Milestone: Albemarle County Complete
Contract Completion: December 6, 2013
Rte 53 HSIP Projects (NFO)0053-002-S30, S31, S32, M501
Scope: Curve improvements at 3 locations on Route 53.
Next Major Milestone: Cutting back slopes and hauling materials to waste pit.
Contract Completion: September 25, 2013
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 672 Blufton Road: Speed study completed; resolution completed; sign installation
pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-0672-20130115-011
Route 20 @ Route 250: Intersection pavement marking review; Report completed; pavement
marking installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0250-20130301-006
Route 692, Plank Road: School bus stop ahead signing review; Report completed; Sign
installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0692-20130305-010
Route 29 and Route 649, Airport Rd: Signing review; Report completed; Sign installation
pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0029-20130403-010
Route 29 @ Britts Mtn. Hollow: Signing review; Report completed; Sign installation pending.
VDOT Study Number - 003-0029-20130410-010
Route 866, Greenbrier Drive @ Route 1427, Old Forge Road: Signing review; Report
completed; Sign installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0866-20130422-010
Route 600, Watts Passage and Route 641, Burnley Station Road: Sight distance review;
Report completed; pavement marking installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0600-
20130425-008
Route 708 @ 2722 Red Hill Road: Signing review; Report completed; Sign installation pending.
VDOT Study Number - 003-0708-20130425-010
Route 151 Critzers Shop Road @ Route 803 Goodloe Road: Signing review; Report
completed; Sign installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0151-20130425-010
Route 250 @ at Seven Oaks Farm (just east of Rt. 690): Signing review; Report completed;
Sign installation pending. VDOT Study Number -003-0250-20130425-010
Route 654 Barracks Road: Crosswalk review; Report completed. VDOT Study Number - 003-
0654-20130624-020
Page 4 of 4
Under Review
Route 742 @ Route 20: Pavement marking review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0743-
20130618-006
Route 1815 Old Trail Drive: Speed study; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-1815-20130618-
011
Route 1815 Old Trail Drive: Signing review; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-1815-
20130618-010
Route 691: Speed study; pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0691-20130625-011
Route 631 Rio Road and Putt Putt Lane: Signal warrant review; pending. VDOT Study Number
– 003-0631-20130723-009
Maintenance Activities
VDOT Area Headquarters crews completed the following activities during the past month. For
specific route activities, please contact the Charlottesville Residency Office.
Mowing Completed on all primary routes and 73 secondary routes
Machining of non-hard surface roads has been completed on 59 secondary routes
Dust control applied to 13 non-hard surface roads
Debris removal along 19 routes
Pipes were replaced on 3 routes and cleaned on 12 routes
Rural Rustic road construction started for Route 787 Gillums Ridge Road
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 105-1A
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 18, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 119-7
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 18, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 99-52
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 18, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Overlays
AgForest Districts
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 18-39, 19-9, 19-11 19-17A
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 18, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
700 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 39-4, 39-14, 40-1 and 40-27A
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 7, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
1602 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 39-4
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources August 9, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
800 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 40-1
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources August 6, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
900 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
TMP 40-27A
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources August 6, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
500 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment of County Procurement Manual to Include
Alternative Procurement Methods
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to amend the County Purchasing Manual by
adding Design/Build and Construction Management
Procurement procedures
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Henry, Okken, Kelsey and
Roberman
PRESENTER: Bill Letteri
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
As part of the County’s strategic planning process, the County Executive has assembled teams to review each of the
seven strategic plan goals. Strategic Plan Goal #2 is to “provide community facilities that meet existing and future
needs.” One of the associated sub-goals is to “identify and implement appropriate alternative construction project
procurement methods (design/build, CM Agency, Job Order Contracting, PPEA, etc.) to reduce costs and improve
project execution.” A team of County staff was assembled to address this goal , and offers the recommendations set
forth below for the Board’s consideration.
Under Virginia Code § 2.2-4308: “While the competitive sealed bid process remains the preferred method of
construction procurement for public bodies in the Commonwealth, any p ublic body other than the Commonwealth may
enter into a contract for construction on a fixed price or not-to-exceed price design-build or construction management
basis provided the public body complies with the requirements of this section and has implemen ted procedures
consistent with the procedures adopted by the Secretary of Administration for utilizing design -build or construction
management contracts.” The County has not yet implemented procedures for utilizing design-build or construction
management contracts.
DISCUSSION:
Design/Build (D/B) Procedures
A design-build contract is a contract between a public body and another party in which the party contracting with the
public body agrees to both design and build the structure, roadway or other item specified in the contract. Virginia
Code § 2.2-4301. Design/Build contracts are intended to reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design
phase and construction phase of a project and mitigate risks associated with conflicts between the architect and
contractor by creating a single point of responsibility. As part of state law’s preference for the competitive sealed bid
process, a design/build contract may be used only if the locality’s files have documented in writing that for the specific
construction project (i) a design-build contract is more advantageous than a competitive sealed bid construction
contract; (ii) there is a benefit to the public body by using a design -build contract; and (iii) competitive sealed bidding
is not practical or fiscally advantageous. Virginia Code § 2.2-4308(A)(2).
State law also requires a public body to adopt Design/Build Procedures before entering any design/build contracts.
Staff has prepared the attached draft Chapter 27 entitled Design/Build Procedures (Attachment B), which are based
on the procedures adopted by the Virginia Secretary of Administration, for the Board’s consideration.
Construction Management (CM) Procedures
A construction management contract is a contract in which a party is retained by the owner to coordinate and
administer contracts for construction services for the benefit of the owner, and may also include, if provided in the
contract, the furnishing of construction services to the owner. Virginia Code § 2.2-4301. Construction Management
contracts may be approved for use on projects where (a) fast tracking of construction is needed to meet agency
program requirements, or (b) value engineering and/or constructability analyses concurrent with design are required.
The use of Construction Management is generally limited to projects with a construction value that is in excess of
$10,000,000. As with design/build, a construction management contract may be used only if the locality’s files have
documented in writing that for the specific construction project (i) a construction management contract is more
AGENDA TITLE: Amendment of County Procurement Manual to Include Alternative Procurement Methods
September 4, 2013
Page 2
advantageous than a competitive sealed bid construction contract; (ii) there is a benefit to the public body by using a
construction management contract; and (iii) competitive sealed bidding is not practical or fiscally advantageous.
Virginia Code § 2.2-4308(A)(2).
State law also requires a public body to adopt Construction Management Procedures before entering any construction
management contracts. Staff has prepared the attached draft Chapter 28 entitled Construction Management
Procedures (Attachment C), which are based on the procedures adopted by the Virginia Secretary of Administration ,
for the Board’s consideration.
Job Order Contracting
Job order contracting (JOC) is a method of procuring construction services by establishing a book of unit prices and
then obtaining a contractor to perform work as needed using the prices, quantities, and specifications in the book as
the basis of its pricing. The contractor may be selected through either competitive sealed bidding or competitive
negotiation, depending on the needs of the public body procuring the construction services. A minimum amount of
work may be specified in the contract. Despite the successful use of Job Order Contracts in other states (most
notably California), the enabling authority for their use is not yet explicitly established in the Virginia Public
Procurement Act. However, 2013 House Bill 2079 amended the Procurement Act to enable the use of job order
contracting, effective July 1, 2014. Staff intends to monitor this for possible implementation in 2014.
PPEA Guidelines
The Public-Private Education and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) authorizes a responsible public entity to enter into
a comprehensive agreement with a private entity to develop or operate a qualifyi ng project. The project may be either
solicited by the responsible public entity or unsolicited.
The PPEA was designed to bring private sector expertise to bear on public projects - saving time and money. It has
allowed private entities to "acquire, des ign, construct, improve, renovate, expand, equip, maintain or operate
qualifying projects" and encourages innovative approaches to financing construction and renovation. The law created
resources to fund a comprehensive range of projects, including schools, wastewater treatment plants, and
telecommunications infrastructure - essentially any type of public venture.
Research of other localities’ practices indicates that the PPEA is rarely used by the County’s larger peer localities,
who share the County’s in-house project management staff and financing capacity. For example, according to a
published review (Attachment D), the City of Roanoke has done two PPEA projects, but the City attorney involved did
not find PPEA particularly advantageous: “It’s my opinion that with all the time constraints and requirements, the
PPEA doesn’t save anything. If it’s a typical project, I think going design -bid-build is going to be quicker and cheaper.”
He stated further: “All the local attorneys I’ve talked to felt [PPEA] was not a time saving and not money saving and,
potentially, PPEA could involve more expense because you spend more time on the thing than traditional design -bid-
build.” PPEA is more frequently used by localities whose limited project management staff and/or financing capacity
might otherwise preclude larger projects.
While the County may choose not to solicit PPEA proposals for the foreseeable future, even adopt ing PPEA
Guidelines at this point would require the County to entertain unsolicited proposals, whose review would create
workload issues. Adopting PPEA Guidelines at this point, with no County-initiated projects to solicit, would not
provide the County with any significant benefit, but would instead open the County up to staff -time-consuming work.
Available Alternatives
While the County may not frequently use the Design/Build and Construction Management alternatives if adopted, the
County may benefit from having those options available to it. The County does not currently have the ability to use
these alternatives in the unusual event that their use was indicated.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is expected.
AGENDA TITLE: Amendment of County Procurement Manual to Include Alternative Procurement Methods
September 4, 2013
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to amend and re-adopt the
Albemarle County Purchasing Manual by adding Chapter 27 and 28 to establish Design/Build and Construction
Management procedures as set forth in attachments B and C; 2) defer consideration of Job Order Contracting for
further study; and 3) defer adopting PPEA Guidelines until such time as the County desires to solicit proposals for
specific projects.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution
B – Proposed Design/Build Procedures (new Chapter 27 of County Purchasing Manual)
C -- Proposed Construction Management Procedures (new Chapter 28 of County Purchasing Manual)
D – Article on Alternate Procurement Methods
Return to agenda
RESOLUTION TO AMEND AND RE-ADOPT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PURCHASING MANUAL
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual (“Manual”) delineates
not only the requirements of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, but also the methods
and procedures that best enable the County to procure the highest quality goods and
services at a reasonable cost and in an efficient, fair, and competitive manner; and
WHEREAS, the Manual was last amended on September 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the best interests of the County to amend the
Manual to incorporate procedures in accordance with the Virginia Code for the
procurement of design-build and construction management contracts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby amends and re-adopts the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual by
adding Chapter 27, Design/Build (D/B) Procedures, and Chapter 28, Construction
Management (CM) Procedures.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of
___ to ___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
27-1
Supp. 7-1-13
Chapter 27. Design Build (D/B) Procedures
Summary
This chapter outlines the procedures to be followed by all departments, agencies,
and institutions of the County (each of which is hereinafter referred to as an
"Agency") for the procurement of Design-Build (“D/B”) contracts.
Essential Information in this Chapter
A County agency may enter Design-Build (D/B) contracts only after it has determined in
writing, that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not fiscally advantageous to
the public.
Prior to using a D/B contract, a County agency must receive approval from the county
executive.
Procurement of a D/B contract is a two step competitive negotiation process. The agency first
selects qualified offerors and then, from among them, the design-build contractor.
Key References to the Code of Virginia Applicable to this Chapter Section 2.2-4301: Definitions of design-build contract and other key terms
Section 2.2-4303(D)(4): Exceptions to competitive sealed bidding
Section 2.2-4308: Design-build contracts for public bodies other than the Commonwealth
27-1 General
A design-build contract is a contract between a public body and another party in
which the party contracting with the public body agrees to both design and build
the structure, roadway or other item specified in the contract. The County may
contract to secure D/B projects on a fixed price or not -to-exceed price basis in
accordance with Virginia Code § 2.2-4308(A), the requirements of that section,
and the procedures adopted by the Virginia Secretary of Administration for
utilizing design-build or construction management contracts. The County is
authorized to use competitive negotiations to procure D/B contracts when it
determines in advance, and sets forth in writing, that competitive sealed bidding
is either not practicable or not fiscally advantageous to the public, which writing
shall document the basis for this determination.
D/B contracts are intended to minimize the project risk for an owner and to
reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and construction
phase of a project.
27-2 Procedure for Approval
Prior to taking any action, the Agency shall request authority, in writing and
receive approval from the county executive, to use a D/B contract. The request
27-2
Supp. 7-1-13
shall justify and substantiate that D/B is more advantageous than a competitive
sealed bid construction contract with a general contractor and shall indicate how
the County will benefit from using D/B. The request shall also include a written
justification that sealed bidding is not practicable and/or fiscally advantageous.
These justifications for the use of D/B shall be stated in the Request for
Qualifications. Approval of or exceptions to this procedure may be granted by the
purchasing agent, who is the approving authority for requests to use D/B
procedures.
27-3 Selection Procedures
On projects approved for D/B, procurement of the contract shall be a two step
competitive negotiation process. The following procedures shall be used in
selecting a Design-Builder and awarding a contract:
1. The Agency shall appoint an Evaluation Committee (“Committee”)
which shall consist of at least three members from the Agency,
including a licensed design professional, if possible. In addition to
the Agency members, the Committee shall include a licensed
professional engineer or architect from the Office of Facilities
Development (OFD). The Agency shall contact the County
Attorney’s Office (CAO) to determine whether a representative from
the CAO should be involved.
2. The basis of the award of the contract shall be in accordance with
Virginia Code § 2.2-4301(3)(b) and the criteria for the award shall
be submitted to the purchasing agent, in advance, for approval. It is
noted that cost is a critical component of the selection process.
Guidance on methods for award can be found in the Construction
and Professional Services Manual (2012 Edition, as amended)
Section 7.30.1.
3. Selection of Qualified Offerors (STEP I): On projects approved for
D/B, the Agency shall conduct a prequalification process as follows
to determine which offerors are qualified to receive Request for
Proposals (RFPs).
a) The Agency shall prepare a Request for Qualif ications
(“RFQ”) containing the Agency's Facility Requirements,
building and site criteria, site and survey data (if available),
the criteria to be used to evaluate RFQ Responses and other
relevant information, including any unique capabilities or
qualifications that will be required of the contractor. All
offerors shall have a licensed Class “A” contractor and an
Architect or Engineer registered in the Commonwealth of
Virginia as part of the Project Team.
27-3
Supp. 7-1-13
b) The RFQ shall be posted in accordance with the current
standards for the posting of public bids in the Virginia Code
and in accordance with the latest edition of the Construction
and Professional Services Manual.
c) The Committee shall evaluate each offeror’s RFQ responses
and any other relevant information and shall determine
which offerors are fully qualified and suitable for the project.
d) The RFQ evaluation shall result in a short list of two to five
offerors to receive the RFP. An offeror may be denied
prequalification only as specified under Virginia Code § 2.2-
4317, but the short list shall also be based upon the RFQ
criteria.
e) At least 30 days prior to the date established for the
submission of proposals, the Agency shall advise in writing
each offeror which sought prequalification whether that
offeror has been prequalified. Prequalified offerors that are
not selected for the short list shall likewise be provided the
reasons for such decision. In the event that an offeror is
denied prequalification, the written notification to such off eror
shall state the reasons for such denial of prequalification and
the factual basis of such reasons.
4. Selection of Design-Build Contractor (STEP II):
a) The Agency shall send an RFP to the D/B offerors on the
short list for the project and request formal proposals from
them. The criteria for award shall be included in the RFP.
b) Sealed Technical Proposals as described in the RFP shall
be submitted to the Committee. Separately-sealed Cost
Proposals shall be submitted to the County’s Virginia
Construction Contracting Officer (“VCCO”), and shall be
secured by and kept sealed until evaluation of the Technical
Proposals and the design adjustments are completed.
c) The Committee will evaluate the Technical Proposals based
on the criteria contained in the RFP. It will inform each D/B
offeror of any adjustments necessary to make its Technical
Proposal fully comply with the requirements of the RFP. In
addition, the Agency may require that offerors make design
adjustments necessary to incorporate project improvements
and/or additional detailed information identified by the
Committee during design development.
d) Based on the adjustments made to the Technical Proposals,
the offeror may amend its Cost Proposal. In addition, an
27-4
Supp. 7-1-13
offeror may submit cost modifications to its original sealed
Cost Proposal which are not based upon revisions to the
Technical Proposals.
e) The Committee shall evaluate (and rank if technical rankings
are to be considered as a criteria for award) the technical
proposals. Should the Agency determine in writing and in its
sole discretion that only one offeror is fully qualified, or that
one offeror is clearly more highly qualified than the others
under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and
awarded to that offeror after approval of the purchasing
agent. Otherwise, the Agency shall open the cost proposals
and apply the criteria for award as specified in the RFP and
approved by the purchasing agent.
f) The Committee shall make its recommendation for the
selection of a design builder to the Agency head based on its
evaluations of the technical and cost proposals and all
amendments thereto. The contract shall be awarded to the
offeror who is fully qualified and has been determined to
have provided the best value in response to the Request for
Proposal.
g) The Agency shall notify OFD of its selection of the Design-
Builder and shall request authority to award a contract by
processing the notice of award and providing supporting
documents, to the purchasing division via e-mail.
h) The Agency will notify all offerors who submitted proposals
which offeror was selected for the project. In the alternative,
the Agency may notify all offerors who submitted proposals
of the Agency's intent to award the contract to a particular
offeror at any time after the Agency head has selected the
Design-Builder. When the terms and conditions of multiple
awards are so provided in the RFP, awards may be made to
more than one offeror.
i) Upon request, documentation of the process used for the
final selection shall be made available to the unsuccessful
proposers.
Return to exec summary
28-1
Supp. 7-1-13
Chapter 28. Construction Management (CM)
Procedures
Summary
This chapter outlines the procedures to be followed by all departments, agencies,
and institutions of the County (each of which is hereinafter referred to as the
"Agency") for the procurement of Construction Management (“CM”) contracts.
Essential Information in this Chapter
A County agency may enter Construction Management (CM) contracts only after it has
determined in writing, that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not fiscally
advantageous to the public.
Prior to using a CM contract, a County agency must receive approval from the county
executive.
Procurement of a CM contract is a two step competitive negotiation process. The agency first
selects qualified offerors and then, from among them, the construction manager.
Key References to the Code of Virginia Applicable to this Chapter Section 2.2-4301: Definitions of construction management contract and other key terms
Section 2.2-4303(D)(4): Exceptions to competitive sealed bidding
Section 2.2-4308: Construction management contracts for public bodies other than the
Commonwealth
28-1 General
A construction management contract is a contract in which a party is retained by
the owner to coordinate and administer contracts for construction services for the
benefit of the owner, and may also include, if provided in the contract, the
furnishing of construction services to the owner. The County may enter into a
contract with a Construction Manager in accordance with Virginia Code § 2.2-
4308(A), the requirements of that section, and the procedures adopted by the
Virginia Secretary of Administration for utilizing design-build or construction
management contracts. The County is authorized to use competitive negotiations
to procure CM contracts when it determines in advance, and sets forth in writing,
that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not fiscally
advantageous to the public, which writing shall document the basis for this
determination.
CM contracts may be approved for use on projects where 1) fast tracking of
construction is needed to meet Agency program requirements, or 2) value
engineering and/or constructability analyses concurrent with design are required.
The use of CM shall be limited to projects with a construction value that is in
28-2
Supp. 7-1-13
excess of $10,000,000. With proper justification for small complex projects, the
purchasing agent may grant a waiver of this requirement.
28-2 Procedure for Approval
Prior to taking any further action, the Agency shall request authority, in writing
and receive approval from the county executive, to use a CM contract. The
request shall justify and substantiate that a CM contract meets the criteria found
in section 28-2. The request must also include the stipulation that the CM
contract will be initiated no later than the Schematic Phase of design. The
request shall also include a written justification that sealed bidding is not
practicable and/or fiscally advantageous. These justifications for the use of a CM
contract shall also be stated in the Request for Qualifications. Approval of or
exceptions to this procedure may be granted by the purchasing agent, who is the
approving authority for requests to use CM procedures.
28-3 Selection Procedures
On projects approved for CM, procurement of the contract shall be a two step
process unless a one step process is approved pursuant to section 28-5. The
following procedures shall be used in selecting a C/M and awarding a contract:
1. The Agency shall appoint an Evaluation Committee (“Committee”)
which shall consist of at least three members from the Agency,
including a licensed design professional, if possible. In addition to
the Agency members, the Committee shall include a licensed
professional engineer or architect provided by the Office of
Facilities Development (OFD). The Agency shall contact the County
Attorney’s Office (CAO) to determine whether a representative from
the CAO should be involved.
2. The basis of the award of the contract shall be in accordance with
Virginia Code § 2.2-4301(3)(b) and the criteria for the award shall
be submitted to the purchasing agent, in advance, for approval. It is
noted that cost is a critical component of the selection process.
3. Selection of Qualified Offerors (STEP I): On projects approved for
CM, the Agency shall conduct a prequalification process as follows
to determine which offerors are qualified to receive Request for
Proposals (RFPs).
a) The Agency shall prepare a Request for Qualifications
(“RFQ”) containing the Agency's Facility Requirements,
building and site criteria, site and survey data (if available),
the criteria to be used to evaluate RFQ Responses and other
relevant information, including any unique capabilities or
qualifications that will be required of the contractor. All
offerors shall have a licensed Class “A” contractor registered
in the Commonwealth of Virginia as part of the Project team.
28-3
Supp. 7-1-13
b) The RFQ shall be posted in accordance with the current
standards for the posting of public bids in the Virginia Code
and in accordance with the latest edition of the Construction
and Professional Services Manual.
c) The Committee shall evaluate each responding firm's RFQ
responses and any other relevant information and shall
determine those deemed qualified with respect to the criteria
established for the project.
d) The RFQ evaluation process shall result in a short list of two
to five offerors to receive the RFP. An offeror may be denied
prequalification only as specified under the Virginia Code §
2.2-4317, but the short list shall also be based upon the RFQ
criteria.
e) At least 30 days prior to the date established for the
submission of proposals, the Agency shall advise in writing
each offeror which sought prequalification whether that
offeror has been prequalified. Prequalified offerors that are
not selected for the short list shall likewise be provided the
reasons for such decision. In the event that an offeror is
denied prequalification, the written notification to such offeror
shall state the reasons for such denial of prequalification and
the factual basis of such reasons.
4. Selection of a Construction Manager (STEP II):
a) The Agency shall send a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) to
the offerors on the short list and request submission of
formal proposals from them. The criteria for award shall be
included in the RFP.
b) Proposals as described in the RFP shall be submitted to the
Committee.
c) The Committee will evaluate and rank the proposals. After
evaluation and ranking of the proposals, the Committee
shall:
1. Conduct negotiations with two or more offerors
submitting the highest ranked proposals. (or)
2. Should the Agency determine, in writing and at its
sole discretion, that only one offeror is fully qualified
or that one offeror is clearly more highly qualified than
the others under consideration, a contract may be
negotiated and awarded to that offeror.
28-4
Supp. 7-1-13
d) The Committee shall make its recommendation on the
selection of a construction manager to the Agency head
based on its evaluations and negotiations. The contract shall
be awarded to the offeror who is fully qualified and has been
determined to have provided the best value in response to
the Request for Proposal.
e) The Agency shall notify OFD of the its selection of the
Construction Manager and shall request authority to award a
contract by processing the notice of award and providing
supporting documents to the purchasing division via e-mail
to [coforms@dgs.virginia.gov].
f) The Agency will notify all offerors who submitted proposals
which offeror was selected for the project. In the alternative,
the Agency may notify all offerors who submitted proposals
of the Agency's intent to award the contract to a particular
offeror at any time after the Agency head has selected the
Construction Manager. When the terms and conditions of
multiple awards are so provided in the RFP, awards may be
made to more than one offeror.
g) Upon request, documentation of the process used for the
final selection shall be made available to the unsuccessful
proposers.
28-3 Required Contract Terms
Any Guaranteed Maximum Price construction management contract
entered into by any department, agency or institution of the County will
contain provisions requiring that (1) not more than 10% of the construction
work (measured by cost of the work) will be performed by the CM with its
own forces and (2) that the remaining 90% of the construction work will be
performed by subcontractors of the CM which the CM must procure by
publicly advertised, competitive sealed bidding to the maximum extent
practicable. Documentation shall be placed in the file detailing the reasons
any work is not procured by publicly advertised competitive sealed
bidding. The purchasing agent may modify these contractual requirements
in whole or in part for projects where it would be fiscally advantageous to
the public to increase the amount of construction work performed by the
Construction Manager.
28-4 Guaranteed Maximum Price
The Guaranteed Maximum Price shall be established at the completion of
working drawings unless a waiver has been granted to this requirement by
the purchasing agent.
28-5
Supp. 7-1-13
28-5 One-Step Solicitation
An Agency may request from the purchasing agent approval to perform a
one-step solicitation for its project. If adequate justification is provided, the
purchasing agent may approve the request.
Return to exec summary
VSAIAThe Virginia Society AIA is a
professional organization representing more than 2,000 Virginia architects.
N.C., Texas Consider Va. Procurement Law
Posted on 06 June 2011.
It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However, North Carolina and Texas legislators
seem to be trying to imitate a Virginia law that has its detractors here at home.
“We had the privilege to work on a PPEA project early,” Marlene Shade, AIA, said. “It was very
successful project financially, won several awards. Everybody walked away completely happy.”
PPEA is the acronym for the Public-Private Education Act, passed into law in 2002 in Virginia.
An associate principal in Dewberry’s Fairfax office, Shade said that since that time the firm has been
involved in several design-build and PPEA projects. As the years passed, however, the demands
upon the architects have come to the point where some clients are seeking a full design-
development package on the first submittal. With extremely scant scope information, she indicated,
this was all but impossible.
“You would find yourself designing in a vacuum,” she said. “If you were successful, you’d have to go
back to the beginning to develop a scope and redesign accordingly. Schematic is one thing, but a full
package is another.”
“We have had some localities tell us they use the PPEA process to evaluate design options while
more than covering their costs,” BCWH founding principal Rob Comet, AIA, said. He explained that
some smaller localities have solicited proposals without having the financing to continue with a
project. Under the PPEA, those submitting proposals must include with their submittal a fee to cover
the localities’ review expenses. These fees, he said, can be $25,000 to $50,000.
The law’s genesis stemmed from a desire to encourage private investment in Virginia infrastructure
projects. While “education” is in the short title, the law encompasses any type of project for the state
or for localities except roads and bridges.
“Overall, the PPEA has worked for the state,” according to Bert Jones, an architect and the director
of the Virginia Division of Engineering and Buildings. Because of the magnitude of paperwork and
the approval process, he said, “it typically gets tried only on $20 million-plus projects.”
In comparing it to the traditional design-bid-build delivery method, Jones said it takes no more time
from start to finish. Nor does it take any more money. From his experience on three or four projects
for the state, though, there has been no private financing. “All the ones I have been involved with
have been financed with bond funds.”
He said it is most akin to design-build without the time required to go through the Design-
Build/Construction Management Review Board. “But it’s more complex. If you’re not a sophisticated
owner, you should stay away from this,” Jones said.
The complexity is such that the General Assembly established the PPEA Working Group to monitor
the actions taken under the legislation and to develop guidelines to help localities implement its
provisions.
“This is the first standing committee that tracks elements of the code and tries to marry up the
suggested changes with guidelines,” said Paul Proto, general services director for Henrico County.
Proto serves on the working group. In his position in Henrico County, he directs all construction and
maintenance for Henrico County-owned buildings.
“My personal feeling is that I don’t see any magic to it,” he said of the PPEA process. “It gives
localities an additional approach to do things, but I don’t think it solves a specific problem in that one
would say ‘This is the way to go on this project as opposed to design-bid-build.’”
Henrico County has little experience with PPEA projects and only one PPTA (Public-Private
Transportation Act) project, Proto said. (The PPEA was modeled on Virginia’s PPTA.) He said the
county has received four or five unsolicited proposals, but never went forward with any of them.
The PPEA needs to provide two things to a locality, according to Proto: identifying a needed project
and providing an otherwise unobtainable financial advantage. So far, neither has happened for
Henrico. The county’s process of developing and continually updating its capital needs within a five-
year plan eliminates one of the advantages for Henrico. And so far, he said, no team has provided
the financial incentive. “In each case, we found we could borrow money cheaper.”
About two years ago, the county chose the PPTA route in an attempt to correct major traffic
congestion in a more timely fashion. He said the up-front negotiations ate up most of the anticipated
time savings. And although construction is currently under way, he admitted there seemed to be no
advantage over the traditional delivery method.
During the time since its inauguration, the PPEA law has been amended 50 to 80 times, Jones said.
“They have added so many checks and balances that it is harder to do from a usability perspective.”
Instead, the state finds itself turning more often to the construction-management-at-risk delivery
method. Whereas Virginia consistently has two or three PPEA projects a year, Jones said it has 20-
30 projects right now using the CM at Risk method.
In Virginia, localities may use the PPEA or the CM at Risk method. Effective July 1, the state will
dissolve its Design-Build/Construction Management Review Board, which acted as a gatekeeper to
localities seeking to use either alternative delivery method. This means localities will have no
oversight into their design-build or construction management projects. Instead, they will follow the
DB/CM guidelines published in the Construction and Professional Services Manual by the Virginia
Bureau of Capital Outlay Management.
Legislation instituted the DB/CM Review Board in 1996 to review a locality’s published procurement
policies and its staff or contracted professionals to determine whether a specific locality could
proceed with a project using either the DB or CM method. It also was to report to the General
Assembly its analysis of the process as it was used by various localities throughout the state.
“Unfortunately the board was not empowered to do anything about how the localities conducted their
projects,” according to James Lowe, PE, Esq. Lowe — along with Henrico’s Proto — was among the
first members appointed to the DB/CM Review Board. As a lawyer and as counsel in the Roanoke
office of HSMM (now AECOM), he volunteered to draft the board’s regulations. He quickly
discovered that no authority existed in the legislation to suspend projects or in any way force the
localities to collect or submit their data.
“Without such authority, the DB/CM Board had no power to collect data” to write such reports, Lowe
said. “I think we issued two.” The first was too soon; there wasn’t a statistically viable sample of
projects. In the second, he said the board wrote that the localities were not submitting data or
submitting incomplete data. “So we cannot make any recommendations or determinations,” it stated.
“Enactment of PPEA gutted the DB/CM Board,” Lowe said. “It enabled localities to do what was
supposed to be under the purview of the DB/CM Board. Effectively localities could go two ways. I
thought that DB/CM route would be easier than PPEA because with PPEA a locality had to analyze
all of these proposals. It wouldn’t take any more time on a locality’s part to put together an RFQ for
the DB/CM route than it would to analyze all projects through PPEA.”
Proto agreed with Lowe’s assessment, saying, “One could go (the PPEA) route and not have to go
through design-build/construction management processes.” He added that the board in his tenure
reviewed about 13 projects, but he could remember none that came in after the PPEA was passed.
With their actions to initiate PPEA projects, Lowe said, “The localities have voted that they prefer to
spend the time with PPEA.” As DEB’s Jones has indicated, localities still have multiple routes to
take.
David Crawford, Hon. AIA, the executive vice president of AIA North Carolina, said he has been
lobbying against the PPEA entering North Carolina. His position is that the bill is nothing more than
design-build by another name, reiterating Jones’ analysis.
R.B. Lawhorne in the Roanoke office of management and budget tends to agree with Crawford’s
view point. He and Roanoke Assistant City Attorney Gary Tegenkamp serve with Proto on the PPEA
Work Group.
Roanoke has done two PPEA projects, a garage and a police academy building. “It’s my opinion,”
Tegenkamp said, “that with all the time constraints and requirements, the PPEA doesn’t save
anything. If it’s a typical project, I think going design-bid-build is going to be quicker and cheaper.”
“All the local attorneys I’ve talked to,” he said, “felt it was not a time saving and not money saving
and, potentially, PPEA could involve more expense because you spend more time on the thing than
traditional design-bid-build.”
Comet, of BCWH in Richmond, said the PPEA has become too political. He said it has gutted the
QBS section of the code. There are few restrictions on what is illegal to stimulate a client to choose a
particular team.
Lowe and Proto indicated they understood that sentiment, but would not go that far. Lowe said there
are problems with every system and that there always will be people trying to game whatever system
is in place. Proto said he depended on the market place to try to stem such activity. If the public
entity doesn’t follow ethical processes, he said, “then you run the risk of someone challenging you.”
“I don’t think there is a right way or wrong way to do this,” Proto said. “Whether competitive
negotiation, design-build, construction management, or PPEA . . . all have their places. None is
going to eliminate all the world’s problems. That’s just not the case. I’m a strong believer in looking
at whatever the undertaking is and select the method that will be the best for that undertaking.”
Virginia statute endorses traditional design-bid-build as its preferred procurement method. The
alternative methods — design-build, construction management at risk and PPEA — all have their
positive and negative points, Comet, Lowe and Proto agreed.
Perhaps because it is the relative newcomer, the PPEA method comes with multiple layers of
complexity including a contract negotiation process that devours time and legal wrangling in month-
long bites.
“These kinds of techniques work best with a well-educated owner who’s willing and qualified to take
risks,” Comet said. “It just doesn’t fit with most of the municipalities I work with. They don’t want to
take risk and they misunderstand design-build or PPEA as a process that guarantees absolute price
where they can make design changes without having an impact.
