HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-06Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
NOVEMBER 6, 2013
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
9:00 A.M. – AUDITORIUM
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
8. Recognitions:
a. Digital Government Award.
b. Susan A. King, External Affairs Representative, Dominion Virginia Power.
c. Tom LaBelle, Division Chief for Volunteer Services.
Discussion/Action Items:
9. TJ Regional Legislative Package, David Blount.
10. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. - Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Request
(ACSA201300002).
11. Establishment of Economic Development Program.
12. Closed Meeting.
13. Certify Closed Meeting.
14. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. - Public Hearing:
15. ZMA201300005 Piedmont Environmental Council (Signs # 55 & 56).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 159.682 acres from PUD zoning district which allows residential development (3 – 34 units per
acre), mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses, to RA zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No PROFFERS : No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) LOCATION: Pelham Road, approximately 1,800 feet from
the intersection with Buck Mountain Road (Route 665).TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03000-00-00-03800 MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: White Hall.
16. Cash Proffer Policy.
Presentation:
17. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board Chairman.
18. FY 13 General Fund Year End Financial Report.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/1106/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/2020 1:56:50 PM]
Tentative
19. Quarterly Capital Report.
20. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
21. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
22. Adjourn to November 13, 2013, 2:30 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: July 3 and July 25, 2013.
7.2 Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission Service Agreement Amendment.
7.3 FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
7.4 FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
7.5 Set public hearing on proposed Ordinance to establish an Auxiliary Police Force.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.6 FY 2014 1st Quarter Proffer Report and 2013 State Survey of Cash Proffers.
7.7 County Grant Application Report.
7.8 Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and Preston.
7.9 Copy of letter dated October 8, 2013, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, to
Michael Maupin, re: LOD-2013-00006 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELs OF RECORD –
Tax Map 56, Parcel 76 (property of Charles W. Maupin, III, Ruby A. M. Debham & Michael
Dean Maupin c/o Michael Maupin) White Hall Magisterial District.
7.10 Copy of letter dated October 10, 2013, from Sarah D. Baldwin, Senior Planner, to Lewis D. Pound, re: LOD-
2013-00009 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 75, Parcel 43, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
7.11 Copy of letter dated October 10, 2013, from Sarah D. Baldwin, Senior Planner, to Kathleen Morgan Klumpp,
Trustee, re: LOD-2013-00010 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD &
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 102, Parcel 19C, Scottsville Magisterial District.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/1106/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/2020 1:56:50 PM]
Tentative
7.12 November 2013 VDOT Charlottesville Residency Monthly Report for Albemarle County.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/1106/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/2020 1:56:50 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission Service
Agreement Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to Amend and Readopt Article 1 and Sections
3.7 and 4.1 of the Service Agreement for the Blue Ridge
Juvenile Detention Commission
STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Davis
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County provides juvenile detention services in partnership with the counties of Culpeper, Fluvanna and Greene
and the City of Charlottesville through membership in the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission. The Commission
was created on July 1, 1999 pursuant to a Service Agreement between Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene and Charlottesville,
which was later amended in July, 2007 to include Culpeper.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5 - Ensure the Health and Safety of the Community
DISCUSSION:
Since the creation of the Commission, and in accordance with the Agreement, the method of determining the
proportionate share of operating costs for each member jurisdiction in any given budget year has been determined by
each member’s usage in the previous year. Members pre-pay the expected share of costs at the beginning of each
fiscal year and then reconcile actual costs at the end of the fiscal year based on actual usage during the year. Some
Members, therefore, are required to make supplemental appropriations at the end of the year.
At its meeting on August 8, 2013, the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission agreed to propose an amendment to
the Service Agreement to change the method of determining annual member contributions. Specifically, the
Commission proposes to amend the Agreement to require that future Member contributions for operating costs be
based on each Member’s respective aggregate usage percentage during the preceding three years. This rolling three-
year average budgeting method will eliminate year-end reconciliations. This broader methodology should also have the
practical effect of lessening dramatic funding changes for Members in any one fiscal year due to spikes or dips in
utilization of the facility.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The amendment to the Service Agreement does not specifically alter the cost of operating the Juvenile Detention
Center or any Member’s contribution rate. The amendment is expected to result in less dramatic changes in the
County’s contribution in any given budget year which would allow for more reliable financial planning.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to Amend and Readopt Article 1, and Sections 3.7
and 4.1 of the Service Agreement for the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution to Amend Service Agreement
B – Service Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
A RESOLUTION TO AMEND AND READOPT
ARTICLE 1, AND SECTIONS 3.7 AND 4.1
OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
THE BLUE RIDGE JUVENILE DETENTION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Counties of Albemarle, Culpeper, Fluvanna and Greene and the City of
Charlottesville (the “Member Jurisdictions”) have previously created the Blue Ridge Juvenile
Detention Commission (the “Commission”) and adopted an agreement dated July 1, 1999, and
amended July 2, 2007 (the “Service Agreement”) that established their respective rights and
obligations regarding the juvenile detention center financed, constructed and operated by the
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the method prescribed by the Service Agreement for allocation of the
operating costs of the detention center has required each Member Jurisdiction to prepay a share
of those costs at the beginning of each Fiscal Year based on its usage in the preceding year, with
that payment then being adjusted at the end of the Fiscal Year to reflect the percentage actually
used by each member; and
WHEREAS, each year that method has caused some Member Jurisdictions to have to
make supplemental year-end appropriations to cover their obligations to the Commission; and
WHEREAS, declining numbers of juvenile offenders detained at the juvenile detention
center have caused the numbers detained from the Member Jurisdictions to fluctuate more from
year to year, making budgeting more difficult and increasing the likelihood that some Member
Jurisdictions will have to make such supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, viewed over a longer time the relative usage of the Member Jurisdictions
tends to be more stable; and
WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions wish to amend the Service Agreement to base the
Member Jurisdictions’ future relative annual contributions to operating costs on their respective
aggregate percentages of usage during the preceding three years, without making subsequent
annual year-end adjustments based on actual usage, now therefore, be it
Resolved by the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission, the Boards of Supervisors of
Albemarle, Culpeper, Fluvanna and Greene Counties and the Council of the City of
Charlottesville that:
1. The Service Agreement is amended by amending existing Sections 3.7 and 4.1, as
follows:
Section 3.7 Annual Budget On or before each December 1, the Commission shall
provide to each Member Jurisdiction the Commission’s Annual Budget for the next
Fiscal Year, including any proposed capital projects. For each Fiscal Year in which
the Detention Center will be in operation, or in which Obligations will be
outstanding, such Annual Budget shall set forth the Annual Member Operating
Charge, for each Member Jurisdiction, which shall be based upon that Member
Jurisdiction’s respective percentage of the total usage of the Detention Center by all
2
Member Jurisdictions during the preceding three Fiscal Years. The Commission
agrees to set such Annual Member Operating Charges, that are sufficient to generate
revenue adequate to pay Net Expenses and to fund any required reserves attributable
to the care, maintenance and subsistence of Detainees. The Commission further
agrees to revise such Annual Member Operating Charges as necessary to offset any
non-payment by a Member Jurisdiction or unanticipated material decrease in revenue
from the Commonwealth. The Commission also agrees to set, and to revise
immediately as necessary to reflect any failure of a Member Jurisdiction to pay in
accordance with the provisions of Section 4.1, Annual Member Debt Service Charges
for Culpeper, Fluvanna and Greene, likewise based on their respective shares of all
Member Jurisdictions’ total usage of the Detention Center during the three
immediately preceding Fiscal Years in amounts sufficient to repay their respective
shares of the debt service prepaid by Albemarle and Charlottesville on the
Commission’s outstanding Obligations as described in Section 4.1 (a) below.
Within ten days of any revision to the Annual Member Operating or Debt Service
Charges the Commission shall notify each Member Jurisdiction of such revision. Any
such revision to the Annual Member Operating or Debt Service Charges will be based
on factors affecting the Detention Center’s revenues or expenditures, including but
not limited to changes in assumed or actual occupancy levels, operating expenses,
State operating or capital cost reimbursement, and any nonpayment of Annual
Member Operating or Debt Service Charges by any Member Jurisdiction or other
jurisdiction housing Detainees at the Detention Center. The Commission shall
promptly provide copies of any amendments to its Annual Budget to each Member
Jurisdiction.
Section 4.1. Payments from Member Jurisdictions.
(a) The objective of this Agreement is to provide the Commission, in each Fiscal
Year in which the Detention Center is in operation, with sufficient revenues to fund
fully the Commission’s Expenses for such year. The Member Jurisdictions have
agreed that the operating cost portion of such Expenses will be shared among them in
proportion to their respective three prior Fiscal Years’ usage of the Detention Center,
and to that end have agreed to pay the Annual Member Operating and Debt Service
Charges, as described in Sections 3.7 and 4.1(c), for the detainees they commit to the
Commission’s custody. The Member Jurisdictions have further agreed that the debt
service portion of the Commission’s expenses will be allocated among the Member
Jurisdictions except Albemarle and Charlottesville by billing Culpeper, Fluvanna and
Greene the Annual Member Debt Service Charge based on their respective
percentages of all Member Jurisdictions’ total usage of the Detention Center during
the immediately preceding three Fiscal Years. Albemarle and Charlottesville agree,
however, that their share of the debt service will be calculated by applying the
payments of Culpeper, Fluvanna and Greene as credits against the debt service
Albemarle and Charlottesville have prepaid as set forth in the next paragraph below,
crediting 50% to Albemarle and 50% to Charlottesville. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no Member Jurisdiction’s Annual Member Debt Service Charge shall be
less than five percent of total debt service, (the equivalent of usage of 5% of the
Detention Center’s rated capacity of 40 beds.)
3
To facilitate issuance of the Commission’s obligations at the most favorable interest
rate, Albemarle and Charlottesville have further agreed to prepay 100% of each
Commission debt service payment (divided equally between them) before it becomes
due, and thereafter to receive credits, also applied equally, for the Annual Member
Debt Service Charges received from other Member Jurisdictions, all in the manner
described in Section 4.1(e) below. The net result shall be that Albemarle and
Charlottesville each shall pay 50% of the debt service on the Commission’s
obligations not paid by the other Member Jurisdictions. This Agreement with respect
to debt service allocation shall apply to all obligations issued to fund pre-opening and
financing expenses, capitalized interest, required initial reserves for operations and
debt service, land acquisition, design, construction and equipment of the Detention
Center.
(b) Beginning July 1 2014, the Commission shall establish in its Annual Budget for
the Fiscal Year, Annual Member Operating Charges for the care, maintenance,
transportation and subsistence of Detainees from Member Jurisdictions equal in the
aggregate to the Commission’s Projected Net Expenses. Annual Member Operating
Charges shall be determined by multiplying Projected Net Expenses (excluding debt
service and related payments on Obligations, but including any required deposits to a
repair or replacement reserve fund related to such Obligations) for such Fiscal Year
by the ratio of each Member Jurisdiction’s Detainee Days to the Commission’s total
Member Jurisdiction Detainee Days during the preceding three Fiscal Years. The
Annual Member Debt Service Charges shall be determined as set forth in paragraph
4.1(a) above.
(c) The Annual Member Operating Charges shall be collected in quarterly
installments in advance of each quarter of each Fiscal Year. Such amounts shall be
invoiced by the Commission to each Member Jurisdiction by the first day of each
quarter of each Fiscal Year and shall be payable no later than the last day of the first
month of each quarter.
(d) The Annual Member Debt Service Charges shall be collected in advance for each
quarter of each Fiscal Year. Such amounts shall be invoiced by the Commission to
each Member Jurisdiction by the first day of each quarter of each Fiscal Year and
shall be payable no later than the last day of the first month of each quarter. Such
advance payments shall be subject to annual adjustments based upon actual usage
after the end of each Fiscal Year, as described in Section 4.1(e) below.
(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, the prepayments due from Albemarle
and Charlottesville in each quarter shall be calculated to total in the aggregate 100%
of one quarter of the Commission’s annual debt service, allocated 50% to Albemarle
and 50% to Charlottesville. The quarterly payments received by the Commission in
each quarter from Culpeper, Fluvanna and Greene shall be applied equally against the
next quarterly payments due from Albemarle and Charlottesville.
(f) Except for the payment of the Annual Member Operating and Debt Service
Charges attributable to the Detainees whom it has actually committed to the
Commission, the obligation of each Member Jurisdiction to pay Annual Member
4
Operating and Debt Service Charges shall be subject to and contingent upon
appropriations being made for such purposes by the governing body of such Member
Jurisdiction. Those governing bodies hereby direct their respective chief executive
officers to include in their annual budget and appropriation requests to the governing
bodies funds sufficient to pay such Annual Member Operating and Debt Service
Charges expected to come due during the Fiscal Year for which such budgets are
applicable.
(g) The Commission shall notify all Member Jurisdictions not later than 30 days after
any payment due date if a Member Jurisdiction fails to pay any charge when due, and
shall pursue with diligence the collection of such past due amount. If not paid when
due, the charge shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Commission until paid;
however, this provision shall not apply in instances where Applicable Law prescribes
some other due date or late payment charge. The notice shall include a statement of
the Commission’s intention to adjust the remaining payments due during the Fiscal
Year (and thereafter if such default is not cured) from all non-defaulting Members and
shall state the amount of the adjusted charge. The adjustment shall be based upon a
reallocation of Annual Member Operating and Debt Service Charges to all non-
defaulting Members. Upon payment in full of the amount in arrears by the defaulting
Member Jurisdiction, the Commission shall readjust Annual Member Charges to pre-
default levels and credit all non-defaulting Members in the appropriate amount for any
excess payments previously made at the default adjusted rate. The Commission shall
make other adjustments as may be necessary to the Annual Member Charges during
the Fiscal Year to meet Expenses and to comply with any covenants entered into in
connection with any Obligations.
2. These amended sections shall be effective for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2014.
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:
FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2013008 and #2013113 for various general government
and school division programs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 13 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $32,500.00. 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 two (2) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013008) to appropriate funding to reconcile over-expenditures totaling $36,909.26 in
the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s budget. This appropriation will not increase the total budget; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013113) to appropriate $32,500.00 for two school division grants that were received
and expended in FY 13.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2013008 and #2013113 to provide funds for local government and school
division grants and expenditures as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2013008 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 36,909.26
The Clerk of Circuit Court office requires an appropriation of $36,909.26 from the Reserve for Contingencies to
cover over-expenditures in the FY 13 Clerk of Circuit Court’s budget. These over-expenditures were primarily due
to unanticipated costs associated with the purchase of a replacement scanner, replacement printers, computer
upgrades, office supplies and increases in redaction and scanning fees.
Appropriation #2013113 $32,500.00
Source: Local Revenue $ 5,000.00
State Revenue $ 27,500.00
These requests are to appropriate School Division funding approved by the School Board on September 12, 2013:
This request is to appropriate $5,000.00 for a Batelle Foundation Grant. The funds were used to support the
CoderDojo Academy. This academy provides all K-12 students the opportunity to receive instruction on
computer coding, web page development, robotics, and the design and development of computer apps and
video games. Funds were received and expended in FY 13.
This request is to appropriate $27,500.00 for a Virginia Department of Education Project Graduation
Summer Academy grant. These funds were used to offer tutorial programs to those students who did not
pass the end-of-course assessment in Algebra I, Geometry, or Algebra II. Funds were received and
expended in FY13.
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 Appropriation
#2014050, #2014051, #2014052, #2014053, and
#2014054 for various general government and school
division programs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 14 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $173,133.26. 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 five (5) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2014050) to appropriate $5,928.71 for various school division programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2014051) to appropriate $50,000.00 for the Ivy Fire Station Maintenance Account as
required by the terms of the sublease;
One (1) appropriation (#2014052) to appropriate $953.33 in donations to the Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2014053) to appropriate $10,000.00 for the White Gables bond default; and
One (1) appropriation (#2014054) to appropriate $106,251.22 for the Community Public Charter School.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2014050, #2014051, #2014052, #2014053, and #2014054 for various
school division and general government projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2014050 $5,928.71
Source: Local Revenue $3,156.35
School Self-Sustaining Fund fund Balance $2,772.36
These requests are to appropriate School Division funding approved by the School Board on Sept ember 12, 2013:
This request is to re-appropriate $2,772.36 in various Shannon Foundation Grants that had an unexpended
fund balance at the end of FY 13.
This request is to appropriate $2,500.00 in a State Farm grant to be used for the driver education program.
This request is to appropriate $656.35 in miscellaneous revenue received by the Academic Resource
Center (ARC). These funds will be used for textbooks.
Appropriation #2014051 $50,000.00
Source: Capital Fund fund balance $50,000.00
This request is to appropriate $50,000.00 of Capital Fund fund balance for the Ivy Fire Station Maintenance Account
to fund a contingency maintenance account for the County’s share of the annual repairs and maintenance of the I vy
Fire Station as required by the terms of the sublease approved by the Board on April 4, 2012. According to the
terms of the sublease, the County must fund a maintenance account with a balance of $50,000.00 within 30 days of
the Commencement Date and on each anniversary of the Commencement Date. This funding was initially
established in FY 13 utilizing one-time monies. This request ensures this contingency account remains available in
FY 14 pursuant to the sublease requirement.
Appropriation #2014052 $953.33
Source: Special Revenue Fund Balance $ 953.33
This request is to appropriate $953.33 in donations received in a previous fiscal year for the Police Department. The
donations will primarily provide for police operating supplies, including those for the K-9 program.
Appropriation #2014053 $10,000.00
Source: Special Revenue Fund Balance $ 10,000.00
This request is to appropriate the funds from a called letter of credit to an expenditure account so that the County can
return performance bond funding to the bank.
The developer White Gables Charlottesville, LC provided a performance bond to the County for the development of
White Gables Condominiums Phase 1 and / or Phase 2 covering the water protection - erosion & sediment control
improvements. The bond totaled $10,000.00 and was secured by a letter of credit from Wells Fargo Bank (fo rmerly
known as Wachovia Bank). The County called the letter of credit securing the bond in August 2010.
The developer completed the improvements and the County must return the unspent funds to the bank pursuant to
the terms and conditions of the letter of credit.
Appropriation #2014054 $106,251.22
Source: Donations $ 26,840.00
Comm. Public Charter School Fund fund Bal. $ 79,411.22
This request is to appropriate School Division funding approved by the School Board on October 10, 2013:
This request is to appropriate $26,840.00 in donations received by the Community Public Charter School to be
used for staff development, payroll, benefits, and educational materials. In addition, this request is to appropriate
Attachment A
funds from the Community Public Charter Fund’s fund balance in the amount of $79,411.22 that can be used in
FY14.
The mission of the Community Public Charter School is to provide an alternative and innovative learning
environment, using the arts, to help children in grades six through eight learn in ways that match their learning
styles; developing the whole child intellectually, emotionally, physically, and socially . Seeking to serve students who
have not succeeded in school, the program will close their achievement gap by offering a balance of literacy
tutorials and an arts-infused curriculum.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed Ordinance to establish an Auxiliary Police
Force
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Schedule a public hearing to consider the adoption of an
ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 2,
Administration, Article V, Law Enforcement to amend
Section 2-504 regarding the Volunteer Community
Service Force and to add Section 2-505 to establish an
Auxiliary Police Force
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Blair, Sellers, Wagner
PRESENTER (S): Steve Sellers and Mike Wagner
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-1731 enables localities to establish, equip and maintain auxiliary police forces that have all the
powers, authority and immunities of full-time law-enforcement officers if such forces have met specific training
requirements (See Attachment A). Auxiliary police officers are non-paid volunteers who would “further preservation of the
public peace, safety and good order of the community” by performing duties to assist in the delivery of police services to
the community. They would not be permitted to carry or use a firearm while serving as an auxiliary police officer unless
specific firearms training requirements have been met.
The Police Department wishes to establish an Auxiliary Police Force to enhance law enforcement services in the County
as part of Phase I of the Geo-Policing effort.
A proposed ordinance giving the County’s Chief of Police the authority to establish an Auxiliary Police Force is attached
(Attachment B), as well as the Police Department’s General Orders for Auxiliary Police Officers (Attachment C).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the Health And Safety Of The Community.
a. Work in conjunction with key community partners to establish multi-disciplinary teams to address specific
public health and/or safety issues, emerging trends and or vulnerable groups.
b. Enhance the safety of the County by improving emergency response times and increasing prevention
activities and services.
Goal 6. Promote Individual Responsibility and Citizen Ownership of Community Challenges.
a. Increase County’s volunteer management capability
b. Increase opportunities for citizen self reliance and responsibility for addressing community issues
DISCUSSION:
The primary function of an Auxiliary Police Force would be to augment the Department’s patrol and administrative
resources, especially during large pre-planned events or in situations that tend to overburden the normal operations of the
Department. As part of the Geo-Policing Program, Auxiliary Police Officers would be utilized to support community
outreach and crime prevention efforts.
Following are some of the duties Auxiliary Police Officers would perform:
1. Augment police staffing at community festivals, parades, concerts, street fairs and park patrols;
2. Augment police staffing for traffic control during large events;
3. Assist with crime prevention activities, such as Home Security Surveys and House Checks;
4. Assist with parking enforcement;
5. Provide limited support for patrol activities; and
6. Observe and report conditions requiring professional police services to the Police Department
AGENDA TITLE: Proposed Ordinance to establish an Auxiliary Police Force
November 6, 2013
Page 2
Based upon information from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, there are three levels of Auxiliary
Police Officers as follows:
Level I – Sworn, armed, trained to same DCJS standards as a certified police officer.
Level II – Sworn, armed, limited training and limited duties.
Level III – Sworn, unarmed, authorized to carry less-than-lethal weapons, limited training, and limited duties.
All Auxiliary Police Officers would be required to abide by the same standards, rules and regulations as regular Police
Officers.
The attached draft ordinance provides that the number of auxiliary police officers would not exceed 15 percent of the paid
force. This 15 percent cap is recommended by the Police Chief. The current number of authorized police officer positions
is 126, so the number of auxiliary police officers would not exceed 18 at the current staffing levels. The Department
estimates it would hire approximately six volunteers in the first year of the program, and that it would take another one to
two years to reach the 18 officer limit.
The attached draft ordinance also amends County Code § 2-504 regarding the Volunteer Community Service Force to
specify that volunteer community service officers do not assist with traffic control and crowd control and are not provided
workers’ compensation insurance coverage by the County. The Volunteer Community Service Force is intended to
provide in-house support services and is not intended to function in the field. The Code of Virginia does not permit the
County to offer worker’s compensation insurance to the Volunteer Community Service Force.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The establishment of an Auxiliary Police Force would have a minimal impact on the budget. The estimated cost to provide
a fully-outfitted uniform for one auxiliary police officer is $1,400.00, or $8,400 for 6 officers. This initial cost would be
funded from the existing FY14 Police Department budget, and the Department would request the Albemarle County Police
Foundation to purchase additional uniforms in the future. Staff believes that any firearms training for Level II and III
officers would either be provided by the Department or would be funded with existing Department budget funds, and that
the cost of any firearms would be funded with existing Department budget funds.
Because Auxiliary Police Officers will be performing police duties in the field, it is proposed that they would be provided
health insurance coverage for job-related injuries similar to what is provided to volunteer firefighters. The cost of providing
limited duty-related medical and disability insurance coverage for 6 officers would be approximately $990.90 per year. The
cost of that coverage would be funded from the Department’s budget. In addition, the County would be required to provide
Line of Duty Act (LODA) benefits to the officers. The LODA coverage for the current fiscal year was billed at $77.17 per
volunteer, and staff expects that the cost will increase each year. There is no cost for volunteers who begin after the
beginning of the fiscal year, so there is no cost to provide LODA benefits for these officers in FY 14. The cost of providing
LODA coverage to 18 volunteers in FY 15 and in each subsequent fiscal year is estimated to cost $1,389.06 or more if the
cost increases as expected.
Using the designated value of volunteer service as located on the Volunteers in Police Service website ($22.90/hour in
Virginia in 2011), the estimated value of service that would be provided by 6 volunteers each working an average of 10
hours per month (720 total hours/year) would be $16,488/year. The estimated value of service that would be provided by
18 volunteers each working an average of 10 hours per month (2,160 total hours/year) would be $49,464/year. Although
the Department would not realize this amount in actual savings, the Department would realize some savings in reducing
staff overtime costs, and it would be able to provide enhanced services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached proposed Ordinance (Attachment B) for a public hearing on December 4,
2013.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Virginia Code § 15.2-1731
B – Proposed County Ordinance
C – Police Department General Orders for Auxiliary Police Officer
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Code of Virginia
Title 15.2 Counties, Cities and Towns
Chapter 17 Police and Public Order
§ 15.2-1731. Establishment, etc., authorized; powers, authority and immunities generally.
A. Localities, for the further preservation of the public peace, safety, and good order of the
community, may establish, equip, and maintain auxiliary police forces that have all the powers
and authority and all the immunities of full-time law-enforcement officers, if all such forces have
met the training requirements established by the Department of Criminal Justice Services under
§ 9.1-102.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an auxiliary officer shall be exempted
from any initial training requirement established under § 9.1-102 until a date one year
subsequent to the approval by the Criminal Justice Services Board of compulsory minimum
training standards for auxiliary police officers, except that (i) any such officer shall not be
permitted to carry or use a firearm while serving as an auxiliary police officer unless such officer
has met the firearms training requirements established in accordance with in-service training
standards for law-enforcement officers as prescribed by the Criminal Justice Services Board, and
(ii) any such officer shall have one year following the approval by the Board to comply with the
compulsory minimum training standards.
(1968, c. 157, § 15.1-159.2; 1987, c. 421; 1988, c. 864; 1997, c. 587; 2012, c. 827.)
Return to exec summary
Draft: October 22, 2013
1
ORDINANCE NO. 13-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE V,
LAW ENFORCEMENT, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapt er 2,
Administration, Article V, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-504 Volunteer community service force
By Adding:
Sec. 2-505 Auxiliary police force
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE V. LAW ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 2-504 Volunteer community service force.
There is hereby created a volunteer community service force which shall be designated the
"Albemarle County Community Service Force."
A. The community service force shall consist of unpaid volunteer citizens designated volunteer
community service officers, who shall be under the direct supervision of the chief of police of the county.
B. The purpose and function of the volunteer service force shall be to provide assistance to the
chief of police and the regular county police force in the maintenance of police records and
communications, and in dealing with traffic control and crowd control, to provide public education and
information in crime prevention and detection and similar police activities; provided, that no volunteer
community service officer shall carry weapons of deadly force or have power of arrest.
C. Uniforms and equipment for volunteer community service officers, the qualification and
training of candidates, duties and operating procedures and all other matters not specified in this section
shall be as prescribed by regulations recommended from time to time by the chief of police and county
executive and approved by the board of supervisors. Uniforms and equipment shall be provided by the
county from the budget of the county police force.
D. Volunteer community service officers shall not be deemed county employees for purposes of
tenure, nor shall they be subject to the county employee grievance procedure.
E. To the extent possible, volunteer community service officers shall be covered by the county's
liability insurance and by the county's workmen's compensation insurance as to injuries sustained during
performance of their duties.
F. Volunteer community service officers shall not be deemed auxiliary police officers under
Virginia Code § 15.2-1731, or special police officers under Virginia Code § 15.2-1737.
(8-10-88; Code 1988, § 10.1-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 2-505 Auxiliary police force.
There is hereby created an auxiliary police force which shall be designated the “Albemarle
County Auxiliary Police Force.”
A. The auxiliary police force shall be comprised of citizen volunteers selectively used to
conduct a variety of operational support and administrative assignments.
Draft: October 22, 2013
2
B. The chief of police shall have the authority to appoint as auxiliary police officers as many
persons of good character as he deems necessary, not to exceed 15 percent of the paid force; and their
appointment shall be revocable at any time by the chief of police.
C. The chief of police shall have the authority to prescribe the uniform, equipment,
organization and such rules and regulations as he shall deem necessary for the operation of the auxili ary
police force.
D. The chief of police may call into service such auxiliary policemen as may be deemed
necessary:
1. In time of public emergency;
2. At such times as there is an insufficient number of regular policemen to preserve
the peace, safety and good order of the community; or
3. At any time for the purpose of training such auxiliary policemen.
E. The members of the auxiliary police force shall not be required to act beyond the limits of
the jurisdiction of the county except when called upon to protect any public property belonging to the
county which may be located beyond its boundaries unless authorized by a mutual aid agreement pursuant
to Virginia Code § 15.2-1736.
F. The members of the auxiliary police force shall not be deemed county employees and
shall serve without compensation.
G. To the extent possible, members of the auxiliary police force shall be covered by the
county’s liability insurance.
H. The members of the auxiliary police force shall not be deemed special police officers
under Virginia Code § 15.2-1737.
I. The members of the auxiliary police force shall wear the uniform and equipment
prescribed by the chief of police at all times while serving as auxiliary policemen.
J. Any citizen of the United States shall be eligible to make application to become a
member of the auxiliary police force. Applicants shall apply and will be selected in the form and manner
prescribed by the chief of police.
State law reference-Va. Code §§ 15.2-1731-1736.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____
to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
Return to exec summary
2-27 AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM Page 1 of 5 8/31/2013
ALBEMARLE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL ORDER
NO.
2-27
DATE OF ISSUE:
August 31, 2013
SUBJECT:
AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM
REVISED/REVIEWED/RESCINDS:
VLEPSC STANDARDS:
APPROVED:
Chief of Police
LIST OF CONTENTS:
I. POLICY
II. PURPOSE
III. DEFINITIONS
A. AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER
B. AUXILIARY POLICE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
C. AUXILIARY POLICE LEVEL COORDINATORS
IV. PROCEDURES
A. APPLICATION PROCESS
B. APPROVAL
C. AUXILIARY POLICE GUIDELINES
I. POLICY
The Police Department is committed to recruiting qualified Auxiliary Police Officers (APO) for the
program. It is the policy of the Department to provide leadership, training, and the necessary
resources for our APOs. Department personnel will treat APOs with the same respect afforded paid
personnel in the Department.
II. PURPOSE
To provide Department members and APOs with guidelines for the selection, training, and utilization
of APOs within the Department. These policies are consistent with the authorities provided for in
Albemarle County ordinance XXXXX and the VA Code 15.2-1731.
III. DEFINITIONS
A. AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICERS - APOs may serve in one of the following three Levels:
1. Level One - Certified police officer that has met all training requirements in accordance with
the attached matrix, Auxiliary Police Officer Training Requirements. Level One Auxiliary
Officers shall not be permitted to carry or use a firearm while serving as an auxiliary police
officer unless such officer has met the firearms training requirements established in
accordance with in-service training standards for law-enforcement officers as prescribed by
the Criminal Justice Services Boar
2. Level Two - Sworn with limited duties, may be armed with firearm(s) and has met all
training requirements in accordance with the attached matrix, Auxiliary Police Officer Training
Requirements. Level Two Auxiliary Officers shall not be permitted to carry or use a firearm
while serving as an auxiliary police officer unless such officer has met t he firearms training
requirements established in accordance with in-service training standards for law-
enforcement officers as prescribed by the Criminal Justice Services Board.
2-27 AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM Page 2 of 5 8/31/2013
3. Level Three - Sworn with limited duties, may be armed with less-than-lethal weapon(s)) and
has met all training requirements in accordance with the attached matrix, Auxiliary Police
Officer Training Requirements. Auxiliary Officers of this level are strictly prohibited from
carrying a firearm, whether department or personally owned, while serving as an auxiliary
police officer.
B. AUXILIARY POLICE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR - The Special Operations Commander
will be responsible for the training, assignment and scheduling of APOs accepted into the
program, as well as acting as the direct supervisor of the APO Coordinators.
C. AUXILIARY POLICE LEVEL COORDINATORS - Each Auxiliary Police level will have a
coordinator responsible for assisting the Administrator with directing the activities of those in a
specific APO level. These personal may be authorized rank, if appropriate with their assigned
duties.
IV. PROCEDURES
A. Interested volunteers must:
1. Submit an agency application to the Administrative Division;
2. Be at least 21 years of age;
3. Provide valid photo ID;
4. Meet the minimum listed qualifications:
a. No felony convictions,
b. No serious misdemeanor convictions in last 10 years (serious misdemeanor offenses
include assaults, domestic related, larceny, or drug related convictions),
c. Volunteer for a minimum of eight hours each month, and
d. Be able to perform job assignment in a satisfactory manner.
e. Receive recommendation from oral interview.
f. Each member of the Auxiliary Police shall be governed by the policies and procedures of
the Department.
g. The Auxiliary Police officer may have law-enforcement powers equivalent to those of
paid officers. Membership in the Auxiliary Police will be open to all individuals who
meet the same minimum qualifications as full-time officers under VA Code 15.2-1705.
There shall be no discrimination based on race, color, creed, national origin, age, sex, or
religious affiliation in selection or assignment of Police Auxiliary officers.
h. The Auxiliary Police program in its entirety is the responsibility of the Chief of Police
and under the supervision of the supervisor on-duty.
1) The Chief of Police or his/her designee, the Special Operations Commander must
approve the applicant for the program. All Auxiliary Police Officers will serve at the
discretion of the Chief of Police, and may be discharged from the program at any
time, with or without cause, by the Chief of Police.
2) Auxiliary Police Officers may be suspended or terminated by the Chief of Police.
3) Auxiliary Police Officers maintain the status of volunteers.
V. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
A. Auxiliary Police Officers shall have all of the powers and authority and all the immunities of
regular law enforcement officers once they have fulfilled the training requirements of the
Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) under Code of Virginia §9.1-102. (See attached
Training matrix)
2-27 AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM Page 3 of 5 8/31/2013
B. Auxiliary Police Officers shall have one (1) year from the date of appointment to complete the
DCJS-mandated training requirements for their designated level of responsibility in accordance
with the attached matrix, Auxiliary Police Officer Training Requirements.
C. Required training for Level Two and Level Three Auxiliary Police Officers that is conducted within
the Department, as well as the maintenance of those training records, is the responsibility of the
Chief of Police or his /her designee.
VI. USE AND ASSIGNMENT
A. Auxiliary Police Officers, who have completed all DCJS-mandated training requirements, are
vested with all the authority granted by statute to members of duly constituted police agencies. (VA
Code 15.2-1731).
B. Auxiliary Officers have the same obligation to testify in court, as do full-time officers. In addition,
the preparation and submission of appropriate reports shall be the responsibility of each Auxiliary
Police Officer who initiates any police action that requires documentation. The Auxiliary Police
Officer shall inform the Chief of Police or his/her designee of all pending court appearances.
C. Auxiliary Police Officers shall not take any action which is contrary to, or in any manner interferes
with, the duties of any member of the Department, sworn or non-sworn.
D. An Auxiliary Officer may only work alone when approved by the Chief of Police or his/her
designee. When possible, the Auxiliary officer should not be dispatched or designated as the
primary responding officer on crime-in-progress calls.
VII. CALLING INTO SERVICE GUIDELINES
A. The Chief of Police or his designee may call into service or provide for calling into service such
auxiliary police officers as may be deemed necessary (i) in time of public emergency, (ii) at such
times as there are insufficient numbers of regular police officers to preserve the peace, safety and
good order of the community, or (iii) at any time for the purpose of training such auxiliary police
officers. At all times when performing such service, the members of the auxiliary police force
shall wear the uniform prescribed by the governing body.
B. Members of any auxiliary police force who have been trained in accordance with the provisions
of VA Code 15.2-1731 may be called into service by the chief of police of any locality to aid and
assist regular police officers in the performance of their duties.
C. When the duties of an auxiliary police officer are such that the wearing of the prescribed uniform
would adversely limit the effectiveness of the auxiliary police officer's ability to perform his
prescribed duties, then clothing appropriate for the duties to be performed may be required by
the chief of police. (1968, c. 157, § 15.1-159.5; 1987, c. 421; 1988, c. 190; 1997, c. 587.)
D. Members of the Auxiliary Police Force are considered called into service under the following
conditions:
1. At the discretion of the Chief of Police.
2. To attend scheduled training and meetings.
3. When marked on and prior to marking off-duty for normal work schedule.
4. When reporting for special assignments with the Department.
5. When reporting to and from court and while attending court to give testimony in cases
arising out of their duties as Auxiliary Officers.
2-27 AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM Page 4 of 5 8/31/2013
E. Auxiliary Police Officer (Levels 1, 2 and 3) may ride with regular officers on patrol duty or assist
with other assignments that include but are not limited to administrative duties.
F. Level One Auxiliary Officers may be considered to work in a solo capacity under the supervision of
regular supervisory personnel once they have completed all training has met the minimum
compulsory training for law-enforcement officers as set forth in 6VAC20-20-21.
VIII. GUIDELINES
A. Auxiliary Police officers shall conform to the policies and procedures of the Police Department.
B. Auxiliary Police officers shall conform to the Code of Conduct of the Police Department and
Albemarle County, Virginia.
C. Auxiliary Police Officers may have access to confidential records, such as criminal histories, DMV
records, and current investigations, as their duties dictate. However, they are not authorized to
release this information to anyone outside the Police Department. Disclosure of any confidential
information, verbal or written, shall be grounds for immediate dismissal and possible
criminal prosecution.
D. Auxiliary Police Officers shall receive annual refresher training on the Department’s lethal/less -
than-lethal use of force policy(s). All documentation of use of force training shall remain on file
with the Department.
IX. ON-DUTY INJURIES
The Auxiliary Police Officer will immediately report the all injuries incurred on the job, no matter how
minor it may appear, to the Shift Supervisor, Commander of Special Operations and Chief of Police. The
Chief of Police or his/her designee will then complete a Report of Injury within 24 hours and offer the
Auxiliary Police Officer a Workers' Compensation panel of physicians for treatment.