“Clients who change the method do not understand we no longer work for them in a traditional
advisor’s role in a PPEA,” he said.
Crawford said the lawyers are the ones promoting the process in North Carolina. In his view, it
seems like there is a lot of potential for abuse in the law. Comet agrees, calling it “a design-build
vehicle with lots of openings for abuse.”
Crawford said his North Carolina AIA members prefer construction management at risk. “They did
not care for it when it came in because they lost some control over the scope in the project. But
ultimately it became a more guaranteed way of bringing in a project.”
In comparing the public-private method considered in the North Carolina legislation to the state’s
experience with construction management, he said, “At least, (our members) have a way of
competing in the market” with CM.
If procurement systems are breeding grounds for corruption, Lowe said “the cure is that the design
community must be diligent and vigilant to shine a light on those that are handled inappropriately. It
is inadequate to complain on the front end but otherwise not be engaged. Go to council meetings,
question the public officials, do your responsibilities as a citizen.”
Return to exec summary
August 30, 2013
Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Ms. Mallek:
I soon will be developing the first draft of the 2014 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative
Program. As I typically do, I would like to appear before the Board to discuss the process for developing
the program, to highlight some of the issues being considered for inclusion in the program and to receive
input from the Board concerning items it would like to emphasize in the program. For your information, I
have attached a summary of the priority items from this past year.
Specifically, this item will be on the Board’s agenda for its September 4th meeting. My presentation
will be very brief, to be followed by any discussion board members may wish to have. I also have been
working with your staff as they prepare local legislative priorities that are being presented to you that day
as well.
Following meetings with the other local governing bodies in the region, I plan to circulate a copy
of the draft regional program to you in late September, and will request to come before the Board again in
November to seek concurrence with the program.
I look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David C. Blount
Acting Executive Director/Legislative Liaison
View attachment
Return to agenda
Thomas Jefferson Planning District
2013 Legislative Priorities
(Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson &
Charlottesville City)
STATE MANDATES & FUNDING OBLIGATIONS
The governor and legislature should 1) not impose financial or administrative mandates on localities; 2)
not shift costs for state programs to localities; and 3) not further restrict local revenue authority.
The state should eliminate across-the-board reductions in aid-to-localities, budgeted to be $95 million
over FY13/FY14.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING and DEVOLUTION
We request separate and dedicated state revenues to expand and maintain our transportation
infrastructure.
The state should restore formula allocations for secondary and urban construction.
We are strongly opposed to any legislation or regulations that would transfer responsibility to counties
for construction, maintenance or operation of current or new secondary roads.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
The state should fully fund its share of the realistic costs of the Standards of Quality without making
formula and policy changes that shift the funding burden to localities.
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL
The state and federal governments must provide major and reliable forms of financial and technical
assistance for comprehensive water quality improvement strategies, to include stormwater management.
We urge fairness in applying requirements for reductions in nutrient and sediment loading ac ross source
sectors, and accompanying authority and incentives for all sectors to meet such requirements.
We will oppose actions that impose monitoring, management or similar requirements on localities without
providing sufficient resources.
We believe any expansion of the Nutrient Exchange Program should be contained within and be relevant
to a particular watershed so as to enhance the health of local waters.
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
We request additional tools to manage growth without preempting or circumventing existing local
authorities in this area.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
We urge a better partnership between the state and localities in containing the costs of CSA and in
balancing CSA responsibilities. We support additional state funding for CSA administration; localities
have been footing the bill for most of these costs as state contributions have remained flat over the past
decade.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2014 Legislative Priorities
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consideration and Approval of the 2014 Legislative
Priorities
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis and Blount
PRESENTER (S): Larry Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Each year the Board considers and approves its legislative priorities and submits them to the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission (TJPDC), the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) and the Virginia Municipal League (VML).
Generally, the TJPDC’s legislative program incorporates the County’s legislative priorities. Other initiatives are sometimes
added prior to the General Assembly session. This executive summary will provide a review of the Board’s 2013
Legislative Priorities (Attachment B) and request the Board to review and approve the 2014 Legislative Priorities
(Attachment A).
DISCUSSION:
A review of the County’s 2013 Legislative Priorities is provided in the attached “2013 Legislative Priorities Report”
(Attachment B). The report includes details regarding previous action taken on the priorities, an assessment of what
priorities should be continued in the future, and links to the final legislative reports of the TJPDC VACo and VML.
Many of the proposed 2014 Legislative Priorities (Attachment A) are carried forward from 2013. One specific priority,
set forth below, has been identified for action in the 2014 Legislative Priorities:
Local Government Administration and Finance
Request legislation to eliminate split Virginia Senate precincts to the extent possible.
The 2011 Virginia Senate and House of Delegates redistricting created split precincts in the Jack Jouett, Rio and
Rivanna Magisterial Districts. The Jack Jouett Precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts in two
places. The Woodbrook precinct is split between the 17th and the 25th Senate Districts. The Free Bridge precinct is
split between the 57th and the 58th House Districts and the Stony Point precinct is split between the 175th and 25th
Senate Districts.
After the Board’s review, input and approval of the proposed 2014 Legislative Priorities, staff will submit the Board’s
2014 Legislative Priorities to the TJPDC, VACo and VML for their consideration to be included in their respective
legislative programs. The 2014 TJPDC Legislative Program will also be presented to the Board on September 4 for
the Board’s input and review.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s legislative priorities seek to ensure that the state adequately funds its mandated responsibilities and
does not jeopardize the County’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement the policies (including fiscal) and
programs that it deems necessary. A modest budgetary impact for the Registrar’s Office and voter services would be
expected from redistricting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed 2014 Legislative Priorities (Attachment A), and any additions it
feels are appropriate, for submission to the TJPDC, VACo and VML.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Proposed 2014 Legislative Priorities
B – 2013 Legislative Priorities Report
Return to agenda
1
Albemarle County 2014 Legislative Priorities
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
Biosolids—Support legislation enabling localities, as part of their zoning ordinances, to
designate and/or reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the
locality based on criteria related to the public safety and welfare of its citizens and the
environment. In addition, support legislation regarding land application of biosolids that protect
the environment, public health and safety.
Local Authority—Support legislation to 1) strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to
utilize adequate public facilities ordinances; and 2) not pass legislation that preempts or
circumvents existing local authority to regulate land use.
Impact Fee Authority—Support impact fee legislation that allows for 1) a fair allocation of costs
representing a “pro-rata” off-set of new growth on public facilities; 2) impact fees for facility
costs related to transportation, schools, fire, police, emergency medical services, libraries,
stormwater management, open space and parks/recreation lands; 3) effective implementation
through simple locally-based formulae and reasonable administrative requirements; 4) does not
cap or limit localities’ impact fee updates; and 5) does not diminish the existing proffer system.
Conservation Easements—Support legislation that augments local efforts in natural resource
protection through 1) continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLCF) for
locally established and funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE Program in
Albemarle County); 2) continuing to provide matching funds to localities for their Purchase of
Development Rights programs through the Office of Farmland Preservation; 3) retaining
provisions in transient occupancy tax legislation so that funds can continue to be used to protect
open-space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value that attract tourism;
and 4) increase incentives for citizens to create conservation easements.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement—Support enabling legislation for Albemarle
County to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the
County pursues options to protect the visual qualit y of land as an aesthetic and economic
resource, this legislation would provide a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources
and scenic areas when the County or state make land use decisions in designated areas.
Transportation Funding—Support legislation to 1) establish stable and consistent state revenues
for Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 2) direct funding efforts at all
transportation modes; 3) coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of
local Comprehensive and regional Transportation Plans when planning transportation systems
within a locality; and 4) strongly oppose any legislation or regulations that would require the
transfer of responsibility to counties for construction, maintenance or operation of new and
existing secondary roads.
Health and Human Services
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)—Request that the legislature assist localities’
implementation of CSA in a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) fully funding the state
pool for CSA with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local
expenditures for serving a child through CSA; 2) enhancing state funding for grants to localities
2
to create community-based alternatives for children served in CSA; 3) establishing state contacts
with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor
accountability and control costs; and 4) encouraging the state to be proactive in making service
providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing
among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
Child Care for Low Income Working Families—Request the legislature provide additional
funds to local governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. This
funding helps working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts
for families to become self-sufficient.
Local Department of Social Services (LDSS)—Request the legislature increase funds for LDSS
to match all available federal dollars to assist LDSS staffing needs in order to meet state
mandated services and workloads.
Local Government Administration and Finance
Voting Precincts—Eliminate split precincts to the extent possible. The 2011 Virginia Senate
and House of Delegates redistricting created split precincts in the Jack Jouett, Rio and Rivanna
Magisterial Districts. The Jack Jouett precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts
in two places. The Woodbrook precinct is split between the 17th and the 25th Senate Districts.
The Free Bridge precinct is split between the 57th and 58th House Districts and the Stony Point
precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts.
Full Funding of State Mandates—Request the state provide full funding for its mandates in all
areas of local government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs), positions approved by the
Compensation Board, costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services
positions.
Local Control of Local Revenues—Oppose legislation that restricts or limits the existing local
control of local revenues so that local government leaders can take appropriate measures to
generate sufficient revenues to sustain and improve services.
Drug Court Funding—Request the legislature fully fund the Drug Court Program, which
provides effective treatment and intensive supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit
Courts of several Virginia localities.
Cost to Compete Pay Differential—Due to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle
County, request the legislature include Albemarle County Schools in the “Cost to Compete Pay
Differential” so that the County may reach and maintain competitive compensation to help
recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce.
Return to exec summary
1
Albemarle County 2013 Legislative Priorities Report
This report summarizes actions taken regarding Albemarle’s 2013 Legislative Priorities. This
report will often cite information from the final legislative reports of the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (TJPDC), Virginia Municipal League (VML), and the Virginia
Association of Counties (VACo). For complete reports from these organizations that provide a
thorough overview of local government impacts beyond Albemarle’s priorities, please see the
links below.
TJPDC: http://www.tjpdc.org/pdf/Liaison/2013ReportFINAL.pdf
VACo: http://www.vaco.org/LegislativeNews/LegSummary13.pdf
VML: http://www.vml.org/Legact.html
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
Biosolids—Support legislation enabling localities, as part of their zoning ordinances, to
designate and/or reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the
locality based on criteria related to the public safety and welfare of its citizens and the
environment. In addition, support legislation regarding land application of biosolids that protect
the environment, public health and safety.
Summary: There was no legislation introduced in the 2013 session regarding the land
application of biosolids. Final amendments to the adopted state biosolids regulations were
signed by Governor McDonnell on June 12, 2013.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities
*****************************************************************************
Inoperable vehicles—request legislation to add Albemarle County to the list of localities
permitted by statute to restrict the keeping of inoperable vehicles on residential or commercial
property.
Summary: HB 885 added Albemarle County to the list of localities enabled to regulate the
outdoor storage of inoperable vehicles.
*****************************************************************************
Local Authority—Support legislation to 1) strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to
utilize adequate public facilities ordinances; and 2) not pass legislation that preempts or
circumvents existing local authority to regulate land use.
Summary: HB 2190 requires localities, within 30 days of the adoption of a more stringent
stormwater ordinance or requirement than required by the state, to submit a letter report to the
Department of Conservation and Recreation to explain why the more stringent ordinance or
requirement is necessary.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Impact Fee Authority—Support impact fee legislation that allows for 1) a fair allocation of costs
representing a “pro-rata” off-set of new growth on public facilities; 2) impact fees for facility
costs related to transportation, schools, fire, police, emergency medical services, libraries,
stormwater management, open space and parks/recreation lands; 3) effective implementation
2
through simple locally-based formulae and reasonable administrative requirements; 4) does not
cap or limit localities’ impact fee updates; and 5) does not diminish the existing proffer system.
Summary: There was no legislation introduced in the 2013 session regarding the use or
support of impact fees.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Conservation Easements—Support legislation that augments local efforts in natural resource
protection through 1) continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLCF) for
locally established and funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE Program in
Albemarle County); 2) continuing to provide matching funds to localities for their Purchase of
Development Rights programs through the Office of Farmland Preservation; 3) retaining
provisions in transient occupancy tax legislation so that funds can continue to be used to protect
open-space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value that attract tourism;
and 4) increase incentives for citizens to create conservation easements.
Summary: The adopted budget restores $200,000 in matching grant funds in FY14 for
purchase of development rights programs; this action restores half of the $400,000 reduction
contained in the introduced budget.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
*****************************************************************************
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement—Support enabling legislation for Albemarle
County to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the
County pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic
resource, this legislation would provide a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources
and scenic areas when the County or state make land use decisions in designated areas.
Summary: HB 2310 clarifies that localities have flexibility to define by ordinance the height
of “tall buildings and structures” for purposes of mountain ridge construction regulation.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Transportation Funding—Support legislation to 1) establish stable and consistent state revenues
for Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 2) direct funding efforts at all
transportation modes; 3) coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of
local Comprehensive and regional Transportation Plans when planning transportation systems
within a locality; and 4) strongly oppose any legislation or regulations that would require the
transfer of responsibility to counties for construction, maintenance or operation of new and
existing secondary roads.
Summary: HB 2313 is the transportation funding package expected to generate nearly $850
million per year by 2018, with funding targeted primarily for road maintenance, rail and transit.
Revenues for transportation are generated by eliminating the existing gas tax and converting it to
a wholesale tax of 3.5% on gas and 6% on diesel; increasing the state sales tax from 5% to 5.3%,
the motor vehicle sales tax from 3% to 4.15%, establishing an alternative fuel vehicle annual fee
3
of $64, diverting additional general fund dollars to transportation and utilizing internet sales tax
collections from an anticipated federal law.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County Priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Health and Human Services
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)—Request that the legislature assist localities’
implementation of CSA in a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) fully funding the state
pool for CSA with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local
expenditures for serving a child through CSA; 2) enhancing state funding for grants to localities
to create community-based alternatives for children served in CSA; 3) establishing state contacts
with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor
accountability and control costs; and 4) encouraging the state to be proactive in making service
providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing
among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
Summary: The governor’s budget reduced CSA funding by $19.67 million in FY14 to reflect
an anticipated reduction in caseload and related expenses.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Child Care for Low Income Working Families—Request the legislature provide additional
funds to local governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. This
funding helps working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts
for families to become self-sufficient.
Summary: No bills were introduced in the 2013 session on this matter.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Local Department of Social Services (LDSS)—Request the legislature increase funds for LDSS
to match all available federal dollars to assist LDSS staffing needs in order to meet state
mandated services and workloads.
Summary: The budget adds $97,614 in FY14 to pay for services to previous foster care youth
who are leaving Department of Juvenile Justice facilities under HB 1743/SB 863.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Local Government Administration and Finance
Sign removal in the right-of-way—Request legislation to amend Virginia Code § 33.1-373 to
enable localities to retain the civil penalties collected from illegal sign removal in the right-of-
way.
4
Summary: SB 888 permits localities, including Albemarle, to negotiate with the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) to have localities retain civil penalties collected from
illegal sign removal in VDOT right-of-ways.
******************************************************************************
Voting Precincts—Eliminate split precincts to the extent possible. The 2011 Virginia Senate
and House of Delegates redistricting created split precincts in the Jack Jouett, Rio and Rivanna
Magisterial Districts. The Jack Jouett precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts
in two places. The Woodbrook precinct is split between the 17th and the 25th Senate Districts.
The Free Bridge precinct is split between the 57th and 58th House Districts; and the Stony Point
precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts.
Summary: HB 1348 would have made technical changes in order to eliminate split voting
precincts and otherwise facilitate the administration of legislative elections by local officials.
House action left the bill in the Privileges and Elections Committee.
Priority: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it for action in
the proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Full Funding of State Mandates—Request the state provide full funding for its mandates in all
areas of local government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs), positions approved by the
Compensation Board, costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services
positions.
Summary: The approved budget adds $6.33 million to the FY13 state share of jail per diem
costs and reduces the amount in FY14 by $540,000. The budget also adds $2.1 million for a
salary increase of $3,308 for assistant Commonwealth’s Attorneys effective July 1, 2013 and to
increase the entry level salary to $48,693. Finally, the budget appropriates a 3% salary increase
for state supported local employees with an amendment which states that local governments
cannot use funds from the Compensation Board intended for salary increases to supplant local
funds used for compensation of constitutional officers and their employees. Budget language
also requires the Commission on Local Governments to assemble a task force to analyze fiscal
impacts of proposed bills and budget amendments on local governments.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Local Control of Local Revenues—Oppose legislation that restricts or limits the existing local
control of local revenues so that local government leaders can take appropriate measures to
generate sufficient revenues to sustain and improve services.
Summary: The FY14 budget eliminated the requirement that local governments return $45
million in state aid to the Commonwealth.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Drug Court Funding—Request the legislature fully fund the Drug Court Program, which
provides effective treatment and intensive supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit
Courts of several Virginia localities.
5
Summary: The state budget continues to fund the Drug Court Program.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Cost to Compete Pay Differential—Due to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle
County, request the legislature include Albemarle County Schools in the “Cost to Compete Pay
Differential” so that the County may reach and maintain competitive compensation to help
recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce.
Summary: No budget language or amendments were introduced in the 2013 session for this
priority.
Proposal: Staff recommends this remain a County priority and has included it in the
proposed 2014 priorities.
******************************************************************************
Return to exec summary
1
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
POB 1505, 401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org
(434) 979-7310 phone ● (434) 979-1597 fax ● info@tjpdc.org email
Memorandum
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Sarah Rhodes, MPO Program Manager
Date: August 28th, 2013
Re: 2040 LRTP: Status and Next Steps
Purpose: To inform the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors about the 2040 Long Range
Transportation Plan; specifically, where we are in the 2040 LRTP planning process and the next steps in
this process.
Background: The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is a regionally-focused, fiscally-constrained,
transportation planning document that outlines a community’s future transportation vision and lists a
series of projects, from all transportation modes, that will contribute to achieving that vision. All LRTPs
must consider transportation planning with, at least, a 20 year outlook. Also, all LRTPs are federally-
required documents. Our community has to develop an LRTP in order to receive federal funding for
transportation projects.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO is currently in the process of updating its Long Range Transportation
Plan for 2040. We have been working on this plan update since the fall of 2011, and the final 2040 LRTP
is due for approval by the MPO Policy Board in May 2014.
Summary: The 2040 LRTP development process is outlined below. Currently the MPO is in the process
of assessing capacity-building improvements that have been grouped into project scenarios.
Goals and Vision – Throughout 2012 the MPO Committees reevaluated and revised the Regional
Mobility Goals that were developed for previous long range transportation plans, UnJAM 2025 and 2035.
These goals were approved for the 2040 LRTP by the MPO Policy Board in January 2013. The MPO is
also required to include the Eight Planning Factors in all plans they develop. These factors also helped to
shape the 2040 LRTP.
Performance Measures – The MPO wanted to root the 2040 LRTP update in a more technical assessment
process. To do this MPO staff researched transportation performance measures that could be used to help
determine which projects should be included in the 2040 LRTP. Pulling resources from FHWA’s
Strategic Highway and Research Program, as well as the recently implemented Livability Project, the
MPO put together a list of 16 performance measures. These measures cover a wide variety of
transportation planning issues, such as mobility, environmental, economic development and community.
These measures were reviewed with the MPO’s committees and approved by the MPO Policy Board in
March 2013.
Transportation Deficiencies – The MPO used a variety of methods to identify transportation deficiencies.
In the fall of 2011 the MPO held a public outreach workshop, as part of the Livability Project, to
determine which parts of the transportation system our community found deficient based on safety
concerns and congestion. In January 2012 the MPO held another workshop, also a part of the Livability
Project, which showed the 2040 transportation system assessment from the MPO’s Travel Demand
Model. This workshop focused on identifying future transportation congestion concerns for the region.
MPO staff also put together an analysis to identify transportation deficiencies for transit access and bike
and pedestrian connectivity and access. All of these deficiencies were reviewed the by the MPO
committees in January 2013.
2
Project Scenarios – During the spring of 2012 the MPO committees developed a list of 22 candidate
projects to address the transportation deficiencies identified from the public workshops. Projects from this
candidate list were modeled individually to determine the mobility benefit they would provide. The
results from this exercise were reviewed with the MPO committees. In May 2012, 15 projects from this
list were approved to move forward in this process. This list of 15 projects served as the basis for the first
round project scenarios development and analysis.
These 15 projects served as a base for the scenario development process. The process is open and any
and all project options can be considered, pending approval from the MPO Policy Board. For both round
2 and round 3 of the scenario assessment process, new projects were added for consideration.
Scenario Analysis – The development of the first project scenario began in April 2013 and was presented
to the MPO committees in May 2013. This first round scenario assessment was not intended to show
potential scenarios but to illustrate the assessment process. Following the first round assessment, MPO
staff worked with MPO committees to develop scenarios for the second round. The second round scenario
assessment, presented in July 2013, gave MPO stakeholders an opportunity to consider practical potential
scenarios and fine tune scenario project lists prior to the public input process. MPO committees developed
a list of projects they would like to see move forward into the third round scenario analysis and MPO staff
worked with local staff, VDOT staff, and local transit officials to develop the scenarios for this third
round. These scenarios are currently under consideration and are open to public comment as of August
28th 2013. All of the input that goes in to these scenarios will help guide the MPO Policy Board as they
develop and approve the preferred scenario.
Next Steps…
Preferred Scenario – A draft preferred scenario will be developed in September. In October a public
outreach event will be held to gather input on this preferred scenario. Once approved, the preferred
scenario project list will be the list of capacity-building projects included in the final 2040 LRTP. This list
will need to be reconciled with projects currently in the 2040 LRTP and will need to be prioritized to
meet fiscal-constraint requirements.
Non-Capacity Projects – Non-capacity projects including bike and pedestrian facilities, bridges, and
intersections are being assessed outside the scenario process. MPO staff is currently working with VDOT
and local staff to develop these draft non-capacity project lists. These lists will be presented to our MPO
committees in September 2013 and will be available for public review at a public outreach event in
October 2013.
Draft Project List – The preferred scenario project list and the non-capacity project lists will be combined
to create the draft project list for the 2040 LRTP.
Fiscal-Constraint Process – All Long Range Transportation Plans must be fiscally-constrained, meaning
that our community cannot plan to spend more than it can reasonably expect to receive over the 30-year
life of the plan. For the fiscal-constraint process we will need to prioritize projects based on what we can
afford. Other projects that might be a lower priority will be placed on a visioning list. Both lists will make
up the overall regional transportation vision.
Final Project List and Plan – The final project list will consist of both the fiscally-constrained list and the
visioning list. Prior to approval of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan two public hearings will be
held, one in March 2014 and one in May 2014.
Materials: Included with this memo are the following materials.
1) The 2040 LRTP Project Timeline.
2) The Regional Mobility Goals and Eight Planning Factors.
3
3) The list of performance measures being used to assess each of the scenarios.
4) Summary materials and maps detailing regional transportation deficiencies.
5) The initial project list, illustrating which projects became the 15 project base list and why.
6) Scenario project lists for round-one scenarios and round-two scenarios.
7) The third round scenarios that are currently under consideration…
7a) Scenario Project Lists
7b) Scenarios Maps
7c) Scenario Performance Measurement Analysis Table
7d) Performance Measurement Analysis Table: Reader’s Guide
If you have any questions about the materials provided or the 2040 LRTP prior to the meeting, please
review the TJPDC’s 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan website or contact MPO Program Manager,
Sarah Rhodes, at srhodes@tjpdc.org.
Project Timeline
Outreach Workshops – As part of the Livability Project, MPO staff and staff from
Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia have conducted two workshops to
seek input from the public on transportation needs.
Workshop 1: Held in October 2011 this workshop focused on the projects in the existing long
range transportation plan, UnJAM 2035. The workshop focused on the projects that have been
completed during the life of UnJAM 2035 and more general regional transportation issues that
have yet to be addressed.
Workshop 2: Held in January 2012 this workshop focused on regional transportation
deficiencies across all the modes. This workshop was also the debut of our 2040 modeling
analysis for transportation deficiencies and issues on our roadway network.
Candidate Project List – In the spring of 2012, MPO staff worked with its committees to
develop preliminary projects lists for potential capacity improvements to be included in the LRTP.
This initial list included 10 road projects and 11 transit projects. All of these projects were modeled
and evaluated individually to determine how each project would affect the 2040 transportation
system. The results of the modeling analysis were taken to the MPO committees by staff with
recommendations regarding projects that should be advanced. At the May 2012 meeting the MPO
Policy Board narrowed the list of candidate projects to seven road projects and eight transit
projects. As the process has moved forward the MPO Committees have removed and added
projects as appropriate.
Goals and Needs – The MPO developed a set of Regional Mobility Goals and identified critical
transportation system needs for 2040. The 2040 LRTP also leans on federally required planning
goals, known as the eight planning factors. These two sets of goals shape and define the 2040 LRTP.
Cost Estimates – Once the project list was condensed MPO staff worked to develop cost
estimates for the remaining potential projects. These cost estimates were assessed over a 20-year
period that included both the initial development cost as well as the 20-year costs for maintenance
and operation. A final cost was calculated as the cost per passenger mile traveled for all road and
transit projects to allow the cost of each project to be comparable and to identify the most cost
efficient approaches to meeting future transportation needs. These initial cost estimates were
reviewed by the MPO Policy Board in September and November 2012. MPO staff continues to
develop costs estimates for all projects that arise throughout this planning process.
Performance Measures – MPO Staff utilized several resources in the development of
performance measures to assess which projects are most appropriate for inclusion in the 2040 LRTP.
These resources include FHWA’s performance measures list for capacity-building projects, the
performance measures that were developed as part of the TJPDC’s Livability Grant, and input from
our MPO Committees. These performance measures were finalized at the March 2013 meeting.
Project Scenarios – The MPO is developing project scenarios focused on determining the most
beneficial project combinations for our region. Each scenario is comprised of a unique combination
of projects under consideration for inclusion in the 2040 LRTP. The purpose of the scenarios is to
assess the benefits and impacts of alternative approaches to meeting long range transportation
needs. MPO staff is working with the MPO committees and other stakeholders, throughout the
summer of 2013 and into the fall to develop these project scenarios.
Analysis of Project Scenarios Using the Performance Measures – Staff is analyzing the
scenarios based on the performance measures to determine the potential impacts and benefits of
each scenario. The results from each analysis are used to generate new scenarios that better
achieve the previously identified transportation goals. MPO staff will continue this iterative process
and work the MPO committees and other stakeholders throughout the summer of 2013 and into the
fall to analyze these project scenarios.
Input Process on Scenarios – After the analysis of the scenarios is complete and one or more
final scenarios have been identified, MPO staff will conduct a public outreach session to gather input
from the public, the Planning Commissions, the City Council and Board of Supervisors. The purpose
of the public outreach session is to provide citizens with an opportunity to review the scenarios and
the associated performance measure data and provide input for consideration in structuring the
preferred scenario. This input process will occur during summer 2013.
Preferred Scenario – After the public outreach session MPO staff work with the MPO
Committees to identify the preferred scenario. This scenario will incorporate projects designed to
meet all future transportation needs in 2040. This process will be an iterative one that may require
multiple MPO committee meetings and potentially extend from July to November 2013. Once the
preferred scenario has been identified it will be adopted by MPO Policy Board.
Non-Capacity Improvements – Much of the MPO’s focus has been on large scale, capacity-
building improvements, such as large road improvements. However, non-capacity improvement
projects also need to be included in the 2040 LRTP. These projects focus on bike and pedestrian
facilities, bridge improvements, intersection safety and travel demand management strategies. MPO
staff has been working with local staff to determine the best performance measurement strategies
for assessing each of these non-capacity improvements. Throughout the summer MPO staff will
develop these assessment factors. The MPO plans to bring these lists to the MPO Committee’s in
September for review.
Final Prioritized Project List – Based on the preferred scenario and the non-capacity
improvement lists, MPO staff will work with staff from the localities, the University of Virginia, the
transit systems, and Virginia Department of Transportation to develop a final prioritized project list.
This list will be composed of all projects necessary to implement the preferred scenario and the
other non-capacity improvements. The costs for all projects on the final list will be estimated. Staff
will then conduct an outreach process including a public workshop, the Planning Commissions, the
City Council and Board of Supervisors. Following the completion of the input process, MPO staff will
work with the MPO committees to prioritize the final project list. We expect that the final prioritized
list will be submitted to the MPO Policy Board for review at the March 2014 meeting.
Fiscal-Constraint Analysis – Upon approval of the final prioritized project list, MPO staff will
work with staff from the local governments, VDOT and the transit agencies to conduct the fiscal
impact analysis for the prioritized project list. This analysis will identify the projects for all systems
that can be built with anticipated funding. Based on the fiscal-constraint analysis, the prioritized
project list will be divided into the fiscally-constrained project list and the vision project list. The
fiscally-constrained project list is the list of the priority projects for all modes for which funding is
expected to be available between 2015 and 2040. The vision list is the list of priority projects for
which funding is not expected to be available, but remain a priority. The vision projects can be
moved to the fiscally-constrained project list as funding resources are identified. We anticipate the
fiscally-constrained project list and the vision project list will be presented to the MPO Policy Board
for approval at the May 2014 meeting.
Final Public Input and Adoption – A final public review workshop will be conducted in April
2014 on the fiscally-constrained project list and the vision project list. The MPO Policy Board will
hold a public hearing and consider the updated long range transportation plan for adoption in May
of 2014.
Mobility Goals
Objective: A comprehensive transportation system for the Charlottesville-Albemarle region
consonant with good land-use planning, socioeconomic cost-effectiveness, and sound financial practice.
1. Goal: A multimodal transportation network.
a. System-wide
i. Plan for a fully integrated transportation system that allows people to choose from an array
of modes to meet their mobility needs.
ii. Enhance and utilize technology to maximize efficiency and convenience for planning trips
and choosing modes; know before you go.
iii. Design a streetscape that is not only useful but enhances the community’s local aesthetics;
including: better lighting, signage, landscaping and signals.
iv. Engage the public in options and priorities for transportation development.
b. Roads
i. Support improvements to the existing roads for balanced, interconnected multimodal
performance and safety.
ii. Work with VDOT on flexible roadway designs for a more balanced, multimodal performance.
iii. Keep the existing transportation network properly maintained for the safety and
convenience of all who use it.
c. Transit
i. Develop enhanced bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), or streetcars for fast, frequent, dependable
service on major corridors.
ii. Establish interregional and intraregional commuter express service from outlying area.
iii. Improve regional and interstate passenger rail service.
iv. Determine appropriate system improvements for the downtown area and in
neighborhoods.
v. Continue to work toward the establishment of a Regional Transit Authority.
d. Walk
i. Establish a complete and fully connected sidewalk system.
ii. Plan and implement safe, accessible crosswalks with pedestrian refuges.
iii. Establish a pedestrian system that is as ADA accessible as possible.
e. Bike
i. Establish on-road bike lanes on urban streets, where possible.
ii. Establish off-road multi-purpose trails along major corridors, where possible.
iii. Establish secure bike parking in key locations throughout the region.
iv. Upgrade and/or calibrate traffic signals to detect and accommodate bikes.
v. Determine locations to integrate grade-separated facilities into the existing infrastructure
vi. Establish framework to automatically count bikes.
f. RideShare/Travel Demand Management/ITS
i. Consider opportunities and options for dedicated travel lanes for carpool and vanpool
participants.
ii. Continue to work with employers in the region to establish more incentives to carpool.
iii. Improve and increase the region’s Park and Ride lots.
iv. Coordinate TDM strategies for commutes, special events and other trip types.
g. Freight
i. Improve transportation system to facilitate regional freight service.
ii. Enhance access for rail and truck freight.
iii. Separate freight movements from passenger travel, where possible.
iv. Support the on-time delivery need of local and statewide businesses and industry.
2. Goal: A cohesive relationship between land use and multimodal transportation planning.
a. Land Use and Multimodal Transportation
i. Blend land use and transportation planning to ensure proper place-making.
ii. Integrate the policies for the City’s and the County’s respective comprehensive plans with
transportation planning at the MPO.
iii. Focus on jurisdiction transition areas (i.e. where the City, County and UVa meet) to make
sure the land use and infrastructure blend seamlessly.
iv. Recognize current and future growth areas and identifying infrastructure need of these
areas.
v. Plan transportation infrastructure that maintains the neighborhood scale and supports
existing and planned densities and activities.
vi. Expand modeling and forecasting technology to better coordinate the current and future
transportation system (roads, transit, bike and pedestrian, etc.) with current and future land
use.
3. Goal: A more structured and proactive method for pursuing transportation funding for all
modes.
a. Overarching
i. Re-evaluate funding streams to establish a more diverse, cost-effective, and multimodal
system.
ii. Construct a clearer and more approachable prioritization outline for local level projects.
iii. Determine what an adequate and reliably available amount of funding is.
iv. Establish funding flexibility in order to meet regional and local priorities.
Planning Factors
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity and efficiency.
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.
4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight.
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of
life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local
planned growth and economic development patterns.
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between
modes, for people and freight.
7. Promote efficient system management and operation.
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
MEASURE DESCRIPTION
CongesƟon The total percentage of roads that will have a level of service E or F in 2040.
Delay The total daily hours of delay that congesƟon will cause in the year 2040.
Mode Share The percentage of trips across the four main travel modes, automoƟve, transit, bike and
walk for 2040.
Vehicle Mobility The total system-wide vehicle miles traveled for 2040.
Vehicle Crashes The total system-wide crashes per year for 2040.
Bicycle ConnecƟvity The total percentage of bikable roads in the urban area.
Access to Jobs The average travel Ɵme to work.
Transit Accessibility The percentage of populaƟon and the percentage of employed individuals within the
MPO with access to transit.
Habitat The agregate impact of projects on natural resources and habitats within 500 foot buffer of
project.
Air Quality The percent change in air quality gases and parƟculates in tons per year.
Water Quality The percent change in the amount of stromwater pollutants in tons per year.
Flood Plain The total acreage of fl ood plain within a 500 foot buffer of the projects.
Historical/Archeological sites The total number of historic or archeological sites within a 500 foot buffer of these
projects.
Land Use
The total number of land parcels within a 500 foot buffer of the potenƟal projects by
usage: residenƟal, comm./ind., parks, educ./religious/charitable, and
agricultural/undeveloped.
Environmental Jus Ɵce and Title VI:
Transit Access
The total percentage of Environmental JusƟce or Title VI groups with access to transit:
minoriƟes, 65 and older, limited-English speaking, and household income of less than
$25,000.
Environmental Jus Ɵce and Title VI:
Impacts
The total percentage of Environmental JusƟce or Title VI groups potenƟally impacted due
to projects: minoriƟes, 65 and older, limited-English speaking, and household income of
less than $25,000.
Mobility
Economy
Environment
Community
PERFORMANCE MEASURES LIST
Transportation Deficiencies
The following maps illustrate transportation deficiencies for roads, transit and bike and pedestrian
facilities.
Roads/Freight
The Level of Service (LOS) in along certain link in the roadway system is projected to be E or F in
2040, meaning that the system will be meeting or exceeding capacity causing severe congestion
throughout the region. (Map to be provided at meeting)
MPO Staff has reviewed regional freight issues and determined that the issues of freight are the
same as those of general vehicular traffic.
Transit/Rail
Numerous neighborhoods and developments in the region do not have access to the region’s
fixed-route transit system. This means that driving is often the only viable transportation option.
(Map to be provided at meeting)
In reviewing regional rail service, staff determined that additional service is important,
particularly early morning service that supports business travel between the region and
Washington D.C., and other points in the northeast corridor.
Bike/Pedestrian
Regional biking is typically confined in certain bubbles because there are major barriers
prohibiting biking beyond these areas. These barriers limit regional accessibility of cyclists. (Map
to be provided at meeting)
The regional pedestrian network, while extensive is often missing links or extensions that would
make the network more effective for the region. (Map to be provided at meeting)
§¨¦64£¤29§¨¦64¬«20£¤250¬«53¬«20£¤29Road ConditionMinor CongestionCongested¯RoadsWaterbodyCharlottesvilleAlbemarle012Miles2040 E+C Base Scenario: Regional Congestion
§¨¦64
£¤29
£¤29
£¤250
§¨¦64
¬«20
£¤250
Ivy
R
d
JPAMain StEmmet StP
r
e
s
t
o
n
A
v
e
5th St Ext
¬«53
Avon St ExtOld Lynchburg RdRoad Condition
Minor Congestion
Congested
¬«20
Stony Point RdRio RdB
a
r
r
a
c
k
s
R
d
Cher ry Ave2040 E+C Base Scenario: Congestion
Roads
Waterbody
Charlottesville
Albemarle ¯
00.51
Miles
§¨¦64£¤29§¨¦64¬«20£¤250¬«53¬«20£¤29Road ConditionNot CongestedMinor CongestionCongested¯RailRoadsWaterbodyCharlottesvilleAlbemarle012Miles2040 E+C Base Scenario: Daily Hours of DelayIvy Road 969.2 hoursUS 29/US 250 1,654.1 hours5th Street 943.3 hoursAvon Street 172.2 hoursMonticello Ave/Scottsville Rd 1,372.3 hoursThomas Jefferson Pkwy/53 1,704.6 hoursDowntown 198.6 hoursPreston Ave 406.4 hoursPantops/US 250 3,863.4 hoursRio Rd/John Warner Pkwy 781.4 hours
§¨¦64£¤29§¨¦64¬«20£¤250¬«53¬«20£¤29Population per Zone0 - 500501 - 1,0001,001 - 1,5001,501 - 2,000> 2,000¯RailRoadsWaterbodyAlbemarle024Miles2040 E+C Transit Accessibility to Population£¤250Population AccessBus Stops1/4 mile Bus Stop BufferZonesTotal Population in MPO Boundary188,610Total Population Accessible by Transit78,679Percentage of Population Accessible by Transit 41.72%
§¨¦64£¤29§¨¦64¬«20£¤250¬«53¬«20£¤29Employment per Zone0 - 250251 - 500501 - 1,0001,001 - 2,000> 2,000¯RailRoadsWaterbodyAlbemarle024Miles2040 E+C Transit Accessibility to Employment£¤250Total Employment in MPO Boundary122,240Total Employment Accessible by Transit79,780Percentage of Employment Accessible by Transit 65.27%Employment AccessBus Stops1/4 mile Bus Stop BufferZones
§¨¦64£¤29§¨¦64¬«20£¤250¬«53¬«20£¤29Population per Zone0 - 500501 - 1,0001,001 - 1,5001,501 - 2,000> 2,000¯RailRoadsWaterbodyAlbemarle024Miles2040 E+C Bike Accessibility to Population£¤250Total Population in MPO Boundary188,610Total Population Accessible by Bike44,790Percentage of Population Accessible by Bike 23.75%Population AccessBarriersBike Facilities500ft Bike BufferZones
§¨¦64£¤29§¨¦64¬«20£¤250¬«53¬«20£¤29Employment per Zone0 - 250251 - 500501 - 1,0001,001 - 2,000> 2,000¯RailRoadsWaterbodyAlbemarle024Miles2040 E+C Bike Accessibility to Employment£¤250Employment AccessBarriersBike Facilities500ft Bike BufferZonesTotal Employment in MPO Boundary122,240Total Employment Accessible by Bike44,440Percentage of Employment Accessible by Bike 36.35%
§¨¦64£¤29§¨¦64¬«20£¤250¬«53¬«20£¤29Population per Zone0 - 500501 - 1,0001,001 - 1,5001,501 - 2,000> 2,000¯RailRoadsWaterbodyAlbemarle024Miles2040 E+C Pedestrian Accessibility to Population£¤250Population Access200ft Pedestrian BufferZonesTotal Population in MPO Boundary188,610Total Population Accessible by Walking67,999Percentage of Population Accessible by Walking 36.05%
§¨¦64£¤29§¨¦64¬«20£¤250¬«53¬«20£¤29Employment per Zone0 - 250251 - 500501 - 1,0001,001 - 2,000> 2,000¯RailRoadsWaterbodyAlbemarle024Miles2040 E+C Pedestrian Accessibility to Employment£¤250Employment Access200ft Pedestrian BufferZonesTotal Employment in MPO Boundary122,240Total Employment Accessible by Walking62,372Percentage of Employment Accessible by Walking51.02%
Initial Candidate Project List
Project
Number
Project
Name Project Details
Did Project Progress to
Cost Estimation?
YES NO REASON
1
Pantops Master
Plan US 250
Corridor
Improvements
Improve US 250 East corridor as
recommended in the Pantops Master
Plan (pedestrian crossings, widening
to no more than six lanes).
In keeping with other
community plans.
2 Southern Parkway
A connector road south of I-64 from
Avon Street to 5th Street Extended to
include sidewalks and bike lanes.
Designated a local
project.
3a
Proposed Eastern
Connector: Proffit
Road Alignment.
A two-lane roadway, with parallel
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Following the current alignment of
Proffit Road.
Not enough benefit.
3b
Proposed Eastern
Connector: Polo
Grounds Road
Alignment.
A two-lane roadway, with parallel
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Following the current alignment of
Polo Grounds Road.
Not enough benefit.
3c
Proposed Eastern
Connector: Pen
Park Lane
Alignment, two
lane.
A two-lane roadway, with parallel
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Following the current alignment of
Pen Park Lane.
Further consideration
was requested.
3d
Proposed Eastern
Connector: Pen
Park Lane
Alignment, four
lane.
A four-lane roadway, with parallel
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Following the current alignment of
Pen Park Lane.
Further consideration
was requested.
4 Route 29 Blvd
Concept
Reshape portion of Route 29,
bypassed by the western bypass, into
a slower moving Boulevard.
In keeping with other
community plans.
5 I-64 Widening Widening to 6 lanes from Keswick to
Ivy. Not enough benefit.
6 Route 29 Bypass
Extension
Extend Route 29 Bypass beyond Lewis
and Clark Drive. Further consideration
was requested.
7
Eastern
Avenue/Crozet
Main Street
Extension
Eastern Avenue: A north-south road
that would connect Route 240 and
Route 250 east of Crozet. Crozet Main
Street Extension: An east-west road
that will connect Eastern Crozet with
Downtown Crozet.
Designated local
projects.
Project
Number
Project
Name Project Details
Did Project Progress to
Cost Estimation?
YES NO REASON
8 Route 250/29
Widening
Widening US 250/29 from Barracks
Rd to I-64 interchange. Further consideration was
requested.
9 Berkmar Dr.
Extention
Extend existing roadway from current
northern terminus of Hilton Heights
Road over the South Fork of the
Rivanna River to the North Fork of
the Rivanna River.
In keeping with other
community plans.
10 Sunset-Fontaine
Connector
Connector road from Sunset Ave to
Fontaine Ave. Will include bike lanes,
sidewalks and a railroad crossing
(overpass/underpass).
Designated a local project.
Currently included in
UnJAM 2035.
11 Bus Rapid Transit:
Existing 29
BRT From UVA Hospital to Hollymead
Town Center along Emmet Street and
Route 29 North. Every 15 minutes
during Peak Hours: (7am to 10am,
4pm to 7pm). Every 30 minutes off-
peak hours.
Further consideration was
requested.
12 Bus Rapid Transit:
Route 29 Bypass
Add BRT between Hollymead and
UVA North Grounds (Western
Bypass). Every 15 minutes during
Peak Hours: (7am to 10am, 4pm to
7pm). Every 30 minutes off-peak
hours.
Further consideration was
requested.
13
Transit: Via
Meadow Creek
Parkway
Add route connecting Route 29 N and
Downtown via the Meadow Creek
Parkway. Every 15 minutes during
Peak Hours: (7am to 10am, 4pm to
7pm). Every 30 minutes off-peak
hours.
Further consideration was
requested.
14
Extend standard
transit service to
Airport
Extend Route 7 to the Airport via
existing Route 29. Further consideration was
requested.
15
Extend standard
transit service to
Glenmore
Extend Route 10 to Glenmore via
Route 250. Not enough benefit.
16
Extend standard
transit service to
Crozet
New service along Route 250 and
Route 240 from Barracks Road to
Crozet.
Further consideration was
requested.
17 Decrease Transit
Headways
Increase transit frequency in areas
with existing service. Further consideration was
requested.
Project
Number
Project
Name Project Details
Did Project Progress to
Cost Estimation?
YES NO REASON
18
Transit-Only
Bridge connecting
Pantops and the
City (State Farm
Drive).
Extend route 1A across Rivanna River
to Pantops. Connection between
Chesapeake Street and State Farm
Boulevard.
Further consideration
was requested.
19
Transit-Only
Bridge connecting
Pantops and the
City (River Bend
Drive).
Extend route 10 across Rivanna River
to Pantops. Connection between High
Street and River Bend Drive.
Further consideration
was requested.
20
Commuter
Service Transit to
Lake Monticello.
From Downtown Mall Transit Center
to Lake Monticello via Route 53. Every
30 minutes during Peak Hours: (7am
to 10am, 4pm to 7pm). Every 1 hour
off-peak.
Not enough benefit.
21
Commuter
Service Transit to
Ruckersville
From Downtown Mall Transit Center
to Lake Monticello via Route 53. Every
30 minutes during Peak Hours: (7am
to 10am, 4pm to 7pm). Every 1 hour
off-peak.
Not enough benefit.
22
Commuter
Service Transit
Zion Crossroads
From Downtown Mall Transit Center
to Zion Crossroads, via Route 250.
Every 30 minutes during Peak Hours:
(7am to 10am, 4pm to 7pm). Every 1
hour off-peak.
Not enough benefit.
Round One Scenarios: Project Lists
Scenario 1A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Widening US29/US250 Widening US 250/29 from Barracks Rd to I-64 interchange
I-64/US29 Interchange Increase capacity of the I-64/US29 interchange and rebuild the interchange
to be safer for higher volumes of traffic.
Widening US250 - Pantops Improve US 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Master Plan
(pedestrian crossings, widening to no more than six lanes).
Berkmar Drive Extended
Extend existing roadway from current northern terminus of Hilton Heights
Road over the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the North Fork of the
Rivanna River.
Western Bypass Extension
The Western Bypass Extension project would connect with the planned US
29 Western Bypass and extend north from Rio Mills Road to where
Dickerson Road intersects with US 29.
Eastern Connector (4-Lane) A four-lane roadway, with parallel bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Following
the current alignment of Pen Park Lane.
Scenario 1B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Meadow Creek Parkway Route
Route connecting Route 29 N and Downtown via the MCP. Every 15
minutes during Peak Hours: (7am to 10am, 4pm to 7pm). Every 30 minutes
off-peak.
Airport Route Extension Extend Route 7 to the Airport via existing Route 29.
Multimodal US 29
Reshape portion of Route 29 bypasses by the Western Bypass, into a
slower moving Boulevard. (To be modeled in combination with Transit
Projects).
BRT Existing US 29 BRT: UVa Hospital to Hollymead, along US 29 North. Every 15 minutes from
6am to 8pm.
Bridge Crossing Route 10
Have Route 10 cross the Rivanna on a transit-only bridge (also includes
bike and pedestrian facilities). Increase headways to 15 minutes during the
peak hours and to 30 minutes during off-peak hours.
Decreasing Headways, full system Increase transit frequency in areas with existing service.
Crozet Route New service along Route 250 and Route 240 from Barracks Road to Crozet.
Scenario 1C: Multimodal Focused
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Multimodal US 29 Reshape portion of Route 29 bypasses by the Western Bypass, into a slower
moving Boulevard. (To be modeled in combination with Transit Projects).
BRT Existing US 29 BRT: UVa Hospital to Hollymead, along US 29 North. Every 15 minutes from
6am to 8pm.
Widening US29/US250 Widening US 250/29 from Barracks Rd to I-64 interchange
I-64/US29 Interchange Increase capacity of the I-64/US29 interchange and rebuild the interchange
to be safer for higher volumes of traffic.
Widening US250 - Pantops Improve US 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Master Plan
(pedestrian crossings, widening to no more than six lanes).
Airport Route Extension Extend Route 7 to the Airport via existing Route 29.
Bridge Crossing Route 10
Have Route 10 cross the Rivanna on a transit-only bridge (also includes bike
and pedestrian facilities). Increase headways to 15 minutes during the peak
hours and to 30 minutes during off-peak hours.
Round Two Scenarios: Project Lists
Scenario 2A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
US 250/29 Widening Widening US 250/29 from Barracks Rd to I-64 interchange
I-64/29 Interchange Increase capacity of the I-64/US29 interchange and rebuild the
interchange to be safer for higher volumes of traffic.
Widening US 250 - Pantops Improve US 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Master
Plan (pedestrian crossings, widening to no more than six lanes).
Berkmar Drive Extended
Extend existing roadway from current northern terminus of Hilton
Heights Road over the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the North Fork
of the Rivanna River.
Multimodal US 29
Reshape portion of Route 29, bypassed by the western bypass and
bound by the South Fork of the Rivanna River at the north and Hydraulic
Road at the south, into a slower moving Boulevard. (To be modeled in
combination with Transit Projects). The improvement would also include
new signalization, bike and ped improvements and transit signal
preference for BRT.
BRT Existing US29 BRT: UVA Hospital to Hollymead along Route 29 North. Every 15 minutes
during from 6AM to 8PM.
Bridge Crossing Route 10
Extend route 10 across Rivanna River to Pantops. Connection between
High Street and River Bend Drive. Narrow transit only bridge with bike
and pedestrian facilities.
Ivy Road Transit Route
A route that would connect UVA’s medical campus with UVA’s
Northridge Site via US250. Headways would be every 30 minutes from
7:00 AM to 8:00PM.
5th Street Ext. Widening Widen 5th St from Bent Creek Drive south to the entrance of the 5 th St
County Office Building. Would include bike and pedestrian facilities.
Scenario 2B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
US 250/29 Widening Widening US 250/29 from Barracks Rd to I-64 interchange
I-64/29 Interchange Increase capacity of the I-64/US29 interchange and rebuild the
interchange to be safer for higher volumes of traffic.
Multimodal US 29
Reshape portion of Route 29, bypassed by the western bypass and
bound by the South Fork of the Rivanna River at the north and Hydraulic
Road at the south, into a slower moving Boulevard. (To be modeled in
combination with Transit Projects). The improvement would also include
new signalization, bike and ped improvements and transit signal
preference for BRT.
Route 7 ext. to Airport
Reshape Route 7 to run every 15 minutes starting at 6:00AM to
Midnight. The route would extend from the Downtown Transit Center
to the Airport. Decrease/Alter route 7 stops.
Bridge Crossing Route 10
Extend route 10 across Rivanna River to Pantops. Connection between
High Street and River Bend Drive. Narrow transit only bridge with bike
and pedestrian facilities.
Pantops – 29 Transit Route
Develop a transit route that would connect the State Farm/MJH with
US 29 north. The route would not go to the downtown. The route
would run every 30 minutes.
Widening Route 250 east of exit 124
Widen to 4 lanes, US 250 from Shadwell Exit (Exit 124) to N Milton
Road, as discussed in the Village of Rivanna plan. Would include bike
and pedestrian facilities.
Geometric Improvements to
Black Cat Rd
Make geometric improvements to Black Cat Rd, which allow safer
movement and more throughput.
Geometric Improvements to Milton Rd Make geometric improvements to Milton Rd, which allow safer
movement and more throughput.
Round 3 Scenarios: Project Lists
Scenario 3A
PROJECT COST EST. DESCRIPTION
US 250/29 Widening $113 Million Widening US 250/29 from Barracks Rd to I-64 interchange. Including the 8-
lane widening from Fontaine to the I-64 interchange.
I-64/29 Interchange $128 Million Increase capacity of the I-64/US29 interchange and rebuild the interchange to
be safer for higher volumes of traffic.
Multimodal US 29 $46.3 Million
Reshape Route 29, bypassed by the western bypass and bound by the South
Fork of the Rivanna River at the north and Hydraulic Road at the south, into a
multimodal transportation corridor. The improvement would also include
new signalization to facilitate bike and pedestrian movement, as well as
signal preference for BRT. Bike and pedestrian improvements would be
implemented on facilities adjacent to US 29. These improvements will also
include bike and pedestrian crossings across US 29 at key locations (both at-
grade and grade separated).
Widening US 250 -
Pantops 44.4 Million Improve US 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Master Plan
(pedestrian crossings, widening to no more than six lanes).
Widening Route 250
from exit 124 $21.2 Million
Widen to 4 lanes, US 250 from Shadwell Exit (Exit 124) to N Milton Road, as
discussed in the Village of Rivanna plan. Would include bike and pedestrian
facilities.
I-64/US 250
Interchange Exit 124 $95.5 Million Increase capacity and rebuild the interchange to be safer for higher volumes
of traffic.
Berkmar Drive
Extended $56.9 Million
Extend existing roadway from current northern terminus of Hilton Heights
Road over the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the North Fork of the
Rivanna River.
Geometric
Improvements to
Black Cat Rd
$6.1 Million Make geometric improvements to Black Cat Rd, which allow safer movement
and more throughput.
Geometric
Improvements to
Milton Rd
$15.7 Million Make geometric improvements to Milton Rd, which allow safer movement
and more throughput.
BRT US/Express Bus
29: NGIC to UVA to
Downtown
$148 Million
Bus Rapid Transit (with dedicated facilities on US 29) and express bus off
US29. Would run at 15 minute headways all day with key stops at NGIC, The
Airport, Fashion Sq., UVA and Downtown. Preemptive signals would be
located at all intersections where service passed.
(With this version of the BRT/Express Bus existing Route 7 service would be replaced.)
Peak hour service
Crozet $33 Million
Transit Service connecting Crozet and Downtown Charlottesville. Service
would only occur during peak-hours (7am to 10am) and (4pm to 7pm).
Service would run on 30 minute headways.
New Route 11 N/A
Route 11 connects Downtown Charlottesville with Fashion Square Mall via
Rio Road. The route maintains hourly headways.
(This route is in service and has been added as an existing and committed project. Since it is new
MPO Staff wanted to include it in the scenarios to show its future impacts.)
Scenario 3B
PROJECT COST EST. DESCRIPTION
US 250/29 Widening $105 Million Widening US 250/29 from Barracks Rd to I-64 interchange to 6-lanes.
I-64/29 Interchange $128 Million Increase capacity of the I-64/US29 interchange and rebuild the interchange to
be safer for higher volumes of traffic.
Multimodal US 29 $46.3 Million
Reshape Route 29, bypassed by the western bypass and bound by the South
Fork of the Rivanna River at the north and Hydraulic Road at the south, into a
multimodal transportation corridor. The improvement would also include new
signalization to facilitate bike and pedestrian movement, as well as signal
preference for BRT. Bike and pedestrian improvements would be implemented
on facilities adjacent to US 29. These improvements will also include bike and
pedestrian crossings across US 29 at key locations (both at-grade and grade
separated).
Widening US 250 -
Pantops 44.4 Million Improve US 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Master Plan
(pedestrian crossings, widening to no more than six lanes).
Widening Route 250
from exit 124 $21.2 Million
Widen to 4 lanes, US 250 from Shadwell Exit (Exit 124) to N Milton Road, as
discussed in the Village of Rivanna plan. Would include bike and pedestrian
facilities.
I-64/US 250
Interchange Exit 124 $95.5 Million Increase capacity and rebuild the interchange to be safer for higher volumes
of traffic.
Berkmar Drive
Extended $56.9 Million
Extend existing roadway from current northern terminus of Hilton Heights
Road over the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the North Fork of the Rivanna
River.
BRT/Express Bus US
29: NGIC to
Downtown via John
Warner Prkwy
$121 Million
Bus Rapid Transit (with dedicated facilities on US 29) and express bus off
US29. Would run at 15 minute headways all day with key stops at NGIC, The
Airport, Fashion Sq., and Downtown. Preemptive signals would be located at
all intersections where service passed.
(With this version of BRT/Express Bus Route 7 would remain in service.)
Route 5 to Health
Center $2.6 Milion
Extend the existing Route 5 to the UVA Health system, via Emmet Street and
JPA. New stops would be added at UVA's central grounds and the health
Center. Service would maintain current 30-minute headways.
(The cost listed here only reflect additional costs. The cost of running the existing Route 5 for 20
years has been subtracted out.)
Bridge Crossing Route
10 $5.7 Million
Dedicated HOV-3 Lanes (one for each direction)on US 250 from High Street to
Stony Point Road (also includes bike and pedestrian facilities). Also bus
service signal preemption at intersections. Service would run 15 minutes
during the peak hours and to 30 minutes during off-peak hours.
(The costs listed here only reflect additional costs. The cost of running the existing Route 10 for 20
years has been subtracted out.)
New Route 11 N/A
Route 11 connects Downtown Charlottesville with Fashion Square Mall via
Rio Road. The route maintains hourly headways.
(This route is in service and has been added as an existing and committed project. Since it is new we
wanted to include it in the scenarios to show its future impacts.)
Scenario 3C
PROJECT COST EST. DESCRIPTION
US 250/29 Widening $105 Million Widening US 250/29 from Barracks Rd to I-64 interchange to 6-lanes.
I-64/29 Interchange $128 Million Increase capacity of the I-64/US29 interchange and rebuild the interchange to
be safer for higher volumes of traffic.
Multimodal US 29 $46.3 Million
Reshape Route 29, bypassed by the western bypass and bound by the South
Fork of the Rivanna River at the north and Hydraulic Road at the south, into a
multimodal transportation corridor. The improvement would also include new
signalization to facilitate bike and pedestrian movement, as well as signal
preference for BRT. Bike and pedestrian improvements would be implemented
on facilities adjacent to US 29. These improvements will also include bike and
pedestrian crossings across US 29 at key locations (both at-grade and grade
separated).
Widening US 250 -
Pantops 44.4 Million Improve US 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Master Plan
(pedestrian crossings, widening to no more than six lanes).
Widening Route 250
from exit 124 $21.2 Million
Widen to 4 lanes, US 250 from Shadwell Exit (Exit 124) to N Milton Road, as
discussed in the Village of Rivanna plan. Would include bike and pedestrian
facilities.
I-64/US 250
Interchange Exit 124 $95.5 Million Increase capacity and rebuild the interchange to be safer for higher volumes
of traffic.
Berkmar Drive
Extended $56.9 Million Extend existing roadway from current northern terminus of Hilton Heights Road
over the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
Airport Link from
Fashion Sq. $51.6 Million
This link would extend from Fashion Square Mall to the Airport via US 29. This
route would run on 15 minute headways during the peak hours and 30 minute
headways during off-peak hours.
Bridge Crossing Route
10 $3.2 Million
Transit-Only Lane (one for BOTH directions)on US 250 from High Street to
Stony Point Road (also includes bike and pedestrian facilities). Also bus service
signal preemption at intersections. Service would run 15 minutes during the
peak hours and to 30 minutes during off-peak hours.
(The cost listed here only reflect additional costs. The cost of running the existing Route 10 for 20
years has been subtracted out.)
New Route 11 N/A
Route 11 connects Downtown Charlottesville with Fashion Square Mall via Rio
Road. The route maintains hourly headways.
(This route is in service and has been added as an existing and committed project. Since it is new we
wanted to include it in the scenarios to show its future impacts.)
Bolded projects are projects that are new to the scenario process.
Rail
Roads
Waterbody
Charlottesville
Albemarle
0 0.75 1.5Miles¯
¬«20
§¨¦64
£¤29
£¤250
£¤29
§¨¦64
¬«20 ¬«53
Scenario 3A Projects
Road Projects
Projects with Bike/Ped
Transit Projects
US 29 BRT(to downtown)
Widening 250Pantops
US 250 ShadwellWidening
Milton RdImprovements Black Cat RdImprovements
I-64/US 29Interchange
US 29/US 250Widening(portion 8-lane)
MultimodalUS 29
Route 11
I-64/250Interchange
Berkmar DriveExtended
Crozet TransitService(peak-hour only)
Crozet
Hollymead
Downtown
UVA
Projects in bold are new to this round of analysis
Rail
Roads
Waterbody
Charlottesville
Albemarle
0 0.55 1.1Miles¯
¬«20
§¨¦64
£¤250
£¤29
§¨¦64
¬«20
Scenario 3B Projects
Road Projects
Projects with Bike/Ped
Transit Projects
US 29 BRT(to downtown via John Warner Prkwy)
US 250 ShadwellWidening
I-64/US 29Interchange
US 29/US 250Widening
MultimodalUS 29
Route 11
Berkmar DriveExtended
Widening of 250Pantops
I-64/250Interchange
Route 5Extended toUVA Health Center
Route 10Dedicated HOV-3 across bridge
Hollymead
Downtown
UVA
FashionSq.
Projects in bold are new to this round of analysis
Rail
Roads
Waterbody
Charlottesville
Albemarle
0 0.5 1Miles¯
¬«20
§¨¦64
£¤250
£¤29
§¨¦64 ¬«20
Scenario 3C Projects
Road Projects
Projects with Bike/Ped
Transit
US 250 ShadwellWideningI-64/US 29Interchange
US 29/US 250Widening
MultimodalUS 29
Route 11
Berkmar DriveExtended
Widening of 250Pantops
I-64/250Interchange
Route 10Transit-Only Lane
Airport TransitLink
Hollymead
Downtown
UVA
Projects in bold are new to this round of analysis
Performance Measure Base
Mobility Value Unit of Measure Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
Congestion (roads)14.1%% of roads at LOS E or F 10.6%24.6%10.7%23.9%10.7%24.1%
Congestion (hours)23,181.0 Hours delay per day 18,943.2 18.3%19,162.7 17.3%19,222.5 17.1%
Mode Share:759,319 Total trips per day 759,379 0.0%759,473 0.0%759,429 0.0%
Auto 88.1%% of trips 87.7%0.5%87.7%0.5%87.9%0.3%
Transit 2.5%% of trips 2.9%17.0%2.9%18.3%2.7%9.4%
Bike 2.7%% of trips 2.7%-0.3%2.7%-0.2%2.7%0.1%
Walk 6.7%% of trips 6.7%0.5%6.7%0.5%6.7%0.7%
Vehicle Mobility 6,228,031.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per day 6,167,134.4 1.0%6,159,983.5 1.1%6,166,174.1 1.0%
Vehicle Crashes 2,865.0 Crashes per year 2,837.0 1.0%2,834.0 1.1%2,837.0 1.0%
Bicycle Connectivity 68.2%% in most connected area 80.2%17.7%85.3%25.0%85.3%25.0%
Economy Value Unit of Measure Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
Access to Jobs (average travel time to work)10.6 Minutes 10.4 2.0%10.4 1.9%10.4 1.8%
Transit Accessibility (housing)67,185 People within ¼ mile of transit stop 71,276 6.1%70,057 4.3%69,677 3.7%
Transit Accessibility (work)52,633 People employed within ¼ mile of transit stop 55,791 6.0%55,239 5.0%54,496 3.5%
Environment Value Unit of Measure Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
Habitat 1,775.5 "Eco Logical" Score per mile 1,784.9 -0.5%1,784.9 -0.5%1,784.9 -0.5%
Air Quality 13,321.0 Tons of Particles per year 13,239.0 0.6%13,141.0 1.4%13,231.0 0.7%
Water Quality 1,079.1 Tons stormwater pollutants per year 1,090.6 -1.1%1,090.9 -1.1%1,089.0 -0.9%
100 Year Flood Plain 99.1 Acres affected 106.0 -7.0%106.0 -7.0%106 -7.0%
Historical 1,141 # of Sites within 500ft of projects 1,181 -3.5%1,182 -3.6%1,170 -2.5%
Archeological 264 # of Sites within 500ft of projects 287 -8.7%287 -8.7%278 -5.3%
Community Value Unit of Measure Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
Land Uses Affected 35,061 Parcels within 500ft of projects 35,541 -1.4%35,553 -1.4%35,475 -1.2%
Residential 32,411 Parcels 32,682 -0.8%32,690 -0.9%32,663 -0.8%
Commercial/Industrial 1,267 Parcels 1,432 -13.0%1,436 -13.3%1,390 -9.7%
Parks 42 Parcels 42 0.0%42 0.0%42 0.0%
Educational/Religious/Charitable 343 Parcels 357 -4.1%357 -4.1%356 -3.8%
Agriculture or undeveloped 998 Parcels 1,028 -3.0%1,028 -3.0%1,024 -2.6%
Environmental Justice & Title VI Populations: Transit Access (2010)Value Unit of Measure Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
Minorities 18,996 People within ¼ mile of transit stops 19,548 2.9%19,495 2.6%19,455 2.4%
Elderly (65 and over)5,135 People within ¼ mile of transit stops 5,564 8.4%5,514 7.4%5,426 5.7%
Limited English-Speaking 8,428 People within ¼ mile of transit stops 8,767 4.0%8,730 3.6%8,707 3.3%
Households 20,877 Households within ¼ mile of transit stops 22,009 5.4%21,895 4.9%21,737 4.1%
Household Income < $25,000 6,564 Low income households within ¼ mile of transit stops 6,682 1.8%6,665 1.5%6,635 1.1%
Environmental Justice & Title VI Populations: Potential Impacts from
Projects (2010)*Value Unit of Measure Value % Change Value % Change Value % Change
Minorities 28,812 People within 500ft of project 29,288 1.7%29,298 1.7%29,175 1.3%
Elderly (65 and over)10,658 People within 500ft of project 11,002 3.2%11,009 3.3%10,942 2.7%
Limited English-Speaking 13,427 People within 500ft of project 13,657 1.7%13,660 1.7%13,595 1.3%
Households 37,119 Households within 500ft of project 37,963 2.3%38,026 2.4%37,827 1.9%
Household Income < $25,000 9,287 Low income households within 500ft of project 9,504 2.3%9,509 2.4%9,485 2.1%
Scenario 3C
Performance Measurement Analysis: Scenario Round 3
Scenario 3A Scenario 3B
Summary Table: Reader’s Guide
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-9016
434.977.2970 • 434.293.8858 Fax
www.rivanna.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE HONORABLE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SUPERVISORS
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: THOMAS L. FREDERICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
SUBJECT: QUARTERLY UPDATE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
I am scheduled to provide a quarterly briefing to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council in
September 2013. I plan to cover the following topics, but would be happy to address any other
issues brought forward by the elected officials:
1. Water Treatment Plant Granular Activated Carbon Improvements: In my last quarterly
report, I defined the meaning of “hybrid GAC” options, a locally “coined” term of which
I believe our elected officials are now familiar. Our engineer is completing their
analysis of options and a presentation introducing the hybrid alternatives will be
scheduled for our September 24, 2013 RWSA Board meeting. We will at that time also
discuss with the Board a strategy for receiving public comment, leading up to a
scheduled Board decision in November. The decision does not need to be delayed
longer, as RWSA is on a schedule enforced by the Virginia Department of Health. I
would suggest that elected officials with ideas on how the public input should be
obtained please discuss those ideas with their RWSA Board representative.