2-27 AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM Page 5 of 5 8/31/2013
AUXILIARY POLICE OFFICER TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Level of
Auxiliary
Police Officer
Responsibility Professional Legal Issues Communication Patrol Investigations Defensive Tactics – Use of Force Weapons Use Driver Training Physical Training Field Training Timeline Training Location Level 1
Capable of all
normal duties
(certified)
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives Optional Meet all
objectives
12 months
**
Academy
or DCJS-
approved
satellite
facility
Level 2
Limited duties;
sworn, armed with
firearm
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
Objectives
EXCEPT
4.16, 4.24,
4.30, 4.31,
4.32 and
4.53
Meet all
Objectives
EXCEPT
5.6, 5.7,
5.8, 5.13,
5.14, 5.15
and 5.16
Meet all
objectives
Meet all
objectives
Yes, if
applicable
Optional
Complete to
level of
responsibility
12 months
**
Academy,
DCJS-
approved
satellite
facility, or
in-house
Level 3
Limited duties;
sworn, armed with
less-than-lethal
weapons only
Meet all
objectives
Meet
objectives:
2.1, 2.6,
2.14, 2.22,
2.25, 2.27,
2.30, 2.36,
2.38, and
2.41-2.46
Meet
objectives:
3.1-3.11,
3.13 and
3.14
Meet
objectives:
4.42, 4.43,
4.44, 4.52,
4.54 and
4.56
N/A
Meet
objectives:
6.5, 6.8,
6.10-6.14,
6.16, 6.17
and 6.18
N/A
Yes, if
applicable
Optional
Complete to
level of
responsibility
12 months
**
Academy,
DCJS-
approved
satellite
facility, or
in-house
Objectives are the compulsory minimum training requirements for entry level law enforcement officers.
* Driver training is optional if the duties of the auxiliary officer do not require operation of a law enforcement vehicle
** §15.2-1731 – Any such officer shall have one (1) year following the approval by the Board to comply with the compulsory minimum training standards
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2014 1st Quarter Proffer Report and 2013 State Survey
of Cash Proffers
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on cash and non-cash proffer revenue and
expenditures for July-September 2013 and FY 2013 cash
proffer summary report to the State
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Graham, McCulley, Higgins,
Ragsdale, Allshouse L., and Harris
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report
has been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report
on August 7, 2013, which included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for
April through June, 2013. This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the first quarter of FY
2014 (July-September). This report also includes the County’s annual report to the State for FY 2013. The next
quarterly report will be on the Board’s February 5, 2014 agenda.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
Proffer Activity for Fiscal Year 2014 First Quarter (July-September)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter that provided new cash proffers.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $45,005,213.91. This reflects 2013 annual adjustments to
anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which annual adjustments were proffered.
C. 1st Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $222,554.35 from existing cash proffers during this
quarter from the following developments (corrections pending):
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Avinity $13,714.11 CIP-Neighborhoods 4&5
Belvedere $7,000.00 Affordable Housing
Haden Place $16,700.00 CIP-Crozet
Livengood (Glenmore) $61,384.02 CIP
Livengood (Glenmore) $7,631.07 Affordable Housing
Wickham Pond II $13,000.00 CIP-Crozet
Willow Glenn $103,125.15 CIP
TOTAL $222,554.35
D. 1st Quarter Expenditures and Appropriations: There were no appropriations this quarter. A total of $302,199.32
was expended for the Crozet library and streetscape projects based on previous appropriations of proffer funds. (See
Attachment A)
Current Available Funds: As of September 30, 2013, the available proffered cash on-hand is $3,820,780.32
(including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects
while others may be used for general projects within the CIP. Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $1,972,324.22
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2014 1st Quarter Proffer Report and 2013 State Survey of Cash Proffers
November 6, 2013
Page 2
(including interest earned), is currently appropriated (See Attachment A for details). The net cash balance is
$1,848,456.10 and Attachment B provides information on how the net cash balance may be used for future CIP
projects.
FY 2013 Survey of Cash Proffers for Commission on Local Government
The state requires that localities accepting cash proffers report to the Commission on Local Government annually. The
County’s report for FY 2013 is attached (Attachment C). During FY 2013, the County collected $2,020,736.97 in cash
proffers, most of which was proffer payments ($1.5 million) received from Stonefield (Albemarle Place). The amount
expended in FY 2013 is $107,395.44. Appropriations, including interest that accrued in FY 2013, total $695,203 and
are reflected on Attachment A.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address impacts from development and they support the funding of
important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash proffer funding
for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for other projects. In
addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue.
Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer funds on an on-
going basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is
appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Summary of Cash Proffer Funds (updated through September 30, 2013)
B. Net Available Cash Proffer Funds Summary and Use of Funds
C. FY 2013 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
UPDATE: 10/18/13FUND # PROFFER NAMETOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS Projects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSAVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSACTIVE8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $2,610,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $332.87 $0.00 $1,500,332.87 $1,170,700.00 $0.00 Seminole Trail Vol. Fire. Dept. Ren/AddRio Library/Storage FacilityTransporation Revenue Sharing ProgramHydraulic Road and Barracks Road Sidewalks$329,300.00 $332.87 $329,632.878548AVINITY (CIP)$1,439,982.05$569,786.66$100.58$0.00$569,887.24$0.00$0.00 $569,786.66$100.58$569,887.248548AVINITY (Affordable Housing)$313,500.00$99,000.00$5.38$0.00$99,005.38$0.00$0.00 $99,000.00$5.38$99,005.388534AVON PARK$59,000.00$59,000.00$5,752.23$0.00$64,752.23$59,000.00$5,596.33Avon Street Sidewalks$0.00$155.90$155.908536BELVEDERE STATION$400,250.00$123,500.00$860.46($58,009.66)$66,350.80$30,000.00$0.00Orchard Acres Rehabilitation Project $36,250.00$100.80$36,350.808531ECKERD PHARMACY$6,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008520GLENMORE$893,000.00$752,000.00$129,931.52($875,364.10)$6,567.42$0.00$0.00 $1,000.00$5,567.42$6,567.428521GLENMORE$569,000.00$331,000.00$56,334.39($375,000.00)$12,334.39$0.00$0.00 $2,300.00$10,034.39$12,334.398523GRAYROCK$62,500.00$62,500.00$13,326.75($74,880.00)$946.75$0.00$0.00Crozet Regional Stormwater Management $0.00$946.75$946.758576HADEN PLACE$0.00$16,700.00$0.00$0.00$16,700.00$0.00$0.00$16,700.00$0.00$16,700.008527HOLLYMEAD AREA C$210,000.00$169,523.75$5,219.19($112,442.36)$62,300.58$59,523.75$2,741.04Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$35.79$35.798528HOLLYMEAD AREA D$481,000.00$480,999.68$23,876.58($473,712.00)$31,164.26$20,085.18$11,061.19Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$17.89$17.898545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$609,000.00$109,000.00$609.62($28,506.62)$81,103.00$30,733.69$322.73Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$50,000.00$46.58$50,046.588572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$2,133,708.45$75,020.90$0.00$0.00$75,020.90$0.00$0.00$75,020.90$0.00$75,020.908573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$324,720.00$11,808.00$0.00$0.00$11,808.00$0.00$0.00$11,808.00$0.00$11,808.008544 LIBERTY HALL $137,600.00 $108,800.00 $259.82($86,500.92)$22,558.90 $22,400.00 $130.49 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet LibraryCrozet Streetscapes Phase II$0.00 $28.41 $28.418574LIVENGOOD (CIP)$879,837.59$160,861.93$0.00$0.00$160,861.93$0.00$0.00 $160,861.93$0.00$160,861.938574LIVENGOOD (Affordable Housing)$114,595.00$21,037.23$0.00$0.00$21,037.23$0.00$0.00 $21,037.23$0.00$21,037.238529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$346,250.00$419,144.85$10,587.70$0.00$429,732.55$359,144.85$10,358.15 $60,000.00$229.55$60,229.558538NORTH POINTE$460,000.00$400,000.00$28,810.93($420,359.50)$8,451.43$0.00$8,451.43Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.00$0.008537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$2,328,000.00$166,000.00$1,906.57($99,870.73)$68,035.84$0.00$0.00Crozet Greenway$68,000.00$35.84$68,035.848546POPLAR GLEN II$155,600.00$155,601.00$199.91($122,699.00)$33,101.91$0.00$0.00Crozet Library$32,924.81$177.10$33,101.918533STILLFRIED LANE$78,000.00$78,000.00$6,358.34($84,341.07)$17.27$0.00$0.00Crozet Library$0.00$17.27$17.278525UVA RESEARCH PARK$78,178.00$78,718.00$899.80($79,500.00)$117.80$0.00$117.72Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.08$0.088535WESTERN RIDGE$5,000.00$5,159.12$857.46($6,016.58)$0.00$0.00$0.00Crozet Library$0.00$0.00$0.008541WESTHALL (1.1)$90,000.00$91,000.00$2,881.27$0.00$93,881.27$51,000.00$2,728.70Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $40,000.00$152.57$40,152.578542 WESTHALL (1.2)$30,000.00 $37,000.00 $933.97($7,000.00)$30,933.97 $23,000.00 $925.91 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet Streetscapes Phase II $7,000.00 $8.06 $7,008.068543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,000.00$3,000.00$168.16$0.00$3,168.16$0.00$0.00 $3,000.00$168.16$3,168.168540 WICKHAM POND$345,161.67 $292,622.90 $4,171.96($183,197.80)$113,597.06 $101,505.99 $2,797.07 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet LibraryCrozet Streetscapes Phase II$9,015.53 $278.47 $9,294.008549WICKHAM POND II$405,000.00$79,725.81$31.03$0.00$79,756.84$0.00$0.00$79,725.81$31.03$79,756.848575 WILLOW GLEN$3,399,856.12 $157,254.34 $0.00 $0.00 $157,254.34 $0.00 $0.00$157,254.34 $0.00 $157,254.34FUTURE05th STREET AVON 3$258,950.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 4$103,580.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 5$103,580.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000AVON PARK II$477,158.43$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000BARGAMIN PARK$18,200.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING$334,630.59$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000CASCADIA$405,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000ESTES PARK$1,186,729.98$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000FONTANA PHASE 4C$807,353.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2$17,505,318.75$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000NGIC EXPANSION$1,478,828.67$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000OAKLEIGH FARM$1,539,043.47$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000PATTERSON SUBDIVISION$150,595.46$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE$1,224,172.69$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00COMPLETED8530ALBEMARLE PLACE$100,000.00$100,000.00$3,666.41($103,666.41)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008526AVEMORE$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,286.43($51,286.43)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008539GREENBRIER$9,334.00$9,334.00$81.72($9,415.72)($0.00)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008532HOLLYMEAD AREA B$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,521.85($51,521.85)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008524SPRINGRIDGE$100,000.00$100,000.00$2,214.97($102,214.97)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008522STILL MEADOWS$135,000.00$135,000.00$17,220.78($152,220.78)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00TOTAL$45,005,213.91$7,058,098.17$320,408.65($3,557,726.50)$3,820,780.32$1,927,093.46$45,230.76$1,972,324.22$1,829,985.21$18,470.89$1,848,456.10CASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERS
NET AVAILABLE PROFFER FUNDS SUMMARY AND USE OF FUNDS 9/30/13FUND # PROFFER NAMENET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS PROFFERED USE OF FUNDS RECOMMENDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $329,632.87 CIP-GeneralCIP-General FY13 New Library/Storage FacilityHydraulic Sidewalk8548 AVINITY (CIP)$569,887.24 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 58548 AVINITY (Affordable Housing) $99,005.38Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8534AVON PARK$155.90CIP-Neighborhoods 4-Pedestrian ImprovementsMust use for specific project8536BELVEDERE STATION$36,350.80Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8531ECKERD PHARMACY$0.008520GLENMORE$6,567.42School CIP/Other CIP-GlenmoreSchool CIP/Other CIP-Glenmore8521GLENMORE$12,334.39CIP-250/Glenmore-TransportationRt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange8523GRAYROCK$946.75Interest/Jarmans Gap Road ImprovementsCIP-Crozet Project TBD8576HADEN PLACE$16,700.00CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBD8527HOLLYMEAD AREA C$35.79CIP-HollymeadCIP-Hollymead (TBD)8528HOLLYMEAD AREA D$17.89CIP Hollymead Transportation*CIP-Hollymead Transportation (TBD)8545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$50,046.58CIP-Hollymead-Greenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing OnlyGreenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing8572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$75,020.90CIP-General8573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$11,808.00Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8544LIBERTY HALL $28.41CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8574LIVENGOOD (CIP)$160,861.93CIP-General CIP-General-TBD8574LIVENGOOD (Affordable Housing)$21,037.23Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$60,229.55TransitTransit8537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$68,035.84CIP-Crozet Parks/SchoolsCIP-Crozet (Parks/Schools TBD)8546POPLAR GLEN II$33,101.91CIP-Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8533STILLFRIED LANE$17.27CIP-General or Affordable HousingProject TBD8541WESTHALL (1.1)$40,152.57Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIPCIP-Crozet (Transportation Projects)8542WESTHALL (1.2)$7,008.06CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,168.16Greenway bridge in WesthallMust use for specific project8540 WICKHAM POND$9,294.00 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project CIP-Crozet Project TBD8549WICKHAM POND II$79,756.84 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBD8575WILLOW GLEN$157,254.34 CIP-GeneralCIP-General TBDTOTAL$1,848,456.10
Commission on Local Government
2013 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Phone (804) 371-8010, Fax (804) 371-7090, or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 1 of 2 4/30/13
Date: September 24, 2013
Locality: Albemarle County X City Town
Name: Rebecca Ragsdale Title: Senior Planner
Phone: 434-296-5832 Ext. 3226 Fax: 434-972-4126
Email: rragsdale@albemarle.org
YES NO
Does your locality have an adopted cash proffer ordinance or policy? X
If “Yes,” please enclose a copy with the completed survey or provide a web link to the document.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_Developmen
t/forms/applications/PROFFER_POLICY_LAND_USE_POLICY_CASH_PROFFERS.pdf
YES NO
Did your locality accept cash proffers at any time during the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year? X
If you answered "No" for the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year, additional information is not needed. Please
return the survey to the Commission on Local Government as indicated on the next page.
If you answered "Yes" for the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year, provide the following information concerning the
cash proffers accepted by your locality: (See definitions on next page.)
FY2012-2013
1. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Collected by the Locality during the
2012-2013 Fiscal Year: $ $2,018,744.98
2. Estimated Amount of Cash Proffers Pledged during the 2012-2013 Fiscal
Year and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time: $ $1,595,713.00
3. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Expended by the Locality during the
2012-2013 Fiscal Year: $ $206,291.95
4. Indicate the Purpose(s) and Amount(s) for Which the Expenditures in Number 3 Above Were Made:
Schools $ $24,016.44
Roads and Other Transportation Improvements $
Fire and Rescue/Public Safety $ $83,379.07
Libraries $
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space $ $24,016.44
Water and Sewer Service Extension $
Community Centers $
Stormwater Management $ $74,880.00
Special Needs Housing $
Affordable Housing $
Miscellaneous $
Total Dollar Amount Expended
(Should Equal Amount in Number 3 Above) $ $206,291.95
Commission on Local Government
2013 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS?
CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Phone (804) 371-8010, Fax (804) 371-7090, or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 2 of 2 4/30/13
Please see other side.
Comments:
Use additional
sheet if
necessary.
4. Total dollar amounts expended include interest.
Please complete this form and return it to the Commission on Local Government by September 30,
2013, using one of the following methods:
•By Mail: Zack Robbins
Commission on Local Government
600 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
•By Fax: (804) 371-7090
•By Email: A Microsoft Word template of this form may be downloaded at
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/pages/cashproffersurvey.htm
Once completed, send it by email to:zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov
DEFINITIONS
Cash Proffer: (i) any money voluntary proffered in a writing signed by the owner of property subject to rezoning,
submitted as part of a rezoning application and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority granted by Va.
Code Ann. § 15.2-2303, or § 15.2-2298, or (ii) any payment of money made pursuant to a development agreement
entered into under authority granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303.1.
Cash Proffer Revenue Collected [§15.2-2303.2(D)(1), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of revenue collected
from cash proffers in the specified fiscal year regardless of the fiscal year in which the cash proffer was accepted.
Unaudited figures are acceptable.
Cash Proffers Pledged and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time [§15.2-2303.2(D)(2), Code of
Virginia]: Cash proffers conditioned only on time approved by the locality as part of a rezoning case. Unaudited
figures for the specified fiscal year are acceptable.
Cash Proffer Revenue Expended [§15.2-2303.2(D)(3), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of public projects
expended with cash proffer revenue in the specified fiscal year. Unaudited figures are acceptable.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Grant Application Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary of grant applications submitted and grants
received from June 15, 2013 through October 15, 2013
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Walker, White, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the County’s Grants Policy and associated procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the
County’s application for and use of grants.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Grant awards provide funding to support a variety of projects, the majority of which support Goal 5, Ensure the health
and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of five grant applications submitted and eight awards received
for the time period of June15, 2013 to October 15, 2013.
All grant funds and matching funds are subject to appropriation by the Board prior to the expenditure of any funds
awarded to the County.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
Grant Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY from June 15, 2013 through October 15, 2013
Applications were made for the following grants:
Granting Entity Grant Amount
Requested
Match
Required
Dept. Purpose
VA Office of the
Attorney General
Asset Forfeiture
Transfer Program
Federal
$2,900,000 0 Police
Dept.
Funding for a regional firearms training center
VA Office of the
Attorney General
Asset Forfeiture
Transfer Program
Federal
$397,207 0 Police
Dept.
Funding for training and equipment for Crisis
Intervention officers
VA Association of
Hazardous Materials
Response Specialists
Haz-Mat
Equipment/Training
Grant
State
$2,000 0 Fire/Rescue Purchase of a Multirae gas meter
Junior League of
Charlottesville
Community Grant
Local
$1,000 0 Social
Services
Purchase of summer kits for children in Family
Support caseload
VA Dept. of
Environmental Quality
Stormwater Local
Assistance Fund
State
$200,000 0
Dept. Budget
General
Services
Supplement local funds appropriated for the Church
Road project
Awards were received for the following grants:
Granting Entity Grant Amount
Requested
Match
Required
Dept. Purpose
VA Dept of Criminal
Justice Services (DCJS)
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant
Federal
Continuation Grant
$71,250 $3,750
YMCA
Social
Services
Fund an ongoing after school program for elementary
school children who live at the Wilton Farm
Subdivision in the County. The program will be
housed at the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church
located near Wilton Farm on Rt. 20. The
Charlottesville/Albemarle YMCA will provide the
teachers and staff for the program and the program
will include the evidence based PATHS (Promoting
Alternative THinking Strategies) curriculum.
DCJS State Justice Assistance
Grant
Federal
Continuation Grant
$28,227 $1,485
County
Matching Funds
Police Evidence collection and management equipment and
related training. The equipment has long-term
maintenance expenses. In addition, the mobile device
evidence recovery system has a $2,900 annual
maintenance fee for necessary updates and additions,
which may have to be added to the PD's IT budget.
DCJS DCJS-CCCA/PSA
Federal
Continuation Grant
$709,860 0
OAR Provision of pre-trial and probationary services
DCJS Victim-Witness
Program
Federal & State
$84,506 Police Support Staffing for Victim-Witness Programs –
funds appropriated in annual budget
Annual Funding
DCJS Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant
Federal
$64,601 $7,179
Dept. Budget
Police Salary and Benefits – Crime Analyst
DCJS One-time Equipment
Grant
Federal
$728 $81 OAR Purchase camcorder and digital recorders for
interviews – Orange Office
VA Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV)
Highway Safety
Grant
Federal
$15,000 $7,500
Dept. In-Kind
Sheriff Selective Speed Enforcement
DMV Highway Safety Grant
Federal
$33,600 $2,570
Dept. Budget
Police Traffic Safety – Speed Enforcement
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and
Preston
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Status Update of Project-based Voucher Approval
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Walker, and White
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Staff has provided frequent updates to the Board on the status of the approval of nine project-based vouchers (PBVs) for
The Crossings at 4th and Preston. On July 3, 2013, staff provided a timeline detailing actions from March 2012. A second
update was provided to the Board on August 14, 2013 at which time the Board appointed Ms. Mallek and Mr. Snow to
participate with staff in a meeting with HUD officials. This meeting was to be convened by Congressman Hurt’s office and
its purpose was to get specific information regarding remaining deficiencies requiring County action and a timeframe for
HUD’s approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
The meeting with HUD officials, Richmond and Headquarters, was scheduled for September 6, 2013. On August 30,
2013, the County received correspondence from the HUD’s Richmond Office notifying the County that the
Environmental Review completed by the City was inadequate and that HUD would have to conduct its own review. In
addition, the County was informed that additional radon testing would be required prior to HUD conducting the review.
Based on this information, staff determined that a conference call would be preferable to a trip to Washington and this
call was scheduled for September 6, 2013. Ms. Mallek and Mr. Snow participated in the conference call with Mr.
Walker and Mr. White. The major items discussed were:
The reason for HUD’s determination that the original Environmental Review was deemed inadequate;
HUD’s requirement that the County and the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority
(CRHA) request HUD to conduct a new Environmental Review in writing;
That HUD would provide specific requirements for the additional radon testing;
That HUD’s Headquarters would begin the review of all other submissions including waiver requests
informing the County if additional information was needed; and
The County’s revised Administrative Plan, Chapter 20 – Project-based Vouchers, will be presented to
the Board on September 11, 2013 for adoption and would then be immediately transmitted to HUD.
The Administrative Plan was adopted by Board resolution on September 11th and the resolution was then sent to
HUD, along with the revised Chapter 20. The County and CRHA also sent letters to HUD requesting that it complete
an Environmental Review for the property. HUD provided specific requirements for the radon testing on or about
September 25th and the City procured a licensed professional to conduct the tests. The report on the testing was
received on October 8th and was forwarded to HUD (however, this was after the furlough of federal employees). The
report showed that all testing sites resulted in radon levels well below the actionable levels. The County has
corresponded with Congressman Hurt’s office, most recently on October 21, 2013 to get updates from Headquarters.
To date, the County has not received a timeframe for HUD approval.
Regarding the continued local support for The Crossings, the County made contributions for September and October,
2013 from previously-appropriated local funds. Sufficient funds remain to make a full contribution to support the six
remaining tenants for November. A balance of $2,561 will remain after the November payment. A full month
contribution is $3,279.
AGENDA TITLE: Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and Preston
November 6, 2013
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no budget impacts with this update.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is providing this update for information only. Because staff has not received a timeframe for HUD approval of the
Project-based Vouchers for The Crossings due, at least in part, to the sixteen-day federal government shutdown, there
is not adequate information to make further recommendations at this time. Staff will prepare an update for the Board’s
December 4, 2013 meeting, which may include recommendations regarding continued County support.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 10, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
678 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 10, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
857 ft
Page 1 of 4
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
November 2013
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
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
Route 29—Adaptive Signal System -- TBD TBD
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. 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. FHWA
communicated on October 7, 2013 that the Department will have to address Section 4(f) with
regards to the Sammons Homestead. Additional NTP 2 activities such as Final design, RW &
CN activities can be initiated after the Section 4(f). Citizen Information Meeting occurred on
May 23, 2013. Public Hearings to be scheduled at a later date.
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250
Next Major Milestone: Completion of Phase 1A
D602 Culvert barrels are complete, with remaining work for the structure consisting of railing
and wingwall construction. Work has begun on D603 Culvert, as planned stream diversion is
in place and excavation has started on North side of US 250. Water, Sewer and Gas utility
installations are nearing completion. New Dominion power lines have been installed.
Contractor is continuing work on US 250 and McIntire Road widening in preparation for
Phase 1B shift.
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.
Ballards Mill Road 0671-002-6059 Delayed until June 2014
Scope: Superstructure replacement, State Forces.
Next Major Milestone: Road Closure, November 4th.
Proposed Completion: November 29, 2013
Rte 53 HSIP Projects (NFO)0053-002-S30, S31, S32, M501
Scope: Curve improvements at 3 locations on Route 53.
Next Major Milestone: Install Curb and Gutter, Drainage Work, Paving, Sign Installations
Contract Completion: October 19, 2013
Route 708 Dry Bridge Road (NFO)0708-002-283, C501, B659
Scope: Replace bridge; reconstruct approaches, drainage and incidentals
Next Major Milestone: Road is closed. Bridge removal and commence with drainage work.
Contract Completion: 12-Sep-14
Page 3 of 4
I-64 Box Culvert Repair (NFO)BRDG-967-083, N501
Scope: I-64 at Ivy Creek Box Culvert Repair, Albemarle County
Next Major Milestone: Currently installing access road on north side. Next, install access
road on south side. Begin wingwall corrective work on north side.
Contract Completion: 20-Dec-13
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, Burnle y 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 742 @ Route 20: Pavement marking review; Report completed. VDOT Study Number -
003-0743-20130618-006
Route 1815 Old Trail Drive: Speed study; Report completed. VDOT Study Number - 003-1815-
20130618-011
Route 1815 Old Trail Drive: Signing review; Report completed. VDOT Study Number - 003-
1815-20130618-010
Route 691: Speed study; Report completed. VDOT Study Number - 003-0691-20130625-011
Route 631 Rio Road and Putt Putt Lane: Signal warrant review; Report completed. VDOT
Study Number – 003-0631-20130723-009
Route 611 Jarmans Gap Road: Safety and signing review; Report completed; Installation
pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0611-20130819-007
Route 606 @ Route 29: Safety review; pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-0606-20130819-007
Route 664 Markwood Road: Safety review; Report completed. VDOT Study Number - 003-
0664-20130822-007
Route 620 @ Route 618: Safety review; Report completed. VDOT Study Number -- 003-0620-
20130910-007
Page 4 of 4
Under Review
Route 689 Burch’s Creek Road: Signing review; pending; VDOT Study Number – 003-0689-
20130910-010
Route 614 Garth Road: Signing review; pending; VDOT Study Number – 003-0614-20130910-
010
Route 810 Brown’s Gap Turnpike: Signing review; pending; VDOT Study Number – 003-0810-
20130910-010
Route 250 @ Route 22: Pavement marking review; pending; VDOT Study Number – 003-0250-
20130923-006
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 56 secondary routes
Machining of non-hard surface roads has been completed on 28 secondary routes
Patching was performed on 2 primary routes and 15 secondary routes
Debris removal along 13 routes
Culverts were replaced on 2 routes and cleaned on 6 primary routes and 9 routes
Shoulders repaired on 2 primary routes and 4 secondary routes
All areas preparing equipment for emergency winter operations
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
November 1, 2013
TO: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Executive
FROM: David C. Blount, Acting Executive Director/Legislative Liaison
RE: 2014 TJPD Legislative Program
Attached is the draft 2014 TJPD Legislative Program. As I discussed when I met with you in
September, I will be presenting the program and seeking approval of it at your November 6
meeting. The titles of the program’s priority areas are listed below; please note that some have
been regional priorities for a number of years. The top priority in the proposed program is public
education funding, while we maintain our focused attention on state funding obligations, mandates
and cost shifting in the second priority.
1) Public Education Funding
2) State Mandates and Funding Obligations
3) Transportation Funding and Devolution
4) Chesapeake Bay TMDL
5) Land Use and Growth Management
6) Comprehensive Services Act
As in the past, the legislative program draft also contains sections that highlight ongoing local
government positions. You will note that changes in these sections under “Areas of Continuing
Concern” are underlined where the language is new, while language proposed for deletion is
stricken. I will be happy to discuss the suggested changes to the draft program when we meet on
November 6. Thank you.
Recommended Action: Approve the draft TJPD legislative program.
Draft Legislative Plan
Return to agenda
2014
Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Legislative Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
October 2013
Allen Hale, Chairman
David Blount, Acting Executive Director/Legislative Liaison
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the State to fully fund its share of the
realistic costs of the Standards of Quality without making policy changes that reduce
funding or shift funding responsibility to localities. Further, we believe that unfunded
liability associated with the teacher retirement plan should be a shared responsibility of
state and local government.
Rationale: The state will spend about $5.3 billion on public education in FY14, about 30% of its general
fund budget. The level of state funding for FY14 remains below the FY09 amount by more than $250
million; state per pupil expenditures for FY14 of $4,880 are still well below the FY09 high of $5,274 per
pupil by almost $400. Meanwhile, local governments boost education funding by spending over $3.3
billion more per year than required by the state.
Reductions in state public education dollars the last four to five years have been accomplished
mainly through policy changes that are decreasing the state’s funding obligations moving forward. For
example, the state has “saved” millions of dollars by shifting costs to localities through making some
spending ineligible for state reimbursement or lowering the amount of the payback. It previously imposed
a cap on state funding for education support personnel and has reduced funding for other support costs.
Policy changes to the Virginia Retirement System (mandatory teacher 5% for 5%) are not a zero
sum game for localities and do nothing to reduce a $15.2 billion unfunded teacher pension liability. A
coming GASB rules change will assign liabilities associated with cost -shared pension plans (like the
Virginia teacher plan) to the government (in our case, local) that makes the payment, pote ntially
impacting credit ratings. The state sets standards and benefits for teachers; it should take responsibility for
part of their pension plan’s unfunded liability. Meanwhile, contribution rates are expected to surge again,
as the State pays back previously borrowed VRS funds and seeks to make up for past underfunding.
Position Statements:
The State should resist further policy changes that require localities to fund a greater share of
costs. State funding should be realistic and recognize actual needs, practices and costs; otherwise, more of
the funding burden will fall on local taxpayers. Localities and school divisions should have flexibility to
meet requirements and management their budgets when state funding decreases and cost-shifting occurs.
We also take the following positions:
1) The State should not eliminate or decrease funding for benefits for school employees.
2) Localities in our region should be included in the “Cost of Competing Adjustment” available
to various localities primarily in Northern Virginia.
3) We support establishment of a mechanism for local appeal of the calculated Local Composite
Index to the State.
4) We urge state financial assistance with school construction and renovation needs, including
funding for the Literary Loan and interest rate subsidy programs. The State should discontinue
seizing dollars from the Literary Fund to help pay its costs for teacher retirement.
PRIORITY ITEMS
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to 1) not
impose financial or administrative mandates on localities; 2) not shift costs for state
programs to localities; and 3) not further restrict local revenue authority.
Rationale: Locality budgets continue to be challenged by slowly-recovering local revenue, stagnant
state funding and additional requirements. While state general fund appropriations have increased by $2
billion since FY09, state assistance to local governments for locally -administered programs is $375
million less for FY14 than in FY09. These reductions have not been accompanied by program changes
that could alleviate financial burdens on localities, as state standards prescribe how services are to be
delivered and localities have to meet such standards regardless of the costs. The governor and state
officials have boasted of state budget “surpluses” the past four years, yet continue to approve unfunded
and underfunded state requirements and shift costs to localities, straining local ability to craft effective
and efficient budgets to deliver services mandated by the state or demanded by residents.
Position Statements:
We oppose unfunded state and federal mandates and the cost shifting that occurs when the state
fails to fund requirements or reduces or eliminates funding for state-supported programs. Any state
funding reductions for state-required services/programs should be accompanied by relaxation or
suspension of the state requirement or flexibility for the locality to meet the requirement. We support
efforts to improve and enhance the process for determining local fiscal impacts of proposed legislation,
including additional state involvement and resources to support such fiscal analyses and reinstatement of
the “first day” introduction requirement for bills with local fiscal impact.
Changes to Virginia’s tax code or in state policy should not reduce local government revenue
sources or restrict local taxing authority. Any legislative or study committee examining such revenues or
authority should include local government representation. This includes proposals to alter or eliminate the
BPOL and Machinery and Tools taxes, or to divert Communications Sales and Use Tax Fund revenues
intended for localities to other uses. Instead, the legislature should broaden the revenue sources available
to local governments.
The State also should not confiscate or redirect local general fund dollars to the state tre asury, as
was done in 2012 when it directed a portion of fines and fees collected at the local level pursuant to the
enforcement of local ordinances to the Literary Fund. The State should refrain from establishing local tax
policy at the state level and allow local governments to retain authority over decisions that determine the
equity of local taxation policy. The State should equalize the revenue-raising authority of counties with
that of cities, and also should ensure the appropriate collection of transient occupancy taxes from online
transactions.
STATE MANDATES & FUNDING OBLIGATIONS
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the State remain focused on providing for
sufficient state revenues to expand and maintain our transportation infrastructure. It is
imperative that the State restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and
for unpaved roads. We oppose any legislation or regulations that would transfer
responsibility to counties for construction, maintenance or operation of current or new
secondary roads.
Rationale: State leaders took a big step this past year toward addressing transportation infrastructure
needs with approval of a transportation funding package that is expected to generate nearly $800 million
per year by 2018, with funding targeted primarily for road maintenance, rail and transit. Under the
approved plan, revenues for transportation are being generated from policy changes that 1) eliminated the
gas tax and converted it to a wholesale tax (on both gas and diesel); 2) increased the state sales tax from
5% to 5.3%, while also hiking the motor vehicle sales tax and the alternative fuel vehicles a nnual fee; 3)
diverted additional general fund dollars to transportation; and 4) will utilize internet sales tax collections,
should federal law be put in place. Previous legislative changes (2012) authorize $500 million of the top
for Commonwealth Transportation Board priorities before funds are provided to the construction fund.
Accordingly, construction funding for secondary and urban roads, suspended in 2010, has not been
restored and is not due to resume until 2016.
Position Statements:
We urge the state to restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and for unpaved
roads, and we support stable and increasing dollars for cities and towns to maintain roads within their
jurisdictional boundaries. Funding for urban, suburban and secondary road improvements are vital to our
region’s ability to respond to local and regional congestion and economic development issues.
Concerning secondary road devolution, we believe that efficient and effective transportation
infrastructure, including the secondary road system, is critical to a healthy economy, job creation, a
cleaner environment and public safety. In the past 20 years, the number of miles travelled on Virginia
roadways has steadily increased, while the attention to maintaining the nearly 50,000 mile secondary
system took a back seat. We oppose shifting the responsibility for secondary roads to local entities, which
could result in vast differences among existing road systems in different localities, potentially placing the
state at a competitive economic disadvantage with other states when considering business and job
recruitment and movement of goods.
We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use planning,
without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities that do so. We urge VDOT to
be mindful of various local and regional plans when conducting corridor or transportation planning within
a locality or region. We also take the following positions:
1) We support enabling authority to establish mechanisms for funding transit and non-transit
projects in the region.
2) While we opposed the closing of VDOT’s Louisa residency facilities and support its
reopening, we also support the option for the locality to purchase the property.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING and DEVOLUTION
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities support the goal of improved water quality, but
believe it is imperative that we have major and reliable forms of financial and technical
assistance from the federal and state governments if comprehensive water quality
improvement strategies for local and state waters emptying into the Chesapeake Bay are to
be effective. We support fairness in applying requirements for reductions in nutrient and
sediment loading across source sectors, along with accompanyin g authority and incentives
for all sectors to meet such requirements. The Planning District localities are in strong
agreement that we will oppose actions that impose monitoring, management or si milar
requirements without providing sufficient resources.
Rationale: As the result of various court settlements concerning the Clean Water Act of 1972, the
Environmental Protection Agency is enforcing water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by
imposing a pollution diet (known as Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL) to reduce pollution to
acceptable levels. Bay states submitted plans for achieving TMDL goals of reducing nitrogen, phosphorous
and sediment flowing into the Bay. The TMDL and Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan require two-
year milestones for the state and localities. As local governments will be greatly impacted by initiatives to
reduce pollutants into state waters of the Bay watershed, it is imperative that aggressive state investment in
meeting such milestones occurs. This investment must take the form of authority, funding and other
resources being in place to assure success, and must ensure that cost/benefit analyses are conducted of
solutions that generate the greatest pollution reductions per dollar spent.
Local governments particularly are concerned about the various effects on their communities and
their economic growth. There will be costs to meet reduced pollutant discharge limitations for localities that
own/operate treatment plants. Local governments will be required to develop and implement nutrient
management programs for certain large, public properties. Costs for stormwater management regulations
will fall on both new development and redevelopment. There will be economic impacts due to increased
cost for compliance by agriculture and increased fees charged by the permitted dischargers.
Position Statements:
1) We support sufficient state funds for the full cost of implementing TMDL measures that will be required
of local governments. This includes costs associated with revised stormwater management regulations and
requirements for locally-implemented stormwater management programs, as fees that have been authorized
likely will be inadequate to cover costs associated with the new programs. The state should consider using
state budget surplus dollars to fund such measures. We also support allowances for modified stormwater
management plans for individual lots.
2) We support sufficient federal funds for grants and low-interest loans for capital costs, such as for
permitted dischargers to upgrade treatment plants and for any retrofitting of developed areas, while
minimizing the economic impact of increased fees.
3) We support sufficient state funding for a) the Cooperative Extension Service and Soil and Water
Conservation Districts to aid farmers with best management practices (BMP) in their oper ations, and b) the
Soil and Water Conservation Board for monitoring resource management plan compliance.
4) We believe that implementation of the Nutrient Trading Act to allow exchange of pollution allocations
among various point and nonpoint sources should contain such exchanges within a particular watershed, so
as to improve the health of local waters.
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities encourage the state to provide local
governments with additional tools to manage growth, without preempting or
circumventing existing authorities.
Rationale: In the past, the General Assembly has enacted both mandated and optional land use
provisions applicable to local governments in order to address growth issues. While some have been
helpful, others have prescribed one-size-fits-all rules that hamper various localities that may approach
their land use planning differently. Preemption or circumvention of existing local authority hinders
localities in implementing the comprehensive plan or overseeing land uses. Moreover, current land use
authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to provide for balanced growth in a manner that
protects and improves quality of life.
Position Statements:
The General Assembly should grant localities additional tools necessary to meet important
infrastructure needs that are driven by development. We endorse efforts to have impact fee and proffer
systems that are workable and meaningful for various parties, but we oppose attempts to weaken our
current proffer authority. Rather, we support revisions to the current road impact fee authority that would
include additional localities and provide: 1) a fair allocation of the costs of new growth on public
facilities; 2) facility costs that include various transportation modes, schools, public safety, libraries and
parks; 3) effective implementation and reasonable administrative requirements; and 4) no caps or limits
on locality impact fee updates.
We also take the following positions:
1) We oppose efforts to unnecessarily expand and commercialize the definition of farm
operations that would impede local abilities to protect the property values, health, safety and
welfare of citizens in the locality.
2) To enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to implement services associated with
new developments, we support localities being given authority to enact local ordinances for
determining whether public facilities are adequate (“adequate public facility,” or APF
ordinances).
3) We support optional cluster development as a land use tool for local governments.
4) Concerning conservation of land, we support a) state funding for localities, at their option, to
acquire, preserve and maintain open space; b) authority to generate local dollars for such
efforts; c) additional incentives for citizens to create conservation easements; and d) authority
for localities, at their option, to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts.
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the state to be partners in containing
costs of the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better bal ance CSA responsibilities
between state and local government. We also request increased state dollars for local CSA
administrative costs.
Rationale: Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act in the early 1990’s, there has been
pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to increase local match
levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs.