2. Board Retreat: The RWSA and RSWA will hold a joint retreat at City Space on the
downtown mall on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 from 8:00 am until 11:30 am, and the
RWSA Board will move its regular monthly meeting from October 22 to immediately
following the retreat at 11:30 am. The main focus of the retreat will be strategic
planning issues, including some discussion of governing the Authorities in a political
atmosphere where the local governments sometimes do not agree, a discussion on
mission and vision statements, and a plan for improving public education and
communications. The services provided by the Authorities are basic to our community
and often taken for granted, yet our core services are heavily regulated by state and
federal agencies and therefore must be properly operated and maintained. The RWSA in
particular has adopted some recent value added services not offered by most utilities
who are compared as our peers, those services being in response to public advocacy as
2
I:\BOS\BOSLocal\agenda\2013 Folders\0904\14.0_RWSAReport.doc
opposed to staff recommendations, to include: (1) granular activated carbon over
chloramines (up to $13 million added, depending on future hybrid chosen); (2)
relocating the Rivanna Pump Station by means of a 1/3-mile long and 8-foot diameter
tunnel ($13 million added); a budget for partial dredging of the South Fork Reservoir
($3.5 million added); and (4) wholesale metering to enforce a City/ACSA cost share
agreement (possibly $6.4 million added). With this high degree of discretionary capital
spending, and a new request now before elected officials from “The Center for Natural
Capital” that we believe has substantial upfront costs, the water and wastewater utilities
could face the risk of substantial future public criticism regarding the cost of service. I
do not advocate we turn back on obligations we have made on GAC or the Rivanna
Pump Station, but as the Board holds a retreat I believe a discussion on first doing the
basics and core or our responsibilities well is important (and consistent with the
principles of the County’s Comprehensive Plan). In my position, I have tremendous
flexibility for added responsibilities that our Board or elected officials direct if those
who direct us also accept responsibility to defend the added costs; I understandably have
little patience for efforts to starve us of those necessary resources vital to providing
reliable core service and meeting regulatory requirements, and will speak out when I
believe that is being considered.
I also believe it is important that we hold down costs associated with settling
County/City differences. From the citizen perspective, those costs do not provide any
benefit to the quality of utility service.
3. Dredging: Speaking of dredging, RWSA recently received a letter from Orion Marine
that they will not be able to secure a reasonable contract to commit land near the South
Fork Reservoir for processing dredged sediment, therefore, they will not submit a
Detailed Phase Proposal. As the only firm with a responsive proposal out of three at the
PPEA Concept Phase, this leaves us without a path forward. The Board will discuss this
issue in September. PPEA was introduced as a way to allow dredging contractors the
flexibility to design/build their own ideas, which some citizens in our community during
the “dam debate” suggested would lead to substantial contractor interest and “much”
lower costs. Neither has proven true. If there is still a desire to perform dredging, it may
be necessary to purchase some public land for processing sediment, which could be
acquired by eminent domain if necessary.
4. Ragged Mountain Dam: Construction is still on schedule toward a target completion date
of March 2014. RWSA is completing arrangements for the contracting this fall of a new
metered release structure for the Sugar Hollow Reservoir to implement the promised
improvements in flow releases to the Moormans River that will come as the new Ragged
Mountain Reservoir is being filled.
5. Cost Share Agreements: The City and ACSA have agreed to mediate their differences in
interests on how to split the cost of the Rivanna Pump Station at a September 27, 2013
conference, and the mediator (Mr. Mark Rubin of the McCammon Group) has asked
RWSA to participate. We do so as a neutral party from a basis of how the ACSA and
City split cost, though are willing to suggest ideas to help stimulate creativity and help
find an agreement. We have described two interests: (1) that agreement be reached so
the financing and construction of the new Rivanna Pump Station experiences no delay,
3
I:\BOS\BOSLocal\agenda\2013 Folders\0904\14.0_RWSAReport.doc
as the schedule is tight to meet legal mandated deadlines from Virginia DEQ; and (2)
that the cost share arrangement not be disproportionately costly to implement.
6. Ivy Materials Utilization Center and McIntire Recycling: At the request of the Board of
Supervisors, the RSWA Board has approved amendments to the local government
support agreements for these services to extend through June 30, 2014, provided RSWA
can maintain adequate labor. Our Executive Assistant, Candice Jones, is coordinating
with the County and City Clerks to schedule these items for City and County approval.
With a pending reduction in force of some magnitude now likely for July 1, 2014 and
being discussed publicly months in advance, retaining an adequate workforce may be
significantly challenging, and the RSWA Board recently requested that City, County,
and ACSA Human Resource Directors work with RWSA in a joint effort to assist
personnel in retention incentives, job training, and placement into new positions. We are
grateful in anticipation that joint cooperation will occur.
For Albemarle County, it should be noted that since the Ivy MUC was downscaled in
July with Waste Management no longer using the facility, tonnage is about 25 % higher
than we had anticipated, and we are still receiving a substantial number of residents (not
businesses) self-hauling solid waste in quantities not easily handled by conventional
convenience centers without scales. Many of these residents also pay cash and fear that
they will have no options next July (most private sector transfer/disposal/recycling
facilities do not accept cash). We would suggest it is important that the County address
this in their plans for July 2014.
cc: RWSA Board of Directors
RSWA Board of Directors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Vitality Action Plan Final Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Final Report on Three-Year Economic Vitality Action
Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Catlin, Stimart, Allshouse, S.
PRESENTER (S): Ms. Catlin, Mr. S. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 2, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board adopted a three-year Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010 following extensive public
discussion and review. The Plan established a schedule for staff to provide quarterly reports on progress and
activities to the Board, and this is the final report. Recognizing that the Plan was adopted as a three-year effort that
has now reached the end of its timeframe, the Board included under Strategic Plan Goal #3 - Encourage a Diverse
and Vibrant Local Economy, Objective #2 as follows: Establish a fully functioning economic development program for
the County. Staff will present a recommendation to the Board on this topic at a later Board meeting.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3 – Encourage a Diverse and Vibrant Local Economy
DISCUSSION:
As part of the final report on the Plan, it is important to reflect back on the purpose and desired outcomes of the Plan
as it was developed and adopted in 2010. Below is an excerpt from the Plan’s preamble that outlines what the Plan
was intended to do, as well as the Plan’s stated primary goal:
Preamble: 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. Broad-based community input is critical to the success of the Action Plan
and is a key feature of many of the specific strategies and actions.
Primary Goal: Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic
development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents
and existing local businesses.
Attachment A provides a comprehensive three-year work plan that outlines all of the strategies and actions for each
goal of the Plan, along with the status of those activities at the conclusion of the three-year period. Many of the
actions are ongoing in nature and will not be “completed,” but will be integrated into the established economic
development program as components of that program. The following summary highlights major outcomes/results of
the Plan for each goal.
Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image
Plan Outcomes/Results:
Additional staff resources dedicated to economic development and more visibility to those efforts due to
relocation to Office of Community and Business Partnerships in the County Executive’s Office
Expanded website
Productive and positive working relationships with local, regional and state partners
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan Final Report
September 4, 2013
Page 2
Ongoing dialogue with business community on issues and concerns
Single point of contact established to assist small businesses
Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform
Plan Outcomes/Results:
Simplified sign review process
Simplified ARB application procedures for entrance corridor development
Additional opportunities for lodging possibilities in the rural area
Reduced fees and simplified approval process for home-occupation applications
Priority review process for qualified target industries with several successful applications completed
Improvements to site plan ministerial review process
Improvements to legislative review process for zoning map amendments and special use permits
Amended farm winery zoning regulations to simplify noise enforcement
Small business toolkit online and in printed form to help small businesses
Drop in program to help small businesses
Ongoing training in partnership with Chamber of Commerce and others
Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities
Plan Outcomes/Results:
Expanded Albemarle Business First program engaging with a minimum of 100 companies annually
Alternative Site Foreign Trade Zone to help County companies that import goods
Robust partnership with entrepreneurial community, including the University of Virginia, the Charlottesville
Business Innovation Council (CBIC) and Community Investment Collaborative, among others
Identified target markets for the County and region
Workforce opportunities becoming aligned with target market needs
Increased funding for rebranded Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED)
Increased funding for Small Business Development Center (SBDC)
Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options
Plan Outcomes/Results:
Updated and clarified industrial district performance standards
Increased flexibility and opportunities for businesses to locate in industrial and commercial districts
Additional protection from potential office conversion on light industry district land (with exceptions for certain
pre-existing circumstances)
Comprehensive Plan recommendations to consider designating additional land as industrial
Objective 5 – Promote Rural Economy
Plan Outcomes/Results:
Ongoing dialogue with agricultural community on issues and concerns
Comprehensive Plan recommendations that support Rural Area economic opportunities within overall County
policies
Robust tourism marketing program featuring a revitalized brand that recognizes the County’s name and its
assets
Completed successful first year and launching second year of Monticello Artisan’s Trail
Strong partnerships with the Local Food Hub, Monticello’s Heritage Harvest Festival, the Tom Tom Festival,
UVA’s Food Heritage Program and other stakeholders to support and promote agricultural interests
Annual Agribusiness Marketing Conference in partnership with the Chamber
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. Data for the identified indicators for the plan’s
three year timeframe is provided in Attachment B.
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan Final Report
September 4, 2013
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no immediate budget impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action is required by the Board related to this item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Final Workplan Status Report
Attachment B – Final Economic Indicators Report
Return to agenda
1
Economic Vitality Action Plan /Work Plan - August, 2010 – August, 2013
Goal/Objective/Strategy Status/Outcomes Notes /Next Steps
Goal 1 - IMPROVE THE COUNTY’S BUSINESS CLIMATE AND IMAGE
1. Expand Communications and
Outreach to the Business
Community
Develop and implement a plan to raise
awareness and promote County efforts
with the Virginia Economic Development
Partnership (VEDP)
Maintain active participation in Chamber of
Commerce and Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development
(TJPED)
Continue outreach program using TJPED
prospect proposal system
Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) –
- Updates to the Albemarle County Community Profile on the VEDP
website.
- Several familiarization tours for VEDP staff including available sites in
Peter Jefferson Place, University of Virginia Research Park and the
Defense Intelligence Agency facility.
- Participate in ongoing conversations about new business prospects.
- Provided a briefing to 15 VEDP senior managers on the target
industry study, along with regional partners from the Central Virginia
Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED).
Virginia Economic Development Association (VEDA) –
- Worked with City economic development staff to co-host the spring
2013 VEDA conference.
- Regular attendance at biennial meetings of this group
- Serving on existing business retention and expansion task force
Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS)
- Participated in a state-wide agri-business forum to showcase
partnership in the Brew Ridge Trail and Monticello Artisan Trail.
- Maintain membership with the VA Agricultural Development Officers
(VADO).
Virginia Department of Business Assistance (DBA) –
- Met with the Director of the DBA, Peter Su, and his staff to discuss
the County’s action plan and possible partnerships.
Virginia Bio –
- Partnering with the County school division, community stakeholders
and Virginia Bio on student mentoring and career exploration in the
biotech fields, including Life Sciences Education Summit this spring
Chamber of Commerce –
- Met with the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors on several
occasions to discuss the County’s action plan.
- Active members of the Chamber agribusiness and economy and local
Positive, productive
partnerships have been
established, regular
communication and outreach to
state, regional and local
partners is envisioned as an
essential continuing component
of an ongoing economic
development program.
2
government roundtables
- Assisted with/sponsor of Chamber’s Minority Business Enterprises
Conference
Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development
- Active members of CVPED economic partners group, including
involvement in recently completed rebranding program
- Provided increased funding to CVPED
Free Enterprise Forum –
- Met with the Free Enterprise Forum members on several occasions
to discuss the County’s action plan.
Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC)
- expanding its support of the Tech Tour,
- serving on the Board of Directors and actively supporting CBIC
programs.
- assisted with organizing the CBIC Annual Awards Ceremony to
recognize entrepreneurial excellence;
- sponsored the People’s Choice Navigator Award for significant
leadership in the local or regional entrepreneurial or high-tech
community.
2. Increase the Visibility of the
County’s Business
Development Staff
Make business development facilitator part
of the County Executive staff
Enhance presence of economic
development info on the web
County Executive’s Office of Community Partnerships expanded (renamed
Office of Community and Business Partnerships) to encompass Economic
Vitality Action Plan
Business Development Facilitator transitioned to Economic Development
Facilitator and relocated to Office of Community and Business
Partnerships
Launched updated Economic Development website– significantly
expanded economic development website presence and functionality
including new logo/visual identity for our efforts
Phase Two website improvements launched May 1 with specific focus on
target industries
Identified actions accomplished,
need to continue focus on
updates to the website as part
of ongoing economic
development program.
3
3. Improve Interaction Between
Community Development Staff
and the Business Community
Begin regular presentations to staff and the
public
Provide business community a quarterly
update of emerging and current
development issues
As part of pre-aps, assign staff member to
serve as single point of contact
Continue routine survey of applicants
Establish more standard notification
process for proposed ordinance changes
Launched the Plan with a listening tour that included face to face
meetings with 17 local, regional and state partners.
Quarterly roundtable sessions with staff and the business community
focusing on small business issues, UVA partnerships, school/business
partnerships and industrial sites and buildings among other topics
Established Single Point of Contact program
Business Appreciation Week Recognition – highlight local business and
other economic development partners for the Board of Supervisors
Better Business Challenge – co-sponsor of year-long competition among
106 area businesses to increase efficiency and sustainability in six key
areas: energy, water, transportation, waste, purchasing and leadership.
Participating in development of the Piedmont Council of the Arts (PCA)
Cultural Plan .
Worked with the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development
Authority to establish new fee arrangement and funding priorities for the
EDA.
Identified actions accomplished,
need to continue focus on
regular interactions with the
business community as part of
ongoing economic development
program. Ongoing involvement
with the EDA regarding budget
development and oversight is a
new responsibility for the
economic development staff.
Goal 2 - SIMPLIFY/CREATE CERTAINTY IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCESS
1. Consider amendments to the
development ordinances to reduce
complexity of plan approval
Hold a work session with BOS on
changes to process for ARB review
Present recommended changes to the
BOS for ministerial applications
Present recommended changes to the
BOS for legislative applications
Improved and simplified application procedures for entrance corridor
development, with new Architectural Review Board (ARB) process
improvements
Adopted the legislative review process improvements ZTA, which will go
into effect on April 1, 2013.
Implemented the ministerial review process improvements ZTA
Simplified and improved the sign review and approval process
Adopted a process for handling special exceptions
Approved a Priority Review Process for qualified target industries,
successfully implemented the new process for target industry project that
met applicant time constraints.
Approved County Code amendments to Tourism Lodging Regulations to
permit additional lodging possibilities
Adopted an ordinance amendment to reduce the fees and approval time
for home-based business applications
Approved an amendment to the farm winery zoning regulations to use a
decibel noise standard; this allows vineyards to self-regulate event
activity and reduces staff enforcement.
All actions in this objective have
been accomplished, continued
focus on opportunities to
improve development review is
recommended.
4
2. Assist small enterprises in reaching
compliance with County
development standards
Provide staff assistance for small
businesses that have no experience
with development review
Produced a small business toolkit to assist small business owners who are
interested in starting, relocating, or expanding their businesses in
Albemarle County.
Established relationship with the Central Virginia Business Owners group.
Established regular drop-in opportunities for entrepreneurs to meet with
economic development staff to address their business growth questions.
Providing regular training in partnership with Chamber of Commerce on
doing business with Albemarle County
Initial steps in providing
assistance are underway,
continued focus on
opportunities to increase
assistance is recommended as
part of ongoing economic
development program.
Goal 3 - STRATEGICALLY WORK WITH PARTNERS ON CAREER LADDER
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
1. Promote and support small
business growth and development
Work with partners to identify and
address existing business needs and
implement regularly scheduled local
business panels
Expanded “Albemarle Business First” business retention program to help
the County identify issues, increase communication and improve its
overall business climate for existing companies
- Developed strategic outreach list of 500 companies focusing on target
industries and other strategic enterprises
- Established goal of 50 companies in 2010, 75 in 2011, 100 in 2012,
met all annual goals
Hosted SCORE workshops
Hosted SBDC workshops, County staff serves on the SBDC Advisory Board
C-Ville Central – Hosted program roll-out
Community Investment Collaborative (CIC) – hosted classes, regularly
teach class module on local permit requirements
Alternative Site Foreign-Trade Zone – worked with Culpeper County to
join their Foreign Trade Zone which will provide significant advantages to
Albemarle County companies that import goods from out of the country
that are subject to tariff.
Co-sponsored 2 recent Cville Start-upWeekend programs, a compressed
entrepreneur business program connecting entrepreneurs to venture
capitalists (per a recommendation from the Target Markets rpt).
Initial steps in supporting small
business growth and
development are underway,
continued focus on
opportunities to increase
assistance is recommended as
part of ongoing economic
development program.
2. Promote targeted business and
investment
Work with broad-based task force to
determine the region’s target
enterprise sectors
Create a plan for developing
workforce training programs tied to
target enterprises or key sectors
Target Industry Study
- Worked with Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development
(CVPED) to identify and secure funding and manage the regional
Target Industry Study
- Target industries were identified and adopted by the Board for
Albemarle County
Initial actions are completed,
recommend focus on workplace
training tied to target markets,
talent development and
recruitment, and targeted
marketing outreach to desired
5
Review peer jurisdiction’s policies and
practices in attracting targeted
business and investment
Continue to support local job fairs,
showcase our local workforce talent
and corporate partners
Using existing tools, provide an online
feedback loop for policy makers
- Working with regional partners and CVPED staff on implementation
strategies.
- Developing approaches to support identified target industry clusters,
including holding the second meeting of the newly established
Biotech Council.
CVPED branding program/increased funding
Board of Supervisors/School Board Business Leaders Roundtable to focus
on local workplaces and workforce issues and needs in the community
and identify opportunities to strengthen community/business
partnerships.
MicroAire purchased the former USPS building to expand its operations
with assistance from the Governors Opportunity Fund and the County’s
Economic Opportunity Fund.
Supporting job fairs on behalf of the Workforce Center, new employers
and the City’s Annual Job Fair
industries including start ups,
expansions and relocations
where appropriate as part of
ongoing economic development
program.
3. Connect opportunities with
residents
Work with partners to determine
demand occupations for
training/retraining dislocated workers,
low income adults and youth
populations
Market local opportunities to
qualified resident workforce
Align targeted enterprises and
demand occupations with student
education and participation
Working with community partners to plan a 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.
Increased funding to Small Business Development Center (SBDC).
Helped organize and run the 2012 Tech Tour which involved 400
students (including 120 middle schoolers) from 21 area schools which was
the largest group ever involved in this activity – 63 local high tech
companies provided 81 separate tours.
Initial actions are completed,
recommend focus on workplace
training tied to target markets,
talent development and
recruitment, and targeted
marketing outreach to desired
industries including start ups,
expansions and relocations
where appropriate as part of
ongoing economic development
program.
Goal 4 - CONSISTENT WITH GOALS OF COMP PLAN, REMOVE OBSTACLES
AND EXPAND OPTIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USERS
1. Consider amendments to the
County zoning ordinance
Bring proposed change to the BOS for
consideration
Approved Industrial districts’ performance standards.
Approved Zoning Text Amendment to modernize uses and provide
flexibility in the County’s industrial and commercial districts
All identified actions are
completed, recommend that
staff monitor progress and focus
on marketing new location
opportunities to appropriate
industrial clients, including
6
target industries, as part of
ongoing economic development
program.
2. Consider options for increasing
industrial inventory within areas
designated as development areas in
the Comp Plan
Initiate a county wide rezoning to LI
for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the
Dev areas that are designated as
industrial use
Continue pursuing strategies to step
the conversion of properties zoned LI
to non-core industrial uses
As part of future master plans and
Land Use Plan updates, consider
designating more land within existing
dev areas for industrial uses
As part of current effort to update
Comp Plan, consider a proposed
modification of interstate interchange
policy
Tentatively scheduled a Planning Commission public hearing on complete
Comprehensive Plan update, including additional LI land designations, on
March 5, 2013.
Considering comprehensive voluntary rezoning for LI land uses following
the adoption of the zoning text amendments and Comprehensive Plan
update
Industrial district ZTA modifications included additional protection from
by right office use conversion in defined instances
Identified actions completed,
with Comp Plan update at the
Board level for consideration.
Continued focus on the
adequacy of LI inventory,
particularly for accommodating
target industries, is
recommended as part of
ongoing economic development
program.
Goal 5 - WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO PROMOTE LOCAL AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY AND TOURISM AS PART OF COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM FOR
RURAL ECONOMY
1. Assess current programs and
investments in agriculture, local
agricultural industry and tourism
Conduct a series of roundtables with
stakeholders and present findings to
the BOS
Held roundtables to review agritourism activities and emerging trends in
the state and to solicit feedback for the Comp Plan update process with
specific focus on agribusiness possibilities, insights are being addressed as
a part of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Initial roundtables completed,
regular communication should
be a component of the ongoing
economic development
program.
2. Evaluate and refine goals and
objectives for agriculture, local
agricultural industry and tourism
Include consideration of gathered info
in updates of Comp Plan, Strategic
Plan and agreement with the CACVB
Feedback from the roundtables has been factored in recommendations
included in the Comprehensive Plan update
Feedback from the roundtables has informed the development of the
Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB)
Identified actions are
completed, continued focus on
appropriate rural area economic
opportunities is recommended
7
Strategic Marketing Plan which focuses more effort and resources on
promoting the community’s tourism assets, including agritourism and
other attractions in the County.
as part of ongoing economic
development program
3. Identify target areas to more
aggressively promote in support of
agriculture, local agricultural
industry and tourism
Establish specific strategies and action
items for promoting and supporting
agriculture, local agricultural industry
and tourism
Monticello Artisans Trail – Launching second year of the program which
after successful first year resulted in approximately 100 active sites.
Presidents Passport Cooperative Marketing Program – assisted CACVB,
Monticello and Montpelier with a cooperative marketing program
designed to encourage tourism to the greater Charlottesville area,
program is beginning its second year this spring.
Winebloggers Conference – Albemarle County teamed with the CACVB,
Monticello and the Omni to host a press conference and to pursue other
publicity initiatives to promote the annual Winebloggers Conference in
July, 2011 in the community.
Monticello Wine Trail – led a strategic planning retreat with members of
the Monticello Wine Trail, worked with Monticello Wine Trail businesses
to plan the 2013 Wine Festival and Monticello Cup wine competition.
State Winery Signage Program – unveiling of a new Virginia wine region
sign program aimed at attracting more visitors to Virginia wineries; first
signs in the state designate our local Monticello American Vitacultural
Area.
Agritourism: It’s More Than a Farm Tour- The County, the Small Business
Development Center, VA Tourism Corporation, and the Va Tech
Agricultural Extension co-hosted an information and training session for
local residents who are interested in exploring the possibilities of
developing a farming-tourism experience.
The Local Food Hub - The County co-sponsored the 2011 and 2012
Community Food Awards to support Local Food Hub operations.
USDA Specialty Crop Competitive Grant – Awarded a USDA Specialty
Crop Competitive Grant in the amount of $30,000 to support further
study into the production and expansion of hard cider in this region and
across the commonwealth, supported Virginia Cider Week with cideries in
Albemarle County leading efforts for marketing and event planning.
Locavore Expo at Tom Tom Festival – sponsored the Locavore Expo to
celebrate and educate the community about local food production and
put spotlight on area’s local farmers and food innovators.
Co-sponsored first local Agribusiness Marketing Conference with the
Chamber of Commerce, which “sold out” at 60 attendees.
Identified actions are
completed, continued focus on
appropriate rural area economic
opportunities is recommended
as part of ongoing economic
program
8
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Revenue ($) Year
Graph I -- Albemarle County Sales Tax Revenue (FY 2006/07 through FY 2012/13)
Source: Albemarle County Dept. of Finance. Note: FY 2012/13 number is an estimated amount.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Revenue ($) Year
Graph II -- Albemarle County Food & Beverage Tax (FY 2006/07 through FY 2012/13)
Source: Albemarle County Dept. of Finance. Note: FY 2012/13 i Source: Albemarle County Dept. of Finance. Note: FY 2012/13 number is an estimated amount.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Revenue ($) Year
Graph III -- Albemarle County Transient & Occupancy Tax (FY 2006/07 through FY 2012/13)
Source: Albemarle County Dept. of Finance. Note: Figures include Transfer to Tourism. FY 2012/13 number is an estimated amount.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Unemployment Rate Year
Graph IV -- U.S., Virginia, and Albemarle County Unemployment
Rates (FY 2006/07 through FY 2012/13)
U.S.
Virginia
Albemarle
Source: Virginia Employment Commission's LAUS website, accessed August 13, 2013.
49,240 50,313 49,425 48,331 48,828 49,900 50,348
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Total Number of Jobs Year
Graph V -- Total Number of Jobs in Albemarle County (FY 2006/07 through FY 2012/13)
Source: Virginia Employment Commission's QCEW webpage, accessed August 13, 2013. Note: FY 2012/13 number is an estimate.
11.70 11.47
10.48
8.31
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Number of Months Supply Year
Graph VI -- Number of Months Supply of Unsold Single Family Detached Housing
Inventory in Albemarle County (FY 2009/10 through FY 2012/13)
Source: Albemarle County Dept. of Finance.
18.4%
19.3% 19.9% 19.9%
20.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Percnetage of Total Year
Graph VII -- Commercial Real Estate Tax Revenue as a % of Total Real Estate Tax
Revenue in Albemarle County (FY 2008/09 through FY 2012/13)
Source: Derived from the Albemarle County Land Book for the relevant years.
FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13
Sales Tax (a)13,425,924 13,143,851 11,974,379 11,622,874 12,716,193 12,227,842 12,923,933
Food & Beverage Tax (a)5,438,399 6,059,180 5,446,576 5,389,527 5,737,476 5,965,206 6,129,846
Transient Occupancy Tax (a)1,237,627 1,573,125 1,458,829 1,657,812 2,093,909 2,203,982 2,502,181
Albemarle Unemployment Rate (b)2.25%2.47%4.23%5.55%5.18%4.94%4.63%
Virginia Unemployment Rate (b)3.02%3.33%5.58%7.28%6.65%6.19%5.67%
U.S. Unemployment Rate (b)4.53%4.93%7.63%9.75%9.25%8.51%7.78%
Total Number of Jobs (c)49,240 50,313 49,425 48,331 48,828 49,900 50,348
No. of Mos. Supply of Single Family Homes for Sale - 4 Qtr. Avg.N/A N/A N/A 11.70 11.47 10.48 8.31
FHFA Home Price Index for Charlottesville MSA - 4 Qtr. Avg. (d)238.39 240.13 230.39 217.46 212.25 208.31 205.23
CVL+Albemarle Foreclosure Rate per 10,000 Properties - 4 Qtr. Avg. (d)N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.32 5.48 4.70
% of R.E. Tax Revenue from Commercial Real Estate (e)N/A N/A 18.4%19.3%19.9%19.9%20.6%
Workforce & Career Center Visitors N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,661 9,626 11,743
Small Business Development Ctr Clients N/A N/A N/A 52 55 77 55
Small Business Development Ctr Counseling hours N/A N/A N/A 151 169 164 184
Small Business Development Ctr Training Attendees N/A N/A N/A 73 82 59 86
Wine production (liters) (f)168,287 176,126 217,333 238,619 420,678 304,265 348,226
Cider production (liters)0 0 189 8,522 7,520 14,093 17,450
CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013
Value of New Commercial Building Permits (in $ Millions)165.832 99.407 302.873 76.818 51.142 71.296 N/A
Value of New Residential Building Permits (in $ Millions)320.013 180.338 124.992 139.149 137.47 130.703 N/A
Number of Residential Building Permits 831 418 339 650 694 588 N/A
Table I
Albemarle County Economic Vitality Indicators (September 2013)
Notes:
(a) The figure for FY 2012/13 is a preliminary estimate.
(b) The fiscal year unemployment rate equals the average monthly unemployment rate for the twelve months of the fiscal year.
(c) Jobs are by place of employment, and include full-time, part-time, and temporary positions. The FY 2012/13 total is an estimate, based
on a year-over-year analysis of the first two quarters of the fiscal year.
(d) The FY 2012/13 figure is an estimate, based on a year-over-year analysis of the first three quarters of the fiscal year.
(e) Commercial real estate is defined as State Classes Codes 3+4.
(f) figures from FY2010/2011 to FY 2011/2012 reflect decrease in production due to high volume winery that changed ownership during
that period, production is now ramping back up.
Sources:
Figures for tax revenue are from the Albemarle County Dept. of Finance.
Unemployment rates are taken from the Virginia Employment Commission's LAUS website (https://www.vawc.virginia.gov), accessed August 13, 2013.
Total job figures come from the Virginia Employment Commission's QCEW website (https://www.vawc.virginia. gov), accessed August 13, 2014.
Number of months supply of unsold single family detached inventory is taken from data supplied by the Albemarle County Dept. of Finance.
FHFA data comes from the Federal Housing Finance Agency's All-Transactions Indexes, Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Divisions webpage
(http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=87), accessed August 13, 2013.
The Charlottesville+Albemarle Foreclosure Rate data is taken from RealtyTrac.com (http://www.realtytrac.com/statsandtrends/foreclosuretrends/va/Albemarle-county),
accessed quarterly in each of the relevant fiscal years.
The percentage of real estate tax revenue accruing from Commercial properties is derived from the Albemarle County Land Book for the relevant years.
The dollar value of commercial and residential building permits, and the total number of residential building permits, comes from the Building Activity Report for the
relevant calendar year, published by the Albemarle County Dept. of Community Development.
that period, production is now ramping back up.
FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13
13,425,924 13,143,851 11,974,379 11,622,874 12,716,193 12,227,842 12,923,933
5,438,399 6,059,180 5,446,576 5,389,527 5,737,476 5,965,206 6,129,846
1,237,627 1,573,125 1,458,829 1,657,812 2,093,909 2,203,982 2,502,181
Albemarle 2.25%2.47%4.23%5.55%5.18%4.94%4.63%
Virginia 3.02%3.33%5.58%7.28%6.65%6.19%5.67%
U.S.4.53%4.93%7.63%9.75%9.25%8.51%7.78%
49,240 50,313 49,425 48,331 48,828 49,900 50,348
N/A N/A N/A 11.70 11.47 10.48 8.31
238.39 240.13 230.39 217.46 212.25 208.31 205.23
N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.32 5.48 4.70
N/A N/A 18.4%19.3%19.9%19.9%20.6%
165.832 99.407 302.873 76.818 51.142 71.296 N/A
320.013 180.338 124.992 139.149 137.470 130.703 N/A
831.000 418.000 339.000 650.000 694.000 588.000 N/A
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: August 29, 2013
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through August 29, 2013.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Jaunt Board.
Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be appointed and/or reappointed to
the respective committees:
Jaunt
Frances Hooper, term expires September 30, 2013
Raymond East, term expires September 30, 2013
View attachment
Return to agenda
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Bill Edgerton 8/1/2012 8/1/2013 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Jason Woodfin 8/1/2013 8/1/2015 waitng for response
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)James Powell 8/1/2013 8/1/2014 No
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
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Nelson Shaw 4/17/2014 Deceased
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Robin Mellen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
Jaunt Frances Hooper 9/30/2013 9/30/2016 Yes
Jaunt Raymond East 9/30/2013 9/30/2016 Yes
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Craig Evans 7/8/2013 7/8/2015 Ineligible Advertised, No applications recv'd
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee John Donohue 7/8/2013 7/8/2015 No
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
Natural Heritage Committee Brian Morse 9/30/2013 9/30/2017 waiting for response
Natural Heritage Committee Rochelle Garwood 9/30/2013 9/30/2017 waiting for response
Natural Heritage Committee Devin Floyd 9/30/2013 9/30/2017 waiting for response
Pantops Community Advisory Council Kirk Bowers 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Wendy Fisher 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No
Pantops Community Advisory Council Joe Milby 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No
Pantops Community Advisory Council Rita Krenz 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Vincent Day 12/31/2013 Resigned
Revised 08/29/2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2011-06 Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance
Amendment and Amendment to Noise Regulations in
County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearings to amend County Code Chapter 18,
Zoning, Section 4.18 Noise; and County Code Chapter 7,
Health and Safety, Article I, Noise
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, McCulley, Burbage,
Green
PRESENTER (S): Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Introduction:
The regulation of noise is currently addressed in two sections of the County Code. Noise generated by land uses, such
as a sawmill, is regulated through the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18, Section 4.18) based on a maximum decibel
standard. Zoning staff enforces these regulations. Nuisance noise generated primarily by vehicles, people and people’s
activities, such as loud music at parties, is based on an audibility standard in County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety.
The Police Department enforces the Chapter 7 noise regulations. The existing noise regulations of both County Code
chapters are found in Attachment A.
History:
On June 14, 2000, the Board adopted an ordinance to comprehensively amend the noise standards in the Zoning
Ordinance. This ordinance amendment (ZTA 2000-06) was based on input from a Noise Task Force that included
citizens, a representative from UVA, the Chamber of Commerce and several other members. Among other things, the
amendment established decibel standards rather than using a complex standard for decibels based on frequency of
the sound wave.
On December 2, 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance to amend the standard for nuisance noise in Chapter 7. The
prior standard prohibited noise levels that were “loud, disturbing or raucous so as to disturb or annoy the reasonable
person” (i.e., nuisance noise). The current standard prohibits sound levels that are audible from a specified distance
or location.
On May 5, 2010, the Board adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendment to codify the state legislation
relating to the regulation of farm wineries. This amendment (ZTA 2009-003) established an audibility standard for
outdoor amplified music associated with farm wineries.
On March 9, 2011, the Board adopted an ordinance to amend the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at
farm wineries. This amendment (ZTA 2010-08) changed the standard for farm winery outdoor amplified music from
an audibility standard to the decibel-based standard applicable to other land uses under Section 18-4.18.
On October 5, 2011, the Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Noise Zoning Ordinance (Attachment B)
and set the Chapter 7 Health and Safety noise regulation amendment for public hearing (See Attachment C for
October 5, 2011 Executive Summary). The primary purposes of these amendments are to better distinguish which
sounds are regulated under the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 and which are regulated under the zoning
noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and to eliminate any perceived overlap between the two.
On November 8, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and indefinitely deferred action on the pending
Noise Zoning Ordinance (ZTA 2011-06). The Commission raised several issues for further consideration.
The issue of noise impacts on neighbors and enforcement of noise complaints has arisen numerous times since the
November 8, 2011 Commission meeting. Noise was identified in a Comprehensive Plan discussion as an issue to be
further addressed in the Rural Areas, particularly with any broadening of uses such as special events involving
outdoor amplified music. All of these issues relating to noise regulation and enforcement will be part of a second
phase of noise regulation amendment (See Attachment D Phase II Noise Issues).
On June 11, 2013, the Commission held a work session on the Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance amendment and
primarily focused on the exemption relating to agricultural activity (See Attachment E for June 11, 2013 PC Report).
There have been at least two recent instances of noise complaints by citizens in which outdoor amplified music was
claimed to be an exempt agricultural activity. In one case, music was played for farm workers at a volume that
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2011-06 Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Amendment to Noise Regulations in
County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety
September 4, 2013
Page 2
impacted neighbors. In a second case, music is purportedly played to both train horses and riders and to
condition/desensitize horses, even when the riders and horses are not being actively trained. In this second case, the
music could be clearly heard in homes adjacent to the horse-training property under the Chapter 7 audibility standard.
However, when the case went to court, the Judge ruled that all of the activity fell within the agricultural exemption
under the current language of the Chapter 7 regulations.
On August 6, 2013, the Commission held a public hearing on the Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance amendment and
recommended that the Board adopt this amendment (See Attachment E for August 6, 2013 PC Report and
Attachment F for August 6 PC Action Memo). The Commission’s comments regarding the amendment to Chapter 7
will be addressed under “Discussion.”
Proposal and Public Purposes to be Served: The Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 7 amendments are
narrowly focused to: 1) better clarify and address outdoor amplified sound, including that associated with a bona fide
agricultural activity; 2) provide consistent exemptions in both the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 7 noise regulations; and
3) clarify which regulations apply where there is otherwise possible overlap between the two Chapters.
Ordinance Amendment Criteria:
Based on prior Board direction, staff has reviewed the ordinance amendment impacts under the following additional
criteria:
Administration / Review Process: Consistency between the two regulations and clarification of applicability will improve
their administration.
Housing Affordability: There is no discernible impact on housing costs.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: These amendments will potentially save staff some time, although the amount
is probably limited.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy; and
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance amendments are the first of two phases of amendments to the noise regulations proposed
for Chapters 7 and 18. Following is a summary of the proposed amendments in Phase I:
Chapter 7 Noise Regulations
The proposed amendments to Chapter 7 would make the following key changes:
Clarify applicability: The proposed ordinance would clarify the circumstances when the Chapter 7 or the Chapter
18 noise regulations apply.
Standardize exemptions: The proposed ordinance would ensure that the exemptions in Chapters 7 and 18 are
consistent with one another.
Exemption for agricultural activities amended: The exemption for agricultural activities will continue to exempt all
sound produced by an agricultural activity. However, under the proposed ordinance the exemption will no longer
extend to any sound produced during an agricultural activity (Attachment I, County Code § 7-106(A)). Although
this amendment narrows the scope of the exemption, it preserves the exemption for any sounds produced by an
agricultural activity. An example that illustrates the distinction is as follows: the sound from a tractor while it is
working the fields such as plowing or cutting hay, is exempt as a sound produced by an agricultural activity; and
amplified music playing from speakers attached to the tractor is not exempt because it is sound produced during
an agricultural activity.
New class of prohibited sound: In conjunction with the amended exemption for agricultural activities, the proposed
ordinance would add a new class of prohibited sound – outdoor amplified music and public address systems.
(Attachment I, County Code § 7-105(B)(5)) A violation would exist if the sound was audible from within a dwelling
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2011-06 Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Amendment to Noise Regulations
in County Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety
September 4, 2013
Page 3
on an off-site parcel. Outdoor amplified music from farm wineries and outdoor amplified sound produced in
conjunction with an outdoor music festival authorized by special use permit under Chapter 18 of the Code would
continue to be regulated under the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment I, County Code § 7-106(H)).
Chapter 18 Noise Regulations
The proposed amendments to Chapter 18 would clarify the applicability and standardize the exemptions as similarly
proposed for Chapter 7.
In developing these regulations for both chapters, staff has focused on: (1) not obstructing bona fide agricultural
operations and the sounds that they may generate; (2) treating similar activities similarly; and (3) establishing clear
enforcement standards that the Police Department can easily administer and enforce in the field. In developing the
proposed regulations to ensure they would not adversely affect agricultural activities, staff consulted with the Farm
Bureau and several local commercial stable owners.
The Commission recommended approval of the Phase I Noise Zoning Ordinance. The Commission also expressed
two concerns for Board consideration with the Chapter 7 amendment: 1) instead of determining audibility from inside
of a dwelling unit, consider determining audibility from inside of a “habitation unit,” to include habitation of other
structures, such as barns; and 2) expand the audibility standard to include adjacent outdoor space to the dwelling,
such as decks or patios. While staff understands these concerns and does not intend for the regulations to allow
noise to drive residents indoors and limit their use of their exterior spaces at home, staff does not support the
Commission’s recommended expansion of the standard. Zoning staff met with Police to discuss the amendment and
the Commission’s concerns and offers the following:
1. Sound travels some distance, even in the country. It is not reasonable to expect that a person will not hear
sounds produced by neighbors at any time while on decks and patios.
2. Chapter 7 violations are enforced in a criminal proceeding and staff recommends that this standard be drafted as
narrowly as possible for now, and staff can evaluate the proposed standard with existing standards as part of the
Noise Phase II amendments.
3. Audibility from “inside a dwelling” is consistent with the other audibility standards in Chapter 7, which makes it
easier for the Police to administer and enforce.
4. Some Rural Areas properties encompass decking and/or patios and other outdoor space. This could significantly
extend the audibility standard for those properties. Alternatively, an alternative standard, such as audibility from
a specified distance from the dwelling, would be problematic to administer and time-consuming for Police to
enforce. The increased time spent on those calls could reduce the availability of Police and increase response
times for higher priority calls.
See Attachment J for a comparison of the existing and proposed noise regulations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no increased budget impact expected as a result. As noted under “Implications to Staffing,” staff expects
a limited staff time saving to result from these amendments.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearings, staff recommends adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment (Attachment H)
and the proposed Chapter 7 amendment (Attachment I).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Existing Noise Regulations
B – Board Resolution of Intent for ZT A adopted October 5, 2011
C – October 5, 2011 Executive Summary regarding Setting Chapter 7 Amendment for Public Hearing
D – Noise Phase II Amendment Issue Identification
E – PC Work Session June 11, 2013
F – PC Report for Public Hearing August 6, 2013
G – PC Action Memo for August 6, 2013
H – Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
I – Proposed Chapter 7 Noise Amendment
J – Comparison of Existing and Proposed Noise Regulations
Planning Commission minutes: June 11, July 16 and August 6, 2013
Return to agenda
1
Existing Albemarle Noise Regulations
Zoning Ordinance Noise Regulations
4.18 NOISE
The board of supervisors hereby finds and declares that noise is a serious hazard to the public
health, safety, welfare, and quality of life, and that the inhabitants of the county and adjoining
localities have a right to and should be free from an environment of noise. Therefore, it is the
policy of the county to regulate noise as provided in this section 4.18.
(Ord. 00-18(3), 6-14-00)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
4.18.01 APPLICABILITY
This section 4.18 shall apply to sound generated from any land use within Albemarle County,
regardless of whether the property in the receiving zone is within or without Albemarle County.
This chapter is in addition to any sound or noise regulations set forth in any other chapter of the
Albemarle County Code.
(Ord. 00-18(3), 6-14-00)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
4.18.02 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall apply to this section 4.18. The definitions of any sound-related
term not defined herein shall be obtained from the American Standard Terminology if defined
therein.
“A” weighted sound level. The term “‘A’ weighted sound level” means the sound pressure level
in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network expressed as
dB(A) or dBA.
Acoustic calibrator. The term “acoustic calibrator” means an instrument which measures the
accuracy of a sound level meter.
Ambient sound. The term “ambient sound” means the sound derived from all sound associated
with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources.
Daytime. The term “daytime” means that period of a day beginning at 7:00 a.m. and ending at
10:00 p.m., each day of the week.
Decibel. The term “decibel” means a unit for measuring the volume of a sound equal to twenty
times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to
the reference pressure, which is twenty (20) micropascals.
Emergency operation. The term “emergency operation” means any emergency service provided
by any police, sheriff, fire or fire and rescue department, any ambulance service or any other
emergency service requiring a prompt response, and any emergency repair of public facilities or
public utilities.
Equivalent sound level (Leq). The term “equivalent sound level” means the average sound level
accumulated over a given period of time. The equivalent sound level is the A-weighted sound
2
level corresponding to a steady state sound level containing the same total sound energy as the
time varying signal over a given period of time, determined using a sound level meter as set
forth in the American National Standards for Sound Level Meters.
Impulse sound. The term “impulse sound” means any sound of short duration with an abrupt
onset and rapid decay. This includes but is not limited to explosions, drum beats, drop forge
impacts, discharge of firearms and one object striking another.
Nighttime. The term “nighttime” means that period of a day beginning at 10:00 p.m. and ending
at 7:00 a.m., each day of the week.
Noise. The term “noise” means any sound which violates the sound level standards of this
section 4.18, but does not include any sound which is exempt pursuant to section 4.18.05.
Person. The term “person” means any natural person, association, partnership, corporation or
other legal entity.
Property line. The term “property line” means an imaginary line along the ground surface which
separates the real property owned by one person from another.
Public facility. The term “public facility” means a structure or use which may be publicly or
privately owned or operated and which is generally open to the public, and includes but is not
limited to schools, libraries, parks, hospitals and uses of a similar character.
Receiving zone. The term “receiving zone” means the zoning classification of the property
receiving the noise, as shown on the official zoning maps. For property which is located within
another jurisdiction, the zoning administrator shall determine the comparable zoning category,
and be guided in making the determination by the actual use of the property. The receiving
zones shall include property with the zoning classifications set forth below:
a. Commercial receiving zone. A commercial receiving zone is property zoned commercial (C-
1), commercial office (CO), highway commercial (HC), planned development -- shopping
centers (PDSC), planned development -- mixed commercial (PDMC), the commercial areas of a
planned unit development (PUD), and any other commercial zoning district.
b. Industrial receiving zone. An industrial receiving zone is property zoned light industrial (LI),
highway industrial (HI), planned development -- industrial park (PDIP), the industrial areas of a
planned unit development (PUD), and any other industrial zoning district.
c. Public space or institutional receiving zone. A public space or institutional receiving zone is
property determined by the zoning administrator to be a public facility or an institution.
d. Rural areas and residential receiving zone. The rural areas and residential receiving zone is
that property zoned rural areas (RA), village residential (VR), residential (R-1, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-
10, and R-15), planned residential development (PRD), the residential area of a planned unit
development (PUD), the portions of the University of Virginia located within Albemarle County,
and any other rural or residential zoning district.
Sound level meter. The term “sound level meter” means an instrument used for making sound
level measurements which meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute
Type II rating.
Source sound level. The term “source sound level” means the equivalent sound level of the
source being measured.
3
Total sound level. The term “total sound level” means the equivalent sound level of the source
being measured and ambient sound before correction to determine the source sound level.
(Ord. 00-18(3), 6-14-00)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
4.18.03 PROCEDURE FOR MEASURING SOUND
Each sound meter reading shall be conducted as provided herein:
A. Instrument of measurement. Each sound measurement shall be taken only from a sound
level meter.
B. Calibration of sound level meter. An acoustic calibrator authorized by the manufacturer of the
sound level meter shall properly calibrate the sound level meter used for each sound
measurement. The calibration shall have been performed within twelve (12) months prior to the
date of such reading. The user of the sound level meter shall also have calibrated the sound
level meter within one (1) hour prior to taking such sound measurements.
C. Weather conditions. A windscreen shall be used on the sound level meter when sound
measurements are being taken. No outdoor sound measurements shall be taken during rain or
during weather conditions in which wind sound is distinguishable from, and is louder to the ear
than, the sound source being tested.
D. Scale. Each sound measurement shall be expressed in units of the sound level (dBA), in
accordance with American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters.
Each measurement shall be made using the A-weighted scale with fast response, following the
manufacturer's instructions and measuring the equivalent sound level. Impulse sounds shall be
measured as the maximum reading and not the equivalent sound level.
E. Place of sound measurement. Each sound measurement shall be taken no closer to the
sound source than the property lines of the receiving zone properties or the property line along
which a street fronts. If the property line of a receiving zone property is not readily determinable,
the sound measurement shall be taken from any point inside the nearest receiving zone
property, or within an occupied structure located on receiving zone property.
If the property line abutting a street is not readily determinable, the sound measurement shall be
taken from the edge of the pavement which is closest to the source of the sound. Each sound
measurement taken of a sound source within a multifamily structure, such as an apartment
building, townhouse development and the like, may be made: (i) within the interior of another
residential unit in the same structure or the same development; or (ii) from common areas.
F. Orientation of microphone. To the extent that it is practical to do so, the microphone of the
sound level meter shall be positioned four (4) to five (5) feet above the ground or floor. The
orientation recommended by the manufacturer of the sound level meter shall supersede the
foregoing orientation if the manufacturer’s recommendation conflicts therewith.
G. Duration of measurement. Each sound measurement shall be taken over a period of five (5)
continuous minutes, unless the sound being measured is an impulse sound. If the sound being
measured is an impulse sound, each sound measurement shall be taken during the "impulse" or
emission of that sound. The zoning administrator shall determine whether a sound is an impulse
sound for purposes of determining the duration of the sound measurement.
4
H. Ambient sound measurement. The ambient sound shall be measured for each sound
measurement as follows:
1. The ambient sound level shall be averaged over a period of time comparable to that
for the measurement of the particular sound source being measured.
2. In order to obtain the ambient sound level, the sound source being measured shall be
eliminated by the source ceasing its sound-producing activity and the ambient sound
level shall be obtained from the same location as that for measuring the source sound
level. If the sound from the sound source cannot be eliminated, the ambient sound level
shall be measured from an alternative location whose ambient sound level is not
affected by the sound source in accordance with the following procedure:
a. The alternative location should be as close as feasible as that for measuring
the source sound level, but located so that the sound from the source has as little
effect as possible on the ambient sound level measurement. Even if the source
sound is audible or is sufficient to raise the sound level above that which would
be measured were it inaudible at the alternative location, the reading is sufficient
for the purpose of this procedure.
b. The alternative location chosen must be such that structures in the vicinity are
similar in size and distribution, and the local topography is similar in character to
the location for the source sound level measurement.
c. Traffic conditions at the time the ambient sound level is measured must be
similar to those at the location for the sound source measurement.
I. Determining source sound level. Except for new equipment for which the owner provides
manufacturer’s specifications related to sound levels accepted by the zoning administrator, the
sound level from a sound source shall be determined by correcting the total sound level for
ambient sound in accordance with the following procedure:
1. Subtract the maximum measured ambient sound level from the minimum measured
total sound level.
2. In Row A below, find the sound level difference determined under paragraph (1) and
its corresponding correction factor in Row B.
Row A
Sound Level Difference
(Decibels)
0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Row B
Correction Factor
(Decibels)
9.6 7 4 3 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.75 0.6 0.5
3. Subtract the value obtained from Row B under paragraph (2) from the minimum measured
total sound level to determine the source sound level.
4. If the difference between the total sound level and the ambient sound level is greater than 10
dBA, no correction is necessary to determine the source sound level.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
4.18.04 MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS
Except as provided in section 4.18.05, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to
be operated, any source such that the sound originating from that source causes a sound level
5
that exceeds the sound levels in the receiving zone, measured pursuant to section 4.18.03, as
set forth below:
Receiving Zone Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
Rural Areas and Residential Daytime
Nighttime
60
55
Public Space or Institutional Daytime
Nighttime
60
55
Commercial Daytime
Nighttime
65
65
Industrial Daytime
Nighttime
70
70
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
4.18.05 EXEMPT SOUNDS
The following sounds shall not be subject to this section 4.18:
A. Animals. Sounds generated from animals including, but not limited to, barking dogs.
B. Church bells or chimes. Sounds generated by church bells or chimes.
C. Construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities. Sounds generated from construction,
demolition and/or maintenance activities between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
D. Emergency operations. Sound generated in the performance of emergency operations
including, but not limited to, audible signal devices which are employed as warning or alarm
signals in case of fire, collision or imminent danger, and sounds generated by power generators
during power outages and other emergency situations.
E. Firearms. Sounds generated from the lawful discharge of a firearm; provided that this
exemption shall not apply to gun clubs or shooting ranges, nor to firearms discharged at a gun
club or a shooting range.
F. Parades, fireworks and similar events. Sounds generated from parades, fireworks, and other
events determined to be similar by the zoning administrator prior thereto.
G. Protected expression. Any other lawful activity which constitutes protected expression
pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but not amplified expression.
H. Public facilities. Sounds generated from the operation of a public facility or public use or
activity including, but not limited to, sounds generated from school athletic contests or practices,
and other school activities.
I. Residential air conditioning units. Sounds generated from residential air conditioning units.
6
J. Silvicultural or agricultural activities. Sounds generated during lawfully permitted bona fide
silvicultural or agricultural activities including, but not limited to, logging activities and sounds
caused by livestock.
K. Transient sounds from transportation. Transient sounds generated by transportation
including, but not limited to, public and private airports (except as otherwise regulated), aircraft,
railroads and other means of public transit.
L. Warning devices. Sounds generated by a horn or warning device of a vehicle when used as a
warning device, including back-up alarms for trucks and other equipment.
M. Yard maintenance activities. Sounds generated from routine yard maintenance activities
including, but not limited to, mowing, trimming, clipping, leaf blowing and snow blowing.
4.18.06 EXISTING SOUND SOURCES
Each existing sound source existing on the effective date of this section 4.18 shall be regulated
as follows:
A. Each existing sound source that complies with the maximum sound levels established in
section 4.18.04 shall comply with all requirements of this section 4.18 rather than an applicable
prior regulation.
B. Each existing sound source that does not comply with the maximum sound levels established
in section 4.18.04 shall not increase its sound level. Such a sound source shall comply with
such sound levels whenever a building, structure, equipment or machinery thereof is expanded,
enlarged, extended or replaced, unless a modification, waiver or variation is granted as provided
in section 4.18.07.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
4.18.07 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
Any standard of section 4.18.04 may be modified or waived in an individual case, as provided
herein:
a. The commission may modify or waive the standard set forth in section 4.18.04 in a particular
case upon finding that strict application of the standard would cause undue hardship and not
forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or
that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of this section 4.18 at least
to an equivalent degree.
b. The commission may impose conditions on the modification or waiver that it deems
appropriate to further the purposes of this chapter.
c. Prior to considering a request to modify or waive, five (5) days’ written notice shall be
provided to the owner, owner’s agent or occupant of each abutting lot or parcel and each parcel
immediately across the street or road from the lot or parcel which is the subject of the request.
The written notice shall identify the nature of the request and the date and time the commission
will consider the request.
d. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of any standard of section
4.18.04 only as follows:
1. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with
conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors
as an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the
site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver
pertains. A modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an
7
application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of
supervisors.
2. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification
or waiver based upon the finding set forth in subsection (A), amend any condition
imposed by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the
reasons set forth in subsection (B).
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
8
Chapter 7 Noise Regulations
ARTICLE I. NOISE
Sec. 7-100 Purpose and intent.
The purpose and intent of this article is to establish reasonable time, place and manner
regulations pertaining to excessive or unwanted sound. Through content-neutral regulations,
this article strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals to engage in
activities that create or disseminate sounds at reasonable levels, and the right of the public to a
peaceful and healthful environment. It is not the purpose and intent of this article to interfere
unduly with the rights of free speech or the exercise of religion and, further, it is not the purpose
and intent of this article to implement these regulations in a manner that is based on the content
of the sound. In establishing these regulations, the board of supervisors hereby finds the
following:
A. Threat to the public health, safety and welfare posed by excessive or unwanted sound.
Inadequately controlled sound presents a growing danger to the public health, safety and
welfare. Studies have found that these dangers include hearing impairment, interference with
spoken communication, sleep disturbances, cardiovascular disturbances, disturbances in
mental health, impaired task performance, and unwanted emotional responses. These effects
can lead to, among other things, a wide range of physical problems such as hearing disabilities,
increased blood pressure, increased heart rates, abnormal heart rhythms and fatigue, mental
health problems such as depression, anxiety, nervousness, stress, and emotional instability, an
increased risk of accidents and errors in task performance, and negative effects on learning,
reading attention, work performance, school performance, and interpersonal relationships.
B. Persons particularly vulnerable to excessive or unwanted sound. Studies have found that
the elderly, medical patients, infants and children are particularly vulnerable to excessive or
unwanted sound.
C Public safety danger posed by excessive or unwanted sound created by or emanating from
motor vehicles. Excessive or unwanted sound created by, or emanating from, motor vehicles
interferes with the safe operation of other motor vehicles.
D. Effects of increases in sound pressure levels. Studies have characterized the human
reaction to increases in sound pressure levels over ambient levels, as measured in decibels
(dB), as “intrusive” for increases of five (5) to ten (10) decibels, “very noticeable” for increases of
ten (10) to fifteen (15) decibels, “objectionable” for increases of fifteen (15) to twenty (20)
decibels, and “very objectionable to intolerable” for increases of twenty (20) or more decibels.
E. Right of public to be free from an environment of excessive or unwanted sound. The
public has a right to and should be free from an environment of excessive or unwanted sound,
and the board has a significant governmental interest in providing an environment free of
excessive or unwanted sound.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-101 Administration and enforcement.
The chief of police is hereby designated the agent of the board of supervisors in the
administration and enforcement of this article. The chief of police may be assisted in the
enforcement of this article by employees of the department of community development, the
department of general services, and other officers and employees of the county.
9
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-102 Applicability.
This article shall apply to sound generated within the county, regardless of whether the
complainant or the receiving property is within or without the county. This article shall be in
addition to any sound or noise regulations set forth in chapter 18 of the Code.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-103 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to this article:
(1) Audible. The term “audible” means a sound that can be detected by a person using his or
her unaided hearing faculties, provided that a sound shall be determined to be audible even if
specific words or phrases cannot be discerned. Sound is audible within a building under section
7-105 if it is audible at least four (4) feet from the wall nearest the sound source, with the doors
and windows of the dwelling unit or applicable room of the complainant’s building closed and,
where audibility is determined from a dwelling unit or hotel room, the dwelling unit or hotel room
is located on a different parcel than the parcel on which the sound source is located.
(2) Dwelling unit. The term “dwelling unit” means a single unit designed to provide complete
and independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons and having permanent provisions
for sleeping and sanitation.
(3) Emergency operation. The term “emergency operation” means any emergency service
provided by any police, sheriff, fire or fire and rescue department, any ambulance service or any
other emergency service requiring a prompt response, and any emergency repair of public
facilities or public utilities.
(4) Hospital. The term “hospital” means any facility licensed pursuant to Virginia Code § 32.1-
123 et seq. in which the primary function is the provision of diagnosis, treatment, and medical
and nursing services, surgical or nonsurgical, for two or more nonrelated individuals, including
hospitals known under various names such as sanatoriums, sanitariums and general, acute,
rehabilitation, chronic disease, shortterm, long-term, outpatient surgical, and inpatient or
outpatient maternity hospitals.
(5) Hotel. The term “hotel” means any place offering to the public for compensation transitory
lodging or sleeping accommodations, overnight or otherwise, including but not limited to
facilities known under various names such as hotels, motels, travel lodges, tourist homes, or
hostels.
(6) Hotel room. The term “hotel room” means a room within a hotel designed for sleeping.
(7) Mixed-use site. The term “mixed-use site” means a single unified development on one or
more units or pieces of real property on which both commercial and residential uses exist.
(8) Motorcycle. The term “motorcycle” means every motor vehicle that is designed to travel on
not more than three (3) wheels in contact with the ground and is capable of traveling at speeds
in excess of thirty-five (35) miles per hour.
(9) Motor vehicle. The term “motor vehicle” means every vehicle that is self-propelled or
10
designed for self-propulsion and includes, but is not limited to, any device defined in Virginia
Code § 46.2-100 as an “electric personal assistive mobility device,” “electric power-assisted
bicycle,” “golf cart,” “moped,” “motorized skateboard or scooter” or “utility vehicle,” but does not
include a device moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks that is
self-propelled or designed for self propulsion. Any structure designed, used, or maintained
primarily to be loaded on or affixed to a motor vehicle to provide a mobile dwelling, sleeping
place, office, or commercial space shall be considered a part of a motor vehicle.
(10) Multi-family dwelling unit. The term “multi-family dwelling unit” means a structure composed
of two (2) or more dwelling units including, but not limited to, apartments, condominiums,
townhouses, and duplexes.
(11) Nursing home. The term “nursing home” means any facility or any identifiable component
of any facility licensed pursuant to Virginia Code § 32.1-123 et seq. in which the primary
function is the provision, on a continuing basis, of nursing services and health-related services
for the treatment and inpatient care of two or more nonrelated individuals, including facilities
known under various names such as convalescent homes, skilled nursing facilities or skilled
care facilities, intermediate care facilities, extended care facilities and nursing or nursing care
facilities.
(12) Off-road vehicle. The term “off-road vehicle” means every vehicle that is: (i) an allterrain
vehicle, which is a three-wheeled or four-wheeled motor vehicle powered by a gasoline or diesel
engine and generally characterized by large, low-pressure tires, a seat designed to be straddled
by the operator, and handlebars for steering, and which is intended for off-road use by an
individual rider on various types of unpaved terrain; (ii) a go-cart, which is a four-wheeled
vehicle that has a low center of gravity and is typically used in racing or riding on relatively level
services; (iii) an off-road motorcycle, which is a motorcycle designed exclusively for off-road use
by an individual rider with not more than two wheels in contact with the ground; and (iv) a
motorcycle-like device commonly known as a trail-bike or mini-bike. The term “off-road vehicle”
does not include: (i) a farm utility vehicle, which is a motor vehicle that is designed for off-road
use and is used as a farm, agricultural, or horticultural service vehicle; or (ii) a utility vehicle,
which is a motor vehicle that is designed and used as a general maintenance, security or
other similar service vehicle.
(13) Parcel. The term “parcel” means, as appropriate when the term is applied in conjunction
with a reference to a property line, either: (i) a separate unit or piece of real property; (ii) any
area within a multi-family dwelling unit that is beyond the vertical and horizontal boundaries of
the dwelling unit of the complainant; or (iii) any area within a mixed-use site that is beyond the
interface between the portion of the site owned or occupied by the complainant.
(14) Person. The term “person” means any natural person, association, partnership, corporation
or other legal entity.
(15) Place of public entertainment. The term “place of public entertainment” means a building or
other place used primarily as a cinema, theater, amphitheater, concert hall, public hall or other
place of entertainment open to the public, regardless of whether the payment of money or other
consideration is required for admission.
(16) Produce. The term “produce,” or any derivation of the word, means to produce or
reproduce, to allow to produce or reproduce, to create or allow to be created, or to operate or
allow to be operated.
11
(17) Property line. The term “property line” means either: (i) an imaginary line along the ground
surface, and its vertical extension, that separates one unit or piece of real property from
another, where the unit or piece is under different ownership; (ii) the vertical and horizontal
boundaries of a dwelling unit that is part of a multi-family dwelling unit building; or (iii) on a
mixed-use site, the interface between the portions of the parcel on which different categories of
activity are being performed.
(18) Public property. The term “public property” means real property owned by a governmental
entity including, but not limited to, any public street as defined in section 7-103(23)(i).
(19) School. The term “school” means a public school subject to title 22.1 of the Virginia Code, a
private school serving children in one or more grades between kindergarten and grade twelve
(12), a school for students with disabilities as that term is defined in Virginia Code § 22.1-319, a
child day center as that term is defined in Virginia Code § 63.2-100, the University of Virginia
and Piedmont Virginia Community College.
(20) Sound. The term “sound” means the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing.
(21) Sound source. The term “sound source” means any act or device that emits sound.
(22) Sport shooting range. The term “ sport shooting range” means an area or structure
designed for the use of rifles, shotguns, pistols, silhouettes, skeet, trap, black powder, or any
other similar sport shooting.
(23) Street. The term “street” means: (i) a public right-of-way which is part of the primary or
secondary system of state highways, or is classified as a highway in the interstate system; or (ii)
a privately owned and maintained travelway for motor vehicles serving two (2) or more single
family detached dwelling units that are located on two (2) or more separate units or pieces of
land, one or more multi-family dwelling units, a mixed-use site, or a site used for commercial or
industrial purposes.
The meaning of any sound-related term not defined herein shall be obtained from the most
recent version of the American Standard Acoustical Terminology, if the term is defined therein.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-104 General prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any person to produce sound that causes at least a fifteen (15) dBA
increase in the sound level above the ambient sound level, as determined pursuant to section
18-4.18 of the Code. Any person who commits a specific prohibited act delineated in section 7-
105 may, in lieu of being charged with a violation of section 7-105, be charged with a violation of
this section 7-104 if the sound produced is a violation of this section.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-105 Specific acts prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to produce sound from the following acts that meets or
exceeds the applicable sound levels:
A. Motor vehicle or motorcycle operation. The sound is produced by: (i) the absence of a
muffler and exhaust system conforming to Virginia Code §§ 46.2-1047 and 46.2-1049 on a
motor vehicle or a motorcycle; (ii) jackrabbit starts, spinning tires, racing engines, or other
12
similar acts in a motor vehicle or on a motorcycle; or (iii) a refrigeration unit mounted on a motor
vehicle, and:
1. On a street or on public property. The motor vehicle or motorcycle is operated or
parked on a street or on public property, and the sound is audible from a distance of one
hundred (100) feet or more from the motor vehicle or motorcycle.
2. On private property. The motor vehicle or motorcycle is operated or parked on
private property, and the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet
or more from the property line of the parcel on which the motor vehicle or motorcycle is
located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
B. Radios, tape players, television receivers, musical instruments, electronic sound
amplification equipment, and other sound producing or reproducing devices. The sound is
produced by a radio, tape player, television receiver, musical instrument, electronic sound
amplification equipment, phonograph, compact disc player, MP3 player, or other similar device
intended primarily for the production or reproduction of sound (hereinafter, collectively and
singularly a “device”) and:
1. Device within or on a motor vehicle on a street or on public property. The
device is within or on a motor vehicle that is operated or parked on a street or on public
property, and the sound is audible from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more
from the motor vehicle.
2. Device within or on a motor vehicle on private property. The device is within or
on a motor vehicle that is operated or parked on private property, and the sound is
audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of
the parcel on which the motor vehicle is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel
room.
3. Device within a place of public entertainment. The device is located within a
place of public entertainment, and the sound is audible for a duration of five (5)
continuous minutes or more, without an interruption of the sound for thirty (30) or more
consecutive seconds during the five (5) minute period, within any one (1) hour period: (i)
from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the parcel on
which the place of public entertainment is located; or (ii) between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
4. Device within a dwelling unit. The device is located within a dwelling unit and the
sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property
line of the parcel on which the motor vehicle is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit
or hotel room.