After years of steep increases (ranging from five to 16 percent) in state and local costs of residential and
non-residential mandated services, CSA pool expenditures for state and local governments have declined
or remained steady the last four years as the number of youth receiving services has dropped. Costs
remain challenging to forecast because of factors beyond state and local control (number of mandated
children in a community, severity of problems, service rates, and availability of alternative funding).
In addition, localities pay the overwhelming majority (80%) of costs to administer this shared
program. State dollars for administration have not increased since the late 1990’s. At the same time,
administrative costs have jumped due to additional data collection and reporting requirements.
Position Statements:
We take the following positions:
1) The state should either provide additional funding to localities for administrative support or
revise its data collection and reporting requirements.
2) The state should provide full funding of the state pool for CSA, with allocations based on
realistic anticipated levels of need.
4) The state should establish a cap on local expenditures in order to combat higher local costs for
serving mandated children, costs often driven by unanticipated placements in a locality.
5) The categories of populations mandated for services should not be expanded unless the state
pays all the costs.
6) The state should be proactive in making residential facilities and service providers available,
especially in rural areas.
7) In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local governments, we
recommend that the state establish contracts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform
contract management process in order to improve vendor accountability and to control costs.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
AREAS OF CONTINUING CONCERN
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as
essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies that closely link the goals
of economic and workforce development and the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce
activities and revenue sources. We also support increased state funding for workforce development
programs.
We support the state’s Economic and Workforce Development Strategic Plan for the
Commonwealth that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local governments and emphasizes
regional cooperation in economic, workforce and tourism development.
We support meaningful opportunities to boost regional collaboration and projects. Specifically,
we endorse enhanced state funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to initiate and sustain such
efforts. to continue meaningful opportunities for regional projects. We also support increased state
funding for the Industrial Site Development Fund, the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism
initiatives that help promote economic development in localities and regions.
We encourage the state and local governments to work with other e ntities to identify, to provide
incentives for incentivize and to promote local, regional and state agricultural products and rural
enterprises, and to encourage expansion and opportunities for such products and enterprises.
We support restructuring of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (VCES) that preserves
beneficial extension agents and the services they provide, and that increases increased state funding for
the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service VCES.
We encourage continuing state incentives and support for expediting deployment and reducing
the cost of broadband technology, particularly in underserved areas.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be funded and
promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water quality, solid waste management,
land conservation, climate change and land use policies. We are committed to protection and
enhancement of the environment and recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between
environmental regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of
available revenues. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the inter -jurisdictional nature
of many environmental resources, and adequate state funding to support local and regional efforts.
We believe the following:
The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or other local
services to pay for state environmental programs. To do so would set a disturbing prece dent whereby the
state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund state priorities.
The legislature should continue to provide funding for wastewater treatment and other necessary
assistance to localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaire d waterways. The state also should
explore alternative means of preventing and remediating water pollution.
We oppose legislation mandating expansion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act’s coverage
area. Instead, we urge the state to 1) provide legal, financial and technical support to localities that wish to
ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
comply with any of the Act’s provisions, 2) allow localities to use other practices to improve water
quality, and 3) provide funding for other strategies that address point and non-point source pollution.
We support legislative and regulatory action to 1) ensure that alternative on-site sewage systems
will be operated and maintained in a manner that protects public health and the environment, and 2)
increase options for localities to secure owner abatement or correction of system deficiencies.
The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development and should
work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues, including investing in regional projects .
Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts should continue to involve local governments.
We support legislation enabling localities, as a part of their zoning ordinances, to designate and/or
reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the locality, based on criteria
designed to further protect the public safety and welfare of citizens. In addition, we support increased
local government representation on the Biosolids Use Regulation Advisory Committee.
We support scenic river designation for a portion of the Tye River in Nelson County.
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given to developing
circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the elderly, can
achieve their full potential. Funding reductions to community agencies have been especially troublesome,
as their activities often end up preventing more costly services later. The delivery of health and human
services must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and local agencies. We urge the General
Assembly to ensure funding is available to continue such valuable preventive services.
We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of the local share of
costs for human services.
The state should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act
(VJCCCA) program, which has cut in half the number of juvenile justice commitments over the past
decade.
The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards (CSBs) to meet
the challenges of providing a community-based system of care, including maximizing the use of Medicaid
funding. We believe children with mental health needs should be treated in the mental health system,
where CSBs are the point of entry. We support state action to increase investment in the MR waiver
program for adults and young people and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services. We also
oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the state to localities, and request sufficient
federal and/or state financial resources associated with new or additional roles and responsibilities for
local governments due to any expansion of Medicaid.
We urge full state funding to offset any increased costs to local governments for additional
responsibilities for processing applications for the FAMIS program.
We support funding for mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile detention centers.
We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding.
We support the provision of sufficient state funding to match all available federal dollars for the
administration of mandated services within the Department of Social Services (DSS), and to meet the
staffing standards for local departments to provide services as stipulated in state law. Additionally, the
state should not assess penalties on localities resulting from federal Title IV-E foster care audit findings;
rather it should adequately fund, equip and support local DSS offices.
We support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include companion and in
home services, home delivered meals and transportation.
We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention
programs (and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), including school -based prevention
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
programs which can make a difference in children’s lives. This would inclu de the state’s program for at-
risk four-year-olds and the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs, as well as Part C of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (infants and toddlers).
The legislature should provide full funding to assist low-income working and TANF (and former
TANF) families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay for supervised day
care facilities and support efforts for families to become self-sufficient. We oppose any initiatives to shift
traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local governments. We
believe the current funding and program responsibility for TANF employment services should remain
within the social services realm. We also support a TANF plan that takes into account and fully funds
state and local implementation and support services costs.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to afford
decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and localities should work to expand and preserve the supply
and improve the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, disabled, and low- and moderate-income
households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible.
We support the following: 1) local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing programs, 2)
creation of a state housing trust fund, 3) local flexibility in establishment of affordable dw elling unit
ordinances, 4) grants and loans to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing dwellings, and 5)
the provision of other funding to encourage affordable housing initiatives.
We support enabling legislation that allows property tax relief for community land trusts that hold
land for the purpose of providing affordable homeownership.
We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures.
We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in zoning
districts that permit single-family dwellings.
We encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using environmentally
friendly (green) building materials and techniques, which can contribute to the long-term health, vitality
and sustainability of the region.
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and assistance
for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services responsibilities
carried out locally.
We urge the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding local
positions that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of funding constitutional offices
or divert funding away from local offices, but increase money needed for their operation. Local
governments continue to provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets when state
funding is reduced.
We urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program (in accordance with
Code of Virginia provisions), the drug court program and the Offender Reentry and Transition Services
(ORTS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. We also support continued state
endorsement of the role and authority of pretrial services offices.
HOUSING
PUBLIC SAFETY
The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and restore the per
diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners to $14 per day. Also, the state should
not shift costs to localities by altering the definition of state-responsible prisoner.
We support restoration of state funding responsibility for the Line of Duty Act.
We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’ Service Award
Program and other incentives that would help recruit and retain emergency service providers. Further, the
state should improve access to and support for training for volunteer and paid providers.
We encourage shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional jails;
however, we do not believe the state should operate local and regional jails.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take place at
the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom
and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local government authority to
establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees; matters that can be adopted
by resolution or ordinance; and procedures for adopting ordinances.
We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) preserve 1) a
local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of records currently exempt from
disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning creation of customized computer records. We
support changes to allow local and regional public bodies to conduct electronic meetings as now
permitted for state public bodies.
We support allowing localities to use alternatives to newspapers for publishing various legal
advertisements and public notices.
We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to regulate noise or
the discharge of firearms.
We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the costs associated
with compensating jury members.
We support authorization for the court to issue restricted driver’s licenses to persons
denied them because of having outstanding court costs or fees.
We support legislation to include Albemarle County as a locality enabled to restrict the number of
inoperable vehicles which may be kept outside of an enclosed building or structure on residential or
commercial property.
We support legislation to allow localities to give developers the option to install sidewalks or to
contribute corresponding funds in connection with new residential development or redevelopment.
The state should enable localities to retain civil penalties collected from illegal sign removal in
the right-of-way.
We support a pilot program to combine voting precincts into centralized voting centers for
primary elections, in order to study their potential efficacy and cost savings.
We support increased state funding for regional planning districts.
We support legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse maintenance.
We oppose attempts to reduce sovereign immunity protections for localities.
We support enactment of an interest rate cap of 36% on payday loans, fees and other related
charges.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE and LAWS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. - Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
Request (ACSA201300002)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide sewer
service to Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 and 23, and provide
water and sewer service to Tax Map 77, Parcel 31, Tax
Map 78, Parcel 25, and Tax Map 92, Parcel 1, located on
Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53) approximately 2
miles east of the intersection of Scottsville Road (Route
20) and Route 53.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Benish, Sorrell
PRESENTER (S): David Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (“TJF”) is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”) Jurisdictional Area
designation for public water and/or sewer service to parcels and buildings owned by it as follows:
Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, staff offices, original gift shop, and
restrooms (TMP 78-22).
Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and a map correction to the Jurisdictional Area Map
to include the Visitor Center site for water service.
Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies) (TMP 92-01) and future
administrative campus (TMP 78-25).
Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto (TMP 77-31).
These sites are located east of Route 20 on Route 53 (see Attachment B). The parcels are designated Rural Area in the
County’s Comprehensive Plan and are located in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
A portion of TMP 78-22 consisting of the Monticello Main House area is the only area in the request currently located
within the Jurisdictional Area for public water service. This area has been provided public water service for over 50 years
(as early as 1948). A 100,000 gallon underground water storage tank is filled to provide domestic service and fire
suppression (see Attachment B). Water service was extended from the Monticello Main House area (storage tank) to the
new Visitor Center in 2007. The Kenwood and Montalto sites are currently served by private wells and all of the buildings
and parcels in this request (including the Main House Area and Visitor Center) are currently served by private sewage
systems.
With the exception of the Jefferson Library at Kenwood (TMP 92-01, zoned RA), all of the other parcels included in this
request are zoned Monticello Historic District (MHD). In the 2004 review of the rezoning application that created the
Monticello Historic District, there was no discussion of the expansion of the jurisdictional area to include any of the MHD
area. At that time, the existing infrastructure was considered adequate and the alternative wastewater disposal system
planned to serve the new Visitor Center was determined to be adequate to meet facility needs. At the time Montalto was
rezoned to MHD in 2008, private water and sewer facilities were also believed to be adequate for that use. Since that
time, additional infrastructure studies and planning has been conducted by the TJF. A 2011 study (Attachment C) found
that water flow for firefighting was inadequate to serve the Monticello Main House location and the new Visitor Center, as
well as Kenwood House. In addition, other infrastructure was aging and had high maintenance costs.
TJF has stated that the overarching need for public water and sewer service is to provide adequate fire protection and to
maintain reliable ongoing operations. The current fire suppression capabilities are inadequate for multiple buildings and
there is a concern that the continued high level of use of the existing private sewage facilities for the Main House area and
the Visitor Center could result in unexpected and more frequent system failures, which could affect operations over an
extended period of time while repairs are made. TJF has submitted this jurisdictional area request to ensure the
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
November 6, 2013
Page 2
continued long-term viability of Monticello and its associated facilities. TJF’s plan is to provide water for fire suppression
through a proposed water storage tank at Montalto.
In the immediate area, the Michie Tavern site is in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer while the Monticello
Memorial Gardens site is in the Jurisdictional Area for Water Only. Both areas were provided service prior to the
establishment of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area and associated policies (Michie Tavern received service in the 1970s).
Both sites are in the designated Rural Areas. T he former Blue Ridge Hospital site is also in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area
for water and sewer (and is located in the Urban Area 4).
DISCUSSION:
The subject parcels can be grouped into two categories based on the number of users /visitors to the sites. The first
category would be for the Main House Area and the Thomas Jefferson Visitor’s Center and Smith Education Center area
on TMP’s 78-22 and 23. The second category would include the International Center for Jefferson Studies – Kenwood
and Jefferson Library (TMP 92-1), the future administrative campus (TMP 78-25) and the Robert H. Smith Center at
Montalto (TMP 77-31). These sites have many fewer visitors - similar in number to the site visitors and events found with
rural churches and rural special events.
Category 1: Main House Area and Visitor Center
Public sewer is requested to serve these parcels. TJF estimates that annual visitation to these sites is over 450,000
people. This is significantly higher than most any other use located in the Rural Area. The Main House and adjacent
buildings are served by drainfields originally installed in the 1930s and repaired in the 1970s. TJF has stated that they
believe these facilities have exceeded their useful life and should be replaced. The Health Department has noted that
while all onsite sewage systems have a limited lifespan, it is difficult to determine the life span of an existing system. The
lifespan for a septic system is determined by many factors , such as wastewater flow, wastewater strength, site and soil
conditions, natural weather variations, and regular maintenance over the lifetime of the system . The Health Department
also notes that an evaluation by a professional engineer is required before it can be determined with certainty that an
onsite sewage disposal system would not serve the proposed use. Given the amount of property that TJF owns, there
may be an onsite solution. There are no noted system leaks or malfunctions on record with the Health Department and
no known problems exist at this time; however, the applicant has stated that this is likely because TJF regularly pumps out
the septic tanks on a schedule twice as often as typically recommended by the Health Department.
For TJF, an important limiting factor for locating new onsite sewage disposal areas near the Monticello Main House area
is the potential for the associated land disturbance to impact historic resources. Monticello is only one of two World
Heritage sites in the United States. As such, TJF has stated in its application that additional land disturbance for new
onsite disposal facilities would require disturbance of an area (and perhaps other areas) of Monticello’s historic orchard.
TJF strongly prefers to leave areas where archeological resources may lie in-place, allowing for future study by
researchers. In addition, if permitted to install public sewer lines, TJF has stated its desire to use a directional bore
technique along an existing cleared trail to limit the land disturbance along the location of the sewer line and protect
potential historical resources in the archeological layer above the line , which would not require disturbance as when a
traditional method is used.
The Visitor Center uses an alternative sewage treatment system and onsite drainfield that was installed in 2006. TJF
states that the system has a 10 year life span, and that together with on-going maintenance and monitoring, that the
system is difficult and expensive to maintain, particularly during peak usage periods. The Health Department has noted
that it is not aware of documentation from the manufacturer of the system that suggests that the septic system serving the
Visitor Center has a predetermined lifespan. Again, there are many variables involved.
Category 2: Kenwood, Future Administrative Campus, and Montalto
Both public water and sewer are requested to serve parcels in this category. The parcels in this category have
significantly less visitors than the Main House area and Visitor Center. However, in keeping with the overarching theme of
this application, a major reason public water has been requested for these areas is for fire suppression.
Kenwood House is currently served by a private groundwater well and has the capacity of 30,000 gallons for onsite fire
suppression. TJF estimates this to be half the need in the case of a fire. Given the number of unique and historic
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
November 6, 2013
Page 3
documents and other materials on file in the library, TJF desires public water to improve water capacity for fire flow.
Connection to public water would also improve drinking water quality by improved filtration.
Kenwood House is currently served by a traditional onsite septic system for wastewater disposal. TJF feels the onsite
system is also approaching the end of its useful life and TJF desires to connect to the same public sewer line proposed for
sites in category 1.
The future administrative campus will be located on the parcel immediately adjacent to the west side of the Kenwood
House. The location of the future offices is the same as what was proposed in the 2004 rezoning of the property to MHD
and is currently the site of an existing dwelling. The site is served by private groundwater wells. Connection to the publi c
water supply would allow for better water filtration for the domestic water supply. TJF has stated that it does not believe
that the existing groundwater wells would support the site; however, additional documentation is needed to support this
conclusion.
The future administrative campus site is served by a conventional onsite sewer system that TJF feels is also at the end of
its useful life. TJF has stated that it does not believe that an additional or new conventional onsite septic system would be
supported on the site, however, additional documentation is needed to suppor t this conclusion.
The Robert H. Smith Center is located at the top of the Montalto site at an elevation above the other facilities operated by
TJF and is served by groundwater wells. When TJF completed its infrastructure planning study in 2011, it was concluded
that the Montalto site should contain a new underground 250,000 gallon water storage tank that could be used to supply
water for domestic and fire suppression needs for Mon talto, the Main House Area (of Monticello), the Visitor Center,
Kenwood House, and the future administrative campus site. Because of Montalto’s higher elevation, it would provide a
gravity flow to these other areas. The Health Department does not have any documentation regarding any issues with the
water on this site. TJF has stated that it does not believe that the groundwater wells would support the site, however,
given the site’s high elevation, TJF has stated that there has been difficulty in supplying water to the site in the past and
that additional wells have been drilled closer to Route 53, which has necessitated a water pump station about halfway up
the drive to Montalto to pump water to the site. Additional information supporting the difficulty in obtaining water at the site
is requested to document the additional wells drilled (that were needed to continue site usage).
Montalto is currently served by a private onsite septic system that was upgraded in the last several years. TJF indicates
that the system is currently working adequately and that there are no documented issues associated with the system.
However, TJF desires to connect to the same public sewer line as proposed for the other facilities.
Summary and Findings:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following recommendations concerning the provision of public water and sewer
service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger (p. 130).”
By policy, water and sewer services are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where growth is
encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Area because utility services are a potential catalyst for growth. Water
supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to serve the Development Areas.
The continued connection of properties in the Rural Area to the public system results in further extension of lines from the
fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area into the Rural Area, potentially straining water and sewer resources and the
capacity to serve higher priority needs.
Staff finds that these requests are not consistent with existing County policy for the provision of public water and sewer
service. All of these properties are located within the designated Rural Area. With regard s to the recommendation which
states “Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where the
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
November 6, 2013
Page 4
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger,” there is no documented current or
eminent public health or safety issue (such as a system contamination or failure) and no documentation stating that new
private systems could not be installed on these sites. The Kenwood parcel is not adjacent to existing water or sewer
lines. The Montalto parcel is not adjacent to existing water lines.
There are, however, unique circumstances that relate to the request for sewer service to the Monticello Main House and
Visitor Center sites, including: the high level of usage/visitation to the sites and the historic resources potentially impacted
by the installation of new private sewer systems. Given the unique nature of the nearly half a million annual visitors to the
Monticello Main House and Visitor Center, while there is not a documented health or safety issue associated with the
existing private sewerage system , there could be a significant impact to the facilities operations and public health if the
sites were to have to close due to failure of the aging private sewerage facilities. In addition, if the existing drainfield site
could not be used (already repaired once over 30 years ago), significant land disturbance at the Monticello Main House
site would be needed (most likely at the site of Jefferson’s orchards). Given the archeological resources on that site, TJF
strongly desires to leave those areas undisturbed so that archeological resources will be left in place for study sometime
in the future. Land disturbance for a drainfield would significantly damage and alter an area adjacent to the Main House ,
which is not desired.
An additional unique aspect of this application is the new 250,000 gallon underground water storage tank proposed
on the Montalto parcel (77-31). The water storage tank would serve to improve the fire suppression capabilities of the
entire Monticello complex including the Visitor Center and Main House area (due to the higher elevation of the
Montalto site). Given the site’s status as a UNESCO World Heritage site and the number of annual visitors to the
Visitor’s Center and Main House area, additional fire suppression is an important consideration. Despite these
unusual circumstances, staff’s conclusion is that the request does not meet the guiding principles.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner would bear all of the costs for connection to public water and public sewer services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The requests for the following amendments to the ACSA Jurisdictional Area boundaries for water and sewer service are
not consistent with the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of public water and
sewer, therefore staff recommends that no public hearing be scheduled for these request s.
Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, staff offices, original gift shop, and
restrooms (TMP 78-22).
Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and a map correction to the Jurisdictional Area Map
to include the visitor center site for water service.
Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies) (TMP 92-01) and future
administrative campus (TMP 78-25).
Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto (TMP 77-31).
Should the Board decide that the unique conditions/circumstances related to the Monticello Main House site and Visitor
Center (TMP’s 78-22 and 23) outweigh the strict application of the policies and recommendations for Jurisdictional Area
Map amendments, staff recommends that a public hearing be set to consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Map
to provide limited sewer service to the existing structures only on TMP 78-22 and 23.
In addition, should the Board decide that the unique circumstances relating to the water storage tank on the Montalto site
(TMP 77-31) outweigh the strict application of the policies and recommendations for Jurisdictional Area Map
amendments, staff recommends that a public hearing also be set to consider amending the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Map
to provide limited water service to TMP 77-31 for the purpose of providing water to the proposed fire suppression tank.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Applicant’s Request
B – Location Map and Jurisdictional Area Designations
C – 2011 TJF Water and Sewer Study Maps (existing and proposed)
AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation -- Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area Request (ACSA201300002)
November 6, 2013
Page 5
Return to agenda
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Str
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Attachment B -ACSA 2013-00002 Current ACSA Jurisdictional Boundaries
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 23, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
2037 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Zoning Info
Zoning Classifications
Rural Areas
Village Residential
R1 Residential
R2 Residential
R4 Residential
R6 Residential
R10 Residential
R15 Residential
Planned Unit Developmen
Planned Residential Devel
Neighborhood Model Distri
Monticello Historic District
C1 Commercial
Commercial Office
Highway Commercial
Planned Development Sh
Planned Development Mix
Downtown Crozet District
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Planned Development Ind
Town of Scottsville
Comp Plan Land Use Info
Urban Development Area
Comprehensive Plan Area
Comp Plan Roadway Impr
Crozet Master Plan Land
Greenspace *
Neighborhood Density (Lo
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Mixed-Use
Downtown
Institutional
Light Industrial
See Crozet Masterplan Te
Pantops Master Plan Land
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Urban Mixed Use
Institutional
Employment District
Employment Mixed Use
Commercial Mixed Use
Parks
Greenspace
River Corridor
Rural Area
Places29 Master Plan Mix
C - Community Center
D - Destination Center
NS - Neighborhood Servic
Up - Uptown
Places29 Master Plan Lan
Airport District
Urban Mixed Use (in Cent
Urban Mixed Use (in area
Commercial Mixed Use
Urban Density
Neighborhood Density
Office / R & D / Flex / Light
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Institutional
Public Open Space
Privately Owned Open Sp
Village of Rivanna Master
Comp Plan Land Use
Community Service
Industrial Service
Institutional
Neighborhood Density
Neighborhood Service
Office Service
Office/Regional Service
Parks and Greenways
Regional Service
Town/Village Center
Transitional
Urban Density
Rural Area
See Development Area Te
Master Plan Areas
Attachment B - ACSA 2013-0002 Current Zoning
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 23, 2013
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
2037 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Development Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Recommendation for Establishment of an Ongoing
Economic Development Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Catlin, Stimart
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 6, 2013, the Board received an update on the progress of Strategic Plan Goal 3 - Encourage a diverse and
vibrant local economy. Recognizing that the Economic Vitality Action Plan is a three year plan that will conclude in
September, 2013, the Board included an objective for that goal as follows: Objective 2 – Establish a fully functioning
economic development program for the County.
Staff shared a preliminary program concept with the Board on February 6, 2013 to solicit initial feedback and guidance
regarding the parameters for establishing a fully functioning economic development program. The Board supported the
general direction of the program concept that was presented and directed staff to convene a roundtable of community
stakeholders to provide additional feedback on the preliminary program outline. Based on that February 6th discussion,
funding to provide increased resources for economic development was incorporated into the FY13/14 Adopted Budget
with the understanding that a specific recommendation would come back to the Board for final approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3 – Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
DISCUSSION:
Program Concept:
The economic vitality strategic goal team researched a variety of localities in Virginia to assess how their programs
operate and what services they offer. In addition, staff researched basic best practices as determined by the Virginia
Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) to understand what those practices recommend regarding the mission,
objectives and operations of an effective local government economic development program. A document entitled
“2013 – 14 Guidebook for Elected Officials” created by VEDP was consulted as part of this research and can be found
at the following link: http://www.vaallies.org/assets/files/publications/ed_handbook.pdf
Based on the team’s research, as well as existing County policies and the major elements of the County’s existing
Economic Vitality Action Plan, the team developed a draft program concept to establish an economic development
program that was shared with the Board in February and with community stakeholders at a roundtable attended by 15
participants in March, 2013. Attachment A is a revised version of the proposed economic development program
concept which incorporates feedback received during the March, 2013 roundtable. Highlights from the roundtable are
included below:
Suggested edits to the mission statement:
to enhance rather than maintain competitive position
to insert quality in front of “job creation”
to insert all in front of “citizens”
Suggested edits to the guiding principles – add language to stress:
Value of existing companies that anchor the County’s economy
Importance of developing talented workers
Focus on educational achievement/attainment; not just partnerships
Focus on being proactive – solution finders/relationship builders
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Development Program
November 6, 2013
Page 2
Importance of physical infrastructure sufficient to support economic vitality
Support for Department of Defense partnerships
Continue to remove barriers to development
Comments regarding Major Program Components – Business Attraction:
Several attendees expressed a preference for language that is stronger than just responding to inquiries of
interest in this section – identifying the need to initiate and cultivate business attraction for target industries
Staffing Implications:
Program comparison information from selected benchmark counties is provided in Attachment B to give insight into
the level of resources and types of incentives being dedicated to e conomic development in localities across the state.
While Albemarle does not aspire to replicate any specific economic development effort, adequate staffing resources
are required in order to maintain a competitive position with other Virginia localities.
An economic development program that addresses the attached guiding principles , provides the identified
components and allows Albemarle to achieve its vision of being a thriving county as related to economic vitality
requires an effective team approach that includes continuing community development department efforts, a refocus
on strategic partnerships, and establishing an office to focus on dedicated core functions of economic development.
Suggested roles and responsibilities for these three elements are outlined below:
Community Development Department – Continue focus on strategic land use planning, development review
processes, and regulatory reform across various functions of the Community Development Department.
Community Engagement and Strategic Partnerships - Refocusing the existing Office of Community and Business
Partnerships to increase efforts related to communications/marketing, tourism/agritourism, and public outreach and
engagement efforts which have grown considerably over the past several years with the expansion of Citizen Advisory
Committees throughout the County. In addition to these more traditional functions, the office will provide leadership in
leveraging new and existing partnerships that create opportunities to enhance community vitality and address the
County’s strategic priorities and challenges, to include:
Enhanced partnerships with UVA, the City, PVCC, neighborhood organizations, etc .;
Promoting citizen ownership of community challenges (Strategic Plan goal #6);
Promoting and facilitating community volunteer efforts
Economic Development - Establish an Economic Development Office to focus on core functions of economic
development not currently being adequately addressed. This office would consist of a Director, an Economic
Development Facilitator (relocated from the County Executive’s Office), and a half-time administrative staff. This
office would be responsible for existing business retention and expansion, business attraction, workforce development
and other core functions, with particular emphasis on:
Overseeing product development (sites and buildings) for target industries and prospect readiness to
encourage start-ups, existing business expansions and business relocations ;
Establishing and managing internal and external prospect response teams;
Identifying appropriate target industry prospects, initiating and following up on contacts;
Developing partnerships with local business and real estate interests to leverage resources to attract target
industries;
Serving as the County’s liaison to the Albemarle County Economic Development Authority (EDA), including
responsibility for the EDA’s budget development and the oversight of EDA-related financing arrangements;
and
Implementing an expanded Albemarle Business First outreach program and other business retention and
expansion initiatives.
Next Steps:
In order to establish an economic development program as described above, the following next steps are
recommended:
Beginning in early 2014 for a period of three to four months, staff will work with the Board on a variety of
efforts to prepare for the transition to an independent Office of Economic Development , including developing
a broader understanding of current and emerging realities of economic development and the needs of the
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Development Program
November 6, 2013
Page 3
County’s target industries; gaining working knowledge of what efforts are necessary to achieve robust
economic health in a competitive environment; and developing the shared responsibility of economic
development among key partners such as the EDA and the Planning Commission to establish the
philosophical framework that sets direction for the economic development program , including desired
measurements/outcomes. These efforts would include:
Holding a series of joint work sessions to provide insights and experiences from experts in various
areas of economic development.
Planning site visits or other learning opportunities to observe how economic development initiatives
are succeeding in other communities.
Establish a new Economic Development Office by July 1, 2014, which would involve:
Hiring an Economic Development Director and administrative staff
Transitioning the Economic Development Facilitator from the County Executive’s Office to the new
office
Refocus and transition the efforts of the existing Office of Community and Business Partnerships
Efforts begun during the Economic Vitality Action Plan to advance the five identified goals will continue during
this period with existing staff in their current roles, with particular focus on continued positive business image
and climate initiatives, workforce readiness, marketing, existing business retention, target market analysis,
and agribusiness support. The $50,000 in funding for establishing an economic development program
provided in the adopted FY 14 budget could be used beginning in January, 2014 to support targeted
economic development functions during the transition period with the Board of Supervisors prior to the
establishment of the new Economic Development Office in July, 2014.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff estimates the cost to establish an Economic Development Office to be staffed by a new Director and a new half-
time administrative position would be approximately $160,000 annually in addition to the existing Economic
Development Facilitator position. Exact costs for the new office would be determined during the FY 15 annual budget
process, and funding would become available on July 1, 2014.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the economic development program as proposed and direct staff to
proceed with the next steps as described above.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Economic Development Program Outline
Attachment B – Comparison Information from Benchmark Communities
Return to agenda
1 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Establishing An Economic Development Function for Albemarle County
Background:
Albemarle County’s economic development efforts have been guided by a three year Economic Vitality
Action Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors in August, 2010, which outlines five goals and related
strategies and actions. The Board’s recently adopted Strategic Plan recognizes the need to transition
from this Plan which will end in September, 2013, to an established economic development function
that operates as a regular and ongoing operation of County government. The Strategic Plan
incorporates the following goal and objectives:
Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
a. Complete all objectives of last two years of the Economic Vitality Action Plan.
b. Establish fully functioning economic development program for the County.
c. Assess and implement appropriate incentive options to support economic development in the
County.
Contributing Policies/Documents:
Existing county policies and documents provide an overarching structure and parameters to help define
how an economic development function should operate:
County’s Vision Statement:
A thriving County, anchored by a strong economy and excellent education system, that honors its rural
heritage, scenic beauty and natural and historic resources while fostering attractive and vibrant
communities.
Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Policy:
“The purpose of this economic development policy is, first and foremost, to provide the local citizenry an
improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life. Economic growth and vitality are required to
sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. By
creating and sustaining a high quality, diversified economic environment, citizens will enjoy improved job
opportunities, competitive wages, work force development opportunities, and the community will enjoy
a growing and diversified tax base.”
Economic Vitality Action Plan Preamble:
“The Economic Development Policy of the County’s Comprehensive Plan has a stated purpose to “provide
the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life.” This Action Plan is
intended to translate the purpose and goals of the Economic Development Policy into concrete and
measureable actions, being very mindful of the need to adhere to already established growth
management objectives and natural resource protections. While this Plan is focused on accomplishing
specific action items within the next three years, the County recognizes the need for a long term
commitment to economic vitality. This Plan is intended to establish a sustainable pathway for the long
term health of our local economy.”
2 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Target Industry Study:
The Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development directed consultant work on a Target
Industry Study for its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County, which was completed in April,
2012. This study identifies types of industries that have the strongest potential to succeed and offer the
best prospects for "good jobs," meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of life (security, higher wages,
opportunities for advancement, training, flexibility), both in our larger region and specifically in
Albemarle County. The Board of Supervisors endorsed the targets recommended for Albemarle County in
May, 2012.
Program Definition:
Several defining elements are important in establishing the broad outlines of the County’s economic
development function:
Draft Albemarle County Economic Development Mission:
To foster and encourage responsible economic development activities that enhance the county’s
competitive position and result in quality job creation and career employment opportunities, increased
tax base and an improved quality of life for all citizens while respecting Albemarle County’s natural
resources and unique character.
Albemarle County Economic Development Guiding Principles:
Economic Diversity: Provide a diverse and vibrant economy that offers a broad range of job
opportunities across the full spectrum of skill levels while supporting the delivery of high quality
government services to our residents.
Respect for Heritage and Environment: Promote a quality of life that embraces our heritage,
preserves the environment and effectively manages and protects resources based on guidance
provided by the Comprehensive Plan.
Organizational Collaboration: Collaborate on all levels (local, region, and state) to maximize the
economic opportunities for the area in a cost-effective manner including close partnership with
the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.
Entrepreneurship: Create an environment that encourages, values and supports
entrepreneurship and fosters collaboration and a vibrant, creative community.
Organic Growth: Build value from within by supporting those businesses or assets who have
been a contributor to our community, with special focus on valuing existing businesses that
anchor our economy including the defense industry.
Build Awareness of Local Opportunities: Build a strong level of awareness amongst students
and young adults of the availability of local career and economic opportunities that keep young
people here in our community and support efforts that build a skilled and talented workforce.
Educational Achievement and Partnership: Recognize and support the strength of our local
educational institutions and promote lifelong learning opportunities.
Leverage Intellectual Capital: Strengthen and diversify Albemarle’s economy by leveraging our
intellectual capital to promote expansion of business interests to attract investment and
enhance the livability of our community (and not detract from it).
3 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Support Critical Infrastructure: Support social infrastructure through business offerings that
recognize family, educational and cultural needs and that help people be successful and
productive employees and encourage physical infrastructure that supports the County’s desired
economic development activity.
Results Orientation: - Focus on being proactive and results oriented, with special emphasis on
seeking productive solutions and building positive relationships with state, local and community
stakeholders.
Target Industries:
The list of target sectors is a list of optimal targets and should not be considered to exclude related
sectors. It is critical to emphasize that the Target Industry Study supports the cultivation and nurturing
of existing businesses and considers employment of current residents as its most important outcome.
The targets were selected based on available workforce, alignment with community preferences, and
growth potential as well as strong multiplier effects that create jobs across a broad spectrum of skill
sets.
The recommended target industries are:
Bioscience and Medical Devices
Business & Financial Services
Information Technology and Defense & Security
Agribusiness and Food Processing
Complementary targets are:
Health Services
Arts, Design and Sports & media
Major Program Components:
In order to achieve the stated mission and guiding principles, the following program components would
comprise an established, ongoing economic development function for Albemarle County. Many of these
components are underway to some extent based on the goals and objectives of the Economic Vitality
Action Plan, so the current status of the efforts is described as are potential future directions that would
establish a program that is more comparable to the majority of our benchmark communities. Priority
should be given to ensuring that these components support the County’s strategic focus on target
industries:
Existing Business Retention/Expansion
Description/Rationale:
The purpose of an existing business retention, expansion and assistance program, the heart of successful
economic development, is to promote, retain and expedite the profitable growth of targeted existing
businesses. A healthy and vibrant local economy depends on the well-being of a community's existing
firms, and a comprehensive business retention, expansion and assistance program gathers information
and develops plans to help the county better support job retention, job creation, and increased
investment in the community. A proactive and aggressive contact and visitation program is integral,
along with focused activities to encourage engagement and information sharing.
Current Status:
4 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
Albemarle’s Business First program targets 100 visitations annually
Coordination with Department of Business Assistance and other local partners
Target industry sector roundtables – initial focus on biotechnology companies for the first year
Potential Future Direction:
More aggressive visitation schedule to reach out in a timely manner to our 1500 identified
business targets
Analysis and reporting of existing business trends and issues with specific follow up action plans
developed
A specific focus on critical and/or challenged industries – i.e. defense industry/federal
contractors
Additional engagement activities with existing businesses , particularly target industries, to
support their expansion and keep them anchored in our community
New Business Start ups
Description/Rationale:
The economic development program should help create an environment conducive to the start up and
growth of new business ventures, working with community partners to develop a strong and vibrant
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Efforts should focus on helping prospective entrepreneurs and investors
access resources for available business support resources and on helping new ventures grow into long-
term, viable, competitive businesses in the Albemarle County community, including leveraging
technology transfer/commercialization possibilities associated with UVA. Support services should help
potential new business ventures consider appropriate sites, navigate the county’s approval and
permitting processes and access appropriate incentive programs.
Current Status:
Single point of contact program to assist small businesses unfamiliar with our processes
Training opportunities and regular drop in hours to consult with economic development staff
Relationships with the Charlottesville Business Innovation Council, the UVA Office of Innovation
and VA Bio among others that help connect the County with the entrepreneurial community
Potential Future Direction:
More focused partnership with UVA, including entities like the School of Engineering, to
leverage technology transfer/commercialization possibilities and build the entrepreneurial
ecosystem
More proactive approach in helping businesses take advantage of grant programs and state and
federal financing opportunities available to startups
Business Attraction
Description/Rationale:
Primary leadership for business attraction/ lead generation activities lies with our regional partner, the
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, and at the state level with the Virginia
Economic Development Partnership. The County should be well prepared to respond to inquiries of
interest referred by state and regional partners as well as to inquiries that come directly to Albemarle
staff, and initiate recruitment possibilities that align with our target industries. The County should be
an effective single point of contact for business development information, providing data relevant to
business location decisions including economic indicators, workforce information, industrial and
5 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
commercial real estate information, development review processes and customized business
development data. This requires a close alliance with the City of Charlottesville and University of
Virginia to highlight our shared attributes for targeted industries.
Current Status:
Respond to inquiries that come to us directly or that are forwarded to the County by TJPED and
VEDP
Continued updating of our website
Potential Future Direction:
Oversee product development (sites and buildings) and prospect readiness to encourage start
ups, existing business expansions and business relocations.
Establish and manage internal and external prospect response teams.
Identify appropriate prospects, initiate and follow up on contacts, and market our area to target
industries.
Identification of potential new markets to keep pace with the transitioning Virginia economy,
i.e. international trade opportunities
Workforce Development
Description/Rationale:
Workforce development and the cultivation of a skilled and motivated labor force is a critical
component of economic development for the County. A robust knowledge-based economy is emerging
in Albemarle, building on our target industry sectors and driven by ideas, services and innovation. In
addition, the County is anxious to support employment in our many basic industries and businesses. In
order to compete in this fast paced workplace, and ensure continued profitability for our employers,
Albemarle County must continually build a skilled workforce through lifelong learning and worker
training. County economic development must work closely with education and other community
partners to ensure that the continuously evolving Albemarle County workforce is competitive on a
global scale. Quality education at all levels and specialized training and retraining prepares individuals
for better careers and personal enrichment, provides employers with on-demand availability of skilled
workers, and supplies industry with a steady pipeline of talent development.
Current Status:
Active involvement in the Piedmont Workforce Network
Engagement with education partners at the secondary and post-secondary levels
Potential Future Direction:
Support workforce training programs (in partnership with PVCC, Workforce Training Center,
UVA and the County school system) tied to target enterprises or key sectors that build
employment pipelines for a full spectrum of skill levels
Agribusiness
Description/Rationale:
Because of Albemarle’s heritage and emergence as a major local producer within the regional food
network, economic development efforts to enhance the agricultural sector by assisting both new and
6 | P a g e
County of Albemarle
existing agri-businesses are critical. Agribusiness has been identified as a target industry for Albemarle,
and the success of this industry depends on presenting the County as an attractive, viable region for
agriculture and value-added product opportunities and for the tourism value these types of businesses
create. The protection of the County’s rural areas requires that these economic development
opportunities do not harm the essential nature and important natural resources of rural Albemarle.
Current Status:
Work with partners like Food Hub, Piedmont Environmental Council, Monticello Wine Trail and
others to expand visibility of local products and agritourism venues
Cosponsor programs like the Agribusiness Marketing Conference and Monticello Artisans Trail to
help build customer base and business profitability
Potential Future Direction:
Leverage state and federal grant opportunities to support agricultural and forestal industry
Actively market local products and promote/assist start up business ventures that support
agricultural industry
Build on our community’s visibility and reputation for quality local products to develop
successful agricultural business ventures
Economic Development Authority (EDA) Liaison
Description/Rationale:
Recent changes to the EDA’s Rules and Regulations established a fee arrangement that will generate
some level of ongoing funding for economic development . The need to develop, implement and
monitor EDA funding initiatives will create a new economic development responsibility for County staff.
Current Status:
Meeting with EDA when required for project consultation
Potential Future Direction:
Working actively with the EDA to identify appropriate funding initiatives, develop and monitor
the annual EDA budget, and assist with program development and implementation
Return to exec summary
City/County Comparing Economic Development Programs- Virginia
Fauquier County Staffing/Structure – The Office of Economic Development consists of 4 members: Director, Business Coordinator, Tourism
Coordinator and administrative assistant
Target Industries – none listed
Hanover County Staffing/Structure – The Office of Economic Development consists of 5 members : director, deputy director, existing business
manager, marketing analyst and administrative assistant
Incentives – economic development zones, fast track review
Henrico County Staffing/Structure - The Economic Development team consists of 7 members including; Executive Director, Administrative
Director, Director of Marketing, Research Coordinator, Marketing Representative, Administrative Assistant, and Executive
Assistant.
Target Industries - Corporate and Regional Headquarters, Leading Edge Technology-Oriented Companies, Advanced
Manufacturing, Back Office Operation (Data Centers, Call Centers), Life Sciences, Securities and Financial Services.
Incentives-
Infrastructure Improvement Incentives including utility extensions, connection fees, and road access.
Enterprise Zones
Henrico has 2 enterprise zones; West Broad Street Zone and Nine Mile Road Sub-Zone, East/Central.
Local incentives include Architectural Design Assistance, Building Façade Grants, Paving Grant, Landscaping
Grant, Building Demolition Grant, Off-Site Improvement Grants (drainage, water, sewer system), and
Rehabilitation Real Estate Tax Exemptions.
Foreign Trade Zone #207
James City County Staffing/Structure - The Office of Economic Development consists of 4 members; Economic Development Director, Economic
Development Assistant Director, Business Development and Retention Coordinator, Economic Development Assistant.
Target Industries - Not Listed
Incentives-
Enterprise Zone
Local Incentives include the Economic Development Authority of James City Grants, Improvement Fee Waivers,
Sewer Transmission Fee Reduction, Use of Process Water, Job Incentives, and EDA Fee Waiver.
State incentives include job grants and real property investment grants.
James City County Business & Technology Incubator (JCCBTI)- Program designed to ensure the success of businesses and
accelerate growth.
Tourism Zone Ordinance
Zone boundaries include all of James City.
A tourism business is defined as a business whose primary purpose is to provide tourism products, processes or
related services, and establish a desirable destination to attract tourists from outside the community.
Incentives like reduced development fees, BPOL grant, Business Tangible Personal Property grant, and
expedited review process are offered to new and old businesses for up to two 5-year incentive periods.
Loudoun County Staffing/Structure – The economic development team consists of 18 full time staff divided between Office of Economic
Development (Commercial Development)and Office of Rural Economic Development
Target Industries
Loudon County Office of Rural Economic Development
Agriculture, Horticulture, and Animal Husbandry
Tourism
Business (including retail, service, and light manufacturing and assembly establishments)
Loudon County Office of Economic Development
Information Communication Technology (ICT)
Data Centers
Federal Government Contractors (FGC)/Aerospace
Cargo/Freight Forwarders
Life & Health Services
Incentives-
Loudon County Office of Economic Development
Targeted Tax Incentives for Aerospace/Information & Communications Technology
State Incentive Packages
Governor’s Opportunity Fund
The New Jobs Program
The Small Business New Jobs Program
Sales and Use Tax Exemptions
Montgomery County Staffing/Structure - The Department of Economic Development consists of four staff members: a Director, a Program Manager
for Existing Industries, a Program Manager for Business Development and Marketing, and an administrative support staff
Target Industries -Information Technology, Materials & Chemistry, Biotechnology & Life Sciences, Advanced Manufacturing,
Research & Development, and Defense Technologies.
Incentives-
Local Economic Development Grant
To be qualified for the grant expanding or new businesses must fall under one of the county’s target industries
and maintain above average wage jobs.
Grant amounts are based on the percentage of new taxes paid on new investment (land, building, machinery
and tools of business personal property) for up to 10 years.
MCEDA Industrial Revenue Bonds
MBC Revolving Loan Fund
Prince William County Staffing/Structure - The Office of Economic Development consists of ten staff members: Executive Director, 2 Business
Development Managers, Management and Fiscal Analyst, Communication Manager/Departmental Spokesperson; Director of
Marketing and Research; Director of Existing Business; 3 administrative support staff
Target Industries – data centers and IT companies, biotech and life sciences companies, government contractors and facilities,
corporate facilities, high technology firms
Incentives – fast track permitting, economic development opportunity fund, hub zones
City of Charlottesville Staffing/Structure - The Office of Economic Development consists of four staff members; director of economic development, 2
economic development specialists, and an office administrator.
Target Industries - Bioscience and Medical Devices, Information Technology and Defense & Security, Business & Financial
Services, and Health Services and Arts, Design, Sports & Media (complementary target).
Incentives-
o Technology Zone
A qualified technology business may receive a rebate on any license fee provided that the gross receipts are
$50,000 or less and a 50% tax reduction provided that the gross receipts are more than $50,000.
o Hub Zone
Incentive program encourages economic development in historically underutilized/distressed areas through the
establishment of preference for small businesses seeking federal contracting opportunities.
Businesses must receive Hub Zone Certification from the U.S. Small Business Administration to qualify for
incentives. Requirements include being a small business by SBA standards, owned/controlled at least 51% by
U.S. citizens/community development corporation/agriculture cooperative/Indian tribe, the business principle
office must be located in a historically underutilized business zone, and at least 35% of its employees must
reside in a Hub Zone.
Roanoke County Staffing/Structure - The Department of Economic Development consists of 4 staff members; Director, Manager Existing
Business Program, Economic Development Specialist, and Administrative Assistant.
Target Industries - None Listed
Incentives-
o Foreign Trade Zone
o Typically, Roanoke County offers incentives on a case by case basis but packages may include; utility
extension/connection fee consideration, site preparation assistance, site acquisition assistance, and public private
partnership fund.
Spotsylvania County Staffing/structure – The Department of Economic Development consists of 6 staff members : Director, Deputy Director,
Business Assistance Manager, Tourism Manager, Economic Development Specialist, Administrative Assistant
Target industries
Incentives – technology zones, tourism zones, target industry review process
Staunton, Virginia Staffing/Structure - The Economic Development Department consists of three staff members; a director, assistant director, and
administrative assistant.
Target Industries - Research, value-added/agriculture-based business, health/biosciences, advanced manufacturing, performing
and visual arts, information technology, engineering, architecture, marketing, media, and other professional services.
Incentives-
o Enterprise Zone
o Special tax breaks and financial incentives available at the state/local level.
Return to exec summary
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: November 1, 2013
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through November 1, 2013.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission, Local
Board of Building Code Appeals and Fire Prevention Code Appeals Board, Historic Preservation Committee and
Public Recreational Facilities Authority; and a Board of Supervisor member appointment to the Free Bridge
Congestion Relief Project.
Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be appointed and/or reappointed to
the respective committees:
Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission
William Schrader, term expires December 1, 2013
Local Board of Building Code Appeals
David Booth, term expires November 21, 2013
Frederick Huckstep, term expires November 21, 2013
Fire Prevention Code Appeals Board
David Booth, term expires November 21, 2013
Frederick Huckstep, term expires November 21, 2013
Historic Preservation Committee
Elizabeth Russell
Public Recreational Facilities Authority
Jay Fennell, term expires December 13, 2013
Glen Michael, term expires December 13, 2013
View Vacancy List
Return to agenda
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Bill Edgerton 8/1/2012 8/1/2013 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Jason Woodfin 8/1/2013 8/1/2015 waitng for response
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
Joint Airport Commission William Schrader 12/1/2013 12/1/2016 Yes
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Craig Evans 7/8/2013 7/8/2015 Ineligible Advertised, No applications recv'd
Fire Prevention Code Appeals Board Diane Allen 11/21/2013 11/21/2018 waiting for response
Fire Prevention Code Appeals Board Frederick Huckstep 11/21/2013 11/21/2018 Yes
Fire Prevention Code Appeals Board David Booth 11/21/2013 11/21/2018 Yes
Fire Prevention Code Appeals Board Joseph Schinstock 11/21/2013 11/21/2018 waiting for response
Historic Preservation Committee Cindy Conte 6/4/2014 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Historic Preservation Committee Following application received:
Elizabeth Russell
Local Board of Building Code Appeals Diane Allen 11/21/2013 11/21/2018 waiting for response
Local Board of Building Code Appeals Frederick Huckstep 11/21/2013 11/21/2018 Yes
Local Board of Building Code Appeals David Booth 11/21/2013 11/21/2018 Yes
Local Board of Building Code Appeals Joseph Schinstock 11/21/2013 11/21/2018 waiting for response
MACAA Samantha Wood 10/31/2013 10/31/2018 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No
Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
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
Pantops Community Advisory Council Amy Preddy 6/30/2014 Resigned
Public Recreational Facilities Authority Jay Fennell 12/13/2013 12/13/2016 Yes
Public Recreational Facilities Authority Glen Michael 12/13/2013 12/13/2016 Yes
Public Recreational Facilities Authority Sherry Buttrick 12/13/2013 12/13/2016 waiting for response
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 11/01/2013
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
RIVANNA RIVER NAVIGATION FROM CANAL TO GREENWAY
LIZ RUSSELL
ARH 5602
SPRING 2013
INTRODUCTION
Looking at the Rivanna today, it is difficult to image that the river once provided
hydraulic power to perhaps dozens of mills, and carried bateaux laden with food
and other cargo, as well as passenger boats up and down its banks, the lifeblood
to Fluvanna and Albemarle Counties. After the canals and the majority of the mills
ceased operation in the early 20th century, as too did traces of transportation and
economy along the Rivanna River. The dams, locks, and towpaths once owned by
the mighty Rivanna Navigation Company, have since returned to private ownership
or railroad right-of-way and lay overgrown and largely forgotten.
In the past few decades, a slow simmering movement has begun in places around
the country: transforming abandoned or under-utilized transportation routes,
typically railroad lines, for multi-use paths designed for alternative modes of trans-
portation - usually walking, jogging, and bicycling. To date, over 21,233 miles of
rail-trails have been created for public use (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy website).
Rail-trails have ancillary benefits that will be discussed in later parts of this paper;
it is generally recognized that systems of trails and of “green,” or undeveloped and
open, spaces are overlapping resources that enhance the lives of people as well
benefit the natural environment.
Charlottesville, as well as the counties of Albemarle and Fluvanna have shown
various investment in public trails but lack a strategic strategy for connection and
cohesion beyond their respective jurisdictions. The Rivanna River Navigation (the
name for the now-defunct system of canals and towpaths) provides an incredible
opportunity for connecting these three municipalities respective trail networks, as
well as to a proposed James River Trail.
This paper seeks to explore the changing relationship that people living and
working in Albemarle , Fluvanna, and Charlottesville have had with the Rivanna
River. I suggest a shift in the way we perceive private property rights and “highest
and best use” in regards to outdoor recreation, and lastly historic preservation and
understanding of the built landscape.
1
Map of Rivanna River running through Charlottesville and Albemarle and
Fluvanna Counties to its confluence with the James River
CHARLOTTESVILLE
LAKE MONTICELLO
PALMYRA
COLUMBIA
I-64
JAMES RIVER
HISTORY OF NAVIGATION ON THE RIVANNA
Thomas Jefferson was instrumental in making the Rivanna a reliable route for getting goods to market. He won his seat in the General Assembly as a result of his efforts.
Later he wrote:
The Rivanna River had never been used for navigation, scarcely an empty canoe had ever passed down it. Soon after I came of age I
examined it’s [sic] obstructions, set on foot a subscription for removing them. got an act of assembly past [passed] & the thing effected, so
as to be used completely & fully for carrying down all our produce (Betts, 408).
A General Assembly navigation act in 1765 called for making the Rivanna navigable from its mouth
at Columbia, to the falls at Milton, and just shy of Jefferson’s own mills at Shadwell. Jefferson and
his son-in-law and neighbor Thomas Mann Randolph later cut a 60-yard sluice to extend naviga-
tion to the mills. Because of these improvements to the river, and following a disastrous flood in
1771, flat-bottomed batteaux became the boat of choice to transport produce including tobacco,
wheat, and flour down the Rivanna (McGehee, 12). As transportation developed, warehouses
were constructed along the banks of the Rivanna for the state inspection of tobacco (Ibid. 16).
Communities such as Columbia, Milton, and Bernardsburg (destroyed with the construction of the
subdivision Lake Monticello) must have bustled with commerce and activity in those days.
In 1805, the Rivanna River Company was formed by an act of the General Assembly, incorporating
a company “to open and improve the Navigation of the Rivanna river, from Milton to Moore’s Ford,
opposite the town of Charlottesville, in the County of Albemarle.” The Rivanna River Company
was reorganized and renamed in 1830 to the Rivanna Navigation Company (McGehee, 27).
Through the acts, the state of Virginia authorized private individuals (directors George Divers,
William H. Meriwether, Nimrod Braham, John Kelly, and treasurer Dabney Minor) the collective
power (“body politic and corporate”) as a Company to construct this item “of great public utility,”
including “to make such bye-laws...necessary for regulating the concerns of the company (Acts
passed at a Virginia General Assembly).” This and the 1814 Act that authorized William Wood,
owner of a mill near Columbia, to take over the improvement of the river from Milton to the James
River, extended the reach of the Company into Fluvanna County, and setting the stage for a
monopoly of the river to last for the next 100 years (McGehee, 19).
Records of legal actions from the early 19th century indicate that the Company had the power
to condemn land under the auspice of eminent domain - the power to take private property for
“public use” - and the landowners’ only recourse was to receive payment for damages. An entry
in the Albemarle County Deed Book from 1830 records the process of condemnation of property
for the Rivanna Navigation Company to construct a canal:
2
Thomas Thacker sketch of Jefferson mill at Shadwell (Source: Uva Library)
You are hereby commanded to summon a Jury of twenty four inhabitants of your County of property and reputation not related to the parties nor
in any manner interested, to meet on the lands of David Anderson and Mary W his wife tenants in dower, the reversion being in Eliza M. L Leitch
heir of the late James Leitch, whose guardian is James Clarke, the said Land lying on the east side of the Rivanna River opposite Meriwether’s
bridge and in the County aforesaid, the said Jury to meet on the 31st of this present month July 1830, and when met provided that not less than
twelve do appear, you shall administer an oath on affirmation to every Juryman that shall appear that he will faithfully, justly, and impartially value
the land (no exceeding in case the width of one hundred and forty feet) and all damages the owner or owners there of shall sustain by the cutting
the canal (proposed to be cut by the Rivanna Navigation Company through such land (and an abutment for a dam proposed to be erected by said
company opposite said Land according to the best of his skill and Judgment and that in such valuation, he will not spare any person through favor
or affection, nor any person grieve through malice, hatred, or ill will (Albemarle Deed Book, 28/477-478).
The practice of condemnation came to the United States through English common law. The practice was typically used to obtain highway rights-of-ways; although many
roads were privately-owned, condemnation by the government was sometimes used to obtain easements for them as well as for public roads (Benson, 428). Land was
commonly condemned for the construction of dams and flooding of the land upriver required to run the mills. Various Mill Acts enacted by New England states offer
early examples of the this delegation of sovereign “taking” authority to private businesses (Ibid., 429).”
While the Supreme Court holds that the federal government, as well as each state, has the power of eminent domain to take private property for “public use,” the Takings
clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution limits this power and requires that “just compensation” be paid the injured party. Just what constitutes “public use”
has been a source of contention since the nation’s earliest days. In the example of the Mill Acts, the government recognized that is it sometimes necessary to sacrifice
private landowners’ interests where the greater good is concerned. In lawsuits such as 1832’s Boston and Roxbury Mill Corp. v. Newman, the court ruled that eminent
domain could be used to allow a mill owner to expand his dam and operations by flooding an upstream neighbor. The court opinion stated that a public use does not
have to mean public occupation of the land; it can mean a public benefit (Main, no page).
The coming of the railroad and of westward expansion brought new cases of eminent domain before the courts. Again, the precedent is followed that the government
condemn the land in order to hand it over to a private business - in this case - the railroad company. However, there is an incredible sense of gravitas and urgency in
the language of the court’s reasoning behind the taking of land. In Kohl v. United States (1875), the Supreme Court held that the federal government may take land
belonging to states through eminent domain; the court saw the power to “appropriate lands or other property within the States for its own uses . . . [as] essential to
[government’s] independent existence and perpetuity.” Transportation was as essential to an emerging nation as was the milling of corn and other grains. Throughout
the nineteenth century, railroads, bridges, roads, and indeed canals were built using this model of government condemnation and outsourced private partnership.
Navigation on the Rivanna river takes place in three stages over the course
of the 19th century. In the early years, wing dams and sluices guided the
batteaux and canoes down the river; sometimes these would slam against
the sides and break. As trade on the river increased, the sluice system became
inadequate. The Company’s plan to alleviate this problem resulted in the the era
of slack water navigation - a series of locks and dams with each dam backing
water up to the next dam and lock upstream - that lasted from 1827-1850. There
are reports and claims against the company made by mill operators, because
3
Batteaux laden with goods (Credit: Virginia Canals & Navigation Society)
although backed-up water made navigation easier, when water was low there was not enough to run the mills and fill the locks (McGehee, 28). With the previous
Company, Mill companies had the primary water rights, but the Navigation Company had this language reversed and navigation took precedent. Perhaps with Thomas
Jefferson’s death in 1826 (he owned and operated the mill at Shadwell), some of the political clout behind the mill industry shifted to the Navigation Company, or
perhaps navigation was becoming increasingly important to the area surrounding the Rivanna. To address the shared needs of mills and navigation, the Company
proposed to build a series of short canals to convey boats around the millponds to deeper waters up or downstream (McGehee, Fluvanna County Historical Society
Bulletin, #5).
However essential this “public use” might have been, the taking of land by the Rivanna Navigation Company still required just compensation. An Assessor’s Report on
the case of William Adam’s upper estate in 1836 illustrates the effort that was required of the Rivanna Navigation Company in the process of just compensation as well
as the value that was deemed just by land assessors of the time. The report proceedes to examine the inconveniences likely to result...
...for the condemnation of 16 acres, 3 roads, 12 porches, and 4 yards of said and to the use of said Company the plat and description of which
are herewith filed for the expense of additional fencing for the inconvenience of cultivating the land cut off by the canal next [sic] the river, for the
land to be occupied by a drain to prevent soakage, for the injury to the land from additional farm roads made necessary by the construction of the
canal, for the inconvenience of having a lock-keeper on the estate, it being understood and agreed by the company that they will coststruct and
keep up one bridge for the use of the proprietor that they will leave a space of nineteen feet between the proprietor’s barn [or farm] and the upper
side of the canal of which the said proprietor is to have the use, that they will cut sufficient drains... along the canal banks to guard the adjacent
land against injury from the filtration of the canal water which drains... (Fluvanna Deed Book 28/94-95)
The assessors estimate the damages that will be sustained by the proprietor, for the use of the Company at the sum of $1,900.
1850 marks the transition from dam and locks on the river, to a separate canal and tow-path system. With the construction of a separate tow path and canal, the
company was taking additional fertile lowland from farmers and landowners along the Rivanna and essentially cutting them off from that very river. Fittingly, Deed Book
entries from 1853 indicate that the Company compensated multiple landowners for rights-of-ways along the river. The Company paid the following to landowners in
Fluvanna County:
Henry M Wood ~ four and fifty eight hundredth acre ~ $458
William Harris ~ one and three tenths acre ~ $130
William Davis ~ one and three tenths acre ~ $130
George Pettit ~ five and forty five hundredth acre ~ $545
Robert Ashlin ~ one and forty seven hundredth acre ~ $147
(Fluvanna Historical Society Records, multiple pages)
Obviously, the Company (or the land assessors) developed a systematic way to evaluate land value and
compensate owners accordingly, at $100 per acre. The deeds also stipulate that the Company be respon-
sible for the upkeep of gates necessary for the protection of the property owners in regards
to the towpath used by said Company.
4
19th century print of a horse-drawn canal boat
(Source: The Daily Progress)
The massive stone locks constructed by Rivanna Navigation company make the Rivanna’s the
best-preserved and most complete navigation in the state (McGehee, 7). In hindsight, however,
the massive mid-century effort to construct the separate canal and tow path seems somewhat
fruitless, especially because the Company directors were well aware that the railroad was
expected to reach their area in less than a decade.
However, the Company would have felt pressure to compete with the newly-constructed James
River and Kanawha Canal - a feat of engineering that left the Rivanna Navigation out of date.
In fact, the Company’s charter with the state obliged it to upgrade its works once the James
River and Kanawha Canal reached the Rivanna; they missed their deadline to do so and the
new canal actually crossed over the Rivanna River via a large aqueduct - preventing a direct
connection between the two waterways (Ibid., 37).
Petitions were sent to the General Assembly in support of improvements to the Rivanna Naviga-
tion Company and, perhaps feeling that investment was too great in the Company thus far to be
abandoned, the Rivanna Navigation received its third and final update. While plans were drawn
to construct canals and towpaths all the way to Charlottesville, the upper Rivanna (Albemarle
County) never received this infrastructure (Ibid., 39). Towpaths were built along the length of
the river in Fluvanna and were no small “improvement:” the locks were 15 feet wide and 100 feet long in the chambers to accommodate boats up to 93 feet long (Ibid.,
40). In a report to the directors of the Rivanna Navigation Company dating from 1842, the estimated cost for tow paths for horse power was thirty thousand dollars
and “damages to proprietors would be very considerable (Wright, 24).” In fact, between 1851 and 1857, the Company invested over $200,000 into new locks and
William Trout sketch of stone lock at Union Mills
(Source: Fluvanna Historical Society)
Ellen Niyagawa sketch of James River and Kanawha Canal’s tree arched stone aqueduct over the
Rivanna River. It was blown up in 1944 by C&O Railroad (Source: Fluvanna Historical Society)
5
dams, employing several dozen stonemasons. Improvements to the river
spurred the economies of local mills, farmers, boatbuilders, and formed
the backbone to small communities up and down the Rivanna - refer to the
communities and mills on the map (at left) (McGehee, 63-64, 69).
Finally, ten years after its initial construction, the James River and Kanawha
Canal Company agreed to construct a four and a half mile canal between
Columbia and Rivanna Mills (The Rivanna Connexion), connecting the
Rivanna Navigation to the James River and Kanawha Canal (Ibid., 45).
A 1871 Bond authorization highlights the benefits that voters of Albemarle,
Fluvanna, and Greene Counties can expect to see with their $35,000 in-
vestment in the Company, and by authorizing improvements to the canal
line along the Rivanna:
By the expenditure of the proposed $35,000 all the ex-
penditure already made, as above stated, will be availed
of. We will have a line of improvement soon forty miles
lone, penetrating a rich and productive country through-
out, which will afford heavy tonnage, passing by Char-
lottesville and other points, where much tonnage in the
shape of agricultural products, coal, plaster, and other
fertilizers, groceries, &c., will be placed upon it for trans-
portation up and down. The farmers and all others will
be secured to a good extent against the high charges on
the railroad, which, mainly owned and entirely controlled
by a New York company, without any competition, may
be expected to look only to the largest possible sums it
can draw from an impoverished people.
The references to the exports as well as the dangers that an “out-of-town”
(and Northern!) railroad company pose are particularly interesting.
Eventually both canal systems succumbed to the railroads. Rivanna Navigation was at a particular disadvantage, having no large market at its end to be viable. An
unusual problem was posed by the mills at MIlton and Shadwell - if the dams were raised for navigation, the water was then too high to power the mills. Reliable river
transportation to Charlottesville and beyond was not feasible (Ibid., 87).
A map of the Rivanna River Navigation as rebuilt in the 1850s
(Source: Fluvanna Historical Society)
6
By 1891, railroad tracks were laid along the towpath of the James River and Kanawha Canal. For
almost two more decades, navigation on the Rivanna River remained viable, with boats unloading
their cargo onto trains at Columbia (Ibid., 71). The railroad and the Rivanna Navigation were
connected for a time; when the Richmond and Allegheny bought the James River and Kanahwha
Canal, they agreed to maintain navigation on the Rivanna Connexion.
In 1907, the Chesapeake and Ohio built a railroad in Fluvanna County, but the line did not follow the
river and towpath. Eventually, the railroad chose to buy out the mills rather than continue to maintain
the dams and locks. The Rivanna Navigation was abandoned in 1908 (McGehee, 88-89). In the
1930s, after the Union Mills had closed and trains had replaced the canal boats, people still used
the canal towpath as a foot path. Pleasant and Richard Martin, from the Union Mills neighborhood,
left home before daylight each day to walk two and a half hours to jobs at a brickyard in Charlot-
tesville (Nolting and Pence, 4). However, by middle of 20th century, the canals and towpaths were
overgrown and largely forgotten.
THE FUTURE OF THE RIVANNA NAVIGATION
Over 40 years ago, canal enthusiast William Trout wrote an essay entitled “The Possibilities for the
Future of the Rivanna Navigation.” Trout proposed that the old towpath could make an excellent trail
for hiking, cycling, and horseback riding, with put-ins for canoes as well. He wrote:
The towpath trail would visit the old locks and dams, and winds [sic] in places along bluffs...
The success of the trail may depend on the desires of the owners of the land crossed, and of the canal structures. Perhaps at least the bank
containing the trail could be made public property...
Something must be done now on the Rivanna while it is so ideal for public use. Our open spaces are filling up so fast with industry and suburbs
- let’s save the best of it.
Today, we are a few steps closer to seeing Mr. Trout’s vision come to light. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County defines Greenways and Greenway
Trails as “areas of vegetated open space, usually linear in nature, which connect places. They are often located along streams and rivers, utility easements, abandoned
railroads, and along roadways (2013 Albemarle Comprehensive Plan 5.8.3).”
Greenway corridors can protect sensitive resources, maintaining water quality through forested buffer strips; they provide recreational and educational opportunities
as well as an alternative transportation system. Finally, greenways are recognized for their economic benefit - directly in terms of eco-tourism and indirectly in terms
of increased property values and river-oriented commercial development (Ibid., 5.8.3). The various goals of Comprehensive Plan reflects Albemarle’s commitment to
expanding their system of trails and greenways, including the proposed Rivanna Greenway + Blueway.
c. 1908 photo of the abandoned Rivanna Connexion
(Source: Mr. Jefferson’s River)
7
Relevant strategies and objectives include:
Strategy 2c: Continue to encourage developers to contribute to the greenway
system by dedicating land, donating easements or funds, or constructing portions of
trails identified on the Greenway Map.
Strategy 2d: Continue to demonstrate the benefits and values of greenways to
individual landowners whose land, or parts thereof, could be part of the greenway
system shown on the Greenway Map by donating land or easements.
Objective 5: Complete the greenway trail system and provide access to blueways.
Strategy 5a: Set up a Greenway Trail Advisory Committee to assist the County in
designing, implementing, promoting, and maintaining a greenway system.
Strategy 5c: Secure funding for greenways, greenway trails, blueways, and blueway
improvements.
Strategy 5d: Work with volunteers and greenway partners in the State and in the
community
The Greenway and trail system is proposed to run from Darden Towe Park at Pantops, downriver
through Shadwell and Milton to eventually meet with Fluvanna County’s Heritage Trail where
future connections to the proposed James River Heritage Trail are possible (Albemarle Parks
and Recreation website). The recently constructed Old Mills Trail (at right) extends from Darden
Towe to the Pantops area near Martha Jefferson Hospital, meandering along the Rivanna and
such historic sites such as the Woolen Mills dam, Port Pireus, remnants of the canal system,
and marks the beginning of the Greenway trail endeavor. The County has received commit-
ments from many property owners for many more miles of trails along the Rivanna River.
Today the model for land acquisition is much “softer,” the County will not be able to use the
power of eminent domain or receive the backing of the General Assembly; staff members work
through donations and easements. However, some of today’s structure resembles that of the
Rivanna Navigation Company. In this instance, the Greenway Trail Advisory Committee is the
“body politic,” acting as a sovereign agency to secure funding and work with partners to promote the greenway system. A strong partner and potential source of volun-
teers are the Virginia Canals and Navigations Society, a group dedicated to helping preserve Virginia’s historic waterways.
Fluvanna County recognizes the benefits in outdoor recreation and access to nature as well. Fluvanna’s Comprehensive Plan has language that echo’s Albemarle’s in
regards to planning for greenways and trail systems. In 2003, the Fluvanna Heritage Trail Foundation acquired the right-of-way of the old Virginia Air Line for adaptive
re-use as a rail trail. The pathway was cleared and publicly opened in 2004. Eventually, the Trail will connect to historic mill, lock canal and covered bridge sites as
well as to a proposed visitors center and outdoor classroom (visitcharlottesville.org). In the long-term view, the Fluvanna Heritage Trail and the Albemarle Greenway +
Blueway will merge into a contiguous resource.
8
A SECTION of the RIVANNA GREENWAY
and BLUEWAY SYSTEM
LEWIS AND CLARK
EXPLORATORY CENTER
r
r
GEORGE ROGERS CLARK CABIN
FREE BRIDGE
(End of historic
tow path)
PANTOPS
MONTICELLO
TOW PATH
LOCK REMAINS
SECRETARY'S FORD
PORT PIERUS
WOOLEN MILLS
PETER JEFFERSONS MILL
SHADWELL
R I V A N N A
R I V E R
The Old Mills Trail is located along a section of
Albemarle County's Rivanna River Greenway
The Greenway and trail system is proposed to run
from Darden Towe Park at Pantops
downriver through Shadwell and Milton to
eventually meet with Fluvanna
County's Heritage Trail where future
connections to the proposed
James River Heritage Trail are possible.
The Rivanna River was the first in
Virginia to be designated a Scenic River.
And while the natural and scenic character
of the Rivanna is remarkable, the Rivanna also
bears some remarkable secrets of our
cultural heritage.
DARDEN TOWE PARK
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE
1
Miles
MONASUKAPANOUGH
(large Monacan town
is approx. 3 mi up river)
THREE NOTCHED TRAIL ROUTE
OLD MILLS TRAIL
TO JAMES RIVER
#TheThe
OLD MILLS TRAILOLD MILLS TRAIL
Map by D Mahon 2010
Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation
µ
STATE FARM
MARTHA JEFERSON HOSPITAL
PANTOPS
SHOPPING
CENTER
I 6 4
R
T
F T
R
AIL
The Old Mills Trail and Rivanna Greenway and Blueway.
(Source: Albemarle Parks and Recreation website)
In 2005, a Charlottesville organization dedicated to creating a network of footpaths around the city and along the Rivanna River were dealt a hard blow - and a lawsuit.
The volunteer group created a map that routed travelers across the edge of Shirley Presley’s property and she objected by stringing razor wire across her property and
suing the Rivanna Trails Foundation as well as the city for seizure of her property and a violation of constitutional rights. According to her suit, her land was “constantly
traveled by various members of the public, with various degrees of noise, resulting litter and debris, injury to plants, and was, in addition, being used as an overnight
campsite (Whitehead, no page).” And unlike the battles of landowners along the Rivanna in the 19th century, Mrs. Presley succeeded in blocking the City from taking
her land for public use. She also received a settlement claim, the terms of which were not released (Provence, no page). Its seems just as you catch more flies with
honey than vinegar, you build more trails with transparency and consensus than through lawsuits. Today’s political climate reveals that courts will likely yield to private
property rights.
CONCLUSION
The benefits of trails and greenways are often viewed too narrowly. It is common knowledge that trails offer outdoor recreation and physical benefits to people, and
greenways provide benefits to ecosystems. However, when one takes a holistic view of the benefits that these amenities bring, the evidence is compelling - that with
relatively minimal public investment, the community may reap benefits to public health, economic and transportation, and positive effects on community pride and
identity (Rails to Trails website). Benefits to land owners have been already been alluded to. Studies show that trails and greenways bolster property values and make
adjacent properties easier to sell (Rails to Trails Economic Benefits Fact Sheet, 3). Lots adjacent to the Mountain Bay Trail in Wisconsin sold faster and for an average
of 9% more than similar property not located next to the trail (Brown County Planning Commission).
More to the point of this paper though, a greenway and trail along the historic Rivanna Navi-
gation has the potential to tell a larger story about the prominent place that the Rivanna River
once held in the lives of people living in the area, encouraging its residents to reflect more
deeply on the history of the built and natural environment around them. This is historic preser-
vation’s ultimate goal. Providing access to the Rivanna River via the old towpaths and canals
tells the story of a relationship between land (and water) and economy, and this can be made
relevant today - not through shipping goods down the river or powering mills with water - but
by facilitating the movement of people to and along a place. The Rivanna Navigation can
become a destination; and once again provide benefits to people and communities nearby.
Highest and best use is a principle employed in valuing a parcel of land. It is defined as the
use that produces the highest value for that property in the marketplace. Eminent domain law
states that compensation be determined by the property’s highest and best use (condemna-
tion-law.com). For landowners along the Rivanna in the 19th century, the highest and best
use was for farming, and presumably the Rivanna Navigation Company compensated the
aggrieved parties at fair market value. Today, this same land is not so valuable, at least from
an economic standpoint. Albemarle County’s Water Protection Ordinance requires a buffer,
generally 100 feet in width along streams, ponds, and wetlands, and includes the Rivanna
River. Within the buffer, building, grading, and other development activities are restricted
9
Water protection buffers along the Rivanna and its tributaries in
Albemarle County (Source: Albemarle GIS website)
(Albemarle Water Resources website). Foot access to water is a permitted activity in buffer areas. Fluvanna County has a similar ordinance for future development.
With development essentially stymied in the areas of land that contain the old towpaths and canals, a public trail and greenway can be seen as the present “highest
and best use”, especially in generating high “community capital” (natural, social, and indirectly financial). Ownership and land rights along the Rivanna have shifted and
while initially the canal and train companies received privileged treatment to condemn and take land, today the process is largely voluntary via easements or purchase
fee simple. I suggest a new paradigm for highest and best use - not as private property and not as a rail line - but as a way of engaging a variety of users and enhancing
the lives of people that live near the beautiful Rivanna River. Traveling the banks of the river that provided the lifeblood to our early economy is a way to provoke the
engagements to the history and richness of the land and rivers around us.
10
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
September 26, 2013
Rex Linville
410 E. Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA. 22903
RE: ZMA201300005 Piedmont Environmental Council
Tax Map Parcel - 03000000003800
Dear Mr. Linville:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 10, 2013, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 6, 2013.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Piedmont Environmental Council
P.O. Box 460
Warrenton VA. 20188
ZMA 2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 10th, 2013
Staff Report, Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA2013-00005 Piedmont
Environmental Council
Staff: Scott Clark
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
September 10, 2013
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be Determined
Owner(s): Piedmont Environmental Council Applicant: Piedmont Environmental Council
Acreage: 159.682 acres Rezone from: PUD Planned Unit Development to RA
Rural Areas.
TMP: 03000-00-00-03800
Location: Pelham Road, approximately 1,800 feet
from the intersection with Buck Mountain Road
(Route 665).
By-right use: Approximately 53 dwelling units
permitted under PUD zoning.
Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers: No
Proposal: Rezone 159.682 acres from PUD
zoning district which allows residential
development (3 – 34 units per acre), mixed with
commercial, service and industrial uses, to RA
zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
Requested # of Dwelling Units: No development is
being proposed. The theoretical development potential
would be governed by standard RA zoning
(approximately 12 units). The applicants are
considering pursuing private conservation options
after the rezoning.
DA or RA: Rural Areas
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
Character of Property: Forested Use of Surrounding Properties: Adjacent and
nearby properties to the southeast are residential lots
in the Hickory Ridge Planned Unit Development.
Other adjacent properties are generally large farm and
forest parcels.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal is consistent with the land use
recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal would significantly reduce the
potential for residential development in the
Rural Areas, and therefore would reduce the
potential impacts of that development on drink-
water quality, aquatic habitat (including habitat
for a federally Endangered species).
3. The proposal would reduce the potential
demand for public infrastructure and services in
this portion of the Rural Areas.
Factors Unfavorable:
o None found
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA201300005 Piedmont Environmental
Council.
ZMA 2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 10th, 2013
Staff Report, Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Scott Clark
PLANNING COMMISSION: September 10, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
PETITION
PROPOSAL: Rezone 159.682 acres from PUD zoning district which allows residential development (3 –
34 units per acre), mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses, to RA zoning district which allows
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
PROFFERS : No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: Pelham Road, approximately 1,800 feet from the intersection with Buck Mountain Road (Route
665).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03000-00-00-03800
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The property is located in the Rural Areas in the northwest portion of the County, and is in the watershed of
the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, the community’s largest source of public water. The developed portions of
the Hickory Ridge Planned Unit Development are adjacent to the southeast. The majority of the surrounding
area is characterized by large pastures and blocks of forest.