5. Device in other locations. The device is located other than within or on a motor
vehicle, a place of public entertainment, or a dwelling unit, and the sound is audible: (i)
from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the parcel on
which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
C. Off-road vehicles. The sound is produced by an off-road vehicle operated in a location
other than on a street, where the off-road vehicle use is not an authorized primary use under
chapter 18 of the Code, and the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet
or more from the property line of the parcel on which the off-road vehicle is located; or (ii)
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
13
D. Proximity to sound-sensitive institutions. The sound is produced on any street adjacent to
any school, hospital, nursing home or court (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “institutions”),
provided that conspicuous signs are posted and visible on the street(s) adjacent to the
institution stating that the street is adjacent to a school, hospital, nursing home or court and:
1. Schools and courts. The sound is audible from inside the school building or the
court between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. when the school or court is in
session.
2. Hospitals and nursing homes. The sound is audible from inside the hospital or
nursing home.
E. Construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities. Sound produced by construction,
demolition and/or maintenance activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and
the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line
of the parcel on which the activities are located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
F. Silvicultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona fide silvicultural
activities including, but not limited to logging activities, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. or at any time if the silvicultural activities, including logging activities, are determined
to not be lawfully permitted bona fide silvicultural activities, and the sound is audible: (i) from a
distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the parcel on which the
activities are located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
G. Solid waste collection. Sound produced by the collection of solid waste between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. within a residential zoning district established under chapter 18 of the
Code, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. within any non-residential zoning
district established under chapter 18 of the Code, including any mixed-use site, and the sound is
audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the solid waste collection
activity; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
H. Yard maintenance activities. Sound produced by routine yard maintenance activities
including, but not limited to, mowing, trimming, clipping, leaf blowing and snow blowing between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. within a residential zoning district established under
chapter 18 of the Code, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. within any non-
residential zoning district established under chapter 18 of the Code, including any mixed-use
site, and the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the
property line of the parcel on which the activities are located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or
hotel room.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-106 Exempt sounds.
The following sounds are not prohibited by this article:
A. Agricultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona fide agricultural
activities.
B. Animals. Sound produced by animals including, but not limited to, barking dogs, which
are subject to the animal noise regulations in chapter 4 of the Code.
C. Bells or chimes from place of religious worship. Sound produced by bells, chimes or
other similar instruments or devices from a place of religious worship.
14
D. Construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities. Sound produced by
construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities, except as provided in section 7-105(E).
E. Emergency operations. Sound produced in the performance of emergency operations
including, but not limited to, audible signal devices which are employed as warning or alarm
signals in case of fire, collision or imminent danger.
F. Firearms. Sound produced by the lawful discharge of a firearm, including any sound
produced at a sport shooting range.
G. Home appliances. Sound produced by the normal use of home appliances such as
generators, air conditioners, heat pumps, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, dryers and
dishwashers, provided that the appliances are in good repair.
H. Parades, fireworks and similar officially sanctioned events. Sound produced by parades,
fireworks or other similar events which are officially sanctioned, if required. This exemption shall
apply only to fireworks displays duly issued a permit pursuant to chapter 6 of the Code.
I. Person’s voice. Sound produced by a person’s voice, except as provided in section 7-
105(B).
J. Protected expression. Sound produced by any lawful activity which constitutes protected
expression pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but not amplified
expression; provided that the sound is not prohibited by section 7-105.
K. Public facilities. Sound produced by the operation of a public facility or public use.
L. School athletic contests or practices, and other school activities. Sound produced by
school athletic contests or practices, and other school activities, but only if conditions are
imposed which regulate the generation of sound including, but not limited to, conditions
regulating the hours of the activity and the amplification of sound.
M. Silvicultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona fide silvicultural
activities including, but not limited to, logging activities, except as provided in section 7-105(F).
N. Solid waste collection. Sound produced by the collection of solid waste, except as
provided in section 7-105(G) .
O. Telephones. Normal sound produced by landline and wireless telephones.
P. Transportation. Transient sound produced by transportation including, but not limited to,
public and private airports (except as otherwise regulated), aircraft, railroads and other means
of public transit, and sound produced by motor vehicles and motorcycles, except as provided in
section 7-105(A).
Q. Warning devices. Sound produced by a horn or warning device of a vehicle when used as
a warning device, including back-up alarms for trucks and other equipment.
R. Yard maintenance activities. Sound produced by routine yard maintenance activities
including, but not limited to, mowing, trimming, clipping, leaf blowing and snow blowing, except
as provided in section 7-105(H).
15
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-107 Complaints.
No person shall be charged with a violation of the provisions of sections 7-104 or 7-105 unless
the complainant appears before a magistrate and requests a summons to be issued. However,
when a violation is committed in the presence of a police officer, the police officer shall have the
authority to initiate all necessary proceedings.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-108 Violation and penalty.
Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be deemed to be guilty of a class 1
misdemeanor. The person operating or controlling a sound source shall be guilty of any violation
caused by that source. If the sound source cannot be determined but its presence on a parcel
can be determined, any owner, tenant or resident physically present on the parcel where the
sound is being produced is guilty of the violation.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to
the regulation of noise; and
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to amend the noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the Zoning Ordinance and which sounds
are regulated under the noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code, and to eliminate any
perceived overlap between the two; and
WHEREAS, it also may be desirable to amend the noise regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance to update the language of the exemptions in County Code § 18-4.18.05 so that it is
consistent, to the extent possible, with the language of the exemptions in County Code § 7-106.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code
§ 18-4.18, Noise, and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to
achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Noise (Chapter 7, Health and Safety)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set a public hearing to consider amending the noise
regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Newberry and
Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 5, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Before comprehensively amended in 2009, the County’s noise regulations in Chapter 7 of the County Code (the “nuisance
noise regulations”) were primarily based on a standard that prohibited noise levels that were loud, disturbing or raucous so
as to disturb or annoy the reasonable person (the “reasonable person standard”). The 2009 amendments replaced the
reasonable person standard with an audibility standard. The amendments were necessary because of a Virginia Supreme
Court decision earlier that year in which the Court concluded that Virginia Beach’s reasonable person standard was
unconstitutionally vague.
During the zoning text amendment to the County’s farm winery regulations pertaining to outdoor amplified music (County
Code § 18-5.1.25) earlier this year, there was significant discussion as to whether sound produced from outdoor amplified
music at a farm winery was subject to not only the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, but also the nuisance
noise regulations in Chapter 7. There are differences between the two regulatory schemes. The zoning noise regulations
use a decibel-based standard (the exception being outdoor amplified music at a farm winery, which uses an audibility
standard) and are enforced by the zoning administrator in a civil proceeding. The nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7
use an audibility standard (the exception being a catch-all provision prohibiting sound that is 15 or more decibels above the
ambient sound levels) and are enforced by the police and may result in a criminal prosecution.
When the Board amended the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries in May, 2011, it reaffirmed
that sound produced from land uses authorized under the Zoning Ordinance should be regulated under the zoning noise
regulations. However, it became apparent to staff that the change in the nuisance noise regulations from the reasonable
person standard to the audibility standard in 2009 may have blurred the line as to when the zoning noise regulations in the
Zoning Ordinance or the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7 applies in certain situations.
DISCUSSION:
The purposes of this ordinance are to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the nuisance noise
regulations in Chapter 7 and which are regulated under the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, and to
eliminate any perceived overlap between the two. To accomplish this purpose, this ordinance would amend County
Code § 7-103 to expressly state that the nuisance noise regulations will apply only when the activity producing the sound
is not subject to the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance also would amend County Code §
7-106(A) to add outdoor amplified music at a farm winery as an exempt agricultural activity (sound from outdoor
amplified music at a farm winery is regulated under the Zoning Ordinance in County Code § 18-5.1.25(e)). Finally, this
ordinance would make minor housekeeping amendments to County Code §§ 7-103, 7-105 and 7-106.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is expected.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached ordinance for a public hearing on December 7, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Noise Regulation Amendment - Phase II Issue Identification
1. Enforcing Agency: Zoning is authorized to enforce land-use based noise
violations but is not on-call on nights, holidays and weekends when issues occur.
Explore costs and benefits of Police versus Zoning enforcement.
2. Sound Regulation and Planning for Special Events, Especially Outdoor Amplified
Music: Establish supplementary regulations regarding sound management pre -
planning and onsite self-monitoring.
3. Chapter 7 Audibility Standard: Evaluated the current audibility standards,
particularly the 100 ft from the property line. This is problematic for Police to
enforce due to a) difficulty in establishing location of property line; b) the lack of
measuring devices and c) the increased time to find and measure property line.
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Phase 1 Noise Regulation
Amendment Work Session
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work Session – Discuss Amending County Code
Chapter 18 (Zoning) §4.18.05 and Chapter 7
(Health and Safety) §7-106 to Clarify Agricultural
Exemptions
STAFF: McCulley, Burbage, and Kamptner
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 11, 2013
BACKGROUND:
When the Board amended the noise regulations for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries in May, 2011, it reaffirmed
that sound from land uses authorized under the Zoning Ordinance should be regulated under the zoning noise
regulations. On October 5, 2011, the Board adopted a resolution of intent to direct staff to develop ordinance
amendments to better distinguish which sounds are regulated under the nuisance noise regulations in Chapter 7
(enforced by Police) and which are regulated under the zoning noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (enforced by
Zoning) {Attachment A}.
On November 8, 2011, the Commission deferred the public hearing from this amendment (ZTA 2011-006 Noise), for staff
to further consider several comments and issues. As the Commission is aware, the issue of noise impacts on neighbors
and enforcement of noise complaints has arisen several times since this date. Staff has learned through recent
experience with farm winery events, that benefits can be realized through a) pre-planning with a sound professional and
b) onsite self-monitoring of sound levels by event organizers. The expected benefits include reduced impacts on and
issues with neighbors, as well as reduced uncertainty in the application review process. Noise has been identified in
Comprehensive Plan discussion as an issue to be further addressed in the Rural Areas, particularly with any broadening
of uses such as special events involving outdoor amplified music. All of these issues relating to noise regulation and
enforcement will be part of a second phase of noise regulation amendment (Attachment C).
This Phase I Noise Regulation work session is focused on the exemption relating to agricultural activity. Based on our
experience, there appears to be a lack of clarity as to what constitutes a “bona fide agricultural activity,” leading to
differing opinions as to which agricultural activities can enjoy this exemption. It is clearly the County’s intent through the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and related regulations, to promote and protect legitima te agricultural activity.
There have been at least two instances of noise complaints by citizens in which outdoor amplified music was claimed to
be an exempt agricultural activity. In one case, music was played for farm workers at a volume that impacted neighbors.
In a second case, music is played to both train horses and riders and to condition/desensitize horses, even when the
riders and horses were not being actively trained. In this second case, the music could be clearly heard within homes
adjacent to the property to the extent that the Police found it to constitute a nuisance. However, when the case went to
court, the Judge deemed all of the activity to fall within the agricultural exemption, based on the current language of the
regulations.
Currently the agricultural exemptions to the two regulations are not consistently worded. They are as follows:
Zoning Ordinance Section 4.18.05 states the following agricultural sounds are exempt from the regulations:
J. Silvicultural or agricultural activities. Sounds generated during lawfully permitted bona fide silvicultural or
agricultural activities including, but not limited to, logging activities and sounds caused by livestock.
Noise Regulations Phase 1
Planning Commission Work Session June 11, 2013
2
Noise Regulations Phase 1
Planning Commission Work Session
June 11, 2013
County Code 7-106 states the following agricultural sounds are exempt from the regulations:
A. Agricultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona fide agricultural
activities.
DISCUSSION:
A commercial stable is an agricultural use; therefore, the regular activities associated with this use should enjoy the
agricultural exemption from noise regulation. However, the current agricultural exemption is overly broad so as to
possibly apply to activities that are not customary agricultural practices, such as the playing of music for farm workers or
for livestock at rest.
To research common practice involving the use of music for horse training, staff discussed it with two local commercial
stable owners as well as the Farm Bureau, in addition to researching online. We did not find that playing amplified music
to condition horses (that were not being actively trained) is a common practice. The Farm Bureau suggested considering
advisory language about directing speakers away from adjoining properties and specifying hours for the use of amplified
music. They also expressed concern that people could complain about the noise from farming machinery and equipment,
such as tractors. Based on our conversations with local stable owners, we learned that customary use of outdoor
amplified music or a public address system for active training or organized events typically concludes by late afternoon or
early evening.
FOCUSED DISCUSSION:
In addition to establishing consistent language between the two regulations regarding the agricultural exemption, we
would like to clarify what qualifies as bona fide agricultural activity. For example, operation of farm equipment and
machinery such as tractors, will be listed as an example of bona fide agricultural activity. While we agree with the Farm
Bureau’s suggestion about directing speakers away from adjoining properties, making this a regulatory requirement can
be problematic because it is not a clearly measurable standard. This could be advisory language similar to ordinance
language stating that lighting should be directed away from nearby residences. Language such as this on its own, will be
difficult to take to an enforcement action, should the need arise.
Staff recommends the following for the Commission’s consideration:
1. Clarify that the use of outdoor amplified music for farm workers is not exempt as an agricultural activity.
2. Clarify that the agricultural exemption relating to the use of outdoor amplified music and public address systems
for working with livestock (horses, cattle, etc.) be limited as follows:
a. The exemption from the noise regulations for bona fide agricultural activity ends at 8 pm and the
applicable maximum sound levels apply at that time;
b. The exemption only applies when it is related to 1) actively training livestock and/or handlers/riders or 2)
an organized event such as a show. This sound should not be exempt when the animals are at rest and
not being actively worked or as part of an organized event.
Staff hopes to keep the Phase II Noise Regulation amendments to a manageable scope so we can complete it in a
reasonable timeframe and prior to implementing the new Rural Areas uses. If the Commission has issues or comments
for consideration during Phase II in addition to those listed in Attachment C, please share those with us.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that after the Commission provides direction to staff, that we draft the ordinance and set Phase I Noise
Regulations for public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Resolution of Intent Adopted by the Board October 5, 2011
B: Policy Regarding Agricultural Use
C: Noise Regulation Amendment - Phase II Issue Identification
1
ZTA 2011-06 Phase I Noise Amendments
PC Public Hearing August 6, 2013
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2011-06 Phase I Noise
Ordinance Amendments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing to
Amend County Code Chapter 18 (Zoning) Section
4.18 Regarding the Agricultural Exemption for
Amplified Sound
STAFF CONTACT(S): Amelia McCulley, Amanda
Burbage, Lisa Green and Greg Kamptner
AGENDA DATE: August 6, 2013
Deferred at staff’s request from July 16, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
Origin of this Amendment: Board of Supervisors’ resolution for zoning text amendment (Attachment A). At the same
meeting, the Board agreed to set the Chapter 7 Health and Safety noise regulation amendment for public hearing. The
existing Noise Regulations are found within Attachment F.
Proposal: The Phase I Noise amendment is narrowly focused on the use of amplified sound (music and public address
systems) in conjunction with agricultural uses. Work on a broader Phase II Noise regulation amendment will follow. (A list
of identified issues for Phase II is found within Attachment B.)
Public Purposes to be Served: 1) To better clarify and address amplified sound associated with bona fide agricultural
activity; 2) To provide consistent exemptions for both noise regulations (Chapter 18 Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 7
Health and Safety {the two regulations}) for those other exemptions; and 3) To clarify which regulations apply where there
is overlap between the two regulations.
Ordinance Amendment Criteria:
Based on prior Board direction, staff reviews ordinance amendment impacts under the following additional criteria:
Administration / Review Process: Consistency between the two regulations and clarification of applicability will improve
their administration.
Housing Affordability: There is no discernible impact on housing costs.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: These amendments will potentially save staff some time, although the amount
is probably limited.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy; and
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission discussed this amendment in work session on June 11th (Attachments B and C). The
2
ZTA 2011-06 Phase I Noise Amendments
PC Public Hearing August 6, 2013
general consensus was to apply the same standard for amplified music associated with other bona fide
agricultural activities as is used for farm wineries. There was concurrence that playing music for farm
workers without actively training livestock and/or riders should not qualify as a bona fide agricultural use
exemption.
Since the Commission work session, staff has conducted additional research with local commercial stable
owners about the practice of using amplified sound and with the Police Department about enforcement
using the audibility standard. We are focused on not obstructing bona fide agricultural operations,
treating similar activities similarly, and on establishing clear enforcement standards.
There is a broad range of opinion on the use of amplified sound to condition or train horses for
competition. None of those consulted can imagine or would want their use of amplified sound to
detrimentally impact neighbors. Given the broad range of opinions as to whether the use of amplified
sound constitutes a legitimate training activity, it becomes difficult to legislate and regulate when it might
be associated with a bona fide agricultural use (such as training horses). There is an issue when
amplified sound, regardless of its purpose, becomes a nuisance to neighbors.
The goal of treating similar activities similarly leads us to suggest that we treat playing music loudly at the
barn or riding ring the same as if it were being played at a residence. In the latter case, it falls within
chapter 7 as a nuisance activity and is enforced by the Police Department under an audibility standard.
We are recommending that amplified sound associated with an agricultural use not fall under a complete
noise regulation exemption under chapter 7. To do so would require a problematic judgment call for
enforcement staff given the varied philosophies and practices of different agricultural operations. The
Officer would have to determine if that amplified sound is associated with a bona fide agricultural use
while in the field responding to the call. In addition, while we wish to promote and protect agricultural
uses, we do not intend to do so at the expense of noise impacts on neighboring uses which could also be
agricultural in nature. Finally, this is a move towards treating amplified sound nuisances similarly,
regardless of its purpose. (Please keep in mind that farm wineries are treated uniquely as an agricultural
use under the Virginia Code with specific provisions on the regulation of noise.)
The draft Zoning Ordinance amendment provides the following:
A definition of “agricultural activity.” This definition mirrors the definition of “agriculture” in the
Zoning Ordinance;
A new listing of outdoor amplified music or outdoor public address systems (Section 4.18.05
{H}) that clarifies which of the two noise regulations apply;
Revised listing of exemptions consistent with Chapter 7;
Clarifying language as to the applicability of either the Zoning Ordinance or Chapter 7 noise
regulations.
In addition, the draft ordinance codifies the practice of Police enforcement of noise complaints in “places
of public entertainment” such as night clubs and dance halls. It also provides a definition for this term in
the Zoning Ordinance that is consistent with the one in chapter 7.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no increased budget impact expected as a result. As noted under “implications to Staffing,”
we expect a limited staff time saving that will result from these amendments.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the draft ordinance found in Attachment D.
A compare to the prior draft is provided in Attachment E.
3
ZTA 2011-06 Phase I Noise Amendments
PC Public Hearing August 6, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this Zoning Text Amendment
Move to recommend approval of the draft ordinance in Attachment D.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this Zoning Text Amendment:
Move to recommend denial of the draft ordinance in Attachment D. Should a commissioner motion
to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution of Intent – October 5, 2011 by Board of Supervisors
Attachment B: Staff Report – Planning Commission Work Session Phase I Noise Amendment June 11th
Attachment C: Action Memo from PC Work Session on June 11th
Attachment D: Draft Zoning Ordinance Noise Amendment
Attachment E: Draft Zoning Ordinance Noise Amendment – Compare Version
Attachment F: Existing Noise Regulations – Chapter 18 Section 4.18 Zoning and Chapter 7 Health and
Safety
Draft: 07/26/13
1
ORDINANCE NO. 13-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.18.01 Applicability
Sec. 4.18.02 Definitions
Sec. 4.18.05 Exempt sounds
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.18.01 Applicability
This section 4.18 shall apply to sound generated from produced by any land use authorized by this chapter,
including any use that is expressly authorized by a proffer, special use permit, special use permit condition, or a
standard in a code of development, except as otherwise provided in section 4.18.05 within Albemarle County,
regardless of whether the property in the receiving zone is within or without Albemarle County.
This chapter is in addition to any sound or noise regulations set forth in any other chapter of the Albemarle
County Code.
(Ord. 00-18(3), 6-14-00)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.18.02 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply to this section 4.18. The definitions of any sound-related term not defined
herein shall be obtained from the American Standard Terminology if defined therein.
. . .
Agricultural activity. The term “agricultural activity” means a lawfully permitted activity pertaining to
horticulture, viticulture, or gardening including, but not limited to: tilling soil for raising crops; keeping livestock,
poultry, or both; operating agricultural industries or businesses, including, but not limited to, orchards, fruit
packing plants, dairies, nurseries, farm sales, farm stands and farmers’ markets; or any combination of the
foregoing activities.
. . .
Place of public entertainment. The term “place of public entertainment” means a building or other place used
primarily as a cinema, theater, amphitheater, concert hall, public hall, dance hall, restaurant or other place of
entertainment open to the public, but not including a music festival authorized by a special use permit, regardless
of whether the payment of money or other consideration is required for admission.
Draft: 07/26/13
2
. . .
Sec. 4.18.05 Exempt sounds
The following sounds shall not be subject to this section 4.18:
A. Agricultural activities. Sound produced by an agricultural activity.
AB. Animals. Sounds generated from animals including, but not limited to, barking dogs. Sound produced by
animals including, but not limited to, barking dogs; provided that this sound is otherwise subject to the
animal noise regulations in chapter 4 of the Code.
BC. Church bells or chimes. Sounds generated by church bells or chimes. Bells or chimes from place of
religious worship. Sound produced by bells, chimes or other similar instruments or devices from a place
of religious worship.
CD. Construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities. Sounds generated from Sound produced by
construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; provided that
this sound is otherwise subject to the noise regulations in chapter 7 of the Code.
DE. Emergency operations. Sound generated produced in the performance of emergency operations including,
but not limited to, audible signal devices which are employed as warning or alarm signals in case of fire,
collision or imminent danger, and sounds generated or sound produced by power generators during power
outages and other emergency situations.
EF. Firearms. Sounds generated from Sound produced by the lawful discharge of a firearm; provided that this
exemption shall not apply to gun clubs or shooting ranges, nor to a firearms discharged at a gun club, or a
shooting range, shooting preserve, or target, trap or skeet range.
G. Home appliances. Sound produced by the normal use of home appliances such as generators, air
conditioners, heat pumps, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, dryers and dishwashers, provided that the
appliances are in good repair.
H. Outdoor amplified music or outdoor public address systems. Sound produced by an outdoor amplified
music system or outdoor public address system; provided that sound from outdoor amplified music at a
farm winery is otherwise subject to the farm winery regulations in section 18-5.1.25(e), sound produced
in conjunction with an outdoor music festival authorized by special use permit under this chapter shall be
subject to the noise regulations in this chapter, and sound produced by an outdoor amplified music system
or outdoor public address system, including any system used in conjunction with an agricultural activity,
is subject to the noise regulations in chapter 7 of the Code.
FI. Parades, fireworks and similar events. Sounds generated from Sound produced by parades, fireworks,
and other events determined to be similar by the zoning administrator prior thereto and other similar
events which are officially sanctioned, if required; provided that the exemption for fireworks shall apply
only to fireworks displays duly issued a permit pursuant to chapter 6 of the Code.
J. Person’s voice. Sound produced by a person’s voice.
K. Place of public entertainment. Sound produced by a radio, tape player, television receiver, musical
instrument, electronic sound amplification equipment, phonograph, compact disc player, MP3 player, or
other similar device intended primarily for the production or reproduction of sound (hereinafter,
Draft: 07/26/13
3
collectively and singularly a “device”) at a place of public entertainment; provided that this sound is
otherwise subject to the noise regulations in chapter 7 of the Code.
GL. Protected expression. Any other Sound produced by any lawful activity which constitutes protected
expression pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but not amplified
expression.
HM. Public facilities and public uses. Sounds generated fromSound produced by the operation of a public
facility or public use or activity including, but not limited to, sounds generated from school athletic
contests or practices, and other school activities any sound which would not be an exempt sound if it was
produced by the operation of a non-public facility or non-public use.
N. School athletic contests or practices, and other school activities; private schools. Sound produced by
private school athletic contests or practices, and other private school activities.
I. Residential air conditioning units. Sounds generated from residential air conditioning units.
JO. Silvicultural or agricultural activities. Sounds generated Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona
fide silvicultural or agricultural activities including, but not limited to, logging activities and sounds
caused by livestock; provided that this sound is otherwise subject to the noise regulations in chapter 7 of
the Code.
P. Solid waste collection. Sound produced by the collection of solid waste; provided that this sound is
otherwise subject to the noise regulations in chapter 7 of the Code.
Q. Telephones. Normal sound produced by landline and wireless telephones.
KR. Transient sounds from tTransportation.Transient sounds generated Transient sound produced by
transportation including, but not limited to, public and private airports (except as otherwise regulated),
aircraft, railroads and other means of public transit, and sound produced by motor vehicles and
motorcycles.
LS. Warning devices.Sounds generated Sound produced by a horn or warning device of a vehicle when used
as a warning device, including back-up alarms for trucks and other equipment.
MT. Yard maintenance activities.Sounds generated from Sound produced by routine yard maintenance
activities including, but not limited to, mowing, trimming, clipping, leaf blowing and snow blowing;
provided that this sound is otherwise subject to the noise regulations in chapter 7 of the Code.
(Ord. 00-18(3), 6-14-00)
Draft: 07/26/13
4
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 _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Craddock ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
Draft: 07/26/13
1
ORDINANCE NO. 13-07( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE I, NOISE, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7,
Health and Safety, Article I, Noise, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 7-102 Applicability
Sec. 7-103 Definitions
Sec. 7-105 Prohibited acts enumerated
Sec. 7-106 Exempt sounds
Chapter 7. Health and Safety
Article I. Noise
Sec. 7-102 Applicability.
This article shall apply to sound generated produced within the county, regardless of whether the
complainant or the receiving property is within or without the county, that is not subject to the noise
regulations in chapter 18 of the Code including, but not limited to, section 18-4.18 et seq. of the Code.
This article shall be in addition to any sound or noise regulations set forth in chapter 18 of the Code.
(Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-7(3), 12-2-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-103 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply to this article:
. . .
(1.1) Agricultural activity. The term “agricultural activity” means a lawfully permitted activity
pertaining to horticulture, viticulture, or gardening including, but not limited to: tilling soil for raising
crops; keeping livestock, poultry, or both; operating agricultural industries or businesses, including, but
not limited to, orchards, fruit packing plants, dairies, nurseries, farm sales, farm stands and farmers’
markets; or any combination of the foregoing activities.
. . .
(9) Motor vehicle. The term “motor vehicle” means means every vehicle that is self-propelled or
designed for self-propulsion and includes, but is not limited to, any device defined in Virginia Code §
46.2-100 as an “electric personal assistive mobility device,” “electric power-assisted bicycle,” “golf cart,”
“moped,” “motorized skateboard or scooter” or “utility vehicle,” but does not include a device moved by
human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks that is self-propelled or designed for self-
propulsion. Any structure designed, used, or maintained primarily to be loaded on or affixed to a motor
Draft: 07/26/13
2
vehicle to provide a mobile dwelling, sleeping place, office, or commercial space shall be considered a
part of a motor vehicle.
. . .
(12.1) Outdoor. The term “outdoor” means either outside a structure, or inside a structure that
has open windows, doors or other openings so as to allow the activity inside the structure to be visible or
audible outside the structure.
. . .
(15) Place of public entertainment. The term “place of public entertainment” means a building
or other place used primarily as a cinema, theater, amphitheater, concert hall, public hall, dance hall,
restaurant or other place of entertainment open to the public, regardless of whether the payment of money
or other consideration is required for admission, but does not include a music festival authorized by a
special use permit under chapter 18 of the Code,.
Sec. 7-105 Specific acts prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to produce sound from the following acts that meets or
exceeds the applicable sound levels:
A. Motor vehicle or motorcycle operation. The sound is produced by: (i) the absence of a
muffler and exhaust system conforming to Virginia Code §§ 46.2-1047 and 46.2-1049 on a motor vehicle
or a motorcycle; (ii) jackrabbit starts, spinning tires, racing engines, or other similar acts in a motor
vehicle or on a motorcycle; or (iii) a refrigeration unit mounted on a motor vehicle, and either:
1. On a street or on public property. The motor vehicle or motorcycle is operated
or parked on a street or on public property, and the sound is audible from a distance of one hundred (100)
feet or more from the motor vehicle or motorcycle.; or
2. On private property. The motor vehicle or motorcycle is operated or parked on
private property, and the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the
property line of the parcel on which the motor vehicle or motorcycle is located; or (ii) from inside a
dwelling unit or hotel room.
B. Radios, tape players, televisions receivers, musical instruments, electronic sound
amplification equipment, and other sound producing or reproducing devices. The sound is produced by a
radio, tape player, television receiver, musical instrument, electronic sound amplification equipment,
phonograph, compact disc player, MP3 player, or other similar device intended primarily for the
production or reproduction of sound (hereinafter, collectively and singularly a “device”) and either:
1. Device within or on a motor vehicle on a street or on public property. The
device is within or on a motor vehicle that is operated or parked on a street or on public property, and the
sound is audible from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the motor vehicle.;
2. Device within or on a motor vehicle on private property. The device is within or
on a motor vehicle that is operated or parked on private property, and the sound is audible: (i) from a
distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the parcel on which the motor
vehicle is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.;
Draft: 07/26/13
3
3. Device within a place of public entertainment. The device is located within a
place of public entertainment, and the sound is audible for a duration of five (5) continuous minutes or
more, without an interruption of the sound for thirty (30) or more consecutive seconds during the five (5)
minute period, within any one (1) hour period: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from
the property line of the parcel on which the place of public entertainment is located; or (ii) between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.;
4. Device within a dwelling unit. The device is located within a dwelling unit and
the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the
parcel on which the motor vehicle is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room;
5. Device producing outdoor amplified music or serving as an outdoor public
address system. The device is located to produce outdoor amplified music, to serve as an outdoor public
address system, or both, including any such device used in conjunction with an agricultural activity, and
the sound is not otherwise regulated under subsections (B)(1) through (4) or exempt under section 7-106,
and the sound is audible from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
56. Device in other locations. The device is located other than within or on a motor
vehicle, a place of public entertainment, or a dwelling unit, or is not producing a sound subject to
subsection (B)(5), and the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the
property line of the parcel on which the device is located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel
room.
C. Off-road vehicles. The sound is produced by an off-road vehicle operated in a location
other than on a street, where the off-road vehicle use is not an authorized primary use under chapter 18 of
the Code, and the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the
property line of the parcel on which the off-road vehicle is located; or (ii) between the hours of 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
D. Proximity to sound-sensitive institutions. The sound is produced on any street adjacent to
any school, hospital, nursing home or court (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “institutions”),
provided that conspicuous signs are posted and visible on the street(s) adjacent to the institution stating
that the street is adjacent to a school, hospital, nursing home or court and either:
1. Schools and courts. The sound is audible from inside the school building or the
court between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. when the school or court is in session.; or
2. Hospitals and nursing homes. The sound is audible from inside the hospital or
nursing home.
E. Construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities. Sound produced by
construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and
the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the
parcel on which the activities are located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
F. Silvicultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona fide silvicultural
activities including, but not limited to logging activities, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. or
at any time if the silvicultural activities, including logging activities, are determined to not be lawfully
permitted bona fide silvicultural activities, and the sound is audible: (i) from a distance of one hundred
(100) feet or more from the property line of the parcel on which the activities are located; or (ii) from
inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
Draft: 07/26/13
4
G. Solid waste collection. Sound produced by the collection of solid waste between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. within a residential zoning district established under chapter 18 of the
Code, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. within any non-residential zoning district
established under chapter 18 of the Code, including any mixed-use site, and the sound is audible: (i) from
a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the solid waste collection activity; or (ii) from inside a
dwelling unit or hotel room.
H. Yard maintenance activities. Sound produced by routine yard maintenance activities
including, but not limited to, mowing, trimming, clipping, leaf blowing and snow blowing between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. within a residential zoning district established under chapter 18 of the
Code, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. within any non-residential zoning district
established under chapter 18 of the Code, including any mixed-use site, and the sound is audible: (i) from
a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from the property line of the parcel on which the activities
are located; or (ii) from inside a dwelling unit or hotel room.
(Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-7(3), 12-2-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Sec. 7-106 Exempt sounds.
The following sounds are not prohibited by this article:
A. Agricultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona fide agricultural
activities by an agricultural activity.
B. Animals. Sound produced by animals including, but not limited to, barking dogs, which
are is subject to the animal noise regulations in chapter 4 of the Code.
C. Bells or chimes from place of religious worship. Sound produced by bells, chimes or
other similar instruments or devices from a place of religious worship.
D. Construction, demolition and/or maintenance activities. Sound produced by construction,
demolition and/or maintenance activities, except as provided in section 7-105(E).
E. Emergency operations. Sound produced in the performance of emergency operations
including, but not limited to, audible signal devices which are employed as warning or alarm signals in
case of fire, collision or imminent danger, or sound produced by power generators during power outages
and other emergency situations.
F. Firearms. Sound produced by the lawful discharge of a firearm, including any sound
produced at a sport gun club, shooting range, shooting preserve, or target, trap or skeet range; provided
that this sound is otherwise subject to the noise regulations in chapter 18 of the Code.