An adjacent parcel that was also part of the Hickory Ridge PUD, Tax Map 30 Parcel 38A, was acquired by
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (along with other parcels along Buck Mountain Creek) for a potential
reservoir in the stream valley (see Attachment C). That project has not been built, as it would impact the
habitat of a federally Endangered species, the James Spinymussel.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposal would change the zoning on a 159-acre section of an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD)
to Rural Areas. This section of the PUD was proposed to have approximately 53 dwellings, although it has
not been established what number could actually be built under current requirements. However, the fact
remains that rezoning to RA Rural Areas would significantly decrease the theoretical development potential
on the property to 12 units (five “development right” lots and seven 21-acre lots).
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant is a conservation organization that received the property as a donation. The organization wants
to down-zone the land to RA as they believe that removing the potential for suburban-scale development in
this portion of the Rural Areas would be consistent with their mission. They are considering private
conservation options that could be pursued after the rezoning.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
SP-272: In August, 1973, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit for a clustered, “PUD” form
of development for Hickory Ridge, which included the land in the current proposal. The property was zoned
“A-1”, which was the “agricultural” zoning district of the time, but which permitted one dwelling unit per 2
acres. The special use permit approval permitted approximately the same amount of development as was
possible under A-1 zoning. During the comprehensive, county-wide rezoning of 1980, the property was zoned
PUD.
ZMA 2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 10th, 2013
Staff Report, Page 3
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan calls for reducing the potential for residential
development in the Rural Areas, and support private conservation efforts. As this proposal would significantly
reduce the development potential on this property and make it possible for the owning organization to further
reduce that potential through private conservation measures, this proposal is in conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:
This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by
amendment of the zoning map for the following purposes: (Amended 11-8-89)
- Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
This proposal would change the permitted level and pattern of development so that impacts on
agricultural and forestal lands would be significantly reduced. Rural economic activities would be
more feasible in that situation.
- Water supply protection;
This property is in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Reduced residential
development would decrease the potential impacts of land clearing, septic systems, and runoff from
residential uses on the reservoir.
- Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
Demand for service delivery would be reduced by the decreased development potential.
- Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-89)
Impacts on water quality, terrestrial habitat, and aquatic habitat would be reduced by the proposal.
Public need and justification for the change:
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies agriculture, forestry, and conservation as primary goals for the
Rural Areas, and calls for a reduction in residential-development potential. This request would be consistent
with these goals.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
Potential impacts on environmental resources would be reduced. Forest clearing, impervious surfaces (which
impact water quality), and infrastructure would all be reduced. Reducing potential development in this
location would also benefit the public water supply and would reduce the potential impacts of residential
development on the habitat of a Federally Endangered species, the James Spinymussel.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Compared to the level of development permitted under the current PUD zoning, this proposal would reduce
the need for public facilities and services. This is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for the Rural
Areas.
ZMA 2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 10th, 2013
Staff Report, Page 4
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
Nearby and surrounding properties would experience fewer development impacts than would result from the
current PUD zoning.
PROFFERS
No proffers have been made.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The proposal is consistent with the land use recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal would significantly reduce the potential for residential development in the Rural Areas,
and therefore would reduce the potential impacts of that development on drink-water quality, aquatic
habitat (including habitat for a federally Endangered species).
3. The proposal would reduce the potential demand for public infrastructure and services in this portion
of the Rural Areas.
Staff has found the following factors unfavorable to this rezoning:
None found.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of ZMA201300005 Piedmont Environmental Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Zoning Map Amendment:
Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2012-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2012-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
ATTACHMENT A: Area Map
ATTACHMENT B: Site Map
ATTACHMENT C: Map of Hickory Ridge PUD and RWSA Buck Mountain properties
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFTMNUTES – ZMA-2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 10, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
September 10, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium,
Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph,
Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Chairman and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia wa s absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, 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, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing Item
ZMA-2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
PROPOSAL: Rezone 159.682 acres from PUD zoning district which allows
residential development (3 – 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses, to RA zoning district which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
LOCATION: Pelham Road, approximately 1,800 feet from the inter section with Buck
Mountain Road (Route 665).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03000-00-00-03800
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a zoning map amendment request, ZMA -2013-00005, for Piedmont
Environmental Council to rezone 159.682 acres, a portion of the original Hickory Ridge
PUD, from the Planned Unit Development zoning district to the Rural Areas zoning
district. The other remaining undeveloped large piece of Hickory Ridge is owned by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and was obtained for the construction of the Buck
Mountain Creek Reservoir. The site is located between Free Union and Earlysville.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFTMNUTES – ZMA-2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
2
In 1973 when this property was zoned A-1, which was the agricultural zoning district at
the time that permitted 2 acre lots, Hickory Ridge was given a special use permit to
develop a clustered fashion of Planned Unit Development. He pointed out the current
boundaries of the subject property as an overlay on the original special use permit plan
for Hickory Ridge. There are about 53 house sites shown within that boundary.
As a comparison, if the property were changed to Rural Areas zoning, it would have a
potential of about 12 theoretical development rights between 5 small lots and 7 larger
lots. However, it is yet to be determined whether or not that total of 12 lots could
actually be developed since the applicants are not proposing any particular form of
development. All the applicants are requesting is to change the zoning category.
The main issue is the conformity to the Comprehensive Plan. Under the Rural Area
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan reducing development potential and supporting
private conservation are two key goals. This project would reduce deve lopment
potential from the PUD level to the standard RA level. Therefore, it is in conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary:
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The proposal is consistent with the land use recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal would significantly reduce the potential for residential development
in the Rural Areas, and therefore would reduce the potential impacts of that
development on drink-water quality, aquatic habitat (including habitat for a
federally endangered species).
3. The proposal would reduce the potential demand for public infrastructure and
services in this portion of the Rural Areas.
Staff has found no factors unfavorable to this rezoning.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being no questions for staff, the public
hearing was opened to the applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to
address the Commission.
Rex Linville, with the Piedmont Environmental Council, said he had nothing further to
add other than to say Piedmont Environmental Council was really happy to work with
the Bowers family who donated this property to us. They plan now to bring it into
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan to basically vacate this Planned Unit
Development zoning classification on the property, which is a goal that is consistent with
their land conservation mission in Albemarle County. He hoped the Commission would
help them with that. He would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFTMNUTES – ZMA-2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
3
Mr. Smith asked about the private conservation options after the rezoning.
Mr. Linville replied PEC is a conservation organization by definition and their ownership
of the property in and of itself is a conservation action. They accepted the property from
the family as a conservation donation , which means their deed limited what they could
do with the land. They either have to hold the property or if they subsequently sell the
property they are bound by the deed to subject the property to a conservation easement
before they sell it. Therefore, they are legally bound by the deed of gift from the Bowers
family.
Mr. Smith asked why they have to go through this process.
Mr. Linville replied again they are trying to bring the property into conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. They are trying to do everything that they can to make it clear the
property won’t have any development potential like the 53 lots that could potentially be
exercised on the property into the future. Conservation easements need to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan calls this rural
area it seems incongruous to have this nonconforming zoning on the property.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Maria Miller, abutting property owner, said her home is situated next to the easement,
which is the only access to that land. The property is landlocked, as she understands it,
except for this one wooded strip that lies between her home and neighbor’s home.
They are concerned about the option of how many homes could be built on that land. It
would be a big difference between 1 and 12 homes. There is a strip of woodland that is
allocated as the road easement. There is no other way to get into that property that she
knows of. Since this is the first time she is addressing this kind of issue she asked if
there is any kind of assurance that they as abutters could get as to the number of
homes that would be built. Or, is this an issue that would come up at a later stage.
They understand the PEC is the owner that the land was donated to. However, is there
any indication as yet of what the PEC has in mind as to actually selling or building on
that land?
Mr. Morris replied that he did not have that answer. However, they will try to get that
question answered this evening.
Ms. Miller asked when this kind of rezoning takes place is it irreversible or could the
zoning reverse to a development zoning such as existed prior to this.
Mr. Morris replied that they would also address that question.
Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, said this is a down zoning from a
development that was approved sometime ago to rural area zoning in the rural area,
which is what the County would like to see. He suggested that Mr. Kamptner explain
the concerns that were expressed. However, he thinks it is really a very simple
equation here since it is in the rural area and they would like the land to be rural.
Getting the property zoned consistent with what is in the Comprehensive Plan he thinks
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFTMNUTES – ZMA-2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
4
is the first step towards that. He hoped the discussion does not take the direction of
what is PEC going to do with this land. They are clearly eliminating development
potential from the property and getting back to what it should be. Then Mr. Linville can
discuss what the next steps are with them. However, it is a very simple question. It is
bringing this land down to the rural area and rural area zoning and not really what might
they do. This is not a development proposal for 29 North. He hoped the conversation
stays within what they are asking from the County.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing and asked
Mr. Kamptner to address some of the questions.
Mr. Kamptner said to answer the second question first, zoning is always reversible. It is
at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors who takes the legislative action. It is one
reason why the Comp Plan serves such a great value in that it is the guiding document
for zoning map amendments. So in this case a goal is achieved in that the rural area
zoning designation will be placed on land that is planned for rural areas. In respect to
the other question as to development potential staff would need to do an analysis. The
number that Mr. Clark gave at 12 potential lots is theoretical. There are factors such as
steep slopes, access, floodplain and other factors that come into play that can affect the
development potential of the lot. There can also be private restrictions that are put on
the development that acts independently from the zoning that might allow a certain level
of development.
Mr. Loach noted he heard Mr. Linville say that once they had the deed if at any time
they were to transfer the deed it would have to be into an easement. He asked if he
was mistaken.
Mr. Kamptner replied that he did not know the particulars of the donations.
Mr. Loach asked Mr. Linville to repeat what he said about transferring the easement.
Rex Linville said he would use the Biscuit Run transaction as an example. Biscuit Run
was a fee simple donation to the State of Virginia for conservation purposes. It was not
a conservation easement since they donated their entire interest in the property. It is
exactly what the Bowers family did when they donated their entire interest in the
property to us. Instead of giving the conservation easement it was a d iscussion that
actually started as a discussion about a conservation easement. However, they
decided to give PEC the entire interest. One of the requirements of State law in order
for a landowner to get Virginia land preservation tax credits for a donation of their entire
interest is the deed requirement that if they subsequently sell the property it would first
be subject to a conservation easement. That is a restriction recorded in the land
records as part of the deed in which they accepted the property. The State had to
agree to this, too, when they accepted Biscuit Run.
Mr. Loach noted that also answers the question about their development in what their
potential for development would be or what they plan to do.
Mr. Morris reiterated what he heard was their plan is to get it in conservation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
PARTIAL DRAFTMNUTES – ZMA-2013-00005 Piedmont Environmental Council
5
Mr. Linville replied yes, that was correct.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-
2013-00005, Piedmont Environmental Council.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2013-00005, Piedmont Environmental Council would go to
the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for
approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Cash Proffer Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Evaluate cash proffer policy in terms of effectiveness and
potential barriers to development
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, McCulley
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On May 2, 2007, the Board reviewed the recommendation of the Development Process Review Task Force (DPRTF)
(Attachment A). That recommendation included a list of priority actions for the County, including the development of a
proffer policy: “Develop a Proffer Policy to include elements beyond a cash amount.” The Board directed staff to proceed
with work on five of the priorities, including developing a proffer policy. At the same meeting, the Board received a proffer
report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) that presented a recommended methodology and resulting
proffer values, as well as a recommendation to develop a cash proffer policy (Attachment B). The Board adopted the
proffer methodology with the resulting proffer values and directed staff to begin the process of developing a cash proffer
policy. Potential issues with a cash proffer policy were further discussed by the Board on June 20, 2007, followed by
adoption of a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of creating a cash proffer policy
(Attachment C). On October 10, 2007, the Board approved CPA 2007-004, which included a cash proffer policy
(Attachments D & E) It is important to note that the policy did not attempt to fully capture all anticipated costs with new
development. The adopted methodology was limited to five areas: 1) Schools, 2) Parks, 3) Libraries, 4) Public Safety,
and 5) Transportation. Other costs associated with growth, such as stormwater and solid waste, were not included in the
estimated proffer amounts.
The Cash Proffer Policy has been in place for six years now and the Board has asked to review the policy and evaluate
whether it is creating barriers to development.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
Cash proffers were instituted in 2007 for a number of reasons. Among those reasons were:
Simplify evaluation of rezoning applications. The DPRTF determined one of the major delays in the
consideration of rezoning was reaching an agreement on the case-by-case impacts associated with each
proposal. There was a recognition that a cash proffer policy would greatly simplify this process by “averaging”
impacts and expecting each development to address the typical impacts.
Create certainty for developers. As a cash proffer policy assumes an average impact for all development,
each property is evaluated against this average impact. This greatly reduced the uncertainty for developers in
determining the cost of a rezoning application.
Provide an additional means of funding an increasing demand for infrastructure improvements
associated with growth. The Board recognized that an increase in residential density associated with a
rezoning greatly improved property values, but, without proffers, did so largely by increasing demands for
County funding of capital improvements. Effectively, a rezoning became a wealth transfer from the County to
property owners and developers. The cash proffer policy provides a balance between the developer
improving their property’s value and assuring funding for improvements needed to reduce the impacts
resulting from that development.
Development Activity and Cash Proffer Policy
Questions have been raised as to whether the cash proffer policy has slowed development or has resulted in pushing
development to the Rural Areas. Staff has found no data to support either position. There are two explanations for the
AGENDA TITLE: Cash Proffer Policy
November 6, 2013
Page 2
slowed development. First, there was a major recession beginning in 2008 that generated impacts far greater than
this policy. Second, ignoring 2008 and 2009 of the recession, there are only three years of data during which the
proffer policy was in effect, and those three years show recession development at pre-recession levels. Staff also
notes the pre-recession period was the height of a housing boom. If there were any negative trend, staff believes it
would have been very noticeable when measured against a period during a housing boom. Instead, staff noted there
remains a large inventory of property upzoned prior to the recession and the adoption of the cash proffer policy that
remains undeveloped. The result is that the supply of available land zoned for development continues to greatly
exceed the short term demand.
W ith respect to the Rural Areas, the attached study was provided to the FIAC in September 2013 (Attachment F). The
report indicates that the County has seen a significant drop in Rural Areas residential building permits since the policy
was adopted. While building in the Development Areas has increased to pre-recession levels, permits in the Rural
Areas continue to lag at half of pre-recession levels. Staff suspects this is due to economic conditions and the weak
demand for the more expensive housing typically built in the Rural Areas rather than any policy effect.
Next, the 2012 County Building Activity Report allowed staff to consider building permits before and after adoption of
the cash proffer policy (Attachment G). In looking at the number of residences permitted for the Development Areas
for the last nine years, staff could find no evidence that the policy has resulted in a decrease in development activity.
Once again, ignoring the recession of 2008 and 2009, staff noted the sample size is too small to provide any statistical
assurance whether or not the policy has had any effect. By looking at projects being developed with and without cash
proffers, staff noted projects with cash proffers (such as Willow Glen and Hayden Place) are developing just as well as
property moving forward with by-right development. Conversely, staff considered the Crozet Downtown District, which
is the one part of the County upzoned without cash proffers, and noted that the only development that has occurred is
the County’s Crozet Library. To date, the absence of cash proffers has not proved an incentive for development in the
Crozet Downtown District.
Other Factors
The Board considered a number of other factors during the development of the policy in 2007 that were intended to
avoid a disincentive to developing in a form desired by the Comprehensive Plan. Although there have been anecdotes
claiming these factors have created barriers to development, the data does not provide good evidence of that
occurring. The policy provides the opportunity for a number of possible cash proffer credits, but there have not been
enough applications attempting to use the credits to determine whether that incentive is working as the Board
intended. Those possible credits towards the cash proffer amount include:
Dedication of property and in-kind improvements. This credit has been used on several applications (e.g.
Biscuit Run) and the Board quickly resolved differences on estimated values.
No increase or a small increase in density. Staff notes this credit allows development seeking design flexibility
within the Neighborhood Model District, with the estimated density increase being the only units with the cash
proffer amount expected. While approved prior to the cash proffer policy, Belvedere is often cited as an
example of this credit. There is no definition of what constitutes a “small increase,” which may create
uncertainty for the development community on how far this credit can be applied.
Substantial upgrades to design / development standards. This provision allows for a credit up to the
anticipated lot yield prior to the rezoning. An example of this could include a high quality Neighborhood Model
form of development. Several developments have been approved without cash proffers as a result of
changes intended to improve the quality of development and several are currently in the process of amending
their zoning using this provision. This factor has often been combined with small or no increases in density.
Unique circumstances. While this provision has not been used, it was intended to recognize that certain
projects can generate much lower demand for public facilities. The cited example for this credit is an age
restricted development that would not create a demand for schools, but the credit is not limited to schools.
Cash Proffer Experience
As noted in several places, staff finds there is still a very limited amount of data associated with projects using the
cash proffer policy. The limited data makes it impossible to show, one way or the other, whether the cash proffer
policy has had any effect on the amount of or type of development occurring. Furthermore, when considering the
available credits under this policy, there is even less data to support any theories about the effectiveness of those
credits. Given the limited amount of data and strong building activity suggesting the policy effects are small or
nonexistent, staff recommends maintaining the current policy for two more years, then revisiting the question with the
advantage of the additional experience and data.
AGENDA TITLE: Cash Proffer Policy
November 6, 2013
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
No change to the policy is being recommended at this time. Should the Board wish to consider changes to the
policy, staff would include consideration of budget impacts with those changes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Staff recommends that the current policy be maintained for an additional two years, then revisited using the
additional data to consider whether any changes are warranted.
2. Should the Board desire any additional consideration at this time, staff recommends the following process:
a. Staff would invite the development community and others to a public roundtable for the purpose of
creating an opportunity to share concerns and issues with the current cash proffer policy. It is
expected that the roundtable would start with a staff overview of the current policy and then allow
ample time for attendees to share thoughts about the policy.
b. Following the roundtable, staff would utilize the County’s website to enable additional public comment
on the current policy. It is intended that this type of forum would accommodate anyone either not
comfortable sharing their comments in public or otherwise unable to attend the roundtable. The
website would be kept open for a minimum of three weeks to allow a reasonable time for comments.
c. Following the comment period, staff would catalog all input and present it to the Board in unedited
form along with staff’s understanding of the issues raised. The Board could then identify any issues it
determines would benefit from further consideration at this time and then direct staff to provide options
to address those specific issues. The Board could also determine a process for obtaining any
additional public input as warranted.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Development Process Review Task Force Recommendations
Attachment B - Proffer Report of Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
Attachment C –Board Minutes of June 20, 2007 concerning proffer policy, including Resolution of Intent
Attachment D – Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA2007–04), Growth Management and Facilities Planning
Attachment E – Cash Proffer Policy
Attachment F - August 2013 Report to FIAC on Cash Proffer Policy
Attachment G - 2012 Building Activity Report
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Development Review Task Force Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion on Reviewing the Recommendations of
the Development Review Task Force
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Ms. Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors appointed the Development Process Review Task Force in March, 2006, with the following
charge: Using the existing staff work on process improvements as a starting point, the task force will review and
assess the current legislative review process for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, quality and adequate
public participation.
The Task Force was appointed with the following membership:
Bruce Dotson
Ann Mallek
David Bowerman
Michael Hancox
Valerie Long
Michael Barnes
Marcia Joseph
Eric Strucko
Kenneth C. Boyd
David C. Wyant
Robert W. Tucker
Robert Spekman, PhD
The Board established the following Scope of Review to guide the Task Force’s activities: To focus on improving the
legislative review process, but not to alter policy regarding the scope of l egislative reviews, with consideration of
the following issues:
Public input process
Timeliness of review
Quality of review
Quality of approved plans
Complexity of review
Thoroughness of review
Ease of the review process
Efficiency of the review process
Review processes in Rural Areas vs. Development Areas
Resources necessary to implement any proposed changes
Consideration of changes to current development fees
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4 - Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development.
AGENDA TITLE:
Development Review Task Force Report
May 2, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The Task Force began meeting in late April, 2006 and accomplished the following major tasks:
Reviewed and evaluated staff’s initial set of recommendations
Identified new possibilities for process and public participation improvements
Evaluated current process for plan review
Solicited community input via a survey of citizens, development community and staff
Drafted list of potential recommendations
Prioritized recommendations based on those that would have the most positive impact and those that could be
implemented most quickly
Developed preliminary action plans for priority recommendations
Task Force Recommendations:
Committee recommendations are presented in the following three categories:
1. New actions that were identified as higher priority
The complete list of higher priority new actions is contained in a matrix as part of the full task force report titled Attachment
A. The following are the five potential actions that the committee felt would have the most significant impact on improving
the process.
Modified 2 Phase ZMA Process - 2 phase ZMA process will avoid need for detailed submissions until “big
picture” issues have been answered, reducing cost to applicants and lessening review time required while
producing higher quality projects with appropriate public participation.
Improve ARB/PC/Board coordination, clarify role of ARB - Clarify the sequential review process to alleviate
confusion for staff, applicants, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and clarify the extent of review
from the PC and ARB expected by the Board, prior to BOS review.
Detailed process documentation focused on creating consistent review - Documentation on review process
for ZMAs, SPs, SDPs, and SUBs will be used by staff for performing reviews and made available to applicants and
the public to understand process.
Establish staff authority for waivers and modifications – Expand those decisional areas where staff can
exercise authority without Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors review for projects located in the
development areas.
Develop a Proffer Policy to include elements beyond a cash amount – Establish clear and consistent
expectations with regard to what proffer levels are acceptable and strive to avoid creating undefined mandates as
new regulations are adopted.
2. Actions already planned or underway
Some of the items discussed by the task force were already planned for or underway in some form as the group was
meeting, or have gotten underway since that time. The task force wanted to reaffirm the County’s commitment to these
actions and in some cases they provided specific direction regarding individual action items. The complete list of actions
already planned or underway is contained in a matrix as part of the full task force report titled Attachment A.
3. Other priorities
In addition to the higher priority items, the task force identified a number of other actions that they felt would be significant
improvements to the development review process. While these actions did not receive the highest endorsement by the
task force, it was recommended that these items should be kept on record and addressed by staff as th ey are able. The
complete list of other ideas are contained in a matrix as part of the full task force report titled Attachment A.
The Task Force recommends that the Board of Supervisors gives approval to staff to move forward with implementing
those high priority recommendations that do not require significant additional staff time or resources, specifically those five
actions outlined above. The Task Force also recommends that staff implement any additional recommendations that can
be addressed as part of future initiatives already planned or underway as they are able, for example the upgrade of the
website, the Countyview web application and expansion of the AMail enews service, among others.
AGENDA TITLE:
Development Review Task Force Report
May 2, 2007
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
The primary budget impact of these recommendations would be felt in additional resources that would be required to move
the recommendations along more quickly than could be accommodated within the existing Community Development work
plan. Addressing the priority items above can be accommodated without a budget impact by making minor adjustments in
the current work plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff supports the recommendations of the Task Force and recommends moving forward with the higher priority items with
minor adjustments in the current Community Development Work Plan. The work plan and those adjustments are
scheduled for discussion at the June 6th Board of Supervisors meeting. Staff notes that the work plan will need to be
adjusted to allow bullet #5, Development of a Proffer Policy, to be accomplished within a reasonably quick timeframe. Also,
staff support would be required to draft ordinance changes required to accomplish bullet #4 regarding expanded staff
authority.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Development Review Task Force Report
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proffers Report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory
Committee
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve Proffers Methodology and Dollar Amounts
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, S. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2007
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors has expressed a desire to establish a proffer policy that would allow developers to address the
impacts associated with new development and that would provide clear guidance to the development community about the
monetary value of proffers, per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, that the County would consider reasonable. The
County’s Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee was charged with deriving a methodology for estimating the gross proffer dollar
amounts that the County could expect per Single Family Detached (SFD) residence, Single Family
Attached/Townhouse/Condominium (SFA/TH) unit, Multifamily/Apartment (MF) dwelling, and Mobile Home (MH).
As part of its preliminary work, the Committee surveyed proffer models from several Virginia counties, including
Chesterfield, Greene, Hanover, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania, and Stafford. The Committee determined that
these localities expect proffers to cover development-related capital costs only, as opposed to development-related capital
and operating costs. The Committee learned, also, that the capital categories typically covered in the counties’ proffer
models included transportation, schools, and parks/recreation/open space, and public safety. The Albemarle County
Attorney, and outside experts who met with the Committee, noted that a viable proffers model for Albemarle should include
estimates pertaining only to capital costs. The distinction between capital and operating expenditures is important since
the County’s current Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM) includes estimates of operating costs along with estimates of
debt service on capital costs in calculating the net fiscal impact of development. This situation suggests that CRIM, in its
present form, would not be suitable as a proffers calculation model for Albemarle.
With this background information in mind, the Committee labored to establish a methodology that would estimate the
capital costs that the various types of dwelling units typically would generate in Albemarle County. Note that, of all the
proffers calculation models that the Committee reviewed, the Chesterfield County model appeared especially attractive as
a framework for the Committee’s efforts, since the methodology behind Chesterfield’s model appeared reasonable and this
jurisdiction’s proffers regime has survived at least one legal challenge.
At the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee’s February 22, 2007 meeting the Committee adopted a methodology to estimate
the proffer dollar amount per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit. This adopted methodology followed substantially from
the Chesterfield proffer calculation model.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal Five – Fund the County’s Future Needs
DISCUSSION:
The attached memorandum outlines the methodology that the Committee adopted, and discusses in d etail the proffer
amounts, per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, that this methodology currently would render. The basic
methodological approach that the Committee adopted involves five steps: (1) the calculation of the County’s total budgeted
AGENDA ITEM:
Proffers Report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
May 2, 2007
Page 2
transportation capital costs; (2) the translation of these total transportation costs into costs per dwelling unit, by type o f
dwelling unit; (3) the calculation of the County’s total budgeted non-transportation capital costs; (4) the translation of these
total non-transportation costs into costs per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit; and (5) the estimation of the revenues,
per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, that would help offset the capital costs that were estimated in (2) and (4). The
resulting net cost figures for each category of dwelling unit represent the cash, or dollar value of the in-kind contribution,
that the County would expect the developer to proffer per unit to address the impacts of the proposed development. These
dollar amounts are derived, in part, by assuming a debt service level of 10%. The dollar figures per dwelling unit are as
follows:
SFD -- $14,241;
SFA/TH -- $9,441;
MF -- $11,435; and
MH -- $17,717.
Please note that these numbers could be included in a proffer policy but, by themselves, these numbers do not represent a
proffer policy. A cash proffer policy establishes the guidelines for determining the maximum reasonable per-unit cash
proffer that would address the impacts resulting from a particular rezoning. The policy must be grounded in, and consistent
with, the Comprehensive Plan; is typically adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and must be compliant
with the state enabling authority. The policy sets forth the assumptions and methodology for computing the cash proffer
contributions, and declares the types of rezonings that would be subject to the policy. Proffers typically are applicable only
to residential uses, but could be applied to commercial and industrial uses as well. The policy delineates the impacts that
would be addressed by the cash proffer (e.g., capital improvements such as roads, schools, libraries, parks and fire
stations, but not operational costs, since the theory is that taxes and fees will pay for such costs). The policy, additionally,
provides guidelines about (1) circumstances that would reduce or exempt the per-unit cash proffer (e.g., affordable housing
units, development of exceptional design, or units allowed by-right under the pre-existing zoning); (2) off-setting
contributions by the owner (e.g., the dedication of land or constructing in-kind improvements); (3) how the value of the off-
sets are determined; and (4) unique circumstances that mitigate the project’s impact on public facilities (e.g., age-restricted
housing projects that would have little or no impact on schools).
Other issues that should be addressed by the policy include the procedure for evaluating proffers (e.g., the role of staff and
the Planning Commission), how often the policy is updated with a new fiscal analysis, and how the policy or future
amendments will be applied to pending applications. In addition, the policy will need to address cash proffers for affordable
housing that occur when a developer volunteers to proffer cash in lieu of providing affordable units that are consistent with
the affordable housing policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Addressing additional impacts with cash proffers m ay become
legally more defensible if the County adopts new proffer authority available to it effective July 1st.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The adoption of the attached proffers methodology and numbers, along with the adoption of a formal proffer policy, would
generate substantial amounts of new revenue that would help the County mitigate the fiscal impacts of new development.
The total amount of revenue that the County could expect, in any given year, from the proffers numbers listed above would
depend upon several factors, including the volume of new construction in the County in that year, and the way in which the
County’s formal proffer policy would apply the per-unit dollar figures to specific residential developments.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proffers methodology and the resulting proffer values that are
contained in the attached memorandum and direct staff to begin the process of developing a complete proffer policy.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Proffer Memorandum
Return to exec summary
June 20, 2007 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
Agenda Item No. 6. Work Session: Proffer Policy.
Mr. Graham reported that the work session today is to seek the Board’s input on the cash proffer
policy and make any recommendations. He noted that the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee provided a
recommendation to the Board on this in February that would cover five areas: transportation, schools,
libraries, parks, and public safety. Mr. Graham said that this would cover the capital costs in the CIP
budget, the Strategic Plan, and the Master Plan, but it does not address operational expenses. He noted
that it does include a proffer calculation methodology and starting proffer values, which the Board
accepted; staff directed staff to work on a cash proffer policy.
Mr. Graham said that the Board had one change: using six percent of the property tax applied to
capital improvements rather than the originally recommended ten percent. He noted that they also gave
some direction to have it apply to all market-rate units but exclude affordable housing units and would also
give credit for lands and infrastructure offered in lieu of cash. Mr. Graham stated that it would also give
credit for contributions that would reduce infrastructure needs; donated land would be credited at County-
assessed values with improvements credited at the County’s cost to construct. He noted that there would
be an inflation factor for monies paid at a later date using the Marshall-Swift index.
Mr. Graham said that the impacts are being grouped in two categories: those that the proffer
policy is attempting to address and other impacts such as local road improvements and environmental.
He noted that staff considers the cash proffer policy as something to weigh along with all the other issues.
Mr. Graham said that there were remaining policy questions from May including appropriate credits,
recognition of special considerations, and a credit calculation methodology. He mentioned that staff
recommends for appropriate credits that staff should seek to satisfy the cash proffer policy independent of
other rezoning considerations and not by balancing other benefits against it.
Mr. Graham noted that rezoning benefits that do not address those elements in the CIP, Strategic
Plan, or Master Plan should not be considered when balancing the cash proffer policy but would be
considered as part of the overall rezoning. He presented an example of Rivanna Village with a park being
proposed and whether or not that park was already recommended.
Mr. Boyd asked about the case of a school site proffered, such as that with Biscuit Run, if an
alternate site was offered in a location within close proximity.
Mr. Graham replied that staff would verify that the school site proffered satisfied the need for a
southern elementary school as identified in the CIP, and at that point it would count as a credit in the
evaluation of a rezoning.
Mr. Graham explained that the special conditions include instances such as no density increase or
a small density increase, such as Belvedere. He said that staff concluded that they would apply the policy
to those units above what could be done by-right, and if the rezoning is already approved for 700 units
those should not be considered if an amended rezoning was being considered.
Mr. Rooker asked if this would apply to rural area property being rezoned to the Neighborhood
Model, giving the example of Biscuit Run if they were to come forward with a plan for a development that
was the same or close to what could be developed by-right. He emphasized the importance of clarifying
what the percentage increase over by-right should be in order to give them credit.
Mr. Slutzky expressed concern that the Board might encourage a developer to develop by-right.
Ms. Thomas added that it might make them put a minimum number of units on a parcel.
Mr. Davis commented that if a rezoning is just to deal with form rather than density then the cash
proffer would not necessarily apply. He said that it is going to be a judgment call really, on a case by case
basis, probably, as to whether or not the rezoning is about form or if the rezoning is about density.
Mr. Graham agreed, adding that staff recognizes that with some of the properties that come in for
rezoning there is a difference between theoretical rezoning and what they can really put on a piece of
property.
Mr. Slutzky asked which of the two would be accepted.
Mr. Graham replied that staff will have to get into what is realistic for a specific piece of property,
and their focus is on those parcels that have an actual change in zoning.
Mr. Rooker commented that with Biscuit Run, the developers have essentially taken credit for all
possible bonuses.
Mr. Graham said that staff is aware of that as well, noting that building some units might require
exceptions such as critical slopes waivers.
Mr. Slutzky stated that it is important to figure it out regardless of how complex it is so that
applicants have some understanding of the basis for evaluation.
Mr. Davis noted that Chesterfield applies the policy to all lots in a rezoning as that is the cleanest
way to do it. He added that Albemarle staff has more concern about the form of development.
June 20, 2007 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the rezoning needs to be evaluated on changes in density, and the
policy would apply to every unit.
Mr. Graham stated that all market rate units would be part of the consideration.
Ms. Thomas suggested using terms such as “negligible increase in density” and “significant
increase in design” are what the Board seems to be seeking.
Mr. Boyd said that he was under the impression that the Board was going to further discuss this
item today, adding that he would likely support an “across the board” form of development credit in the
instance of Neighborhood Model developments.
Mr. Rooker responded that that form is required by the Subdivision Ordinance anyway, and he is
concerned about giving cash credits for things that are of subjective valuable. He said that he agrees with
the concept of impact fees, but the State has not given the County that authority. Mr. Rooker emphasized
that the point of this exercise is to offset impacts to infrastructure.
Mr. Slutzky commented that while there are costs to the developer for Neighborhood Model
developments, there are also great advantages for them such as a more marketable product. He said
that he did not know if the Board should be giving credits for compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Slutzky
expressed concern of giving adequate credit, though, to alleviate the possibility of further building in the
rural areas.
Mr. Rooker cited the Avinity development as an example, stating that the County effectively
allowed an increase in density of 13 times the existing. He noted the value created was huge. Mr. Rooker
also noted that that developer quickly came forward and met the cash proffers the Board requested, but
there is still a whole lot of value over and above the cash proffers being created by the rezoning. He said
that citizens expect the County to recapture some of that increased value to help pay for infrastructure that
will be required to be paid for by taxes.
Mr. Slutzky noted that Mr. Boyd has not been supportive of one major factor that could be used to
discourage growth in the rural area, downzoning, and he also supported the tax decrease.
Mr. Boyd replied that downzoning is essentially taking away property rights. He also said that he
is not convinced that the Neighborhood Model form is necessarily more marketable.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Board has been encouraging having a mix of available housing types.
He also emphasized that the numbers they arrived at were a compromise, and they ultimately came to an
agreement.
Ms. Thomas commented that the reason she advocated for a higher number was that they were
constrained to only picking up existing CIP items, and she also assumed that there would be negotiations
with each development when other proffers were made.
Mr. Dorrier noted that with North Pointe, the Board deemed the contributions to highway
renovations to be as important as cash proffers.
Mr. Rooker replied that some of those items would be credited to the developers as proffers.
Mr. Davis said that under State law, unless the developer proposes otherwise, the proffer can not
be collected until the time of the building permit for each individual unit, and the developer for single-family
houses might not be paying that at all. He added that for proffers that have an amount attached to each
unit, they are probably going to get paid at the building permit stage.
Mr. Graham said that with smaller infill developments, there is an existing house on there that
would remain in place, and the policy should only be applied to those new lots. He also said that it is
important to consider areas of focus for the CIP as part of overall considerations and not as part of the
cash proffer policy.
Mr. Slutzky said that he felt the priority zones were a bad idea when they were presented, and it
does not matter when the CIP items are realized.
Mr. Rooker stated that it is up to the Board when CIP items are funded and that is a separate
issue from the cash proffer policy.
Mr. Graham noted that the priority areas would still be weighed but not as part of the proffer
discussion.
Mr. Graham said that with regard to calculation methodology, land would be credited at the
County’s assessed value for the specific land proffered. He stated that the improvement calculations
would be based on estimates of what it would cost the County to build them and would follow a consistent
process. Mr. Graham said that if there are differences with the applicant, the County will try to come to
agreement but that might not always be possible.
June 20, 2007 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Graham concluded by saying the impacts to staff would hopefully be minimal and could
actually have a net benefit to staff time and involvement. He emphasized that the credit should only be
allowed where the developer is addressing the infrastructure anticipated by the cash proffer policy.
Mr. Rooker commended staff on their focus on the remaining issues, noting that Attachment C
explains cash proffer guidelines in more detail.
Mr. Davis said that there would be some tinkering with the Comprehensive Plan so that it is clear
there is an expectation that new development will offset capital and infrastructure costs. He stated that
the Board would be asked to adopt an amendment to the plan as an addendum. Mr. Davis said that staff
would finalize the CPA language, and then it would be advertised as a public hearing for the Planning
Commission. He said that the Commission would make a recommendation to the Board for another
public hearing.
Ms. Thomas noted that there has been very positive response to the web page regarding this
item.
Mr. Davis commented that this is just a step to bring this item to public hearing.
Ms. Thomas emphasized the importance of bringing out what they would not approve regardless
of public input.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like to clarify the credits for affordable units, whether a cash
contribution would be accepted in lieu of actual units.
Mr. Rooker replied that this policy does not propose giving cash credits against proffers for
providing affordable units, but it suggests that there would be no cash proffers paid on affordable units.
Mr. Graham added that the cash proffer policy does apply to market rate units.
Mr. Slutzky also commented that using the CPI index would not be appropriate, and Marshall and
Swift would make more sense.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Davis said that by State law they must choose one or the other, and staff recommends
Marshall and Swift.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he does not know why the County would want to limit things to a
specific geographic domain regarding proffered land for school sites and parks. He said that he was not
sure what the benefit is.
Mr. Davis responded that this attempts to capture the reasonableness of the proffer that
addresses the impacts of the development. He said that some are County-wide but others pertain to the
area around the development.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that the notion of geographic domain be removed, and staff should bring
that out as concerns.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that this pertains to cash proffers and not land.
Mr. Davis commented that the developers usually want the proffers to be close to their
development, such as roads and schools. He noted that it is not possible to capture every circumstance
that is going to be presented to the Board. Mr. Davis further noted that in Chesterfield, the Board applies
the policy on a case by case basis through reasonable analysis.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that they are trying to create a reasonable proffer policy, and he would
like to err on the side of having something in place that is legally defensible.
Mr. Graham pointed out that the role of the County in transit up to now has been operational
expense rather than capital.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved to approve the resolution of intent as presented in Attachment D.