G. Home appliances. Sound produced by the normal use of home appliances such as
generators, air conditioners, heat pumps, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, dryers and dishwashers,
provided that the appliances are in good repair.
H. Outdoor amplified music or outdoor public address systems. Sound produced by an
outdoor amplified music system or outdoor public address system if the sound is outdoor amplified music
Draft: 07/26/13
5
at a farm winery subject to the farm winery regulations in section 18-5.1.25(e) or is sound produced in
conjunction with an outdoor music festival authorized by special use permit under chapter 18 of the Code.
HI. Parades, fireworks and similar officially sanctioned events. Sound produced by parades,
fireworks or other similar events which are officially sanctioned, if required. This; provided that the
exemption for fireworks shall apply only to fireworks displays duly issued a permit pursuant to chapter 6
of the Code.
IJ. Person’s voice. Sound produced by a person’s voice, except as provided in section 7-
105(B).
JK. Protected expression. Sound produced by any lawful activity which constitutes protected
expression pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but not amplified
expression; provided that the sound is not prohibited by section 7-105.
KL. Public facilities and public uses. Sound produced by the operation of a public facility or
public use including, but not limited to, any sound which would not be an exempt sound if it was
produced by the operation of a non-public facility or non-public use.
LM. School athletic contests or practices, and other school activities; private schools. Sound
produced by private school athletic contests or practices, and other private school activities, but only if
conditions are imposed which regulate the generation of sound including, but not limited to, conditions
regulating the hours of the activity and the amplification of sound.
MN. Silvicultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted bona fide silvicultural
activities including, but not limited to, logging activities, except as provided in section 7-105(F).
NO. Solid waste collection. Sound produced by the collection of solid waste, except as
provided in section 7-105(G).
OP. Telephones. Normal sound produced by landline and wireless telephones.
PQ. Transportation. Transient sound produced by transportation including, but not limited to,
public and private airports (except as otherwise regulated), aircraft, railroads and other means of public
transit, and sound produced by motor vehicles and motorcycles, except as provided in section 7-105(A).
QR. Warning devices. Sound produced by a horn or warning device of a vehicle when used as
a warning device, including back-up alarms for trucks and other equipment.
RS. Yard maintenance activities. Sound produced by routine yard maintenance activities
including, but not limited to, mowing, trimming, clipping, leaf blowing and snow blowing, except as
provided in section 7-105(H).
(§ 12.1-7, 9-10-80, § 7; Code 1988, § 12.1-7; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-7(3), 12-2-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-1200.
Draft: 07/26/13
6
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 _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Craddock ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Noise Regulations
Agricultural Exemptions Exceptions (to Ag Exemption) Enforcement Standard
Chapter 18
(Zoning) Existing Sounds generated during
lawfully permitted bonafide
silvicultural or agricultural
activities {Section 4.18.05 (j)}
Outdoor amplified music at a
farm winery Decibel-based
Based on zoning district of
the receiving zone. Within
the RA district it is limited to
60 daytime and 55
nighttime
Proposed Defines “agricultural activity”
(consistent with Ch. 7
definition). Creates new
exemption for this separate
from silvicultural activity
{4.18.05 (q)}. Sound
produced by an agricultural
activity {4.18.05 (a)}.
No change No change
Chapter 7
(Police) Existing Sound produced during lawfully
permitted bonafide agricultural
activities {Sec. 7-106 (A)}
Silvicultural activity exemption
{Sec. 7-106 (M)}
None Audibility
i) from a distance of 100 ft
or more from the property
line (or from the vehicle for
vehicle-generated noise), or
ii) from inside a dwelling
unit or hotel room
Proposed Defines “agricultural
activity.” Sound produced by
an agricultural activity {Sec.
7-106 A}
Agricultural activities
involving a device producing
outdoor amplified music or
serving as an outdoor public
address system
Audibility
from inside a dwelling
unit or hotel room
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 PHASE 1 NOISE AMENDMENT (AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION)
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 11, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June
11, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris,
Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent were Bruce Dotson and Thomas
Loach. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was
absent.
Other officials present were Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator;
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor,
Clerk to Planning Commission; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; 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.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:36 p.m. and the meeting reconvened
at 7:43 p.m.
c. ZTA-2011-00006 Phase I Noise Amendment (Agricultural Exemption) -
Discuss Amending County Code Chapter 18 (Zoning) §4.18.05 and Chapter 7
(Health and Safety) §7-106 to Clarify Agricultural Exemptions (Amelia
McCulley)
Ms. McCulley presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
Phase I is focused on the issue of the exemption to the noise regulations for agricultural
activity. It is more narrowly focused on the use of amplified music and P.A. systems
with agricultural uses.
Background – Where & How is Noise Currently Regulated?
• 1) Zoning Ordinance Noise Regulation for land uses authorized under the
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 Section 4.18). Decibel-based regulation enforced
by Zoning;
• 2) Chapter 7 County Code Noise Regulation for nuisance noise. Audibility-
based regulation enforced by Police.
Brief outline of the current framework for noise regulation in Albemarle County:
Excessive noise is currently regulated within two different Code Sections:
1) Chapter 18 (Z.O.) establishes maximum decibel levels for land uses and is
enforced by Zoning:
2) Chapter 7 (Health & Safety) establishes an audibility standard for nuisance
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 PHASE 1 NOISE AMENDMENT (AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION)
2
noise and is enforced by Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD).
Background – Recent Noise Regulation
• May, 2011 Farm Winery Event Noise Regulation: The Board reaffirmed land
uses regulated under Zoning Ordinance and changed the standard from audibility
to decibel-based.
• November 8, 2011 PC Public Hearing on Miscellaneous Amendments to Clarify
Applicability of Noise Regulations: Deferred to allow staff to further study several
questions.
• Since November, 2011: Further discussion about regulation of farm winery
events with cidery special use permit and with Comprehensive Plan expansion of
Rural Area uses.
With the review of Castle Hill Cidery approved by the B oard of Supervisors on January
16th, there was significant discussion about the appropriate enforcing agency (Police
versus Zoning). In addition, through this and another farm winery case, we lea rned the
importance of sound management planning and onsite self -monitoring. These issues
are incorporated into a phase 2 noise ordinance amendment. This work session and
the current issue are narrowly focused on the gaps in the current noise regulation
exemption for agricultural uses.
Current Issue (Phase I)
- Cases which invoke the agricultural exemption and go beyond the
legislative intent for the exemption.
– Current language is overly broad and leads to differing opinions and
difficulty in enforcement;
– Need to consider impacts from outdoor amplified music associated with
“bona fide agricultural activity;” and
– Treat outdoor amplified music from agricultural activity the same.
The noise regulation exemption is meant to apply to bona fide agricultural activities such
as using a tractor, a harvester, shearing, and the like. There are at least two cases
which have given rise to this Phase I Noise Ordinance Amendment. The 1 st involved
playing music for farm workers. The 2nd (and most relevant) involves the use of music
allegedly to train horses and riders for dressage musicality events. Music is being
played regularly at high volumes, even when the riders and horses are not in training.
This has created a nuisance which impacts residences over 200 feet away. This is a
somewhat unique situation {1) a commercial stable that is located on a smaller parcel
that is long and narrow and 2) a stable operator who will not agree to reduce the impact
on neighbors}. However, similar situations cou ld easily arise on other properties,
including within an RA subdivision.
Current Noise Regulation Agricultural Exemption
1. Zoning Ordinance Section 4.18.05 states the following agricultural sounds are
exempt from the regulations:
J. Silvicultural or agricultural activities. Sounds generated during
lawfully permitted bona fide silvicultural or agricultural activities
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 PHASE 1 NOISE AMENDMENT (AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION)
3
including, but not limited to, logging activities and sounds caused by
livestock.
2. County Code 7-106 states the following agricultural sounds are exempt from the
regulations:
A. Agricultural activities. Sound produced during lawfully permitted
bona fide agricultural activities.
The current agricultural exemptions as stated within the two different regulations are
a) overly broad and b) not consistent.
Legislative Intent and County Policy
• As expressed through the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
Albemarle County intends to promote, protect and maintain agricultural activity in
our Rural Areas.
Focused Discussion – Outdoor Amplified Music & Public Address Systems
1. Clarify that playing music for farm workers is not exempt as an agricultural
activity.
2. Narrow or eliminate the agricultural exemption for working with livestock while
using outdoor amplified music or P.A. systems.
A. Narrow: the agriculture exemption applies only to 1) active training or 2)
an organized event. After 8 p.m. the maximum sound levels apply; or
B. Eliminate: the maximum decibel levels (Zoning Ordinance noise
ordinance) applies to agricultural activities involving amplified music
and/or public address systems.
Next Steps
• Draft Ordinance;
• July 16, 2013 (tentative) Public Hearing with the Planning Commission;
• September 4, 2013 (tentative) Public Hearing with the Planning Commission
Public comment taken from the following individuals:
Bonnie Podraza, a Stony Point teacher retiring tomorrow, explained the disturbing noise
issue they have had for some time with their neighbor involving the use of music
allegedly to train horses and riders for show events.
- Over 30 years ago they bought property in Stony Hills Subdivision, built a home
and raised their children. Several years ago their neighbors build a barn 6’ from
the property line. The high volume music being played is so loud they cannot sit
on their deck. Her 93 year old mother who lives 200 feet away can also hear the
loud music.
- The noise issue has been going on for a long time. They went to court and the
judge’s ruling was too broad and allows her neighbors to play music anytime as
loud as they want. This has created a nuisance since the noise travels right to
their house, which is 250 feet from the line. They have tried to talk to the
neighbors to no avail and they keep playing the music louder and louder. She
would like to have the enjoyment of their home and asked for consideration of
our rights.
- There is no business license required. The issue is they can play the music
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 PHASE 1 NOISE AMENDMENT (AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION)
4
anytime at night and the police told them they cannot do anything about it. They
called zoning. When zoning staff came out the neighbors turned the music
down. Zoning staff said the noise by ordinance should not be heard 100’ from
the property line. However, as soon as they left the neighbors turned the music
back up again. The same thing happened when they called the pol ice.
Philip Podraza noted they have 9 acres that actually are 3 bowling alley lots. B efore
they built the barn he asked them to build on the other side of the property. Putting that
barn and playing music 26’ from the property line away from his house and 6’ to the
barn is very intolerable. To his knowledge Stony Point Hills Subdivision is not an
agricultural area. He felt the County judge gave them a raw deal since they have three
3-acre lots. The loud music is constantly causing psychological damage to him and his
family.
Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, said after reviewing the options that staff has
laid out the idea that amplified music for farm workers, not the exempt activity, seems
reasonable to the extent that it is amplified and that means it falls under the County
Noise Ordinance, the decibel ordinance. He encouraged the Commission to consider
carefully how they move forward looking towards the farm wineries and how they
manage noise at the property line decibel level. It seems to be a reasonable recourse.
The Commission discussed the proposal with staff and the public asking questions and
providing comments on the issues.
Ms. McCulley pointed out staff would work on the language that makes the definition
clearer. It has to be active training, not just passive playing music. For it to be
customary staff wants some standards to use.
Mr. Smith asked the Mr. and Mrs. Podraza what time of day does the music start and
when does it quit. Is it usually the sequence?
Ms. Podraza replied that it was so random that it is hard to say. Sometimes it starts on
Sunday morning at 9 a.m. and goes all day. On other days it might not start until 4 p.m.
and it might go to 9 p.m. Her neighbor’s comment to the police was that all of that is
training and it is desensitizing the horses when they are in the field, in the ring and in
the barn. So basically it was just a flat okay whenever they want to do it they can do it.
There was no limit set on her.
Mr. Randolph asked if she shows these horses.
Ms. Podraza replied yes, she does show the horses. She takes the horses to shows
once in a while. However, it just seems excessive that they are subjective this all of the
time. Now that she is going to be retired and be home she just wants to enjoy her
retirement on the property.
Mr. Podraza said he did not see why their neighbor couldn’t desensitize the horses and
still be within the 100’ rule that is applicable right now. If he can hear it at 100’, then the
horses ought to be able to hear it 130’ closer to the speakers. That is just logic in his
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 11, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 PHASE 1 NOISE AMENDMENT (AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION)
5
opinion. This whole thing just blows my mind.
Mr. Franco suggested if the P.A. system is not an issue, then he would not include it at
this point in time. If they need to have the music out the re, then making it comply with
the noise ordinance is the best way to deal with it. If the music has to be loud for
training, then something needs to be done such as putting the horses indoors so it
muffles the noise.
Ms. McCulley noted between now and the public hearing staff should take some sound
readings since they don’t know for sure that it is going to exceed the maximum sound
levels. If it does not, then that would make it a private situation and not a County
regulated situation.
Planning Commission Discussion and Comments:
The Commission discussed and reviewed staff’s suggestions on the following and
provided comments.
1. Clarify that the use of outdoor amplified music for farm workers is not exempt as
an agricultural activity.
2. Clarify that the agricultural exemption relating to the use of outdoor amplified
music and public address systems for working with livestock (horses, cattle, etc.)
be limited as follows:
a. The exemption from the noise regulations for bona fide agricultural activity
ends at 8 p.m. and the applicable maximum sound levels apply at that
time;
b. The exemption only applies when it is related to 1) actively training
livestock and/or handlers/riders or 2) an organized event such as a show.
This sound should not be exempt when the animals are at rest and not
being actively worked or as part of an organized event.
The Commission provided the following suggestions:
Focus on 2b. and the music and not a. as noted above.
If have to have music, then making it comply with the noise ordinance is the best
way to deal with the situation discussed.
Before the public hearing staff will take sound meter readings at the Podraza site
to determine if the music exceeds the ordinance regulations.
Suggested possibility of adding amplified music for farm workers or non
residential guests to condition 1.
It makes sense to apply the same standard as for farm wineries.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 16, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virgin ia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Don Franco, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac)
Lafferty, Vice Chair, and Calvin Morris, Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present. Bruce Dotson was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Chris Perez,
Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning
Administrator; 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.
Item Requesting Deferral:
ZTA-2011-00006 Phase I Noise Amendments
Amend Secs. 4.18.01, Applicability, and Sec. 4.18.05, Exempt sounds, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 4.18.01 to clarify that the noise regulations in
Sec. 4.18 apply to those uses and activities authorized by the Zoning Ordinance and do not apply to
exempt sounds under Sec. 4.18.05 and sounds expressly regulated under County Code § 7 -100 et seq.;
and amend Sec. 4.18.05 to state the exemptions in a manner consisten t with the exemptions in County
Code § 7-106. The full text of the ordinance is available for examination by the public in the offices of the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
(Amelia McCulley)
Mr. Morris noted the first item is a request for deferral of ZTA-2011-00006 Phase I Noise Amendments.
However, they will have comments by staff and then open it up for public comment simply becaus e it has
been advertised.
Ms. McCulley noted that Mr. Cilimberg said this best when he said it is a complex issue and they are
trying to thread the needle. They have probably met on this just about every day since the Planning
Commission discussed it previously. She pointed out Mr. Kamptner said he spent more time on it than the
entire Site Plan Ordinance rewrite. So it is a very complex issue.
Ms. McCulley pointed out by Friday afternoon they had information that was leading them in a slightly
different direction. They are focused on enforceability, treating similar activities similarly, and on not
obstructing bona-fide agricultural operations. When they put all that together with having two different
sets of noise ordinances and two different reviewing agencies with two different standards it gets a little
bit difficult. The other thing that has made it more difficult is that in research they have contacted even
more horse farm owners and the Farm Bureau since the last meeting and there is a pretty broad range in
the use of amplified sound. However, nobody can image the need for loud or prolonged amplified sound
so as to disturb others. So that is what they are focused on.
Continuing Ms. McCulley said they also spent time talking with police about how they enforce the
audibility standard. So at this point they are working on language that will be different than what is in the
packet. The Commission will have a new report and new language that would allow it as long as it is not
a nuisance and will treat it the same whether it is based on an agricultural use or not. Therefore, staff
requests the Commission to defer this until August 6 since more time is needed to address the
enforceability of the proposed regulations.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff from the Commission. There being none, he pointed out staff is
requesting deferral to the August 6, 2013 meeting.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no public comment, the
public hearing was closed and the matter brought before the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner suggested the motion be specific that the deferral would be to August 6.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to defer ZTA-2011-6 Phase I Noise
Amendments to August 6, 2013 as requested by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Dotson absent)
Mr. Morris noted that ZTA-2011-6 was deferred to August 6, 2013.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 Submit to Board
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 6, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August
6, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Don Franco, Calvin Morris,
Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent were Bruce Dotson and Ed
Smith. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia wa s
absent.
Other officials present were Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director
of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Amanda Burbage,
Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; 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.
Deferred Item
ZTA-2011-00006 Phase I Noise Amendments
Amend Secs. 4.18.01, Applicability, and Sec. 4.18.05, Exempt sounds, of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 4.18.01 to
clarify that the noise regulations in Sec. 4.18 apply to those uses and activities
authorized by the Zoning Ordinance and do not apply to exempt sounds under Sec.
4.18.05 and sounds expressly regulated under County Code § 7 -100 et seq.; and
amend Sec. 4.18.05 to state the exemptions in a manner consistent with the
exemptions in County Code § 7-106. The full text of the ordinance is available for
examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in
the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
DEFERRED FROM THE JULY 16, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(Amelia McCulley)
Ms. McCulley presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
She asked Ms. Burbage to pass out a comparison chart of existing and proposed
regulations, which she would go over in the presentation. (Attachment A – Comparison
of Existing versus Proposed Noise Regulations – Available with written minutes in the
office of the clerk)
This is the Phase I of the Noise regulations public hearing. There have been a couple
of meetings that lead up to this. It began with the resolution of intent adopted by the
Board on October 5, 2011. The same time they also directed staff to work on the kind
of accompanying regulation in Chapter 7 of the County Code, Noise Regulati on. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 Submit to Board
2
Planning Commission has discussed the noise ordinance amendment twice, most
recently being on June 11 at a work session. Staff requested deferral until this date
because they wanted to go back and tidy up some things that were not going to work
out well as it was drafted at that point.
It is always important when they do an ordinance amendment to be able to identify why
they are doing it and what they are trying to achieve. She would briefly state that here.
Two of those items are housekeeping, numbers 2 and 3 to provide clarity and
consistency between the two regulations. The focused issue for resolution with this
phase 1 noise amendment relates to the first item. That is clarifying and better
addressing amplified sound associated with agricultural activity.
These are the criteria that the Board has directed us to consider with every ordinance
amendment. As they can see under those criteria there is really no identifiable
detrimental impact from this amendment. So staff has focused on a couple of guiding
principles. She would say a) not obstructing bona -fide agricultural operations. b)
treating similar activities similarly, and c) establishing clear enforcement standards.
Because this was not really straight forward and it could have impact on the bona-fide
agricultural activities, as the Commission knows, staff did some research with the Farm
Bureau, with some local commercial barn owners, and others. In that research staff
found that there is a very broad range of opinions on the use of amplified sound to
condition horses for competition. While there was a broad range of opinions on that
there was a common opinion that all of those who have these commercial barns don’t
want to be a nuisance to their neighbors and do support our draft ordinance and
understand the need to not be a nuisance to their neighbors.
What they are recommending is that amplified sound that is associated with an
agricultural activity no longer be just an open exemption. Instead , staff recommends
that it be treated the same as noise from other types of amplified sound in terms of the
audibility within the dwelling like playing a loud radio or something like that in
somebody’s home. One of the things they had to consider when staff was looking at the
use of amplified sound associated with the bona-fide agricultural use is that under
Chapter 7, which the Police enforce, the officer would have to make what could be a
problematic judgment call as to whether the amplified sound is associated with
agricultural activity. From the difference of opinions about the use of amplified sound
that would be a tough call even amongst equestrians and commercial barn owners in
this community.
Before the Commission is Chapter 18 Zoning Ordinance , which the chart outlines in
green highlight. The current language is worded slightly differen t between the Zoning
regulations and the Chapter 7 regulations. Under Zoning, sounds generated during
agricultural activities would be exempt under the agricultural or silvicultural exemptions.
Under Chapter 7, sound produced during these activities would be exempt as
agriculture. Therefore, they are dividing them out and in the end will be treating them
the same in terms of the list of exemptions. In terms of what is before the Commission
the important thing is they are not proposing any new regulation under the Zoning
Ordinance. Instead it would be addressed under Chapter 7, which the Police enforce ,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 Submit to Board
3
that will be before the Board of Supervisors. She wanted the Commission to see how it
worked out.
What they would do in the beginning is define agricultural activity because right now
there is no definition. The reference would be sound produced by an agricultural
activity. So any agricultural activity involving a device that produces outdo or amplified
music or serving as a public outdoor public address system cannot be audible from
inside a dwelling unit basically on the surrounding property or nearby property that
would be the complaining or receiving property. That is the current standard that police
enforce under Chapter 7. In addition, they have a standard about a distance of 100 feet
or more from the property line. Staff was concerned about using that second standard,
which is listed as small Roman numeral i), because a lot of barns and rings are close to
side and rear property lines. In talking to the police they can be very literal and if they
hear it, then it is a violation. They can often hear it crossing that property line. It would
not be appropriate in terms of trying to pro tect everybody’s rights on adjoining property
that they would hear it inside a dwelling on that adjoining property. So that is what they
are using as our standard. The experts that they consulted do agree with this, think it is
reasonable, and they can work with it.
A couple of things they are proposing with the zoning text amendment before the
Commission are:
- The definition of agricultural activity that would mirror the current one within the
definition section in the zoning ordinance.
- A new listing for outdoor amplified music or outdoor public address system that
clarifies which of the two noise regulations apply. It would be the Chapter 7
noise regulation.
- Having a consistent listing of exemptions between the two regulations, which
they don’t have now.
- Then clarifying which regulation applies where because that has been
problematic and it should not be. It should be easier.
In conclusion, staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval and the
Board of Supervisors adopt the draft ordinance that is found in Attachment D.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph commended staff especially for Chapter 7 to move to a standard that
parallels Potter Stuart’s famous remark about pornography that “I know it when I see it”.
She is saying here that noise is you know it when you hear it. He thinks that is a very
common sense approach. His only concern about the audibility enforcement standard
is she says from inside a dwelling unit. The emphasis is that could be interpreted to
mean the only concern about the application of the standard applies to human beings.
There could very easily be a scenario from the case study that precipitated this if the
neighbor had horses in a barn and there was loud audible noise it could actually
interfere with the normal behavior of the horses. The only thing he would propose is
saying from “inside a habitation unit” instead of calling it a dwelling and hopefully in
most situations noise would not actually interfere with the behavior and the condition of
animals. Animals are very noise sensitive. He would hate to have a new standard
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 Submit to Board
4
where in seeking to protect humans they somehow create inadvertently an opportunity
where animals could be put at risk. That would be his only recommendation.
Otherwise, he thinks the way staff just put together this topology is excellent and very
well done.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Randolph that it took the Wisdom of Solomon to put this
together since he knows what they have been through. The only question he has along
the same lines as Mr. Randolph is u sing the audibility standard of inside the dwelling.
He asked if that means his patio, which is outside that realm, is open game for it.
Ms. McCulley replied yes it would. She thinks what works now in most of the loud
music complaints is that it is an either/or. It is either inside the dwelling or within 100’ of
the property line.
Mr. Loach pointed out what he is saying is that not within 100’ feet of the property line
but either inside or in the proximity to the home so that essentially he could use his patio
or deck and that would be along the same lines as the primary dwelling unit. That
would be his only concern.
Ms. McCulley said she appreciates what he is saying and she does want the opportunity
to consider that and discuss with Mr. Kamptner before they move forward to the Board.
They were trying not to introduce a new and different standard for the police to enforce.
Mr. Loach said he understands. However, he thinks the concerns they have heard from
the public is they cannot go out and enjoy their backyards in the evening because there
is a wedding going on at the farm winery next door and the music is too loud.
Essentially what they are doing is chasing them inside to get away from the music and
then using it as a standard. He was not sure that excluding the deck and the patio area
in these homes adjacent is worse. He understands the 100’ from the property line
because of the alignment of some of the areas where the noise occurs. But, that said is
just one observation.
Ms. McCulley thanked him for his comment.
There being no further comments, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited
public comment.
Bonnie Podraza said first she wanted to thank Ms McCulley for all of the work she has
done by coming out to her home, hearing the music, and all the foot work. They really
appreciate it. While they are happy to not be able to hear the music in their home it
would be awesome if they could be able to sit on their deck, also. As it stands now they
don’t open the windows because they cannot be in the house without hearing the music.
They definitely cannot sit on the patio or in the sunroom and enjoy that because they
can hear the music. Walking to her mother’s house in the back, which is 200’ and
closer than their house at 250’, they definitely can hear the music in her house.
However, if they keep their windows closed it has gotten a little better. But, they cannot
sit outside on the patio or enjoy the outdoors. But, they really appreciate everything that
Ms. McCulley has done to help them. They appreciate any consideration that can be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 Submit to Board
5
given in this case.
Mr. Loach asked what is the frequency or how often does this occur.
Ms. Podraza replied that today at quarter of 4 they were getting ready to come to the
meeting and the music was playing loudly. It is very sporadic. It could be 9 p.m. at
night or 8 a.m. in the morning. It is almost every day. She thanked the Commission for
their consideration.
Mr. Felix Podraza thanked the Commission for listening to their concerns about the
noise problem. It would be nice to have some kind of venue to come to and respond to
the concerns they have about the music. The judgment kind of silenced everybody and
took away all their ability to have anybody come help them. So whatever they can do
would be fine. In the house not hearing the music is n ice. However, it would be very
nice to be able to sit on the patio and enjoy it. A home is a man’s castle and they would
like to be able to enjoy their castle in peace.
Mr. Randolph said he had a question for Mr. Podraza. He asked if the proposed
amendment is passed what is his expectation as to what his neighbor will do with the
amendment as written. If they do not include a section that involves the patio do es he
think the neighbor would adjust the volume or, would this effectively forestall them using
music at random times as a way to harass them.
Mr. Podraza replied hopefully it will help accomplish something, but he did not know
because he could not predict his neighbor. They pretty much play the music every day.
There are signs that it is a hate crime in his opinion. He is optimistic and hopes for the
best since any kind of help is better than none.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring it
back to the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Lafferty said he would certainly like to incorporate what Mr. Loach was saying if they
have a deck or patio they should be able to enjoy that. He assumed there was some
way to work that out
Mr. Kamptner replied yes. That would be in the Chapter 7 regulations, which the Board
of Supervisors would take final action on. They can certainly look at 100’ distance that
they have used for the other nuisance noise provisions. They thought that was going to
be problematic. However, if they tied it to a certain distance from the dwelling itself that
would be easier for the officers in the field to be able to administer. That is one of the
key things they are trying to do.
Mr. Franco asked in Chapter 7 the standards for inside the house can the windows be
open or do the windows have to be closed.
Mr. Kamptner replied it needs to be audible 4’ from the wall with the windows and doors
closed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 6, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZTA-2011-00006 Submit to Board
6
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of the
draft ordinance in Attachment D for ZTA-2011-00006 Phase 1 Noise Amendments.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Smith and Dotson absent)
Mr. Morris noted that a recommendation for approval of ZTA -2011-00006 would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined.
Ms. McCulley noted it was tentatively scheduled for September 4. She asked Mr.
Kamptner if they make it more restrictive if they need to readvertise and move the public
hearing for the Board.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the zoning ordinance is not changing. It would just be the
Chapter 7 regulations and it has not been advertised.
Ms. McCulley noted that ZTA-2011-00006 would be heard at a day meeting with the
Board in September.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Library First Floor Lease
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on a Proposed Lease for Use of Space in
the First Floor of the New Crozet Library
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Catlin, Henry, Shadman
PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin, Trevor Henry
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 3, 2013, the Board directed staff to move forward on several tracks regarding use of the first floor space at the
new Crozet library. Specifically, the Board endorsed the blending of a proposed retail operation that would generate
significant community and visitor interest and engagement with a tourism -oriented use in the remaining space on the first
floor. Staff has negotiated terms of a proposed lease with a private sector tenant for a portion of the space. Virginia Code
§ 15.2-1800 requires that the County hold a public hearing prior to the lease of County property.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3 - Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
The Office of Facilities Development issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to assess the possibilities of a private sector
venture that could meet the criteria established for use of the space, which included: creating foot traffic/pedestrian activ ity
for downtown Crozet, creating a lively street front presence for this important frontage on Crozet Avenue, and ensuring
that space usage would be compatible with the library’s mission and operations. The first floor space is designed to allow
the space to be divided into two independent use areas. The RFP process resulted in a proposal for a retail use that
would occupy the larger (1,697 gross square feet) space at fair market rental value and would meet all of the established
criteria.
The attached proposed lease (Attachment A) between the County and Crozet Running, LLC includes the following
provisions:
The proposed lease would have an initial five-year term, beginning on October 1, 2013, unless sooner terminated
or extended, and may be renewed for an additional period as may be mutually agreed;
After October 1, 2014, either party may terminate the lease upon 90 days advance written notice to the other
party; and
The County would provide water, sewer, electricity, and heating and cooling as part of Tenant’s r ent, as well as
custodial services to common areas.
The attached proposed lease has been signed by Crozet Running, LLC and has been approved as to form and substance
by the County Attorney’s Office.
If the Board approves the attached lease, staff would proceed with finalizing details for the tourism-related use proposed
for the other space on the first floor of the new library.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The lease is expected to generate $31,479 during the first year (from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014). Th is
amount equates to $18.55 per gross square foot. That amount would be indexed for inflation for subsequent lease years.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) authorizin g the
County Executive to sign the proposed lease, in a form approved by the County Attorney, on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Crozet Library Crozet Running Lease
B – Resolution
Return to agenda
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT OF LEASE
BETWEEN ALBEMARLE COUNTYAND CROZET RUNNING, LLC.
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the best interest of the County to lease a portion of
the space on the first floor of the new Crozet Library, located at 2020 Library Avenue, Crozet,
VA 22932 (TMP 056A2-01-00-01800), to Crozet Running, LLC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute an Agreement of Lease between
the County of Albemarle and Crozet Running, LLC., in a form approved by the County
Attorney.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of
______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Tourism Zone Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on a proposed ordinance to establish a
tourism zone in the Crozet development area
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Catlin
PRESENTER (S): Catlin, Kamptner
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The State has established a financing program (the Virginia Tourism Development Financing Program, hereinafter,
the “Program”) for qualifying Virginia tourism development projects (hereinafter, “Project”). The Program enables
localities to provide economic and regulatory incentives for Projects that are identified as critical to local economic
development and are developed in partnership with developers, localities, financial institutions, the Virginia Tourism
Corporation and the Virginia Resources Authority.
The Program was introduced to the Board at its April 3, 2013 meeting by County staff and representatives from the
Virginia Tourism Corporation and the Virginia Resources Authority. During that discussion, the Board directed staff to
provide additional information, including specific critical tourism infrastructure deficiencies that might be appropriate
for consideration. At a subsequent presentation to the Board on June 5, 2013, staff recommended that the Board
consider an ordinance to establish a tourism zone in the Crozet Development Area for the purpose of providing a gap
financing mechanism authorized by Virginia Code § 58.1-3851.1 for qualifying Projects. Qualifying Projects would be
those identified as critical and which would address specific critical tourism infrastructure deficiencies under criteria to
be established by the Board in conjunction with satisfying all other requirements of Virginia Code § 58.1 -3851.1.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3 - Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) establishes the boundaries of the tourism zone, which are coterminous with
the boundaries of the Crozet Development Area, and names the tourism zone the “Crozet Tourism Zone.” As outlined
during the Board’s June 5 discussion, staff recommended that the tourism zone be est ablished in Crozet because an
analysis of tourism assets and deficiencies revealed a critical lack of sufficient options for lodging in the western area
of the County where there are significant tourism assets, including Monticello Artisan Trail sites, win eries, breweries,
County parks, the Shenandoah National Park, Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway, orchards , and other
agritourism attractions.
The proposed ordinance also states that the purpose of the tourism zone will be to provide a gap financing
mechanism authorized by Virginia Code § 58.1-3851.1 for those qualifying Projects. Virginia Code § 58.1-3851.1
defines “gap financing" to mean “debt financing to compensate for a shortfall in project funding between the expected
development costs of an authorized tourism project and the debt and equity capital provided by the developer of the
project.” Under a gap financing program, a Project is entitled to 1% of the State sales taxes generated on the Project
site, matched by equal amounts from future local sales tax revenues or an equivalent amount of other local tax
revenues and funds from the developer. This funding is applied to the payment of principal and interest on the
qualified gap financing of up to 20% of the Project’s total cost. Because only new tax revenues are used, the Program
does not erode the locality’s existing tax revenues. At the April 3, 2013 Board meeting, the Virginia Resources
Authority representative demonstrated that the County’s revenue generated by a Project site (real estate tax, food and
beverage tax, business personal property tax, and transient occupancy tax) would significantly exceed the County’s
1% contribution. Any potential Project to be considered for the Program will be evaluated very carefully to identify the
full tax revenue potential and the projects return on investment.