Mr. Wyant seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Board directed the County’s Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) to
analyze the fiscal impacts of development on the County’s public facilities and infrastructure and
make recommendations as to the appropriate cash proffers to offset these impacts; and
June 20, 2007 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
WHEREAS, the Board accepted the cash proffer methodology recommended by the FIAC to
calculate the impacts of residential development resulting from rezonings on May 2, 2007 on a per
dwelling unit basis; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Board at its work session on May 9, 2007 that, with
the exception of affordable housing, there is an expectation that all new rezonings that include
residential development will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as determined by the cash
proffer methodology and as implemented pursuant to a cash proffer policy; and
WHEREAS, such a policy can best be implemented through amendment to the County’s
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good planning practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
as deemed necessary in order to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Planning Commission shall
expeditiously hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed by this
resolution of intent and forward its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
__________
Mr. Graham asked if the Board felt the need for another work session.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like one.
Mr. Rooker commented that he does not understand why a work session would be necessary
before the public hearing, but perhaps one would be needed after issues are raised in the hearing.
Mr. Graham stated that the Planning Commission would likely move this along quickly to get it
back to the Board.
_______________
Return to exec summary
Attachment D
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND
FACILITIES PLANNING GOALS
ALBEMARLE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN
7
Growth Management
GOAL: Protect and efficiently utilize County resources by:
A. Emphasizing the importance of protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
1) Agricultural and forestry resources
2) water supply resources
3) natural resources
4) scenic resources
5) historic and cultural resources
6) limited service delivery
Of these, the protection of agricultural and forestry resources is the highest priority.
B. Promoting the Development Areas as the place where a variety of land uses, facilities, and
services exist and are planned to support the County’s future growth, with emphasis placed on
infill development.
Introduction
(As Amended July 10, 2002)
The County's primary growth management goal directs development into designated areas and
conserves the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection. Resource protection is
the basic theme behind the County's growth management approach. To this ongoing theme are
added new emphases on intelligent use of Development Areas, public facilities and resources. Thus,
planning efforts aim to channel growth into designated areas to facilitate economical service
delivery in those areas, to promote a sense of neighborhood-style development as the preferred
design in those areas, and to conserve the Rural Areas.
Planning efforts also focus on means to discourage development in the Rural Areas and support
activities consistent with the character of the Rural Areas. This is accomplished through education,
incentives, and voluntary and regulatory measures. Agricultural and forestal resources have been
identified as the most critical County resources and the desired primary land use in the Rural Area.
Such uses play an important and long standing role in the environment, heritage, and economy of
the County. Loss of these resources to development is irreversible and irreplaceable. Maintenance
of these resources also provides an opportunity to conserve and efficiently use other resources such
as: (1) water resources (with use of property conservation techniques); (2) natural, scenic, and
historic resources with the maintenance of pasture land, farmland, and forested areas; and, (3) fiscal
resources by limiting development and lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas
of the County. In the interest of this growth management strategy, residential development is
considered a secondary use in the Rural Areas.
It is important that this and future Comprehensive Plans make adjustments that can influence
8
development patterns to better meet the growth management goals. Such adjustments can include
more active County support of Development Areas development, adjustments to location and/or
holding capacity, and additional protective or support measures for the Rural Areas. This plan
emphasizes the County's role in providing necessary new and amended ordinances, regulations,
support services and infrastructure for development, and more efficient use of Development Areas,
including more urban and pedestrian oriented development styles. It must be recognized that the
desired increased densities in the Development Areas will also require an increased commitment by
the County for public infrastructure improvements. It must also be recognized that provision of
infrastructure that successfully implements the Development Areas is highly dependent on the
availability of adequate funding from a variety of sources. Traditionally such infrastructure has
been programmed in the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and funded primarily
through County property taxes on a pay as you go basis. But the scale and scope of the impacts
of new development on this infrastructure necessitate greater financial participation by new
development in addressing these needs. Furthermore, the provision of infrastructure that is
more concurrent with needs may be best realized through longer term debt that utilizes the
excellent bond rating of the County and can be financed through property taxes and funding
commitments from new development.
9
Facilities Planning
GOAL: Strongly support and effectively implement the County's growth management priorities
in the planning and provision of transportation infrastructure, public facilities and public utilities.
Introduction
Residents of the County expect high quality facilities and services. It is recognized that the
provision of such facilities and services significantly affects the location, timing, and extent of
development.
By their very nature, public facilities are capital-intensive, requiring significant funding not only for
the initial development of the facility, but also for its continual maintenance and operation. It is
becoming increasingly difficult for communities to find adequate fiscal resources to pay for new or
improved facilities, as well as maintenance of existing facilities. Therefore, to provide facilities in a
fiscally responsible and equitable manner, adequate planning is necessary to ensure that the highest
benefit is provided to the citizens in exchange for the cost required to provide the service. The
policies, objectives, and strategies presented in this chapter outline an active process to assure this
success.
The Nature of Public Service Delivery (As Amended July 10, 2002)
The County's growth management goals are to be supported through the appropriate provision of
transportation, public utilities, and public facilities and services to designated Development Areas.
The provision of fire, rescue, and police protection, roads, utilities, school bus service, and other
governmental activities and functions to a large, dispersed rural population is viewed as inefficient
and contrary to the overall public interest in guiding new development to the designated
Development Areas.
Emphasis is placed on providing a level of public service delivery that will support development in,
and direct development to, designated Development Areas. To accomplish this, service and
facilities will be provided at a much higher level in the Development Areas than in the Rural Areas.
Those persons living in the Rural Areas should not anticipate levels of public service delivery equal
to services provided in the Development Areas.
10
Capital Improvements Program
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as the major financial planning guide for County
expenditures towards capital facilities and equipment over a five-year period. It is primarily based
on the physical needs of the County as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It is one of the
primary tools used to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Albemarle County adopted its first CIP
on March 5, 1978. The CIP is reviewed annually by the Planning Commission, as authorized by
Virginia Code § 15.2-2239, and is approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The CIP establishes a five-year funding schedule for the purchase, construction or replacement of
the physical assets of the community. A capital project typically requires a minimum expenditure of
$20,000 and has a useful life of a minimum of ten years. County departments and affiliated
agencies initiate their capital project requests, which span the five-year period of the CIP. A CIP
Technical Committee reviews all requests. Recommendations are then made by this Committee to
the Planning Commission, which subsequently makes its recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors for adoption as part of the County’s budget.
In conjunction with the CIP process, the County develops a comprehensive long-range capital needs
assessment that forms the basis for the county’s five-year capital improvement plan. This ten-year
needs assessment is updated every other year as part of the CIP process when departments are asked
to submit capital requests spanning a ten-year planning period.
Impact of Development on Public Facilities
The CIP and capital needs assessment are a function of both the desire to provide facilities that
support and implement the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the need for such facilities in
response to the impacts of new development. As such, the funding necessary to support this
program must be a shared obligation of the County and new development creating the impacts.
In an effort to determine how to appropriately and equitably pay for the cost of growth to the
County, the County Board of Supervisors directed the County’s Fiscal Impact Advisory
Committee (FIAC) to analyze the fiscal impacts of development on the County’s public facilities
and infrastructure and make recommendations as to the appropriate cash proffers to offset these
impacts. On May 2, 2007, the Board accepted the cash proffer methodology recommended by the
FIAC to calculate the impacts of residential development resulting from re-zonings on a per-
dwelling unit basis. With the exception of affordable housing, there is an expectation that all
new re-zonings that include residential development will pay for the equivalent of their full
impact as determined by the cash proffer methodology and as implemented pursuant to the
County’s cash proffer addendum to the Comprehensive Plan (see Appendix B: ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA CASH PROFFER POLICY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES).
Return to exec summary
Attachment E
DRAFT: September 20, 2007 Page 1 of 5
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
CASH PROFFER POLICY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
(With cross-references to the version of the policy and the executive summary that the Board of
Supervisors considered in June.)
A. General
1. Authority: Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 enables the County to accept proffers as
reasonable conditions to address the impacts resulting from a rezoning. This authority includes the
authority to accept cash contributions to address impacts to public facilities generated by new
residential development. [A4, sentence 2]
2. Policy: It is the policy of the County to require that the owner of property that is
rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the
public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. Accordingly,
the Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in accordance
with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in-kind improvements in
accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. [A1; A2, sentence 2]
3. Reasonableness: This cash proffer policy must meet a “reasonableness” test, which
requires the Board to determine for each rezoning whether the amount proffered is reasonably
related both in nature and extent to the projected impacts of the proposed development on public
facilities. Through this policy, staff will recommend a maximum cash proffer in each case that
meets this test of reasonableness. [A3]
4. Public facilities covered by this policy: The following public facilities will be funded
by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The County does not
currently calculate a cash proffer value to fund public facilities such as water and sewer
improvements, jails, landfills and other government facilities. [A7; B6, sentence 1]
B. Maximum Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount
1. Maximum: The maximum cash proffer that the Board will accept for public facilities
from residential rezoning applicants is $17,500.00 per SFD; $11,900 per SFA/TH; and $12,400 per
MF unit, to be adjusted annually without any further action by the Board according to the most
applicable Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index, as determined by the Director of Community
Development, and as expressly provided in the proffer statement. [B8]
2. Annual adjustment: Adjustments to the cash proffer amount due to projected public
facilities costs may be considered every fiscal year. Staff will re-compute net costs based on the
current methodology and recommend adjustments. [Executive Summary, June 20, 2007]
C. Calculation of Per Unit Cash Proffer Amount for a Rezoning
1. General: Pursuant to this policy, staff will (i) calculate the annual net cost of public
facilities; (ii) calculate the fiscal impact of a rezoning request that permits residential uses on those
public facilities; and (iii) administer the collection and expenditure of the proffered funds in
accordance with State law. [A2; B6, sentence 2]
Attachment E
DRAFT: September 20, 2007 Page 2 of 5
2. Assumptions made in calculating the cash amount: Staff determines the cost of
public facilities generated by new residential development by relying on the assumption that any
revenue derived from growth (residential and commercial real estate taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc.)
will pay the normal operating costs for services to residents of new developments and a percentage
of the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP). [A4, sentence 1]
3. Determining number of dwelling units in rezoning: A rezoning’s impact on public
facilities will be evaluated based on the gross number of proposed dwelling units. When calculating
the gross number of dwelling units, staff will:
a. Use the upper end of the density range allowed by the rezoning. [A8]
b. Not give credits for those dwelling units permitted under existing zoning
regulations (except as provided in sections C(6)(c) and (e)) or on agricultural lots, and will not
consider the transferring of allowable units from other properties. [A8]
c. Exclude dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s
definition of affordable housing. [Executive Summary, June 20, 2007]
4. Use of averages: In determining the net cost per dwelling unit of a public facility,
staff relies on countywide averages, where possible. For certain public facilities, staff relies on
averages established for geographic service areas or districts established in the County. [A5]
a. Parks, libraries and public safety facilities: Since parks, libraries, and public
safety facilities serve the entire County, the geographic service districts for these facilities are
determined to be countywide. Rezoning requests will be analyzed on a countywide basis to
determine impacts on these facilities and proffers may be spent to fund these facilities countywide.
[A6, sentence 1; B2(a)]
b. Schools: The impacts of a residential development on schools will be
analyzed on a district basis to determine impacts on schools. In order to ensure that the cash
proffered by an applicant is used to fund the public facilities impacted by or required for the
development, the County is divided into three geographic service districts corresponding to the
attendance zones of high schools. District 1 corresponds to the attendance zone for Albemarle High
School, District 2 corresponds to the attendance zone for Western Albemarle High School, and
District 3 corresponds to the attendance zone for Monticello High School. Funds collected from a
development within a District will be spent on school improvements within that District or for any
school improvement that provides relief for the District the development is in. [A6, sentence 1;
B2(b)]
c. Transportation: With respect to transportation, the fiscal impact of rezoning
requests will be analyzed on a countywide basis, with cash collected from a rezoning expended on
transportation projects in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and associated Master Plans, CIP/CNA,
Strategic Plan, or VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan that relate to the impacts resulting from the
rezoning. [A6, sentence 1; B2(c)]
5. Consideration of demand, service level and cost: In addition to the use of averages,
staff will consider the four “components” involved in calculating what a new dwelling unit will cost
the County in terms of providing public facilities. These components are as follows: [A5, sentence
2]
Attachment E
DRAFT: September 20, 2007 Page 3 of 5
a. Demand generators: Staff uses the average for single family detached (SFD),
Single Family Attached / Townhouse/Condominium (SFA/TH) and Multi-Family/Apartment (MF)
to determine the number of persons per dwelling unit, the number of students per dwelling unit (for
elementary, middle and high schools) and the number of daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit to
calculate demand generators (population, population portion of population plus jobs, pupils, and
daily vehicle trips) associated with a new dwelling unit. [B1(a)]
b. Service levels: Staff assumes that the public facilities contained in the
County’s CIP/Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) and Strategic Plan will accommodate ten years’
worth of new development in a manner that will maintain present levels of service. Service levels
are calculated on a per-person, per-pupil, and per-daily vehicle trip basis. (Service levels are
calculated annually). [B1(b)]
c. Gross cost of public facilities: Staff calculates the gross cost of public
facilities. The term gross cost is used because a credit (described in C(5)(d) below) for anticipated
future revenues from a new dwelling unit will be applied against the gross cost. For example, to
calculate the gross cost of park facilities, the average persons per dwelling unit is multiplied by the
County’s per-capita CIP/CNA/Strategic Plan amount for park facilities. [B1(c)]
d. Net cost: Staff calculates the net cost per public facility or maximum cash
proffer. This is the gross cost [(C)(5)(c)] per public facility minus the applicable credit [(C)(6)] per
public facility. [B1(e)]
6. Credits: Staff calculates a credit to apply against the gross cost for each public
facility. The County has issued and plans to continue to issue general obligation bonds to finance
the construction of public facilities. New development will generate real estate and other taxes to
the County and staff assumes that a percentage of these taxes will go to help retire this debt. So that
new dwelling units are not paying twice (once through payment of a cash proffer and again through
real estate taxes) a credit is computed. For FY 08, that percentage is assumed to be 6%. Credits are
authorized for the following: [B1(d)]
a. Land and public infrastructure: In some cases, a rezoning applicant may wish
to mitigate the development’s calculated impact on public facilities by dedicating property or doing
in-kind improvements in lieu of all or a portion of the cash proffer. The dedication of land and the
construction of public facilities recommended by the County’s CIP or its master plans, or otherwise
identified as being necessary to address the impacts resulting from the proposed development. Land
and improvements that are not identified in the CIP or in a master plan should be entitled to a credit
only when it is found that the proposed development creates an immediate need for the land or
improvement that is better addressed by the applicant dedicating the land or constructing the
improvement than by receiving the cash equivalent. Credit for transportation may be allowed for
off-site land dedication or improvements, as recommended by the Department of Facilities
Management. [B3; Executive Summary, June 20, 2007]
(1) Determining value: The value of donated land generally will be based
on the current assessed value of the specifically proffered property (not the assessed value of the
property as a whole), not to exceed the cost per acre used in the calculation of the proffer. The
value of improvements shall be the estimated cost as if constructed by a governmental entity. If the
dedication or in-kind improvement does not fully mitigate the development’s calculated impact on
Attachment E
DRAFT: September 20, 2007 Page 4 of 5
public facilities, then the dedication and/or improvement’s value may be applied as a credit against
the development’s calculated impact on the applicable public facility. [B3]
(2) Maximum credit: The credit cannot exceed the development’s
calculated impact on the applicable public facility. [B3]
b. Operational expenses: Operational expenses where the Board determines that
the cash contribution reduces the demand for public facilities. For example, a cash proffer for the
operational expenses of public transit that eliminates the need for planned road improvements could
be entitled to a credit, which would be an amount comparable to the reduction in infrastructure
costs. [Executive Summary, June 20, 2007]
c. No increase or small increase in density: In rezoning applications where there
is a minimal increase in density, a credit may be given for the number of residential units allowed
under the existing zoning and the cash proffer amount will be based only on the estimated density
increase resulting from the rezoning. This credit may be allowed only for those rezoning
applications where the rezoning seeks the design flexibility allowed by the Neighborhood Model
zoning district or seeks to amend a prior rezoning with no increase in density. The credit should not
be allowed if the rezoning application seeks to increase density in a conventional, rather than a
planned, zoning district. [Executive Summary, June 20, 2007]
d. Small infill development with existing dwellings: In rezoning applications for
small infill developments, a credit may be given for each existing dwelling that will remain. For
example, if a rezoning application would rezone a lot with an existing house to allow three lots,
only two new lots would be created allowing two new dwelling units. If the existing dwelling unit
will remain after the rezoning, the cash proffer policy should apply only to the two new dwelling
units. [Executive Summary, June 20, 2007]
e. Substantial upgrades to design/development standards: The Board may
consider development proposals that include substantial upgrades to current design/development
standards and ordinance requirements as justification for granting a credit to the pre-existing lot
yield. Pre-existing lot yields will be calculated using average actual recorded lot yields provided
the applicant has not otherwise submitted documentation indicating higher lot yields in
conformance with existing ordinances and reflective of site specific physical features. [A, last
paragraph; Executive Summary, June 20, 2007]
f. Unique circumstances: The County considers any unique circumstances
about a proposed development that: (i) mitigate the development's projected impact on public
facilities; and (ii) create a demonstrable reduction in capital facility needs. Unique circumstances
may include, but not be limited to, such projects like an age-restricted housing project. Staff, the
applicant or any other person may identify such mitigating circumstances. [A5; B4; Executive
Summary, June 20, 2007]
7. Applicable policy: A rezoning’s fiscal impact on public facilities shall be established
under the cash proffer policy in effect on the date of the last public hearing prior to the Board of
Supervisors’ decision on the rezoning. [A9]
D. Timing of Contribution and Expenditure of Cash Contributed
Attachment E
DRAFT: September 20, 2007 Page 5 of 5
1. Timing: Payment of the cash proffer for residential development must occur prior to
release of a building permit. Timing for dedication of property or in-kind improvements should be
specified in the proffer. [B5, sentences 1, 2]
2. Expenditure: The cash contributions shall be expended in accordance with State law.
Cash contributions received under this policy must be used for projects identified in the
Comprehensive Plan and associated Master Plans, CIP/CNA, and/or Strategic Plan. For public
facilities having a countywide service area (parks, libraries and public safety), the cash contribution
may be spent countywide. [A6, sentence 2; B5 sentence 3; B6]
Return to exec summary
An Analysis of the Impact of Albemarle’s Cash Proffer Policy on the
Geographic Location of New Dwelling Units within the County
Steven A. Allshouse
Albemarle County
Department of Finance
August 2013
Background
In October of 2007 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopted the County’s
Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities. At a meeting of the Albemarle County Fiscal Impact
Advisory Committee (FIAC) in March of 2013, the following research question arose regarding
the potential impact of this policy: To what extent has the County’s cash proffer policy
incentivized the development of new dwelling units in the rural areas of Albemarle, as opposed
to the County’s development areas? This is an important question since, for many years,
Albemarle has desired to direct growth into the designated Development Areas (DA’s) of the
County and, in the process, preserve the scenic beauty of the County’s designated Rural Areas
(RA’s). The results of this study, unfortunately, do not offer a conclusive answer to this
question. This lack of a conclusive answer stems from the theoretically ambiguous impact that
the cash proffer policy should have on the location of new development in Albemarle County, as
well as the relatively scarce amount of empirical data available, resulting from the short period of
time that has passed since the BOS adopted the County’s cash proffer policy.
Methodology
This report takes a limited empirical approach to answering the research question. The approach
involves tracking the RA’s share of the Single Family Detached (SFD) building permits that
have been issued by the County over time, and identifying certain landmark events, such as the
adoption of the cash proffer policy and changes in the U.S. business cycle, that took place during
the time period under consideration. The choice of SFD building permits, rather than all
building permits, is reasonable since the goal of this study is to examine the impact that the cash
proffer policy has had on development that could take place in either the DA’s or the RA’s and,
generally speaking, of all the County’s different building permit classifications, only the SFD
category typically would be built in either geographic location. We would not expect, for
example, that multifamily projects, or large scale retail developments, would be allowed in the
RA’s. The source of the data for this analysis is the Albemarle County Building Activity Report
for the respective calendar year, published by the Department of Community Development.
Results
Graph I(a) on the next page shows the history of the RA’s share of SFD building permits since
2000. The graph is divided into two blocks of years: The years before the adoption of the
County’s cash proffer policy (2000-06) and the years after the adoption of the policy (2008-12).
As shown in this graph, the percentage of the County’s building permits that were issued for the
County’s Rural Areas grew from 46.85% in 2000 to a peak of 65.32% in 2007, the year in which
the BOS adopted the policy. Interestingly, the percentage for the RA’s declined in almost every
year since the adoption of the policy, going from the previously mentioned 65.32% in 2007, to
39.73% in 2012. By 2012, in other words, the RA’s share of SFD building permits was below
the 46.85% experienced by the County in 2000. At first glance, this graph would seem to
suggest that the RA’s share of building permits, rather than increasing in response to
Albemarle’s adoption of the cash proffer policy, instead has returned to some historic norm
during the course of the post-adoption time period.
I
This graph does not cover all of the readily available data, however, and the inclusion of
additional years tells a somewhat different story. Graph I(b) on the next page contains
percentages for the years 1981 to 2012 inclusive, i.e., the entire time period for which data is
readily available. The most striking feature of the graph is the general downward trend during
the course of the thirty two years. Graph I(c), also shown on the next page, superimposes onto
Graph I(b) the mathematically-derived Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) trendline that is generated
by the data.1 The slope of the trendline shown in the graph, -0.7989, means that, on average,
during each successive year of this thirty two year time period, the RA’s share of the total
number of SFD building permits issued by the County declined by about eight-tenths of a
percentage point.
Interestingly, this general decline has occurred as the County’s population increased. As noted
on Graph I(c) the County’s estimated population in 1981 equaled 57,300 while, by 2012, the
estimated population came to 101,575. Generally speaking, then, the County experienced two
phenomena during the course of the 1981 to 2012 time period; population increased while, at the
same time, the RA’s share of the total number of SFD building permits issued decreased. This
negative correlation suggests that there exists at least one factor, other than just the Count y’s
cash proffer policy, that potentially influences the RA’s share of SFD building permits. This
other factor presumably involves the choices that homebuyers make about where to live; as the
County gains people, the choices of new residents determine the geographic location in which
developers will build new single family detached dwelling units.
46.85
53.09
49.75 48.88
52.89 51.62
64.47 65.32 62.80
48.43
43.18 45.09
39.73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012% of SFD Permits IssuedCalendar Year
Graph I(a) --Percentage of Single Family Detached (SFD) Building
Permits Issued in Albemarle County that Were Issued for
the Rural Areas (CY 2000 to CY 2012)
Source: Derived from Albemarle County Building Activity Report for the relevant year.
After Adoption of Proffer PolicyBefore Adoption of Proffer Policy
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
19811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012% of SFD Permits IssuedCalendar Year
Graph I(b) --Percentage of Single Family Detached (SFD) Building
Permits Issued in Albemarle County that Were Issued
in the Rural Areas (1981-2012)
Sources: Derived from Albemarle County Building Activity Report for the relevant year.
y = -0.7989x + 68.926
R² = 0.376
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
19811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012% of SFD Permits IssuedCalendar Year
Graph I(c) --Percentage of Single Family Detached (SFD) Building
Permits Issued in Albemarle County that Were Issued
in the Rural Areas (1981-2012), and Trendline
Sources: Percentages are derived from Albemarle County Building Activity Report for the relevant year. Population estimates are from Weldon Cooper.
1981 Est.Population = 57,300
2012 Est. Population = 101,575
3
Note that homebuyers’ choices are shaped by many factors. During the past several decades, one
such factor that undoubtedly has impacted residents’ choices involves the growth and location of
non-agricultural jobs in Albemarle. Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) jobs data for
Albemarle, unfortunately, appears to go back only to 1990 but, clearly, the County’s
employment base has grown substantially in the past three decades, and the overwhelming
majority of the growth in the County’s jobs base has involved the addition of non-farm positions
in the Development Areas. If people prefer to live in places that are relatively accessible to their
jobs then, in an era in which agriculture (particularly family farms) constituted a relatively large
share of the County’s employment base, a large proportion of people would have preferred to
live in Albemarle’s Rural Areas. If this theory is correct then, over the course of several
decades, as non-agricultural job opportunities increased in the County’s Development Areas, we
would expect to see that people increasingly desired to live in these designated DA’s. One way
of looking at this situation is that people seek to minimize the time cost involved in their getting
to their jobs. This phenomenon would help explain the long-term decline in the RA’s share of
SFD building permits.
A second factor that would influence homebuyers’ choices, and is relevant to the research
question posed in this report, involves the relative market prices of dwelling units. If a
homebuyer is faced with two identically equivalent housing options, the homebuyer should
choose to purchase the lower cost option. In terms of the County’s housing market, this situation
means that cash proffers would “push” homebuyers to the Rural Areas in cases in which
homebuyers found two identically equivalent homes for sale, one in the Development Areas and
one in the Rural Areas, and the cost of the cash proffer made the Development Areas home more
expensive than the Rural Areas home. There are a multitude of cases, however, in which the
homebuyer would not be faced with identically equivalent housing options in the RA’s and
DA’s. There is some question, in fact, as to whether or not the new homes that have been built
in Albemarle’s Rural Areas in recent years even belong in the same product category as the new
homes that have been built in the County’s Development Areas. (Think of “estate” vs. “non-
estate” single family detached housing types). In these situations, the existence of the cash
proffer might or might not be sufficient to “push” the homebuyer to the Rural Areas. Assuming
that the homebuyer could afford either home, the decision about whether to buy a home in the
DA’s or in the RA’s would depend on the relative levels of satisfaction that the homebuyer
would derive from owning either of the homes, and the relative prices of the homes. Other than
specific cases in which the cost of the cash proffer resulted in the Development Areas home’s
having a satisfaction/cost ratio below the corresponding satisfaction/cost ratio of the Rural Areas
home, there is no theoretical reason why the County’s cash proffer policy would “push” new
SFD development to the RA’s.2
Two other factors that might have an impact on homebuyers’ choices and, in turn, might
influence the geographic location of new SFD’s in the County, are energy costs and the County’s
Neighborhood Model. With respect to energy costs, there presumably is an inverse relationship
between, say, the real price of a gallon of gasoline and people’s willingn ess to live out in the
Rural Areas of the County. Energy costs, however, tend to be volatile, so this factor might not
necessarily have a strong impact on shaping homebuyers’ choices. Regarding the County’s
Neighborhood Model, this item was designed to render new developments in Albemarle’s DA’s
that would be especially attractive to residents and, as a result, would encourage people to live in
4
the County’s DA’s, rather than in the RA’s. A glance at Graph I(b) does not offer evidence of
any clear-cut influence that the Neighborhood Model has had on the RA’s share of SFD building
permits, one way or the other. The BOS adopted the policy in 2001 and, since that time, the
percentage of new SFD permits accruing to the RA’s has gone both up and down.3
Graph I(d), shown below, suggests yet another variable that would have an impact on
homebuyers’ choices and, indirectly, an impact on the RA’s share of SFD building permits. This
variable is the U.S. business cycle. As shown in this graph, the County experienced a long-term
decline in the RA’s share of SFD building permits between 1981 and 2012 inclusive, but this
drop was not uninterrupted. Graph I(d) reveals that, in the period from 1981 to 1996, the trend
typically was downward whereas, in the time period from 1997 to 2007 inclusive, the County
experienced an increase in the proportion of SFD permits that were issued for the RA’s. This
latter era coincided roughly with the “dotcom” and real estate bubbles that took place during
these years. Graph I(d) reveals also that, during the post-bubble era, i.e., from 2008 onward, the
RA’s percentage of SFD building permits declined precipitously. The situation shown in the
1997-2007 and 2008-12 segments of Graph I(d) suggests that major boom and bust business
cycles have a substantial impact on the RA’s share of SFD building permits issued by the
County. It is worth pointing out, however, that the downward side of even an ordinary business
cycle historically seems to have resulted in a multiyear drop in the proportion of SFD building
permits that Albemarle issued for the RA’s. As shown in Graph I(d), the RA’s witnessed a
decline in the years during and after the 1981-82, 1990-91, and 2001 recessions.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
19811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012% of SFD Permits IssuedCalendar Year
Graph I(d) --Percentage of Single Family Detached (SFD) Building
Permits Issued in Albemarle County that Were Issued in
the Rural Areas (1981-2012), and Economic Events
Source: Derived from Albemarle County Building Activity Report for the relevant year.
1981-82 Recession
1990-91 Recession 2001 Recession
"Great Recession"
Pre-Proffer Policy Post-Proffer Policy
1981 to 1996 Downward Trend 1997 to 2007 Dotcom and Real
Estate Bubble Upward Trend
Post Bubble Downward
Trend
5
In terms of the way in which the U.S. business cycle likely affects homebuyers’ choices and, in
turn, impacts the RA’s share of SFD building permits, realize that growth in the value of a
person’s assets theoretically renders a “wealth” effect. In this situation, the more a person’s net
worth increases, the more of a normal good (such as housing) the individual desires to consume.
Locally, as homebuyers see their net worth increase during boom periods, such as the “dotcom”
and real estate bubble, this increase in wealth might induce some of them to purchase “estate”
type dwelling units in the County’s Rural Areas, rather than “non-estate” homes in Albemarle’s
Development Areas. This type of wealth effect is consistent with the data shown in Graph I(d).
The wealth effect works in reverse, too, so that we would expect demand for “estate” type
dwelling units to drop after an asset bubble bursts. This theoretical result also appears to be
consistent with the data shown in Graph I(d). What happens during periods of relatively modest
growth and contraction? Again, we would expect that the rising net worth associated with a
period of moderate economic growth would increase slightly the demand for “estate” type
houses in the County’s RA’s and that, conversely, falling levels of wealth during a modest
downturn would lessen somewhat the demand for this type of housing. The extent to which
these expected results actually would impact the RA’s share of SFD building permits depends, of
course, on the relative influence of the other factors that affect this percentage. Note, for
example, that the years 1984-89 represented a period of solid growth in the U.S. economy, but
that the RA’s share of SFD building permits declined significantly. This particular example
points out the need for an econometric approach to answer this report’s research question; even if
certain variables do have an impact on the RA’s share of SFD building permits, this impact
might be very slight and easily overwhelmed by other factors, such as the U.S. business cycle.
The available dataset, unfortunately, is too small at the present time to generate a credible
econometric analysis.4
Conclusions
This report has used a limited empirical approach to answer the question about the extent to
which the County’s cash proffer policy has provided an incentive to developers to build in
Albemarle’s Rural Areas, as opposed to building in the County’s Development Areas. The
results of this analysis do not offer any conclusive answer to the question, but do show that (a)
there has been a long-term downward trend in the RA’s share of the SFD building permits issued
by the County; (b) the RA’s share has dropped precipitously since the BOS adopted the cash
proffer policy in 2007; and (c) several factors besides just the existence of the County’s proffer
policy could influence the RA’s share of building permits.5 These other factors include (1)
homebuyers’ general preferences about where to live in the County; and (2) changes in the U.S.
business cycle which, in turn, likely impact homebuyers’ choices. There does not appear to be a
convincing theoretical reason why the County’s cash proffer policy inevitably would “push”
development from the Rural Areas to the Development Areas, and the results of this empirical
study seem consistent with the lack of a theoretical “push” effect. A more rigorous analysis of
the impact of the County’s cash proffer policy would involve an econometric approach, with the
RA’s share of SFD building permits as the dependent variable. This approach would render an
estimate of the extent to which the RA’s share of the County’s SFD building permits might be
lower, in absence of the cash proffer policy, than is currently the case under the existing cash
proffer policy. Given that Albemarle’s cash proffer policy is only six years old, however, the
6
dataset is not sufficiently large to allow for a credible econometric analysis of the impact of the
County’s cash proffer policy on the RA’s share of SFD building permits.
7
ENDNOTES
1. The slope of the trendline is rendered by dividing the covariance of the data by the variance of
the data. For a discussion of the derivation of the trendline, please see Anderson, D.R., D.J.
Sweeny, and T.A. William, Statistics for Business and Economics, 10th Edition. (Mason, OH:
Thomson Higher Education, 2009), pp. 545-52.
2. The discussion in the text pertains to the demand side of the County’s housing market. A
report given to the BOS by the Free Enterprise Forum (FEF) in May of 2013, in contrast, focused
primarily on the supply side of the market. In the FEF report, the author employed some
elementary microeconomic theory in order to suggest that Albemarle’s cash proffer policy might
push new development into the County’s Rural Areas. The theory to which the report’s author
referred is that a developer acts as a profit-maximizing agent and that given a choice between
building in Albemarle’s DA’s, on the one hand, or building in the County’s RA’s, on the other
hand, the developer will choose the geographic portion of the County which offers the greater
level of profitability. This result reflects standard microeconomic theory. For a more complete
discussion of the profit maximizing behavior of firms, please see Nicholson, W. and C. Snyder,
Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions, 10th Edition (Mason, OH: South-
Western Cengage Learning, 2008), pp. 358-81.
The report’s author asserts, however, on pp. 11-12 that, “cash proffers contribute to the paradigm
that single family rural residential development remains the . . . most profitable development
option in Albemarle County.” A theoretical problem with this assertion is that there exist many
plausible scenarios in which the level of profit that a developer could earn by building a project
in the DA’s, even a project involving cash proffers, would be greater than the level of profit that
the developer could earn by building an “equivalent” project in the County’s RA’s. Builders
take into account revenues as well as costs in determining the profitability of different
development scenarios, and it is not clear that the existence of cash proffers necessarily would
change the relative standing of Rural Area vs. Development Area profitability in all cases, or
even in most cases. Note that, if we follow the author’s assertion to its theoretical end, we would
expect that developers would build residential projects exclusively in the County’s RA’s, since
building in this geographic portion of Albemarle always would offer developers the higher level
of profitability. Clearly, developers do not build only in the County’s RA’s, so it seems unlikely
that rural residential development is always the most profitable option available to developers.
The FEF report, incidentally, presents three case studies as empirical evidence to back up the
report’s theoretical sections. It is worth pointing out that all three of these case studies (Lochlyn
Hill, Crozet Downtown District, and Dunlora Forest) are located within the County’s
Development Areas. The report, in fact, does not offer any actual examples in which
Albemarle’s cash proffer policy has encouraged developers to undertake projects in the Rural
Areas, rather than in the Development Areas.
3. Note that one of the case studies mentioned in the FEF report, discussed above in Endnote 2,
uses Downtown Crozet as an example of how the County’s proffer policy would prevent the
County from achieving the level of density desired in Albemarle’s Neighborhood Model. The
result described in this particular example seems to support the idea that the County’s cash
proffers would work counter to the goal of the Neighborhood Model. As discussed in Endnote 2,
however, this result might not apply to all potential projects in the County’s DA’s. Prices in
Downtown Crozet might not be high enough to justify the relatively high density sought by the
Neighborhood Model, but there might be other geographic locations, such as certain portions of
the 29 North corridor, where, even with the County’s current proffer amounts, prices would be
high enough such that a builder would choose to develop a property that achieves the density
goal of the Neighborhood Model. Another important point to keep in mind is that, as prices in
the Albemarle real estate market begin to recover from the aftermath of the “Great Recession,”
the economics of development can and will change. The world of real estate economics is
dynamic, rather than static, and a particular type of project that might not make economic sense
in some particular location at one point in time might make sense at another point in the future.
4. For a discussion of the minimum sample size needed for a credible regression analysis, please
see Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 4th Edition
(Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009).
5. Technically speaking, in terms of economic theory, factors such as the existence of cash
proffers, the time cost of getting to work, the cost of energy, the existence of the County’s
Neighborhood Model, land use taxation (not discussed in this report), and changes in the U.S.
business cycle should be reflected in the relative prices of SFD dwelling units. In that sense, an
analysis of the theoretical impact that Albemarle’s proffer policy has on the geographic location
of new development could be summarized by looking at the impact of cash proffers on relative
prices, as was done in the text. The factors that help determine relative prices are broken out and
analyzed separately in this report, however, in order to give a sense of the many different
variables that might influence homebuyers’ choices, as well as the fact that, in any given year or
group of years, relative SFD prices might not adjust quickly enough to reflect changes in
underlying items such as energy costs, the U.S. business cycle, etc. Dramatic changes in these
underlying variables, by themselves, conceivably could have a near-term impact on the
geographic location of new development, even as the relative prices of SFD dwelling units
themselves might adjust only slowly in response to changes in these underlying variables.
APPENDIX
Return to exec summary
RA Share RA Share
of Bldg.of Bldg.
Year Permits Year Permits
1981 83.75 1997 44.60
1982 74.64 1998 47.05
1983 72.94 1999 51.08
1984 67.28 2000 46.85
1985 76.35 2001 53.09
1986 74.84 2002 49.75
1987 71.71 2003 48.88
1988 64.64 2004 52.89
1989 49.75 2005 51.62
1990 54.75 2006 64.47
1991 54.28 2007 65.32
1992 52.04 2008 62.80
1993 43.56 2009 48.43
1994 41.29 2010 43.18
1995 46.51 2011 45.09
1996 40.69 2012 39.73
Source: Derived from Albemarle County Building Activity Report for the
respective year. (http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department=bldactrpt).
Pre-2000 editions of this report are available from the Albemarle County
Department of Community Development.
Table I
Rural Area Share (%) of Total Number of Single Family Detached
Building Permits Issued in Albemarle County
(CY 1981 to CY 2012)
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
INDEX
Community Development Department
2012
YEAR END
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Information Services Division
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2012
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals
1st Quarter 51 26 157 123 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 91 24 372 26 70 25 95
2nd Quarter 105 107 121 66 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 65 27 58 29 310 25 335
3rd Quarter 72 82 188 46 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 358 23 82 37 47 28 75
.