AGENDA TITLE: Tourism Zone Ordinance
September 4, 2013
Page 2
The proposed ordinance is the first of several steps required in order to establish a tourism zone. The next step will be
to develop a Tourism Development Plan, which will be reviewed and certified by the Virginia Tourism Corporation
(VTC). The purpose of the plan is to: (1) identify the deficiency a proposed Project would fill; (2) provide accurate
representations of the County’s current tourism products, assets, infrastructure, marketing efforts , and visitor profiles;
and (3) show the return on investment the proposed Project would have to the local tourism economy. Upon approval
of the Tourism Development Plan by VTC, the Board must adopt the plan by ordinance. VTC will advise the County
throughout the approval process.
After the Tourism Development Plan is adopted, the Board then must consider adopting an ordinance authorizing a
specific Project. Although many types of tourism-related projects may be considered for the Program, the Board has
the absolute ability to set clear criteria for Projects it will consider. Any Project that is proposed for this Program must
be identified as critical to meet a specific deficiency in the Tourism Development Plan in order to be eligible for the
Program.
The final step in the process requires the Board to adopt an ordinance establishing a local match to the State sales
and use tax revenues by designating at least 1% local sales and use tax, or an equivalent amount of other local tax
revenues, generated by transactions taking place on the Project site.
BUDGET IMPACT:
In order for any future projects to be considered for the Virginia Tourism Development Financing Program, a Tourism
Development Plan must be filed with the Virginia Tourism Corporation at the cost of $500. Any matching contribution
to a future Project would be offset by tax revenue generated by the Project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed Tourism Zone ordinance (Attachment A), which
includes the tourism zone map.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Tourism Zone Ordinance
Return to agenda
Draft: 08/16/13
1
ORDINANCE NO. 13-A(__)
AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A TOURISM ZONE PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE § 58.1-
3851 COTERMINOUS WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CROZET DEVELOPMENT AREA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that, pursuant to
the authority contained in Virginia Code § 58.1-3851, a tourism zone is hereby established on those
lands within the boundaries of the tourism zone shown on the map attached as Exhibit A, which is
incorporated herein as a part of this ordinance, and which boundaries are conterminous with the
boundaries of the Crozet Development Area as depicted in the Crozet Master Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the tourism zone established by this ordinance shall be named the
“Crozet Tourism Zone”; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the purpose of the tourism zone will be to provide a gap financing
mechanism authorized by Virginia Code § 58.1-3851.1 for those qualifying tourism development
projects identified as critical and which address specific critical tourism infrastructure deficiencies under
criteria to be established by the Board of Supervisors in conjunction with satisfying all other
requirements of Virginia Code § 58.1-3851.1.
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 _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Craddock ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
ROCKFISH GAP TPKECROZETAVE THREENOTCH'D RDJARMANSGAPRD
PARK RD
T
HURSTON DR
B U C KRDLANETOWNRDRAILROA
D
A
VE
HALFMILEBRANCHRDO
R
C
H
A
R
DDR
C L I NGLN
M
I
NTSPRIN
G
S
R
D
P
A
R
K
V
I
E
WDRHALC YO N D R
GOLF D R
LAKETREELN BR
OWN
S
G
A
P
T
P
K
E
STGEORGEAVE
H IL L S B O R O L N
P ARKRIDGEDRFOXDALELNSHEL
T
O
N
M
ILLRDROSELANDFARMHIGHSTMARYMARTFARMRDWHITEHALLRD HE
D
G
E
R
O
WL
N
BROOKW OO D RD GATEPOSTLNHADENLN¡682
¡680
¡691
¡635
¡810
}ÿ240
£¤250
RoadsRailroadsCrozet Tourism Zone
Prepared by Albem arle CountyDivison of Inform at ion ServicesMap created by Elise Hackett , August 2013.
Note: The map elements depicted are graph ic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2012 µ0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Crozet Tourism Zone
Request for Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to Use
Portion of Water Base Rate for Green Infrastructure to Reduce Sediment in the South Fork Rivanna River
Watershed
By
The Center for Natural Capital
Executive Summary
The 2009 South Fork Rivanna Stewardship Task Force Report describes sedimentation as the greatest threat to
the reservoir. The report notes that future capacity in the main stem is expected to decline to 16% of original
storage by 2059. The Task Force listed the beneficial uses the reservoir provides; drinking water supply,
drinking water quality, rowing, fishing, paddling, education, and aesthetics. Negative impacts on these uses such
as clogging of the water supply intake were also listed. The Task Force concluded their report with a
recommendation to investigate selective dredging. A dredging feasibility study was completed by RWSA in
2010. The study provided an estimated volume and cost of sediment that could be removed. In July 2011 the
RWSA Board approved $3.5 million to dredge portions of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Dredging
procurement and implementation is now underway. This dredging would restore a significant portion of the
original storage volume of the reservoir.
In 2010, the Virginia Department of Forestry and the Center for Natural Capital1, working in cooperation with a
variety of local entities including Albemarle County, City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia, Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, and local
environmental and economic development organizations, launched a pilot project called Forests to Faucets. The
purpose of the Forests to Faucets (F2F) Initiative is to determine if increased forest cover or Green Infrastructure
could be a cost effective approach to reduce sedimentation as a management strategy for a rehabilitated South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir, when compared to dredging or Grey Infrastructure2. The program also created and
tested a voluntary landowner tree planting payment process. An interim Forests to Faucets report completed in
2012 showed that the lifetime cost3 to remove a ton of sediment through new forest cover is roughly the same as
through dredging, and when considering other co-benefits, such as nutrient reduction, increased habitat,
increased summer baseflow, aesthetics, etc., may be less than dredging.
The Center now proposes that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority study the use of Green Infrastructure, in
addition to Grey Infrastructure, as a cost effective Capital Expenditure to reduce future sedimentation. The
purposes of the study would be to:
• Confirm the Center’s Green Infrastructure Sediment Reduction Efficacy Estimates
• Determine a base rate Green Infrastructure allocation formula
The Center suggests that the County Board of Supervisors and City Council request RWSA to move forward
with the proposed study, pending availability of grant funds to support the effort. Green infrastructure funding
by water/waterwater utilities is a considered by some foundations to be a “breakthrough” type of water security
initiative. It is likely that grant resources would be available to support this effort should the City and County
support the study.
1 The Center for Natural Capital (www.naturalcapital.us), formerly the organizations Public Policy Virginia & Conserv, is a
501 c-3 charitable applied research and education organization, based in Orange, Virginia, focused on the use of economic
development through ecosystem health in four program areas; energy, rivers, landscape, and people.
2 Grey Infrastructure is conventional water and wastewater storage, drainage, and treatment systems (i.e. dredging, dams,
pipes, tanks, water and sewage filtration machinery and chemical processes). Green Infrastructure is forests, natural
areas, bio-filtration, ponds, wetlands, rain gardens and other natural land and plant based ecological treatment systems and
processes.
3 Lifetime cost is the capital and maintenance cost of a practice (i.e. dredging, tree planting) to remove or prevent an
amount of sediment.
Background
Forests and wetlands provide many essential services to our communities. These natural ecosystems filter the
water we drink, protect us from flooding, sustain summer river and streamflows, and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife. A concept of thinking of these natural ecosystems as a form of green infrastructure has recently
emerged, as concrete and steel, or grey infrastructure, has become increasingly expensive to build and maintain.
“Green Infrastructure” is made up of the interconnected network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife
habitats, and other natural areas; greenways, parks, and other conservation lands; working farms, ranches and
forests; and wilderness and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes,
sustain air and water resources and contribute to health and quality of life (McDonald, Benedict, and O’Conner,
2005). “Grey Infrastructure” is conventional piped drainage and water treatment systems (i.e. dredging, dams,
pipes, tanks, conventional treatment systems including energy-intensive water treatment systems and processes
such as membranes and reverse osmosis). Now, in some leading edge communities in the U.S., with aging grey
infrastructure and increasing fiscal austerity, public facilities managers are recommending capital investments in
green infrastructure to complement the services received from grey infrastructure, to achieve least cost solutions
to meet water challenges of the 21st century.
One form of Green Infrastructure, forest cover, is widely understood to provide the lowest pollution load to
streams and rivers, among all land cover types (commercial, residential, etc.). Forest cover for decades has been
thought to be a “good idea” for water supply reservoir watersheds. However, what had not been understood
were the quantitative benefits of Green Infrastructure (forest cover) relative to merits of Grey Infrastructure
(dredging). The Center for Natural Capital, an economic development non-profit organization based in Orange,
Virginia, completed a study for the Virginia Department of Forestry in 2012 that showed for the first time that
over several decades, specific forms of Green Infrastructure, specifically tree planting and forest conservation
easements, have a lifetime cost effectiveness at least equal to and perhaps greater than dredging.
The Challenges
Roughly 25% of the sediment that has entered the South Fork Reservoir is from erosion of the watershed’s
landscape. We call this primary erosion. Roughly 75% of the sediment is from land disturbance occurring
decades and centuries ago and on-going in-stream loss. We call this secondary erosion. New forest cover, one
form of Green Infrastructure, can reduce primary erosion entering the reservoir. Dredging, one form of Grey
Infrastructure, can be used to remove both primary and secondary erosion from the reservoir. Dredging,
however, does nothing to address one of the causes of sedimentation, eroding land cover. A long range approach
to sediment reduction, including both dredging (effect) and tree planting (cause) is proposed as the optimum
long term cost-effective strategy (Center for Natural Capital, 2012).
An additional challenge is the difficulty of achieving further pollution reduction from rural lands via new
environmental regulations. New regulations are increasingly difficult to implement due to compliance and
oversight costs and public concern about increasing government oversight.
Proposal to Address Challenges
A cost effective long range green and grey infrastructure complimentary strategy to address the cause and effect
of sedimentation in the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir is proposed. In addition to ongoing dredging, a
complementary voluntary tree planting and forest conservation program would be created and paid for though
reallocation of a small portion of the water base rate used for dredging. A Green/Grey Infrastructure Capital
Planning Tool created and tested by the Center on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir showed that a mix of tree
planting, forest conservation easements, and dredging was the most cost effective method to maintain a
rehabilitated reservoir. Specific findings included:
• Tree planting in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed has similar impact on reservoir lifetime
as does dredging for approximately the same expenditures during a 30 year planning horizon.
• The lifetime cost effectiveness of tree planting as compared to dredging ranges from approximately the
same to significantly greater, due to sediment load reduction that continues beyond the 30 year planning
horizon, depending on the likelihood of reversion of areas planted with trees to another land use.
• Forest conservation easements have a high lifetime cost effectiveness to mitigate future increases in
sedimentation when forestland conversion to another land use is certain.
Funds created via the Green Infrastructure portion of the base rate would be used in a voluntary program to pay
rural landowners to increase or conserve forest cover. The F2F pilot program showed that landowners in the
Rivanna River Basin will accept payments to establish and maintain trees through 20 year forest establishment
contracts and enhanced conservation easements at unit rates similar to conservation funds provided by USDA.
Benefits of the proposed strategy include:
• non-regulatory
• no increased cost to ratepayers (after the cost of rehabilitating the current reservoir)
• potential least cost sediment reduction strategy for primary erosion for County and City taxpayers
• incentives for rural landowners in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed
• conservation benefits including nutrient reduction, increased habitat, increased summer baseflow, &
aesthetics
A study is needed to determine an optimum Green and Grey Infrastructure allocation formula. Deliverables from
the study are expected to include:
• Technical review of the Center’s research on the cost effectiveness of green infrastructure (tree planting
and forest conservation easements) as compared to dredging
• Optimum base rate allocation formulas for green and grey infrastructure to reduce sediment at least cost
The study is estimated to cost $300,000 and take three years to complete, by a multi-disciplinary team of
engineers, economists, and environmental scientists.
What Other Communities Are Doing
Communities on the east and west coast are now investing in green infrastructure. Portland, Maine and the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission in Maryland are reallocating baseline budgets for source water
protection and financing it through approaches similar to the proposed revenue structure. Other communities
such as New York City and Raleigh, N.C., have funded Green Infrastructure (permanent protection of watershed
forest lands) in lieu of additional Grey Infrastructure (water treatment plant) capital expenditures. Raleigh
charges 10 cents per 1000 gallons to pay for watershed protection (WRI Issue Brief #9, Feb. 2012).
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) is working with member communities such as Denver and
Philadelphia on green infrastructure to protect water supply watersheds (Solutions Journal, Feb. 2013).
Recommendation
The Center recommends that Albemarle County and Charlottesville request RWSA to conduct a study on use of
a portion of the water base rate for Green Infrastructure Capital Expenditures. The study will be predicated on
the availability of foundation funding for consultants and staff time from sources other than the City, County,
and RWSA.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Virginia Stormwater Management Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review mandated stormwater program in advance of
proposed ordinance amendment and implementation plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Shadman, Brooks, Harper
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 4, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Largely in response to Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), the Virginia Stormwater
Management Act was significantly revised to enhance stormwater regulations and to set clear mandates for local
governments. In response to this new law, the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board (VSWCB) promulgated new
regulations. The purpose of this Board work session is to review the elements of the Virginia Stormwater Management
Program (VSMP) that the County is required to submit to the VSWCB by December 15, 2013, and staff’s plan for
responding to this mandate. Over the last several months, staff has provided background information and visions for a
water resource program that responds to both the new State mandates and the County’s goals as stated in current policy
(Attachments A and B). The County’s response to the VSMP mandates will not preclude it from later considering
additional programs that address the County’s goals, and staff plans to resume that effort after the Board provides
direction on this program.
While a hyperlink to the regulations is provided (VSMP Permit Regulations), the reader is advised that the regulations are
over 160 pages in length and can be somewhat difficult to follow without significant background research into Virginia
stormwater law. Staff has attempted to distill the regulations into 2 pages that summarize the County’s mandates and a
recommended response. As with any summary of this type, this report attempts to focus on the key points but cannot fully
address the wide array of details associated with this program.
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:
Required County Response
By December 15, 2013, the County is required to submit the following to the VSWCB:
A draft ordinance supported by the Board that addresses the requirements of the regulations as outlined in the
Virginia Administrative Code (4VAC 50-60-148 and 4VAC 50-60-150).
A funding and staffing plan that supports the full implementation of the ordinance (4VAC 50-60-150).
Policies and procedures to ensure full implementation of the ordinance (4VAC 50-60-150).
Details on each of these elements is provided below.
Required Draft Ordinance
The draft ordinance must address the following nine requirements:
Identification of authority. Identification of the authority accepting complete registration statements (pertaining
to discharges from regulated construction activities) and to complete plan reviews, plan approvals,
inspections, and enforcement. The County’s Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) already contains many of
these provisions and they will be updated to incorporate the VSMP Regulations.
Provisions for reviewing and approving erosion and sediment control plans. The WPO already addresses this
requirement.
Provisions to ensure compliance with the VSMP Regulations pertaining to Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans, Stormwater Management Plans, and Pollution Prevention Plans. While the County has a stormwater
management requirement in its current WPO, this requirement will be greatly expanded under new State laws,
AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Stormwater Management Program
September 4, 2013
Page 2
and the County is assigned the responsibility for pollution prevention plans that were previously administered
by the State.
Requirements for inspections and monitoring by the developer/property owner. This provision is part of the
transfer of the stormwater and pollution prevention plans to the County. While the program makes the
developer responsible for regularly inspecting the site and ensuring compliance, the County now has a
responsibility for assuring compliance.
Requirements for long-term inspection and maintenance of stormwater management facilities. The County
already requires maintenance agreements as part of its approvals, but this provision includes additional
inspection requirements for future property owners. Staff anticipates this will prove difficult to enforce with
smaller residential developments and may generate future demands for the County to assume responsibility
for these facilities.
Collection and distribution of fees. While the WPO already includes fees and fee collection procedures, the
VSMP Regulations provide for new fees to offset the additional program costs. The VSMP Regulations also
include a requirement that part of collected fees with this program must be transferred to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for administering state program oversight. Thus, fees included in
the ordinance to offset costs must be determined in anticipation that 28% of most new fees will be transferred
to DEQ.
Provisions for enforcement and civil penalties. The WPO already includes provisions for this, but they will
need to be significantly revised to include the new required provisions.
Provisions for bonding construction activities to ensure the County has a funding source if it proves necessary
for the County to revoke permits and stabilize the site. The County already has this program in place. Staff
notes that many of the current state limitations for a bond program remain in place.
Provisions for record keeping and reporting to DEQ on program compliance. Community Development
already manages this program, but the regulations add additional steps that must be followed.
Required Funding and Staffing Plan
While the VSMP Regulations include proposed fees, the County has flexibility to adopt fees up to complete cost
recovery. Additionally, despite repeated staff requests to the Commonwealth for estimates of typical resource
requirements, no guidance on resource requirements has been provided to local governments. As such, staff is
required to estimate anticipated resource demands for new programs for which it has limited or no experience in
administering.
There are two parts to the County’s program cost estimate. As addressed in the County’s Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) permit, General Services has provided a budget request that addresses the long-term inspection
and maintenance program. For new program costs associated with construction, Community Development staff has
estimated workload increases based on the current number of applications per year. Assuming the current rate of
applications is maintained, staff estimates that this program will require one additional plan review engineer and one
and one-half additional inspectors starting with implementation of the new ordinance. That would increase engineering
staff from the current 4 FTE to 5 FTE and WPO inspectors from the current 3½ FTEs to 5 FTEs. Staff also anticipates
this program will require one additional inspector in FY16, bringing the number of inspectors to 6 FTEs. The FY16
increase is planned to accommodate program growth as more new projects are subject to the new requirements and
fewer projects are eligible to be grandfathered under the current requirements. This equates to an estimated cost
increase above current levels of approximately $182,000 in FY15 and $251,000 in FY16.
It is possible for the County to offset some or all of the additional costs through development fees established in this
ordinance. When the WPO fees were last updated, the Board established a policy of recovering approximately one-
half of the program costs through fees. By considering the fees allowed in the VSMP Regulations and the number of
current applications each year, staff estimates those fee amounts will generate approximately $180,000 in new
revenue per year. Transferring 28% of that amount to DEQ, as required by the VSMP Regulations, would leave the
County with approximately $130,000 in net revenue. With the estimated program cost increase for FY 15 and 16, the
expected net revenue would maintain compliance with the current policy of recovering one-half of the costs through
fees. Assuming the Board wishes to maintain that current policy, staff recommends this approach. Staff notes the
County may recover additional revenue each year beyond FY16 from permit modifications or renewals, but those
amounts do not appear to be appreciable in FY15 or FY16.
AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Stormwater Management Program
September 4, 2013
Page 3
Required Policies and Procedures
Through the Design Standards Manual, the County already has most policies and procedures in place for
implementation of the new ordinance, though some updates for the stormwater provisions will be required. Staff has
noted two areas where the regulations require new policy.
Towns. The town of Scottsville has the option to be covered by the County’s program or to create its own
program. Scottsville officials have expressed an interest in the County administering the program for the town,
and staff does not believe this would result in a significant change in workload. By State law, this would
include the part of the town within Fluvanna County.
Grandfathering. Staff notes the VSMP Regulations have a very generous grandfathering provision. Under
that provision, any valid plan of development that was approved prior to July 1, 2012 would be grandfathered
from these new regulations until June 30, 2019. For Albemarle County, this would include a number of larger
rezonings in addition to site plans and subdivision plats already extended to June 30, 2017 under separate
action of the General Assembly.
Summary
As outlined above, staff anticipates presenting to the Board for its review in November: 1) a draft ordinance; 2) a plan
for funding and staffing the new program; and 3) recommended policies and procedures for implementing the new
ordinance. The Board will not be required to adopt the ordinance at that time, but an endorsement by the Board of the
three listed documents is required before they are forwarded to the VSWCB prior to December 15, 2013. The
VSWCB will review the documents to verify compliance with its regulations and will advise the County whether the
County’s documents are in compliance or additional changes are required before the Board’s adoption. Following the
VSWCB’s review, staff will ask the Board to schedule the ordinance for public hearing before April 1, 2014, so that the
adopted ordinance may be submitted to the VSWCB by that date.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As noted above, this new program is estimated to increase current program costs by approximately $182,000 in FY15
and by $251,000 in FY16. Some or all of this increased cost can be offset by new revenue associated with
development fees. Staff is proposing to use the fees as provided in the VSMP Regulations and anticipates those fees
will generate approximately $130,000 in net revenue for the County in FY15 and FY16. Additionally, the General
Services Department budget currently includes MS4 permit costs which include overseeing the long-term inspection
program, which also is part of the VSMP permit. Final estimates of the impact on General Services are currently being
finalized and will be reviewed further with the Board on Wednesday. Estimating this amount is challenging because of
the multiples Federal and State mandates being imposed on the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has provided this information to assist the Board in understanding the general requirements of the proposed
ordinance, funding and staffing the program, and the policies and procedures associated with the program.
In addition, staff has proposed a fee structure consistent with current policy for WPO fees. When the Board considers
adopting the ordinance, it may adopt lower fees than advertised, but higher fees would require the ordinance
amendment be re-advertised. Therefore, staff requests that the Board advise staff if it would like staff to draft an
ordinance amendment that would more fully offset the increased costs of the program.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – July 3, 2013 Executive Summary, Water Resources Program
B – August 7, 2013 Executive Summary, Water Resources Program
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Water Resources Program Development
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to discuss the County’s stream health
goals, and funding and implementing programs to achieve
those goals.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Shadman, Brooks, and Harper
PRESENTER (S): Greg Harper and Glenn Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 3, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
County policies, such as those included in the Strategic Plan and the Comprehensive Plan have set aggressive goals for
protecting natural resources, including water resources. Moreover, various new State mandates – including the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL – require that the County’s existing programs be expanded and new programs introduced. In
anticipation of these program development needs, the Board has indicated a desire to consider establishing a dedicated
funding mechanism. These circumstances create an opportunity for the Board to consider, as a whole, the County’s long-
term water resources objectives, the level and timing of future program implementation, and an appropriate funding
arrangement.
Due to the breadth and complexity of the topic, staff thinks that the Board would best benefit from a series of work session
discussions over the course of the next four to six months. Accordingly, staff proposes the following discussion guidelines:
July 3rd Work Session:
Where We Are Now? Review County policies, currently implemented programs, stream health and impairments, and
new mandates. This work session is informational and no direction is requested.
Future Work Sessions:
Where Do We Want To Be? Taking into consideration policies, mandates, and stream conditions, discuss and agree
on 20-year water resource objectives and metrics.
How Do We Get There? Based on the proposed objectives, determine the level of program implementation
necessary to meet the 20-year objectives. The Board will have the opportunity to consider those programs required
and to determine if the objectives need refinement.
How Do We Pay For It? Based on the earlier outcomes, declare a preference for a funding arrangement suitable to
support the future programs. Staff will then proceed with developing a detailed funding arrangement for future
consideration by the Board.
Finally, recognizing the complexity of these decisions, staff realizes that additional opportunities for discussion and
consideration may be required so that specific objectives can be tested against resource requirements and then revisited
and modified as determined by the Board. In that case, it may prove necessary to divide this process into stages, allowing
the time-sensitive mandate changes to move forward more quickly to meet prescribed deadlines.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4a: Work in conjunction with key stakeholders to protect the health of our local waterways and other critical
natural resources.
DISCUSSION: [The following is a summary of a more extensive report included as Attachment A.]
County Policy
Albemarle County has long considered the protection of natural resources, including water resources, a primary goal.
Beyond the current Strategic Plan goal stated above, the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan
includes the goal to “Preserve and manage the County’s natural resources in order to protect the environment and
conserve resources for future use.” In support of this goal, the Natural Resources section includes 18 objectives and
45 strategies related to protecting water resources, more than any other element of the Comprehensive Plan. In
AGENDA TITLE: Water Resources Program Development
July 3, 2013
Page 2
addition, the County’s citizen surveys have regularly listed protecting water resources as one of the most important
functions of local government with comparable importance to that of police and fire protection. The County’s
commitment in this regard is demonstrated by establishing a number of programs beyond what is required including
the construction and maintenance of regional stormwater maintenance facilities, and the adoption of certain land
disturbance regulations related to stream buffers, critical slopes, erosion and sediment control, stormwater
management, and groundwater management.
Current Programs
Even with reduced overall staffing capacity, the County currently implements a meaningful water resources program
employing the equivalent of approximately 10 FTEs at an annual cost of approximately $900,000. Multiple
departments are responsible for implemented program elements. A staff organizational chart focused on water
resources is included as Attachment B. The programs currently implemented are as diverse as public education,
regulating development, emergency spill response, and capital projects. A comprehensive listing of water resources
protection programs and activities is included as Attachment C.
Stream Health and Impairments
Despite the County’s commitment to water resources protection, the majority of streams in the County would likely fail
Virginia’s standard for stream health and would be considered impaired. Streams are assessed by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) using chemical and biological data collected by DEQ and by various other
organizations. DEQ’s 2010 Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report indicates that, of the streams within
Albemarle County sufficiently assessed to make a determination, approximately 70% are impaired. This conclusion is
consistent with a 2011 StreamWatch Land Use Study estimating that – based on the relationship between land use
and stream health – 70% of the streams within the Rivanna River watershed would fail Virginia’s standard.
StreamWatch further predicts that future land use intensification in rural areas will lead to a reduction in the number of
healthy streams by about one-third over the next 20 years.
DEQ is required to prepare plans to restore all impaired waters through a process commonly referred to as a TMDL
(“Total Maximum Daily Load”), which means the maximum pollution amount a waterbody can assimilate over a given
time period while still remaining healthy. However, the term is also used to describe the entire analysis and planning
process for assessing the stream. The process includes identifying impaired waters, determining the pollution limits for
these waters, and developing an implementation plan to reduce pollution loads to the determined limits.
Implementation plans typically include an assignment of pollution reductions to the sources of the pollutant, including
urban areas.
Many waters within the County are included on DEQ’s impaired waters list (see the map included as Attachment D).
However, implementation plans have only been developed for some of these impaired waters, including the Rivanna
River, Meadow Creek, and Moores Creek. The County’s role in restoring impaired waters will be briefly discussed in
the following section on new mandates.
Scientific research indicates that stream health is directly correlated with land use. Highly forested areas generally
produce the healthiest streams. But as land use intensifies, the amount and intensity of runoff increases and pollutants
from the watershed are more easily conveyed into streams. As one would expect, urban streams are generally the
most impaired. But many rural streams have deteriorated as well. StreamWatch found that, even for land use
categories averaging 70% forest cover and having only a single home for every 17 acres, more than half of the
streams were impaired. Fortunately, it is more likely that these marginally impaired streams can be restored to a
healthy condition than highly urban streams where it would be very difficult to bring them into attainment with Virginia’s
standards.
New Mandates
As part of State and regional efforts to address stormwater pollution and impaired waters in Albemarle County, the
County has been delegated the responsibility to implement the following new or enhanced programs:
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit update – Beginning July 1, 2013, the County will be
regulated under a new 5-year permit through DEQ as the “operator” of an MS4. Multiple program elements must
be substantially updated to be consistent with new requirements, including many related to addressing stream
impairments such as TMDLs.
AGENDA TITLE: Water Resources Program Development
July 3, 2013
Page 3
TMDLs – Under the authority of the new MS4 permit, the County is required to develop, by July 1, 2015, a detailed
action plan to achieve pollutant load reductions allocated to the County’s urban areas as part of the Chesapeake
Bay TMDL process. In addition, by July 1, 2016 the County must develop action plans for any local TMDLs that
have associated load reduction allocations; these presently include an e. Coli reduction for the Rivanna River and
some of its tributaries and a sediment reduction for the Rivanna River.
Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) – Like most other local governments in Virginia, by July 1,
2014, the County must adopt and implement a local VSMP consistent with State regulations. This program
expands the responsibilities of the County’s existing regulatory program for development and other land disturbing
activities. This mandate will require various amendments to the Water Protection Ordinance and is anticipated to
require new County resources. A draft ordinance with an implementation plan that includes resource requirements
must be submitted to Virginia no later than December 15, 2013 and then adopted no later than April 1, 2014.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This worksession is intended to provide background information. A discussion of budget impacts will be deferred
to a later work session.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is provided for information only and no action is required at this time. Staff will seek the Board’s input in
follow-up work sessions regarding the development and funding of programs to support water protection goals.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Water Resources Program Development – Full Report
B – Water Resources Organization Chart
C – Listing of Current Water Resources Programs
D – Map: Condition of Albemarle Waterbodies
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Water Resources Program Development – 2nd Work
Session
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The second of multiple work sessions to discuss the
County’s stream health goals, program levels, and
funding.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Shadman, Brooks, and Harper
PRESENTER (S): Greg Harper and Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 7, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At a July 3, 2013 work session, in the first of multiple planned work sessions leading up to options for future program levels
and funding, the Board was presented with information about a variety of current conditions – characterized as “where are
we now?”. The discussion included a review of County goals and policies pertaining to water resources protection, a
summary of currently implemented programs and involved staff, an appraisal of County-wide stream conditions and
causes of impairments, and an introduction to several new state mandates requiring additional resources.
This second work session will focus on considering the question “where do we want to be?”.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4a: Work in conjunction with key stakeholders to protect the health of our local waterways and other critical
natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
As described in the previous work session, it is likely that the majority of streams throughout the County – if sufficiently
assessed – would be deemed impaired by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Attachment A
depicts the streams throughout the County that are currently listed as impaired by DEQ and the general sources of
pollutants causing each impairment. The primary sources are wildlife (causing bacterial impairments) and non-point
pollution – such as urban and agricultural runoff (causing benthic, or aquatic life, impairments).
The extent of impaired waters within Albemarle County is comparable to that of surrounding areas. In general, more
highly urbanized areas – such as the Tidewater, Richmond, and Roanoke areas – have a greater number of
impairments. Attachment B is a map indicating the degree of impairment for sub-watersheds thoughout Virginia;
watersheds having no impaired stream segments are colored green and – on the other end of the spectrum –
watersheds having 10 or more impaired stream segments are colored orange.
Federal and State initiatives to address these impairments have come to the forefront as a result of the Chesapeake
Bay Program. All impaired waters are supposed to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
program. While the Chesapeake Bay TMDL process is relatively far along, the process for most impaired waters has
not yet begun.
The County is required – through its recently-issued MS4 permit – to develop plans to address only those impaired
waters for which a TMDL process has been completed and pollutant load reductions allocated to the County. This is
the case for the Chespapeake Bay and only a few of the many impaired waters in the County. The County would need
to implement programs to a degree far beyond what is required by state mandates to address all impaired local
waters; doing this would generally follow guidance contained within the existing and proposed versions of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Water Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan articulates a commitment to protecting water resources to
not only meet current and future human needs but to also support biological communities. Explicit in the text is the
recognition that local waters serve many purposes and are influenced by almost all human activities, that natural water
AGENDA TITLE: Water Resources Program Development – 2nd Work Session
August 7, 2013
Page 2
systems transcend political and ownership boundaries, and that all citizens have a responsibility to minimize their
impact on water resources and contribute towards cleaner streams. The section entitled Public Uses and Ecological
Values calls for protecting County waters for all reasonable public uses and ecological functions, possibly through the
use of a TMDL-like approach. Emphasis is placed on protecting waters before they become further degraded and
establishing priorities for restoration. All goals, objectives, and strategies in the Water Resources section of the
existing Comprehensive Plan are summarized in Attachment C.
If the range of possible future program implementation is represented as a continuum as illustrated below, the lower
end of the continuum could be bound by a program to meet State mandates, include the continuation of some existing
programs and the upper end could be bound by a program to facilitate all goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has attempted to quantify this range of efforts in terms of anticipated future stream health and costs. The
conclusions are based on the relatively simple assumptions and calculations of experienced staff. A detailed technical
analysis would certainly yield more refined conclusions, but would require data, time, and funding that does not
currently exist. In addition, the significant resources necessary to provide a high degree of certainty would take away
from actually implementing programs
Given this caveat, staff has attempted to correlate program levels and funding to likely outcomes. A minimal program
approach would continue existing programs and address existing and new mandates requiring funding of
approximately $2.5 Million per year but would likely not prevent an anticipated increase over time in the number of
impaired streams throughout the County. On the other end, an intense effort that fully addresses the Comprehensive
Plan’s objectives and strategies could result in addressing or preventing the impairments for half the County streams.
This more extensive program level would require funding of approximately $5 Million per year. Staff also notes there is
little confidence in the County’s ability to restore all streams. For intensely developed areas, the experience of many
urban localities has shown while some improvement is possible, full restoration is not. In this regard, the County’s
land use policy of well-defined Development Areas has done more for resource protection than anything else.
The Board’s preferences for stream health goals and associated levels of program implementation will be explored
during the work session.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This work session is intended to focus on a desired commitment to stream health. Future work sessions will
include further discussion on program levels and associated costs. An iterative approach to balancing program
levels and funding is anticipated before final direction is provided. .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is provided for information and to encourage Board feedback and discussion, but no specific action is
requested at this time. Staff will seek the Board’s input to serve as a starting point for future work sessions regarding
the development and funding of programs to support identified water protection goals.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Map of Albemarle Stream Impairments and Primary Sources of Pollutants Causing Impairments
B – Map of the Degree of Waterbody Impairments by Sub-Watershed Throughout Virginia
C – Summary of Water Resources Goals from the Comprehensive Plan