4th Quarter 90 66 68 61 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 29 33 62 28 50 33 83
318 281 534 296 315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 543 107 574 120 477 111
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2010
588418 339 694650
In 2012, 345 building permits were issued for 588 dwelling units. There were four permits issued for mobile homes in an existing park, at an exchange rate of
$2,500, for a total of $10,000. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
Quarter
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
831830 575
20112009
599
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2012
Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Other Units SF Unit
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 3 -
Year End 2012
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 49 2 21 0 0 0 2 1 75 13%
JACK JOUETT 4 2 0 0 0 246 0 2 254 43%
RIVANNA 13 0 26 0 0 0 1 2 42 7%
SAMUEL MILLER 36 7 1 0 0 0 4 0 48 8%
SCOTTSVILLE 21 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 31 5%
WHITE HALL 101 19 14 0 0 0 2 2 138 23%
TOTAL 224 30 71 0 0 246 10 7 588 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 4 0 0 0 246 1 0 252 43%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 26 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 30 5%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 4%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 13 2%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0%
35 4 38 0 0 246 1 2 326 55%
CROZET COMMUNITY 78 19 14 0 0 0 0 0 111 19%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 9 2%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 11 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 23 4%
92 19 32 0 0 0 0 0 143 24%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1%
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1%
135 23 70 0 0 246 1 2 477 81%
RURAL AREA 1 31 7 1 0 0 0 2 3 44 7%
RURAL AREA 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 15 3%
RURAL AREA 3 29 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 31 5%
RURAL AREA 4 18 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 21 4%
89 7 1 0 0 0 9 5 111 19%
224 30 71 0 0 246 10 7 588 100%
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 4 -
Year End 2012
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 29 3 0 1 6%
Baker Butler 17 18 0 0 6%
Broadus Wood 20 0 0 2 4%
Brownsville 61 14 0 1 16%
Cale 9 9 0 0 3%
Crozet 27 0 0 0 5%
Greer 0 0 0 0 42%
Hollymead 1 0 0 0 0%
Meriwether Lewis 9 0 0 0 2%
Murray 11 1 0 0 3%
Red Hill 9 0 0 1 2%
Scottsville 6 0 0 1 1%
Stone Robinson 16 26 0 2 8%
Stony Point 3 0 0 0 1%
Woodbrook 2 0 0 0 1%
Yancey 4 0 0 2 1%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 75 72 7 196 350
JOUETT 11 59 17 50 137
RIVANNA 42 99 2 65 208
S. MILLER 48 105 14 28 195
SCOTTSVILLE 31 80 10 39 160
WHITE HALL 138 135 7 62 342
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
0 0
0
71 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
17 0
0 0
0 0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF AA
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
7
0
6,809,462$
33,837,111$
345
3,416,842$
5,400,662$
550
34,165,600$
48,291,628$
22,032,478$
38,221,435$
11,599,869$
47,689,970$ 2,703,197$
2,329,890$
2,053,009$ 12,817,465$
841,859$
Amount-$
3,836,501$
7,093,666$
16,393,000$
11,329,206$
20,881,379$
4,991,521$
0
0
23,154,100$
1,603,500$
7,916,500$
5,239,300$
246
Amount-$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
35
23
93
7
18
29
0
0
249
1
0
0
246
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
TOTAL
UNITS
45
4
3
6
11
10
5,263,271$
2
0
7
19
588
1
0
0
1
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the
residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and
commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other
tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
TOTAL
100%
440 1,39228,636,897$ 202,000,981$
Amount-$
531,706$
14,055,826$
10
3,753,007$
Amount-$
224 30
TOTAL 102,067,623$ 26,792,201$ 57 44,504,259$
5,749,000$
Amount-$
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
Board‐to‐Board
November, 2013
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
On-Time Graduation Rate Among State’s Best-- Albemarle County seniors had among the highest on-time
graduation rates in Virginia, according to the latest data reported by the state’s Department of Education.
Endorsed by the National Governors Association and generally used as a measurement of success in school, the
on-time graduation rate reflects the percentage of students who earn diplomas within four years of entering high
school as freshmen. The county’s rate of 93.40 percent topped the average for all school divisions in the state of
89.1 percent; the county rate is an increase from 91.93 recorded a year ago. The county’s drop-out rate also
improved over the past year, shrinking from 4.13 percent to 3.30 percent, well below the statewide average of 5.9
percent.
School Board Meetings Streaming Live Online—The October 10 business meeting marked the beginning of at
home access to Board meetings via an online feed. The Board later voted to also stream all work sessions,
beginning with the January 23rd meeting.
Resolution Passed in Support of Assessment Reform—The Board voted unanimously to pass a resolution created
by the Virginia Association of School Superintendents on assessment reform. The resolution urges the General
Assembly to reexamine the current system of accountability and the assessments on which it relies, and to move
away from high-stakes, standardized testing to balanced assessments that support rigorous standards that reflect
the things college and career ready students should be able to do, appreciate, and understand.
Early Budget Outlook--At its October 24th work session, the Board received an early briefing on the 2014-15
budget outlook. At the top of the alert list is VRS, with early indications that the school division will have to pay
nearly $2.5 million in new costs in the next fiscal year. There was a consensus on the Board that the division
should make it a priority in its meeting with state legislators to talk about the disruptive impact of the state's year-
by-year approach to VRS funding. More helpful would be a multi-year, predictable plan that would increase the
school division's ability to prepare for future VRS funding requirements. The state composite index will be
recalculated this year, providing another uncertain variable as the budget process begins.
Upcoming Vote on Program of Studies—The Board will vote on changes to the Program of Studies at the
November business meeting following input from the community and staff. The Board will also consider the
division’s recommendation to no longer report class ranking beginning next year, except as necessitated by
scholarship applications and for admission to service academies.
Students Score Above the State Average on the SAT-- Albemarle County Public Schools students outperformed
their public school peers in Virginia and the nation on the College Board Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), with
scores that exceed state and national averages by as much as 15 percent. High school seniors in Albemarle
averaged 565 on the critical reading test compared to a statewide average of 512 and a national average of 491.
They scored 559 on average on the mathematics test against average scores of 511 in the state, and 503 across the
nation. Average writing test scores were 542 in Albemarle, 494 throughout Virginia, and 480 nationally.
Making Connections 2013— As part of our commitment to professional development, over two hundred
presentations and workshops will be part of the Making Connections 2013 conference taking place November 5 at
Monticello High School. Teachers and staff will be able to share best practices through participating in sessions
on topics such as integrating technology, intercultural competency, and instructional methods.
High School of the Future Startup Weekend—ACPS staff traveled to Richmond for the event hosted by the
Science Museum of Virginia and the Department of Education. Policymakers, educators, and students from across
the state participated in the weekend work session which culminated in five different concepts of the future of
education, which included virtual components, changes to curriculum, and updates to physical space.
State of the Division Report— The annual State of the Division report provides evidence of student success,
achievement, and challenges throughout the 2012-2013 school year. The report provides both qualitative and
quantitative data for insight into both curricular and extracurricular activities; highlights include enrollment
increases in both Fine Arts classes and Career and Technical Education courses. The full report is available
through Electronic School Board at http://esb.k12albemarle.org/.
Albemarle High School Students to Participate in All-State Jazz Ensemble—Two AHS Jazz musicians, Ally
Moore and Garen Dorsey, won their respective auditions at the All State Jazz Tryout. They will represent AHS in
November at the Homestead at the VMEA Conference in an all-star performance with the other winners from
around the state. The All State Jazz Ensemble is comprised of the top 18 High School Jazz musicians in Virginia.
Donations to Albemarle County Public Schools-- Albemarle County Public Schools received the following
donation:
Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,939.99 from the Brownsville
PTO to support the Brownsville Elective Education program.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 13 General Fund Year End Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
FY 13 Unaudited Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal
Year Ended June 30, 2013
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Burrell, and Allshouse, S.
PRESENTER (S): Betty J. Burrell
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 6, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The attached Unaudited Annual Financial Report (UAFR) provides information about the County’s General Fund
operations and Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service
consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The UAFR reflects year-end data through June 30, 2013, the end of FY 13. The revenue information in the attached
UAFR is organized in a way that is consistent with the revenue section of the County’s budget document. Expenditure
data is presented following the format of Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Line item titles in the UAFR match the line item titles in these two documents. The columns in the UAFR show FY 13
Adopted Budget revenues and expenditures, Revised Budget revenues and expenditures, as well as Year End actual
revenues and expenditures. Each of these Year End figures subsequently is expressed as a dollar difference from, as
well as a percentage of, the amount of the relevant dollar amount in the FY 13 Revised Budget.
Highlights of the attached report include:
Revenues – Year End Actual
The Year End total of local, state, and federal revenues in FY 13 was $220,645,600 compared to a revised budgeted
total amount of $219,512,064. This means that the County’s actual total local, state, and federal revenues were within
roughly 0.52% of the Revised Budget total revenue. This variance is well below the 5% +/- range of forecasting error
that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) considers reasonable.1 The Total Revenues plus
Transfers In was $222,712,512 compared to the Revised Budget amount of $231,556,213, or within 3.82% of the
Revised Budget plus Transfers In amount. A listing of significant variances among revenue line items is found on
page 2 of the UAFR.
____________
1. See An Elected Official’s Guide to Revenue Forecasting (Chicago, IL: Government Finance Officers Association,
2000), p. 66.
Expenditures – Year End Actual
The Year End total expenditures in FY 13 was $214,363,907 compared to $218,653,826 in the Revised Budget
expenditures. This result means that the County’s actual total expenditures were within roughly 1.96% of the Revised
Budget expenditures. The Total Expenditures plus Transfers Out was $227,117,334 compared to $231,614,091 in the
Revised Budget plus Transfers Out amount, or a difference of 1.93%. A listing of significant variances among line
expenditure line items is found on page 3 or the UAFR.
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures
Consistent with best practices among AAA-rated localities, Albemarle takes a cautious, but reasonable approach in
budgeting revenues and expenditures. In terms of revenue budgeting, this approach means that the County’s
AGENDA TITLE: FY 13 General Fund Year End Financial Report
November 6, 2013
Page 2
projections tend toward the conservative side while, in terms of expenditure budgeting, the County does not assume
that there will be cost savings for items over which the County has little or no control (e.g., early retirements, salary
lapse, etc.). In many fiscal years, this approach results in revenues being greater than expenditures. This experience
is consistent with that of other AAA-rated jurisdictions. In regard to Albemarle County, it is noted that Standard &
Poor’s has remarked within the past few years, that, “[w]hat we believe are strong and conservative fiscal policies, and
a well-seasoned management team, have allowed management to maintain, in our opinion, its solid finances and low
debt, providing rating stability.”2 Similarly, Moody’s noted it “believes that the county’s financial operations,
characterized by ample reserve levels, will remain strong given conservative management practices and healthy
revenue streams.”3
In FY 13, the total of local, state, and federal revenues exceeded total expenditures by $6,281,693, or by roughly
2.93%. Including net transfers, however, expenditures exceeded revenues by $4,404,822, due largely to the
appropriated transfer of $8.3 million from FY 12 fund balance to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as additional
equity funding of the CIP.
____________
2. See Standard & Poor’s “Summary: Albemarle County Economic Development Authority, Virginia; Albemarle
County; Appropriations General Obligation” memorandum, p. 5. (November 4, 2011).
3. See Moody’s Investors Services “Moody’s Assigns Aa1 Rating to Economic Development Authority of Albem arle
County’s (VA) $38.1 Million Public Facility Revenue Bonds (Albemarle County Project), Series 2011” memorandum, p.
1. (November 1, 2011).
General Fund FY 13 Fund Balance & Use of FY 13 Fund Balance
The unaudited June 30, 2013 Fund Balance is $35,285,254. There is no projected addition to fund balance in FY 14,
although there are certain “watch list” items identified as potential uses of the General Fund balance, such as
Federal/State Revenue Contingency. The projected June 30, 2014 fund balance, therefore, is $35,285,254.
School Fund FY 13 Report
In FY 13, the Schools Division had total revenues of $154,004,839.64 and expenditures of $153,453,746. This result
means that expenditures were $551,093.64 or 0.36% below revenues.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Revenue and expenditure data contained in the UAFR reflect the state of the County’s budget-to-actual
performance as of June 30, 2013.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
Unaudited Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013
Return to agenda
Unaudited Annual Financial Report
Year Ended June 30, 2013
Introduction
The Albemarle County Unaudited Annual Financial Report (UAFR) for the year ended June 30,
2013 has a format that is different from the form at of previous UAFR’s. This new format
displays general fund revenue data using the same categories as the County’s adopted budget,
and presents expenditure data using the same line item titles that are found in Exhibit 12 of the
County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Finance Department staff hopes that
consistency in the way that the budget, CAFR, and the UAFR present this information will help
improve understanding of the County’s revenues and expenditures.
The Annual Financial Report document consists of three parts:
An analysis page of year end actual revenues and expenditures that were more than 2% and
$200,000 different from the budgeted FY 2012/13 amounts.
A detailed table that shows (1) Year end actual dollar amounts of revenues and
expenditures for FY 12/13; (2) the dollar difference between actual amounts and revised
budgeted amounts; and (3) the percentage variance between these two amounts.
As an example of this comparison, the figure contained in Column D, Line No. 5
reveals that, by the end of FY 2012/13, the revenue that the County collected in
personal property tax was $806,219 or 4.07% higher than the budgeted amount
for the fiscal year.
Pie charts that show (1) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various revenue
streams for FY 2012/13; and (2) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various
expenditures for FY 2012/13.
Page 1 of 12
Albemarle County
Analysis of Significant Variances in General Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2013
REVENUES Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances
Line 5 – Local Revenues – General
Property Taxes: Personal Property Taxes.
In FY 12/13 actual revenue of $20,626,219 was $806,219 or 4.07%
higher than the budgeted amount of $19,820,000. This positive
variance was due to a combination of factors, including a
generally improving economy, robust auto sales, and the County’s
enhanced collection of delinquent property taxes.
Line 7 – Local Revenues – General
Property Taxes: Delinquent Tax
Collections.
In FY 12/13 actual revenue of $2,356,938 was $1,173,662 or
33.24% lower than the budgeted amount of $3,530,600. This
negative variance was due to a combination of factors, including
increased taxpayer compliance, as evidenced by an increase in
the property tax collection rate in FY 12/13, as well as the
likelihood that delinquent accounts that were relatively easy to
collect had been collected in the prior fiscal year.
Line 8 – Local Revenues – General
Property Taxes: Penalties, Interest, and
Fees.
In FY 12/13 actual revenue of $1,794,039 was $598,961 or 25.03%
lower than the budgeted amount of $2,393,000. This negative
variance was due to a combination of factors, including increased
taxpayer compliance, as evidenced by an increase in the property
tax collection rate in FY 12/13, as well as the likelihood that
delinquent accounts that were relatively easy to collect had been
collected in the prior fiscal year.
Line 11 – Other Local Taxes: Sales Tax. In FY 12/13 actual revenue of $13,177,767 was $977,767 or 7.52%
higher than the budgeted amount of $12,200,000. This positive
variance was due to due a combination of factors, including a
generally improving economy as well as the addition of a
significant amount of new retail space in the County along the
Highway 29 North corridor.
Line 12 – Other Local Taxes: Consumer
Utility Tax.
In FY 12/13 actual revenue of $8,296,002 was $651,398 or 7.28%
lower than the budgeted amount of $8,947,400. This negative
variance was due primarily to lower-than-expected
Telecommunications Tax revenue, which might reflect a trend
away from landline and cable TV usage among consumers.
Line 14 – Other Local Taxes: Business
License Tax.
In FY 12/13 actual revenue of $10,290,210 was $387,810 or 3.29%
higher than the budgeted amount of $9,902,400. This positive
variance was due to generally improving economic conditions.
Line 18 – Other Local Taxes: Clerk Fees. In FY 12/13 actual revenue of $2,120,244 was $216,244 or 11.36%
higher than the budgeted amount of $1,904,000. This positive
variance was due in large part to growth in Recordation Tax,
which reflects an improving real estate market but, also, is
consistent with an increase in refinancing activity.
Line 21 – Other Local Taxes: Audit
Revenues.
In FY 12/13 the indicated actual revenue of $0 was $425,000 or
100.00% lower than the budgeted amount of $425,000. Actual
Audit Revenues came to $323,110 and were allocated to the
relevant revenue streams. Variance resulted from auditors taking
on additional, non-auditing tasks during FY 12/13.
Page 2 of 12
Albemarle County
Analysis of Significant Variances in General Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2013
EXPENDITURES Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances
Line 73 – Judicial – Clerk of Circuit Court. The Clerk of Circuit Court exceeded its budget in FY 12/13 by
$38,209 or 5.35%. This was primarily due to the need for a large
replacement scanner, replacement printers, computer upgrades,
and increases in the cost of office supplies and fees. A request for
a budget amendment to appropriate funding from the Reserve for
Contingencies to the Clerk of Circuit Court’s budget is included in
the November 6, 2013 Board agenda. The Finance Department
and OMB remain concerned with ongoing operational problems in
the Clerk’s office. Staff is working with the Clerk’s office to
establish enhanced expenditure controls and monitoring tools to
help the office avoid oversights of this nature in the future.
Line 78 – Public Safety – Fire/Rescue. In FY 12/13 actual expenditure of $8,157,102 was $425,229 or
4.95% lower than the budgeted amount of $8,582,331. This was
primarily due to savings associated with salary lapse. Additional
savings is due to savings in workers compensation insurance costs
associated with a change in the insurance carrier.
Line 83 – Public Safety – Regional Jail. In FY 12/13 actual expenditure of $2,735,518 was $908,734 or
24.94% lower than the budgeted amount of $3,644,252. This
expenditure is based on the County’s share of the regional
funding agreement. This saving was primarily due to salary lapse
and a decline in the percentage of jail population attributable to
Albemarle County that was below initial estimates.
Line 88 – Solid Waste, Recycling. There was a savings of $173,978 or 36.59% in this category. This
was due primarily to a reduction in the contribution amount to
the RSWA due to a one-time offset of operations costs. In
addition, savings were associated with a reduction in the use of
the paper recycling drop-off centers and County Office recycling.
Furthermore, bulky waste program and mowing maintenance
costs.
Line 90 – Public Works – General
Services.
In FY 12/13 actual expenditure of $2,986,934 was $312,946 or
9.48% lower than the budgeted amount of $3,299,879. This
savings primarily reflects lower-than-expected expenditures in
utility costs, unspent Ivy Fire Station maintenance contingency
account associated with the Ivy Fire Station lease, and salary
lapse.
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, October 21, 2013.
Page 3 of 12 Notes:
Line 56 – Transfers In – Contributions and fund Balance. In FY 13, the Board authorized the use of
$11,715,814 from existing fund balance monies. If the fiscal year ends with excess revenues over
expenditures, not all of the appropriated fund balance is required to be utilized for that specific fiscal year.
(See General Fund FY 13 Fund Balance calculation included in this report for more information on changes in
the General Fund fund balance between FY 12 and FY 13).
Line 116 – Total Transfers Out. “Transfers Out” include general fund transfers to CIP, various grant accounts
and the vehicle replacement fund. The majority of expenditures in this category were transfers to the Capital
Improvement Program from the General Fund fund balance per Board approved appropriations during FY 13.
Source of Revenue and Expenditure Data: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system October 21,
2013.
A B C D E
FY 12/13 $ Diff. Between % Diff. Between
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual and Actual and
Line Adopted Revised Through Revised Budget Revised Budget
No.Item Budget Budget Yr. End (Col C-Col B)(Col C/Col B)
REVENUES
Reveues - Local
General Property Taxes
1 Real Property $111,596,000 $111,596,000 $113,196,731 $1,600,731 1.43%
2 Revalidation Rollbacks 0 0 63,289 63,289 N/A
3 Public Service Tax 2,446,180 2,446,180 2,489,372 43,192 1.77%
4 Mobile Homes Tax 65,000 65,000 61,962 (3,038)-4.67%
5 Personal Property Tax 19,820,000 19,820,000 20,626,219 806,219 4.07%
6 Machinery & Tools Tax 605,000 605,000 595,044 (9,956)-1.65%
7 Delinquent Taxes 3,530,600 3,530,600 2,356,938 (1,173,662)-33.24%
8 Penalty, Interest & Fees 2,393,000 2,393,000 1,794,039 (598,961)-25.03%
9 General Property Taxes Subtotal $140,455,780 $140,455,780 $141,183,593 $727,813 0.52%
Other Local Taxes
10 Penalty & Interest $91,500 $91,500 $83,151 ($8,349)-9.12%
11 Sales Tax 12,200,000 12,200,000 13,117,767 917,767 7.52%
12 Consumer Utility Tax 8,947,400 8,947,400 8,296,002 (651,398)-7.28%
13 Utility Consumption Tax 333,500 333,500 323,248 (10,252)-3.07%
14 Business License Tax 9,902,400 9,902,400 10,290,210 387,810 3.92%
15 Short Term Rental 77,000 77,000 107,041 30,041 39.01%
16 Motor Vehicle Licenses 3,675,000 3,675,000 3,773,475 98,475 2.68%
17 Bank Franchise 730,000 730,000 644,225 (85,775)-11.75%
18 Clerk Fees 1,904,000 1,904,000 2,120,244 216,244 11.36%
19 Transient Occupancy Tax 880,000 880,000 979,630 99,630 11.32%
20 Food & Beverage Tax 6,050,000 6,050,000 6,168,335 118,335 1.96%
21 Audit Revenues 425,000 425,000 0 (425,000)-100.00%
22 Other Local Taxes Subtotal $45,215,800 $45,215,800 $45,903,327 $687,527 1.52%
Permits, Priv. Fees, Licenses
23 Animal Licenses $41,000 $41,000 $41,431 $431 1.05%
24 Courts 18,100 18,100 36,608 18,508 102.26%
25 Fire/Rescue 56,900 56,900 61,825 4,925 8.66%
26 Building Permits 1,018,000 1,018,000 1,109,099 91,099 8.95%
27 Land Use Application Fees 5,000 5,000 5,021 21 0.41%
28 Other Development 504,800 504,800 615,772 110,972 21.98%
29 Other Permits and Fees 1,300 1,300 5,025 3,725 286.54%
30 Solicitors 0 0 850 850 N/A
31 Permits, Priv. Fees, Lic. Subtotal $1,645,100 $1,645,100 $1,875,631 $230,531 14.01%
Albemarle County Unaudited Annual Financial Report -General Fund
Year Ended June 30, 2013
Page 5 of 12
A B C D E
FY 12/13 $ Diff. Between % Diff. Between
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual and Actual and
Line Adopted Revised Through Revised Budget Revised Budget
No.Item Budget Budget Yr. End (Col C-Col B)(Col C/Col B)
Revenue from Money & Property
32 Interest $70,629 $70,629 $54,976 ($15,653)-22.16%
33 Rent 372,197 372,197 391,443 19,246 5.17%
34 Sale of Surplus 17,300 18,256 25,521 7,265 39.79%
Revenue fr. Mon. & Prop. Subtotal $460,126 $461,082 $471,940 $10,858 2.35%
Other Local Revenues
35 Fines and Forfeitures $839,700 $839,700 $735,224 ($104,477)-12.44%
36 Charges for Services 3,348,371 2,696,826 2,532,525 (164,301)-6.09%
37 Miscellaneous 14,100 264,100 283,607 19,507 7.39%
38 Payments in Lieu of Taxes 116,978 116,978 126,218 9,240 7.90%
39 Donations 4,800 4,800 3,800 (1,000)-20.83%
40 Recovered Costs 257,077 340,230 336,294 (3,936)-1.16%
41 Other Local Revenues Subtotal $4,581,026 $4,262,634 $4,017,668 ($244,966)-5.75%
42 Subtotal - Local Revenues $192,357,832 $192,040,396 $193,452,158 $1,411,762 0.74%
State Revenues
43 Payments in Lieu of Taxes $127,000 $127,000 $128,965 $1,965 1.55%
44 In Lieu of Personal Property Tax 595,600 595,600 618,272 22,672 3.81%
45 PPTR 14,960,670 14,960,670 14,960,670 (0)0.00%
46 Mobile Home Titling 2,400 2,593 2,593 0 0.00%
47 SPCA Sterilization Fund 37,500 37,500 29,472 (8,028)-21.41%
48 Shared Expenses 1,934,398 1,974,191 1,951,062 (23,129)-1.17%
49 Categorial Aid 5,319,299 5,497,895 5,388,404 (109,491)-1.99%
50 State Revenues Subtotal $22,976,867 $23,195,449 $23,079,437 ($116,012)-0.50%
Federal Revenues
51 Payments in Lieu of Taxes $34,200 $34,200 $36,364 $2,164 6.33%
52 Categorical Aid 3,830,710 4,242,019 4,077,640 (164,379)-3.88%
53 Federal Revenues Subtotal $3,864,910 $4,276,219 $4,114,004 ($162,215)-3.79%
54 Total Local, State, and Fed. Revs.$219,199,609 $219,512,064 $220,645,600 $1,133,536 0.52%
Transfers In
55 Contribution from School Bd.$328,338 $328,338 $338,898 $10,560 3.22%
56 Contr. & Fnd Balance - Other Ents.2,283,919 11,715,814 1,728,014 (9,987,800)-85.25%
57 Subtotal - Transfers In $2,612,257 $12,044,152 $2,066,912 ($9,977,240)-82.84%
58 TOTAL REVENUES & TRANSFERS $221,811,866 $231,556,216 $222,712,512 ($8,843,704)-3.82%
Page 6 of 12
A B C D E
FY 12/13 $ Diff. Between % Diff. Between
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual and Actual and
Line Adopted Revised Through Revised Budget Revised Budget
No. Item Budget Budget Yr. End (Col C-Col B) (Col C/Col B)
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration
59 Board of Supervisors $577,136 $582,551 $556,893 ($25,658) -4.40%
60 County Executive 1,000,914 1,126,073 1,091,270 (34,803) -3.09%
61 Human Resources 685,514 589,082 587,987 (1,095) -0.19%
62 County Attorney 954,313 992,772 966,376 (26,396) -2.66%
63 Finance 4,570,221 4,688,376 4,561,794 (126,582) -2.70%
64 Management & Budget 296,594 302,184 297,248 (4,936) -1.63%
65 Information Technology 2,325,111 2,358,647 2,241,139 (117,508) -4.98%
66 Access Albemarle 250,000 221,170 188,739 (32,431) -14.66%
67 Registrar 578,834 608,635 541,000 (67,635) -11.11%
68 Total Administration $11,238,637 $11,469,489 $11,032,446 ($437,043) -3.81%
Judicial
69 Circuit Court $121,348 $121,757 $100,085 ($21,672) -17.80%
70 General District Court 23,955 41,955 37,418 (4,537) -10.81%
71 Magistrate 4,375 4,299 4,279 (20) -0.48%
72 Juvenile Court 111,522 111,598 111,598 0 0.00%
73 Clerk of Court 675,474 713,536 751,745 38,209 5.35%
74 Sheriff 2,099,390 2,185,596 2,161,794 (23,802) -1.09%
75 Commonwealth Attorney 1,005,857 1,020,819 1,013,110 (7,710) -0.76%
76 Total Judicial $4,041,921 $4,199,561 $4,180,028 ($19,532) -0.47%
Public Safety
77 Police $14,073,637 $14,360,308 $14,097,981 ($262,327) -1.83%
78 Fire/Rescue 8,160,828 8,582,331 8,157,102 (425,229) -4.95%
79 Volunteer Fire 1,393,165 1,521,705 1,430,239 (91,466) -6.01%
80 Volunteer Rescue 465,184 465,184 465,249 65 0.01%
81 Fire/Rescue Forest Fire Ext. 23,786 23,786 23,786 0 0.00%
82 City Fire Contract 887,920 887,920 826,856 (61,064) -6.88%
83 Regional Jail 3,617,064 3,644,252 2,735,518 (908,734) -24.94%
84 Inspections 1,094,667 1,102,393 1,077,479 (24,914) -2.26%
85 ECC - General Fund 1000 2,197,797 2,207,305 2,197,797 (9,508) -0.43%
86 Contributions - Public Safety 1,654,250 1,654,443 1,535,699 (118,744) -7.18%
87 Total Public Safety $33,568,298 $34,449,627 $32,547,706 ($1,901,921) -5.52%
Public Works
88 Solid Waste, Recycling $472,800 $475,500 $301,522 ($173,978) -36.59%
89 Facilities Development 882,895 203,273 203,799 526 0.26%
90 General Services 3,117,176 3,299,880 2,986,934 (312,946) -9.48%
91 Total Public Works $4,472,871 $3,978,653 $3,492,255 ($486,397) -12.23%
Page 7 of 12
A B C D E
FY 12/13 $ Diff. Between % Diff. Between
FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual and Actual and
Line Adopted Revised Through Revised Budget Revised Budget
No. Item Budget Budget Yr. End (Col C-Col B) (Col C/Col B)
Human Development
92 Social Services $13,589,656 $14,124,237 $13,324,905 ($799,332) -5.66%
93 Contr. to Agencies & Tx. Relief 4,410,523 4,410,523 4,300,609 (109,914) -2.49%
94 Total Human Development $18,000,179 $18,534,760 $17,625,514 ($909,247) -4.91%
Education
95 Piedmont Va. Community College $22,750 $22,750 $22,750 $0 0.00%
96 Transfer to Schools CIP 1,245,068 3,004,743 3,004,743 (0) 0.00%
97 Transfer to Schools Debt Service 12,685,589 12,650,439 12,425,206 (283,109) -2.23%
98 Transfer to Schools Fund 100,106,298 100,106,298 100,106,298 0 0.00%
99 Total Education $114,059,705 $115,784,230 $115,558,997 ($283,109) -0.24%
Parks, Recreation, and Culture
100 Towe Park $193,698 $195,384 $144,629 ($50,756) -25.98%
101 Parks & Recreation 2,172,473 2,265,581 2,192,214 (73,367) -3.24%
102 Libraries 3,258,054 3,258,054 3,258,054 0 0.00%
103 Contributions - Parks 674,258 674,258 674,258 0 0.00%
104 Total Parks, Rec. and Culture $6,298,483 $6,393,277 $6,269,154 ($124,123) -1.94%
Community Development
105 Community Development $3,958,407 $4,019,854 $3,912,933 ($106,921) -2.66%
106 Housing 462,774 540,885 530,792 (10,093) -1.87%
107 Soil & Water Conservation 99,376 100,352 100,018 (334) -0.33%
108 Extension Programs 196,311 204,027 192,828 (11,199) -5.49%
109 Contributions - Comm. Dev. 1,400,287 1,400,287 1,400,287 0 0.00%
110 City/County Rev. Sharing 17,520,948 17,520,948 17,520,948 0 0.00%
111 Total Community Develop. $23,638,103 $23,786,354 $23,657,807 ($128,547) -0.54%
112 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $215,318,197 $218,653,826 $214,363,907 ($4,289,919) -1.96%
Transfers Out, Contings. and Refunds
113 Transfer Accounts $4,605,871 $11,424,058 $11,641,119 $217,061 1.90%
114 Contingency Accounts 1,724,298 1,072,708 682,933 (389,774) -36.34%
115 Refunds 163,500 463,500 429,374 (34,126) -7.36%
116 Total Trans Out, Cont, and Refs. $6,493,669 $12,960,266 $12,753,427 ($206,839) -1.60%
117 TOTAL EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS $221,811,866 $231,556,216
$227,117,334 ($4,438,882) -1.94%
118 TOTAL REVENUES - EXPENDITURES 0 0 (4,373,332)
Page 8 of 12
General Fund FY 13 Fund Balance - - As of October 21, 2013
(Preliminary, Unaudited)
Audited Fund Balance, June 30, 2012 $39,690,076
Operations:
Revenues $220,645,600
Expenses $214,363,907
Excess Revenues Over Expenditures $6,281,693
Other Financing Sources (Uses):
Total Contributions & Transfers In $2,066,912
Total Refunds, Contingency, Transfers Out & Use ($12,753,427)
of Fund Balance (including $8M transfer to CIP)
Net All Other Financing Sources (Uses) ($10,686,515)
UNAUDITED FUND BALANCE JUNE 30, 2013 $35,285,254
FY 2014 Appropriated Use of Fund balance $2,075,033
Required Fund Balance Reserve (10% Revenue) $28,046,438
Appropriated & Restricted Fund Balance $30,121,471
Unappropriated and Unassigned Fund balance $5,163,783
Page 9 of 12
Administration, 5.0%
Judicial, 1.8%
Public Safety, 14.9%
Public Works, 1.7%
Human Dev., 8.0%
Educ. CIP & Tr. to Educ.,
50.0%
Parks & Rec., 2.8%
Community
Development, 10.3%
Contingencies, 4.9%
FY 2012/13 General Fund -Revised Budget Expenditures + Transfers Out
$231,556,216
Property Tax, 63.39%
Other Local Taxes, 20.61%
Permits, Fees, Licenses,
0.84%
Money & Property, 0.21%
Other Local Revenues,
1.80%
Rev. from
Commonwealth, 10.36%
Rev. from Fed. Govt.,
1.85%
Transfers In, 0.93%
FY 2012/13 General Fund -Year End Actual Revenues + Transfers In
$222,712,512
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, October 21, 2013.
Page 10 of 12
Administration, 5.0%
Judicial, 1.8%
Public Safety, 14.9%
Public Works, 1.7%
Human Dev., 8.0%
Educ. CIP & Tr. to Educ.,
50.0%
Parks & Rec., 2.8%
Community
Development, 10.3%
Contingencies, 4.9%
FY 2012/13 General Fund -Revised Budget Expenditures + Transfers Out
$231,556,216
Administration, 4.9%Judicial, 1.8%
Public Safety, 14.3%
Public Works, 1.5%
Human Dev., 7.8%
Educ. CIP & Tr. to Educ.,
50.9%
Parks & Rec., 2.8%
Community
Development, 10.4%
Contingencies, 5.1%
FY 2012/13 General Fund -Year End Actual Expenditures + Transfers Out
$227,117,334
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, October 21, 2013.
Page 11 of 12
Albemarle County, Virginia School Fund 2000 Report
Period: June 2013
Original Current Actual Actuals to Curr.Actuals to Curr.
Appropriated Appropriated Revenues Appropriated Appropriated
Budget ($)Budget ($)Expenditures ($)Variance ($)Variance (%)
REVENUES
Use of Money 351,500.00 351,500.00 288,461.29 (63,038.71)-17.93%
Charges for Services 267,000.00 267,000.00 597,621.26 330,621.26 123.83%
Miscellaneous 450,075.00 680,075.00 727,310.62 47,235.62 6.95%
Recovered 523,999.00 932,751.63 981,135.13 48,383.50 5.19%
Appropriation from primary government 103,772,069.00 105,888,250.01 101,137,167.84 (4,751,082.17)-4.49%
Revenue from Commonwealth 42,950,045.00 42,950,045.00 42,619,335.18 (330,709.82)-0.77%
Revenue from the Federal Government 2,935,218.00 2,935,218.00 2,910,807.89 (24,410.11)-0.83%
Total Revenues 151,249,906.00 154,004,839.64 149,261,839.21 (4,743,000.43)-3.08%
EXPENDITURES
Instruction 114,838,359.00 115,807,742.56 114,292,785.43 (1,514,957.13)-1.31%
Admin, Attendance and Health 6,795,284.00 6,795,434.00 8,495,389.43 1,699,955.43 25.02%
Pupil Transportation Services 8,840,769.00 8,843,116.49 8,692,875.33 (150,241.16)-1.70%
Operation and Maintenance Services 14,357,922.00 14,361,416.59 14,185,861.30 (175,555.29)-1.22%
Building Services 157,500.00 157,500.00 122,988.16 (34,511.84)-21.91%
Technology 2,430,932.00 2,430,932.00 2,088,906.62 (342,025.38)-14.07%
Transfers 3,829,140.00 5,608,698.00 5,574,939.73 (33,758.27)-0.60%
Total Expenditures 151,249,906.00 154,004,839.64 153,453,746.00 (551,093.64)-0.36%
Source:Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, October 9, 2013.
Page 12 of 12
Office of Facilities Development (OFD)
Capital Projects Status Report
3rd Quarter CY 2013
November 6, 2013
OFD is pleased to present the third quarter Capital Projects Status Report for calendar
year 2013. The report provides summary level information on all projects managed by
OFD, both Capital Projects and Capital Maintenance Projects.
The third quarter was an exciting time for the OFD team; following are a few highlights
on notable projects. Two key projects reached major milestones – the Crozet Library
was opened to the public and the Crozet Streetscape was advertised for bid.
Construction is currently underway on the Seminole Trail Fire Station
addition/renovation and the Belvedere Residential "Block" roads, drainage, water,
sanitary sewer project from Free State Road bridge to the Village Green. Substantial
completion was reached on all of the school summer maintenance projects.
It is important to note that OFD’s project management fees are reflected in the
appropriated budget. The reconciliation of the FY13 OFD Internal Service Fund (ISF)
and the appropriation of FY14 project management fees may result in a change in the
total appropriated budget for the project from what was reported in the 2nd quarter.
The following sections provide a summary on all projects and more detailed information
of select Capital Projects. During the meeting on the 6th, Trevor Henry will provide a
summary level review of projects and he along with the individual PM’s will be available
for any detailed questions.
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 1 of 9
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Substantially Complete Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Ivy Fire Station A 24/7 fire & rescue facility of
roughly 5,800 square feet,
within an existing warehouse
(owned by the University of
Virginia), consisting of 3
apparatus bays (2 engines, 1
ambulance) and support
facilities for a crew of 6.
Engine & ambulance
service on-line June
2013.
Finalizing details for
emergency signal control.
Coordinating site work
completion w/ UVA.
$2,236,625
Substantial completion
May 2013
On-Line June 2013
UVA site work
completion target
October 2013
COB McIntire Brick Re-Pointing Three (3) projects involved in
scope: 1) Brick Re-pointing;
2) Masonry Repairs; and 3)
Front Stairs Waterproofing.
All 3 projects complete.
Processing final invoices
for front stairs
waterproofing.
Remaining contingency,
to be returned to CIP
general fund, ~$44k.
$928,929 Brick Re-pointing: Final
Completion May 2013
Masonry Repairs: Final
Completion September
2012
Front Stairs
Waterproofing: Final
Completion October
2013
Murray High School
Renovations
Renovations of selected
existing classrooms to enable
"Enterprise" program
students to move from
learning cottages to
classrooms. Includes moving
existing ARC operation to
former learning cottages and
upgrade to science
classroom. Very challenging
schedule with significant
amount of logistical
coordination.
Substantially complete.
Warranty work on IDEA
paint in Room 19 at a
date and time to be
coordinated with
teacher’s schedule.
Building Services
coordinating
furniture/technology
purchases.
$716,646
Demolition/ Abatement:
Complete June 2013
Renovation: Substantial
completion August 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 2 of 9
In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet Library Construction of a 23,000
square foot, LEED certified
library building, which will
include space for
complementary uses such as
public meeting rooms and
community space.
Library opened to public
9/4/13; Grand Opening
Ceremony 9/28/13.
Construction change
order being processed for
lease area upfit work.
$8,658,970
Library - Substantial
completion & staff
occupancy August 2013
Lease Area – Upfit work
complete November
2013
Crozet Streetscape Phase II Relocation of overhead electric
and utility lines from Crozet
Avenue, new stormwater
drainage system, first block of
Main Street (Library Avenue),
and pedestrian, vehicular, and
streetscape enhancements
along Crozet Avenue from The
Square to Tabor Street.
Streetscape bid opening
10/16/13.
Confirm total cost of
stormwater infrastructure
based on low bidder;
appropriate stormwater
fund transfer.
Utility Relocation nearly
complete; poles & wires
removed by mid Nov.
$4,494,481
Utility relocation –
complete 4th Quarter
2013
Streetscape – Award 4th
Quarter 2013, ~10-14
months construction
Lewis & Clark Exploratory
Center
Construction of an educational
building (including
transportation exhibits and
river history), an access road
and parking area, and a
connecting trail network, all
located at Darden Towe Park.
Funded by a grant through the
VDOT Transportation
Enhancement Fund Program
($800,000) combined with
other funds raised by the
Lewis & Clark Exploratory
Center.
Compiling supporting
documentation for final
County reimbursement
request to VDOT.
Meeting coordinated with
LCEC and Mathers to
discuss completion of
project & payment.
Site work nearly
complete; surface treat-
ment of access road and
parking lot dependent on
payment put in escrow.
LCEC has raised nearly
all the $33,000 ACSA tap
fee to provide the water
service to the building
needed to test plumbing
& HVAC systems.
$800,000
(Grant only)
Substantial Completion
target November 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 3 of 9
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire
Department (STVFD)
Addition/Renovation
Addition (7,500 sq. ft.) to
STVFD and full renovation of
the existing facilities (~7,500
sq. ft.). Includes 2-bay
addition, expansion of living
quarters and full renovation of
existing facility to bring it to
code and improve the facilities
to properly support the
highest call volume station in
the County.
Notice to Proceed issued
8/14/13; work
commenced 8/26/13.
Project SharePoint site
access established for
team collaboration.
$3,857,538
Substantial Completion
August 2014
Belvedere Phase I Complete the Belvedere
Boulevard and Residential
"Block" roads, drainage,
water, sanitary sewer and
related construction according
to the approved development
plans. Phase 1 of the work is
Belvedere Boulevard from Rio
Road to Free State Road (RR
bridge); Phase 2 is the
remaining Belvedere
Boulevard (Free State Rd. to
the Village Green) and the
residential "Blocks" (3, 4A, 5A,
6B & 9A). Funds for this
project are from the
developer’s performance
bonds.
Phase 1 Work:
Bond proceeds not
sufficient to cover work;
project on hold pending
resolution of funding
issues.
Phase 2 Work: comprised of
multiple development bonds
necessitating dividing project
into individual Bid Items for
each bond; this resulted in
award of four contracts.
Notice to Proceed issued
July 2013 for road &
drainage improvements
with October 28th
substantial completion.
Notices to Proceeds
issued August 2013 for
erosion & sediment
control, stormwater
management, water and
sewer, and landscaping
improvements with
December 24th
substantial completion.
$3,675,790 Phase 1 Work – Resolve
funding issues
Phase 2 Work –
Substantial Completion
October/December 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 4 of 9
In Bid/Award Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Western Albemarle High
School (WAHS) Stormwater
Impacts
Phase 1: Develop a
Stormwater Master Plan for
the WAHS campus and make
immediate repairs to the
highly eroded drainage
channel in the front of the
school.
Phase 2: Design and
construct a stormwater
management facility to detain
runoff from the back of the
school draining to a highly
erosive channel and provide
stormwater attenuation and
treatment (in the form of a
biofilter/detention basin) for
the runoff from the driver's
education parking lot.
Phase 1 completed in
FY12.
Phase 2 (WAHS
Biofilter):
o Advertised
10/03/13
o Pre-bid mtg held
10/15/13
o Bid Opening
10/31/13
$158,589 Award 4th Quarter 2013,
~4-5 months
construction
Crozet North SRTS Sidewalk Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Grant provides pedestrian
improvements along west side
of Crozet Avenue North
between Crozet Elementary
School and Ballard Drive.
Construction work includes
erosion & sediment control,
site grading, concrete curb &
sidewalk, ADA ramps,
crosswalk striping & alert
system, asphalt paving,
stormwater system, waterline
relocation, & site restoration.
Advertised 09/27/13
Pre-bid mtg held
10/09/13
Bid Opening 10/29/13
$190,000 Award 4th Quarter 2013,
~3-4 months
construction
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 5 of 9
In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk Replacing or constructing
approximately 1100 feet of
sidewalk and drainage
improvements along the west
side of Crozet Avenue from
Saint George Avenue to Crozet
Elementary School funded
with FY13 Revenue Sharing
(RS) Funds.
Submit Right-of-way
Plans and request
authorization to proceed
with right-of-way and
easement acquisition
preparations.
Obtain VDOT approval of
“just compensation” and
authorization to proceed
with each acquisition.
Obtain VDOT approval of
Final Plans & Project
Manual and authorization
to advertise.
$795,787
Bid/award 2nd Quarter
2014
South Pantops Drive/State
Farm Boulevard Sidewalk
Improvements
Construction of 3500 feet of
curb, gutter and sidewalk
which will serve several
residential, business, and
commercial establishments.
Construction partially funded
with FY13 Revenue Sharing
(RS) Funds.
Submit Right-of-way
Plans and request
authorization to proceed
with right-of-way and
easement acquisition
preparations.
Obtain VDOT approval of
“just compensation” and
authorization to proceed
with each acquisition.
Obtain VDOT approval of
Final Plans & Project
Manual and authorization
to advertise.
$935,570
Bid/award 2nd Quarter
2014
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 6 of 9
Fontaine Avenue Sidewalk Construction of a short
sidewalk (~160') from the end
of the Fontaine Research Park
paved path to the end of
sidewalk at the City line. This
project closes the walkway
gap which may create safety
issues if left unconnected.
Preparing Project Manual
for a “No Plans” project
Anticipate design and bid
4th Quarter 2013.
$102,189 Bid 4th Quarter 2013, ~1
month construction
Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive
Sidewalk
Completion of the sidewalk
connection from Hollymead to
Sutherland Schools. The
required right-of-way has
been donated.
Contract issued for survey
and underground utilities
marked.
Completion of survey and
delivery of drawing file for
design delayed by
surveyor; expect delivery
by end of October 2013.
Complete Plans and
Project Manual by end of
December 2013.
$209,164 Bid 1st Quarter 2014,
~1 month construction
Police Firing Range Project has been re-scoped to
an indoor range. Executive
Committee has been
analyzing/reviewing multiple
sites prioritizing those sites
under control of County or
Joint partners.
BOS directed staff to
proceed with due
diligence on the Milton
Site.
ACPD staff developing
an MOU for operations
and funding agreement
and will return to BOS
when in final draft form.
$1,632,020
(Budget for
open range).
Enclosed
Range cost -
TBD
Agreement in place for
operations & funding by
4th quarter 2013.
Northside Library and Storage
Facility
Provide a permanent location
for the Northside Library and
long-term County warehouse/
storage space. The new facility
(repurposing of existing
building) would provide
approximately 30,000 s.f. of
library space, and over 20,000
s.f. of warehouse space.
Third community
meeting scheduled for
11/7/13.
Design approximately
50% complete.
$11,820,373 Advertise for
construction January
2014; storage area ~3
months construction,
library ~8 months
construction
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 7 of 9
Church Road Basin Stormwater
Management Facility Retrofit
Maintenance/enhancements to
existing regional stormwater
management facility including
survey, design, and
construction. Project will help
the County meet required
pollutant reductions mandated
for the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Working with Church of
Incarnation to obtain
easement.
Design complete target
January 2014.
$449,739 Obtain U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE)
Permit (wetlands and
stream)
Bid/Award 1st Quarter
2014, ~8 months
construction
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
Substantially Complete Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
VMF Lift Replacements Phase
II
Replace 1 bus lift. Punch list work
completed.
$179,760
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Albemarle High School New
Gym & Gym Addition
Re-Roofing
Tear-off and re-roofing of new
gymnasium and gymnasium
addition roofs. Gymnasium is
21,800 square feet and
gymnasium addition is 10,000
square feet.
Punch list work
underway.
$417,314 Substantial Completion
August 2013
Building Services Main Building
Re-Roofing
Tear-off and re-roofing of
Building Services' main
building. Main roof is 9,440
square feet.
Punch list work
completed.
$119,948
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Cale Elementary School Main
Building and ’97 Addition Re-
Roofing
Tear-off and re-roofing of
main building and 1997
addition roofs. Main building
is 52,851 square feet and new
addition is 7,100 square feet.
Punch list work
completed.
$372,943 Substantial Completion
August 2013
Jouett Middle School Brick Re-
Pointing
Re-point deteriorated sections
of brick veneer and repair
(overhead) cracked brick at
recessed opening.
Punch list work
completed.
$66,884 Substantial Completion
August 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 8 of 9
Jouett Middle School Tennis
Court Improvements
Renovation of: a) 2 existing
regulation tennis courts into
10 U-8 teaching courts; and b)
existing asphalt-paved area
into 1 combination regulation /
U-10 teaching tennis courts
and an area for 3 basketball
hoops.
Punch list work
completed.
$256,815
Substantial Completion
August 2013
Scottsville Elementary School
Cafeteria & Gym
Structural Repairs
Perform structural repairs to
CMU walls that appear to have
been damaged during
earthquake. Work will include
structural reinforcement and
architectural work to improve
the aesthetic value of the
structural work.
Punch list work
completed.
$69,839 Substantial Completion
August 2013
Burley Middle School Kitchen
Upgrades
Remove existing walk-in
coolers and renovate spaces
into office area. New walk-in
cooler / freezer will be
installed behind serving line.
Punch list work
completed.
$64,900 Substantial Completion
August 2013
Woodbrook Elementary School
Exterior Doors and Hardware
Furnish all materials, labor,
equipment and supervision to
install doors and hardware
including removal and disposal
of existing doors and
hardware.
Punch list work
completed.
$35,980 Substantial Completion
August 2013
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2013
Page 9 of 9
In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Stormwater Multi-Facility
Maintenance Projects
Includes maintenance
(sediment removal/dredging)
and possible upgrades to
several existing regional
stormwater management
facilities (Four Seasons Upper
and Lower basins, the
Greenbrier Road forebay
(Hillsdale Ave), and the Mill
Creek basin.
- Phase 1 scope: surveying
and analysis of existing
facilities to determine required
improvements and possible
enhancements.
- Phase 2 scope: complete
design documents and
construction of recommended
improvements/enhancements.
Notice to proceed issued
September 2013 for Four
Seasons Upper Pond
Dredging.
A/E contracts approved
October 2013 for Four
Seasons Channel and
Branchlands (Greenbrier
Road) Forebay.
Mill Creek Basin –
maintenance not
required therefore
removed from scope of
project.
$373,404 Four Seasons Pond
Dredging - Substantial
Completion 1st Quarter
2014
Four Seasons Channel
and Branchlands
Forebay - Bid/Award 1st
Quarter 2014, ~3-
months construction
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: Crozet Library Building
Description:
Design and construction of a 23,000 square foot, LEED certified library building, which will include
space for complementary uses such as public meeting rooms and community space. The primary
mission of the new facility is to serve the library needs of the defined Western Albemarle service area
with a concerted focus on both existing and emerging technologies and solutions that will support the
library’s programming and best serve its patrons.
Status:
Library (upper level) – Substantial completion and staff occupancy August 2013; opened to public and
grand opening ceremony September 2013. Punch list complete except landscaping which is to be
completed October 2013.
Lease Area (lower level) – Construction change order being processed for upfit of lower level. Complete
work November 2013.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Bid Opening Date 03/28/12 03/28/12 0
Notice to Proceed 07/01/12 07/01/12 0
Excavation Complete 11/09/12 11/12/12 3
Structural Elements Complete 01/24/13 01/24/13 0
Building Dried-In 04/23/13 04/30/13 7
Finishes Complete 05/14/13 07/31/13 78
Site Work Complete 06/13/13 07/25/13 42
Substantial Completion (Library) 06/30/13 08/16/13 47
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[June 2012]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 8,867,491 $ 8,708,970 $ 158,521
Future Appropriations $ - $ (50,000) $ 50,000
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,658,970 $ 208,521
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 1,703,199 $ 1,790,623 $ (87,424)
Hard Costs $ 6,596,550 $ 6,821,235 $ (224,685)
Contingency $ 567,742 $ 47,111 $ 520,631
Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,658,970 $ 208,521
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 353,464
Paid to Date: $ 8,044,564
A/E Contract (Grimm+Parker Architects) Construction Contract (MB Contractors)
Original Agreement $ 585,000 Bid Award $5,810,000
Approved Changes $ 409,369 Approved Changes $ 184,866
Pending Changes $ 12,465 Pending Changes $ 141,366
TOTAL $1,006,834 TOTAL $6,136,232
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Increase size; change schedule
(FY09)
$226,755
2 – Add geotechnical investigation
(FY09)
$8,945
3 – Add LEED service (FY10) $120,450
4 – Change to phased plan, delete FFE
design & reduce CA (FY10)
($161,295)
5 – Parking lot SWM & ARB review
(FY12)
$7,590
6 – Restore CA & FFE design; adjust
for scope & schedule (FY13)
$206,915
7 (Pending) – basement upfit and site
plan changes
$12,465
Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Slope drain & waterline revisions $5,323
2 – Waterline changes in Crozet Ave;
credit for 2500lb elevator vs 3000lb
$54,374
3 – Locate fiber optic line Crozet Ave;
additional waterproofing at basement
$2,865
4 – Increase column size; floor box
revisions (electrical)
5 – Mechanical breaker change and
sprinkler relocation
6 – Tube steel at clerestory and re-routing
roof drains
7 – Site utility conduit
8 – Add shelving, change flooring,
conference room window
9 – Add casework, window counter
changes, signage
$14,362
$2,855
$2,970
$42,475
$30,341
$44,265
10 - Propane tank install; communications
conduit, PIV fire alarm connection, etc.
11- Add conduits, unused allowances/
credits
12 (Pending) – upfit lease area
$16,095
($31,059)
$141,366
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: Crozet Streetscape Enhancements Phase II
Phase 2 (Crozet Avenue) and 2A (Main Street and Alleys)
Description:
Phase 2 and 2A of the Crozet Streetscape Enhancements includes relocation of overhead electric and
utility lines from Crozet Avenue, new stormwater drainage system, first block of Main Street (Library
Avenue), and pedestrian, vehicular, and streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from The
Square to Tabor Street.
Status:
Phase 2 – Crozet Avenue:
• Streetscape bids opened October 16, 2013! The apparent low responsive and responsible bidder is
Linco, Inc. The bid proposals are being evaluated by our consultant and they are verifying that all
VDOT required bid and post-bid documentation has been provided. OFD will then submit a letter to
VDOT making our recommendation regarding the low bidder and requesting authorization to issue an
“Intent to Award.” The total cost of stormwater infrastructure will be confirmed based on the low bid
and request made to the Board to appropriate the stormwater fund transfer. Copies of the bonds,
insurance, construction contract, and required VDOT documents will be submitted to VDOT for
approval along with a request to authorize the County to sign the contract and issue a Notice to Proceed.
• Utility relocations nearly complete; poles and wires to be removed by mid November 2013.
Phase 2A – Main Street and Alleys:
All work completed and Library accepted the street into State secondary road system.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 08/30/12 02/28/13 182
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 08/30/12 07/31/13 335
VDOT Approval to Advertise 09/30/12 09/04/13 339
Utility Relocation Complete 10/30/12 10/25/13 360
Advertise 09/30/12 09/11/13 346
Bid Opening Date 10/30/12 10/16/13 351
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 11/30/12 11/16/13 351
Ph-A Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk
Complete
06/01/13 05/15/14 348
Ph-B Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk
Complete
11/01/13 08/15/14 287
Paving Complete 12/01/13 09/15/14 288
Substantial Completion 01/30/14 10/01/14 244
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[March 2007]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 3,700,000 $ 3,882,031 $ (182,031)
Future Appropriations $ - $ 612,450 $ (612,450)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,494,481 $ (794,481)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 590,000 $ 890,321 $ (300,321)
Hard Costs $ 2,770,000 $ 3,503,075 $ (733,075)
Contingency $ 340,000 $ 101,085 $ 238,915
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,494,481 $ (794,481)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 770,260
Paid to Date: $ 1,963,022
* Future Appropriation includes a transfer of $612,450 for stormwater infrastructure.
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract (Ph 2A – Library Ave)
Original Agreement $379,000 Bid Award $641,695
Approved Changes $163,761 Approved Changes $138,473
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $542,761 TOTAL $780,168
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Jarmans Gap Road interim storm
system & historic resources (FY09)
$41,500
2 – Additional plats & transportation
planning services (FY09)
$12,625
3 – Main Street extension to proposed
Library entrance (FY09)
$24,000
4 – Conceptual Downtown Plaza
improvements (FY09)
$9,750
5 – Additional plats (FY10) $2,750
6 – Temporary tie-in of new Main
Street (FY10)
$21,000
7 – Water & sewer relocation design
(FY10)
$7,300
8 – Library storm sewer advance
work (FY12)
$5,961
9 – Finalize const. documents (FY13) $38,875
Construction Contract (Ph 2 – Crozet Ave)
Bid Award $
Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $
TOTAL $
Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: Crozet North Sidewalk
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety by replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of sidewalk and drainage
improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet Elementary
School. County and Revenue Sharing funds are being used to provide the sidewalk from St. George Avenu e
to Crozet Elementary School. A Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant provides improved pedestrian crossing
at the school and extends sidewalk to Ballard Drive.
Status:
Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk: Submitting right-of-way plans to VDoT to request authorization to proceed
with right-of-way and easement acquisition preparations; obtain approval of “just compensation” and
authorization to proceed with acquisitions. Obtain VDoT approval of Final Plans & Project Manual and
authorization to advertise - target 2nd quarter 2014; approximately 4 months construction.
Safe Routes to School Sidewalk: Bid opening October 29, 2013. The apparent lowest responsive and
responsible bidder will be identified and bid proposals evaluated and checked to verify that all VDOT
required bid and post-bid documentation has been provided. OFD will then submit a letter to VDOT making
our recommendation regarding the low bidder and requesting authorization to issue an “Intent to Award.”
Copies of the bonds, insurance, construction contract, and required VDOT documents will be submitted to
VDOT for approval along with a request to authorize the County to sign the contract and issue a Notice to
Proceed. Approximately 3 months is anticipated for construction.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Revenue Sharing Project
(St. George to Crozet ES)
Design Complete 02/14/13 02/28/14 379
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 03/01/14 351
VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 04/01/14 351
Bid Opening Date 05/31/13 04/28/14 332
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 06/30/13 06/01/14 336
Curb & Drainage Complete 08/31/13 08/01/14 335
Sidewalks Complete 09/30/13 09/01/14 336
Paving Complete 10/15/13 10/01/14 351
Substantial Completion 10/15/13 11/01/14 382
SRTS Grant Project
(Crozet ES to Ballard Dr.)
Design Complete 04/30/12 02/20/13 296
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 05/31/12 12/30/12 213
VDOT Approval to Advertise 06/30/12 07/30/13 395
Bid Opening Date 08/15/12 10/29/13 440
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 09/15/12 12/06/13 447
Waterline Relocation Complete 01/25/14 01/25/14 0
Curb & Drainage Complete 11/15/12 02/15/14 457
Sidewalks Complete 11/30/12 03/01/14 456
Paving Complete 12/15/12 03/15/14 455
Substantial Completion 12/15/12 04/01/14 472
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 661,400 $ 985,787 $ (324,387)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 661,400 $ 985,787 $ (324,387)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 104,200 $ 205,168 $ (100,968)
Hard Costs $ 497,200 $ 732,600 $ (235,400)
Contingency $ 60,000 $ 48,019 $ 11,981
Total $ 661,400 $ 985,787 $ (324,387)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 27,351
Paid to Date: $ 131,917
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Assoc.) – RS Sidewalk Construction Contract
Original Agreement $40,000 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 1,600 Approved Changes $
Additional Agreement $31,596 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $73,196 TOTAL $
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 - Eliminate bid/construction
observation; add plats & final
engineering services.
Additional Agreement: Waterline
relocation design, right-of-way
acquisition and construction phase
services
$ 1,600
$31,596
A/E Contract (Anhold Associates) – SRTS
Original Agreement $20,697
Approved Changes $2,524
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $23,221
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Prepare documents to relocate
existing waterline conflicting with
proposed stormwater utilities
$2,524
Construction Contract
Bid Award $
Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $
TOTAL $
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: South Pantops Drive/State Farm Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety along the north side of South Pantops Drive and west side of State Farm
Boulevard by constructing 3500 feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk which will serve several residential,
business, and commercial establishments. Construction will be partially funded with FY13 Revenue
Sharing Funds.
Status:
Submitting right-of-way plans to VDoT to request authorization to proceed with right-of-way and easement
acquisition preparations; obtain approval of “just compensation” and authorization to proceed with acquisitions.
Obtain VDoT approval of Final Plans & Project Manual and authorization to advertise - target 2nd quarter 2014;
approximately 4 months construction.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 12/31/12 10/01/13 274
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 03/31/14 381
VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 04/01/14 351
Bid Opening Date 06/01/13 04/28/14 331
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 07/01/13 06/01/14 335
Curb & Drainage Complete 09/01/13 08/01/14 334
Sidewalks Complete 10/01/13 08/01/14 304
Paving Complete 10/15/13 09/15/14 335
Substantial Completion 10/31/13 11/01/14 366
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[July 2008]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 512,000 $ 935,570 $ (423,570)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 512,000 $ 935,570 $ (423,570)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 60,000 $ 187,358 $ (127,358)
Hard Costs $ 410,000 $ 736,750 $ (326,750)
Contingency $ 42,000 $ 11,462 $ 30,538
Total $ 512,000 $ 935,570 $ (423,570)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 39,276
Paid to Date: $ 86,825
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $39,116 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 9,369 Approved Changes $
Additional Agreement $49,595 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $98,080 TOTAL $
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Update survey (FY09) $ 600
2 – Additional survey (FY09) $ 6,950
3 – Add topo survey, plats & final
engineering; eliminate bidding/
construction observation (FY12)
$ 1,819
Additional Agreement (RS funds):
Bidding/construction phase;
easement acquisition services
$49,595
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: Northside Library and Storage Facility
Description:
Provide a permanent location for the Northside Library and long-term County warehouse/storage space
by repurposing an existing building located on property recently purchased at 705 Rio Road West
(formerly Phillips Building Supply). The new facility would provide approximately 30,000 square feet
of library space, and over 20,000 square feet of warehouse space. The Northside Library is currently
located in leased space at Albemarle Square, and the County warehouse/storage space is currently
located in leased space at the former Comdial building on Seminole Trail. The new facility will
eliminate the need for those two leased spaces.
Status:
A/E contract signed August 2013 – Holzheimer Bolek + Meehan (HB+M) Architects. Community
meeting held in August and September to seek public feedback on project; third meeting scheduled for
November 2013. Update on design and site plan presented to the Board of Supervisors on October 9th and
the Planning Commission October 15, 2013. Design development underway based on schematic and public
meeting input.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Schematic design Complete 09/15/13 09/15/13 0
Design Complete 12/31/13 12/31/13 0
Bid Opening Date 01/31/14 01/31/14 0
Notice to Proceed 02/15/14 02/15/14 0
Demolition Complete 03/01/14 03/01/14 0
Site Work Complete 05/01/14 05/01/14 0
Substantial Completion:
Basement Storage Area 05/01/14 05/01/14 0
Library 09/30/14 09/30/14 0
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[July 2011]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 11,820,373 $ 11,810,438 $ 9,936
Future Appropriations $ - $ 9,935 $ (9,935)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 11,820,373 $ 11,820,373 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 3,764,625 $ 3,895,327 $ (130,702)
Hard Costs $ 7,402,498 $ 7,345,000 $ 57,498
Contingency $ 653,250 $ 580,046 $ 73,204
Total $ 11,820,373 $ 11,820,373 $ -
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 617,273
Paid to Date: $ 3,146,944
A/E Contract - HB+M Architects Construction Contract
Original Agreement $736,500 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $736,500 TOTAL $
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: Ivy Fire Station
Description:
A 24/7 fire & rescue facility of roughly 5,800 square feet, within an existing warehouse (owned by the
University of Virginia), consisting of 3 apparatus bays (2 engines, 1 ambulance) and support facilities
for a crew of 6. A fire/rescue station is needed to meet the response time goals in this portion of the
County’s development area and to provide services to this densely populated rural area of the County.
Status:
Station in full operation July 2013; ribbon-cutting ceremony August 2013; public open house September
2013. Work in October/November includes finalizing emergency signal control and completion of site
work by UVA.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Bid Opening Date 09/27/12 09/27/12 0
Notice to Proceed 10/19/12 10/22/12 3
Demolition Complete 11/12/12 11/15/12 3
Building Infrastructure Complete 03/01/13 03/22/13 21
Finishes Complete 04/01/13 05/13/13 42
Site Work Complete 04/01/13 05/24/13 53
Substantial Completion 04/01/13 05/24/13 53
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[July 2011]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 2,173,793 $ 2,236,625 $ (62,832)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 2,173,793 $ 2,236,625 $ (62,832)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 332,139 $ 426,705 $ (94,566)
Hard Costs $ 1,650,000 $ 1,597,474 $ 52,526
Contingency $ 191,654 $ 191,654 $ -
Total $ 2,173,793 $ 2,215,833 $ (42,040)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ 20,792
Encumbered: $ 50,339
Paid to Date: $ 1,415,805
A/E Contract (LeMay Erickson Willcox Architects) Construction Contract (Coleman-Adams Const.)
Original Agreement $165,730 Bid Award $724,000
Approved Changes $ 20,635 Approved Changes $107,640
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $0
TOTAL $186,365 TOTAL $831,640
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Structural evaluation &
reinforcement design
$6,600
2 – Site plan coordination w/
adjacent property
$2,720
3 – Sprinkler redesign, generator,
additional structural evaluations
$11,315
Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Replace concrete floor slab in
apparatus bay area
2 – Miscellaneous items (12),
electrical, grease trap, etc.
3 – CMU at apparatus bay west wall,
corian countertops, floor leveling,
lockers, etc.
4 – Foundation corrections,
mezzanine extension, painting, gas
pipe relocation, outlet adjustments
$28,059
$12,365
$29,088
$38,128
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Addition/Renovation
Description:
Addition (7,500 sq. ft.) to Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) and full renovation of
the existing facilities (~7,500 sq. ft.). Total scope includes a 2-bay addition, an expansion of living
quarters and full renovation of the existing facility to bring it to code and improve the facilities to
properly support the highest call volume station in the County.
Status:
Notice to Proceed issued August 2013. OFD project SharePoint site access established for team
collaboration. Work planned for October includes: prep work for addition concrete walls; start pouring of
concrete walls at addition; start elevator pit excavation; CenturyLink underground cabling relocation starts;
begin new sewer line installation.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Pre-design Complete 01/11/13 01/18/13 7
Design Complete 03/22/13 04/26/13 35
Bid Opening Date 04/11/13 05/31/13 50
Notice of Intent to Award 04/18/13 07/23/13 96
Notice to Proceed 04/29/13 08/26/13 119
Renovation Demo Complete 06/14/13 11/25/13 164
Excavation Complete 07/05/13 10/31/13 118
Structural Elements Complete 09/06/13 12/20/13 105
Building Dried-In 11/29/13 02/01/14 64
Finishes Complete 02/28/14 08/01/14 154
Site Work Complete 03/21/14 08/01/14 133
Substantial Completion 04/04/14 08/25/14 143
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[May 2012]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 3,836,670 $ 3,857,538 $ (20,868)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,857,538 $ (20,868)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 426,320 $ 510,646 $ (84,326)
Hard Costs $ 3,126,500 $ 3,110,023 $ 16,477
Contingency $ 283,850 $ 236,869 $ 46,981
Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,857,538 $ (20,868)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 2,875,333
Paid to Date: $ 606,391
A/E Contract (DJG, Inc. – includes Add. & Renov.) Construction Contract (Kenbridge)
Original Agreement $428,444 Bid Award $3,001,754
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $428,444 TOTAL $3,001,754
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: Murray High School Renovations
Description: Renovations of selected existing classrooms to enable "Enterprise" program students to
move from learning cottages to classrooms. Includes moving existing operation of ARC and their
records to former learning cottages and upgrade to science classroom. Some asbestos abatement will be
performed. Very challenging schedule with significant amount of logistical coordination.
Status:
Two construction packages: 1) Demolition/Asbestos Abatement; 2) Renovations.
Demolition/abatement work complete June 2013. Renovations substantially complete August 2013.
Warranty work on IDEA paint in Room 19 at a date and time to be coordinated with teacher’s schedule.
School Building Services coordinating furniture/technology purchases.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Pre-design Complete 03/01/13 03/01/13 0
Design Complete 03/28/13 04/05/13 8
Demo / Abatement Bid Opening 04/19/13 04/19/13 0
Renovation Bid Opening 04/25/13 05/01/13 6
Notice to Proceed - Demo/Abate 05/03/13 05/01/13 -2
Notice to Proceed - Renovations 05/17/13 06/12/13 26
Demolition Complete 06/28/13 06/28/13 0
Building Infrastructure Complete 07/05/13 07/05/13 0
Finishes Complete 08/02/13 08/05/13 3
Substantial Completion 08/09/13 08/09/13 0
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[March 2013]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 567,390 $ 567,390 $ -
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source * $ - $ 149,256 $ (149,256)
Total $ 567,390 $ 716,646 $ (149,256)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 58,900 $ 83,622 $ (24,722)
Hard Costs $ 454,000 $ 601,856 $ (147,856)
Contingency $ 54,490 $ 31,168 $ 23,322
Total $ 567,390 $ 716,646 $ (149,256)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 107,463
Paid to Date: $ 511,407
* Additional Source represents maintenance funds allocated for demolition & asbestos abatement package
A/E Contract (Rancorn Wildman Architects) Renovation Contract (North Star Companies)
Original Agreement $46,950 Bid Award $328,797
Approved Changes $ Approved Changes $24,988.30
Pending Changes $ Pending Changes $
TOTAL $46,950 TOTAL $353,785.30
Renovation Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Drywall & plumbing in
back wing classrooms &
corridors
$22,226.97
2 – Various changes and
reconcile owner contingency
$2,761.33
Demolition/Abatement Contract (Semco)
Bid Award $42,400
Approved Changes $10,400
Pending Changes $
TOTAL $52,800
Demolition/Abatement Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Demolition & abatement
in rooms 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
17, 18 & 19
$10,400
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: Church Road Basin Stormwater Management Facility Retrofit
Description:
The Church Road Basin project includes maintenance and enhancements to the existing regional
stormwater management facility. The project scope includes survey, design, and construction. The
County is required (through the DCR-issued stormwater permit) to reduce pollutant discharges
(nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) to impaired waters having approved TMDLs, or pollution diets.
This project will help the County meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Cheasapeake Bay
watershed.
Status:
Presented options to the Church of the Incarnation for proposed easements and preferred option was
selected. Church approved conceptual design and easement. Submit USACE permit application and obtain
permit approval. Expect 60%-design complete October 2013; design complete January 2014. Bid/award
1st quarter 2014; approximately 8 months construction.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Charrette Mtg 05/31/13 06/12/13 12
60%-design Complete 07/26/13 10/25/13 96
Design Complete 11/08/13 01/10/14 58
Bid Opening Date 02/28/14 02/28/14 0
Notice to Proceed 04/01/14 04/01/14 0
Substantial Completion 12/14/14 12/14/14 0
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[March 2013]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 428,847 $ 428,847 $ -
Future Appropriations $ 20,892 $ 20,892 $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 449,739 $ 449,739 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 98,739 $ 98,739 $ -
Hard Costs $ 265,000 $ 265,000 $ -
Contingency $ 86,000 $ 86,000 $ -
Total $ 449,739 $ 449,739 $ -
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 39,412
Paid to Date: $ 37,032
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $72,772 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $72,772 TOTAL $
Page 1 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project: McIntire County Office Building Brick Repointing
Description:
There are three projects involved in the scope. 1) Brick Repointing: removal and replacement of
existing damaged grout joints and expansion/caulk joints, also includes masonry repairs at concrete
banding/precast sills, helical pier installation and a thorough cleaning of all the masonry walls. 2)
Masonry Repairs: partial brick veneer replacement and installation of new spiral ties, includes
installation of steel lintels, replacement of existing precast concrete sills and partial replacement of
painted wood frieze board. 3) Front Stairs Waterproofing: removal of the existing masonry
waterproofing layer, repair of existing concrete substrate and installation of new 20 year warranty
waterproofing membrane.
Status:
Brick Repointing: Work complete – final completion achieved May 2013.
Masonry Repairs: Work complete – final completion achieved September 2012.
Front Stairs Waterproofing: Work complete – final completion achieved September 2013. Once final
payment is processed, remaining contingency will be available to the CIP general fund, approximately
$44,000.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Brick Repointing:
Design Complete 02/29/12 02/29/12 0
Bid Opening Date 03/29/12 03/29/12 0
Notice to Proceed 05/15/12 05/21/12 6
Demolition Complete 11/12/12 01/11/13 60
Finishes Complete 11/12/12 01/31/13 80
Substantial Completion 11/12/12 02/15/13 95
Masonry Repairs:
Design Complete 02/29/12 02/29/12 0
Bid Opening Date 04/05/12 04/05/12 0
Notice to Proceed 05/15/12 05/15/12 0
Finishes Complete 11/06/12 08/23/12 -75
Substantial Completion 11/06/12 08/23/12 -75
Front Stairs Waterproofing:
Design Complete 01/03/13 01/03/13 0
Bid Opening Date 02/07/13 03/28/13 49
Notice to Proceed 06/01/13 07/08/13 37
Finishes Complete 07/01/13 08/09/13 39
Substantial Completion 07/01/13 08/09/13 39
Page 2 of 2 November 6, 2013
Project Budget:
Baseline
[July 2011]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 948,460 $ 928,929 $ 19,531
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 948,460 $ 928,929 $ 19,531
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 28,460 $ 88,128 $ (59,668)
Hard Costs $ 750,000 $ 795,912 $ (45,912)
Contingency $ 170,000 $ 44,889 $ 125,111
Total $ 948,460 $ 928,929 $ 19,531
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 10,493
Paid to Date: $ 873,546
A/E Contract – 3 projects (Heyward Boyd Architects) Construction Contract (Dominion Waterproofing)
Original Agreement $33,728 Bid Award (Repointing) $308,458
Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $185,586
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 2,849
TOTAL $33,728 TOTAL $496,893
Construction Contract (Simpson Unlimited)
Bid Award (Masonry) $178,480
Approved Changes $ 31,868
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $210,348
Construction Change Orders: (Simpson)
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – CMU repair, EIFS repair, window
head & sill flashing
$26,253
2 – Cut brick at bow in wall, credit for
parking lot gouges
$5,615
Construction Change Orders: (Dominion)
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Installation of helical brick ties $183,770
2 – Additional driven pile $1,816
Pending – Window sill & trim
replacement
$2,849
Construction Contract: (Strickland Waterproofing)
Bid Award (Stairs) $86,700
Approved Changes $ 1,823
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $88,523
Construction Change Orders: (Strickland)
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Remove/ replace areas of
deteriorated concrete
$1,823
Project Vendor Contract Type Amount CO No.Scope
Date Approved
by CE Office
Reason:
>25% or >$50K
Police Firing Range Kimley-Horn & Associates A/E $34,708.00 3
Completion of a Sound Model study, construction of a
3 dimensional computer model to determine sound
levels within a 2 mile radius, conduct acoustic analysis
for up to 3 alternative noise mitigation designs,
produce a report based on this analysis, participate in
a teleconference to discuss the results of the study,
refine the existing range sketch, attend one meeting
to prepare for BOS presentation and develop and
review the feasibility and cost for up to 3 noise
mitigation construction options. CO generated based
on BOS request for information.
01/31/13 >25%
Courts Study PSA-Dewberry A/E $1,800.00 2
Attendance at a working meeting with key
stakeholders (Judges, Commonwealth Attorney,
Sheriff, Court Clerks, etc.) to provide professional
guidance based on knowledge of courts, courthouse
design, building industry, and courts project.
02/19/13 >25%
COB McIntire Brick RePointing Dominion Waterproofing &
Construction Services Construction $2,849.00 3
Remove existing concrete window sill and replace
with new precast window sill; remove rotten window
trim around 2 windows and replace with new trim.
05/03/13 >25%
Crozet Streetscape - Convert OH Meter Bases
to UG Meter Bases Design Electric, Inc.Services $9,050.00 1
Additional overhead service added to scope and two
service locations were changed at the request of
business owners.
05/20/13 >25%
$95,189.15 1
Install conduits, electric manholes, cables and
associated components to extend the utility
relocation across the site of the proposed "Claudius
Center".
06/14/13 >$50K
$75,000.00 2
Additional man-hours/material due to unforeseen
underground obstacles and soil conditions; additional
expense associated with removing and replacing
existing asphalt; deeper excavation depths for
manholes and trenches; need for shoring due to the
extra depth; unanticipated asphalt demolition &
replacement, and working conditions impacted by
unusual rain totals.
07/22/13 >25%
>$50K
$50,000.00 3
Additional man-hours/material required to complete
the utility relocation. Actual conditions have slowed
progress; the most significant being the unexpected
difficulty in converting some of the overhead service
and panels to the new underground service
connections. Many of these outages also required
Dominion crews to work outside normal working
hours to minimize interruptions to the operation of
the businesses.
10/17/13 >25%
Jack Jouett Middle School Masonry Repairs Piney Ridge Contracting &
Consulting, Inc.Construction $12,254.86 1 Additional masonry wall repair (south wall) 07/18/13 >25%
Change Orders Requiring County Executive Office Approval
January 1, 2013 - September 30, 2013
Crozet Streetscape - Utility Relocation Dominion Virginia Power Construction