HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-4-02BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 2, 2014
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
a. Elaine Echols as Fellow in the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP).
b. Proclamation recognizing April 2014 Fair Housing Month. Marguerite David, Fair Housing Program
Manager, Piedmont Housing Alliance
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:40 a.m. - Discussion/Action Items:
9. Water Resources Community Engagement Process. Doug Walker, Assistant County Executive, and Lee Catlin,
Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships
10. Solid Waste Options. Doug Walker, Assistant County Executive, and Mark Graham, Director of Community
Development
11. Comprehensive Plan Review Process. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner
10:30 a.m. - Recess
10:45 a.m. – Discussion/Action Items:
12. B. F. Yancey Elementary School Community Use. Bob Crickenberger, Director of Parks and Recreation.
13. Board of Supervisors Annual Retreat. Louise Wyatt, Organizational Development Manager
14. Board of Supervisors/City Council Joint Meeting.
15. 12:00 noon - Closed Meeting.
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. 1:30 p.m. - Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Presentations:
18. PVCC Annual report
19. Board-to-Board, March, 2014 Monthly Communications Report from School Board. Ned Galloway, School Board
Chairman
20. Historic Preservation Committee’s 2013 Annual Report. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman
21. VDoT Quarterly report and Six Year Secondary Road Plan Process Overview. Joel DeNunzio, VDOT Residency
Administrator
22. Albemarle County Broadband Task Force Update. Michael Culp, Director of Information Technology
Work Sessions:
23. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities. Mark Graham, Director of Community
Development, and Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Permit Planner.
24. Phase 2 Wireless Amendments to include public comments. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects.
25. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
26. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
27. 4:00 p.m. - Closed Meeting.
28. Certify Closed Meeting.
29. Adjourn to April 8, 2014, 6:00 p.m., Auditorium.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: October 2, 2013 and January 30, 2014.
8.2 ZMA-2013-00014. North Pointe Neighborhood Investments (Sign #115) (deferred from March 12, 2012).
8.3 FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
8.4 Amendment to Albemarle County Purchasing Manual.
8.5 Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Loan Extension.
8.6 SDP-2013-00011. Old Trail Village, Block 2B – Special Exception to Authorize Variation #14 from ZMA2004-0024.
8.7 ZTA-2012-00010. Off-site Signs (defer to May 7, 2014).
FOR INFORMATION:
8.8 County Grant Application/Award Report.
8.9 Annual Report of the Planning Commission.
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April is Fair Housing Month, and marks the forty-sixth anniversary of the passage of
the Federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by
the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988); and
WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act provides that no person shall be subjected to discrimination
because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status in the
rental, sale, financing or advertising of housing (and the Virginia Fair Housing Law
also prohibits housing discrimination based on elderliness); and
WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act supports equal housing opportunity throughout the United States ;
and
WHEREAS, fair housing creates healthy communities, and housing discrimination harms us all; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County supports equal housing opportunity and seeks to affirmatively further
fair housing not only during Fair Housing Month in April, but throughout the year
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2014
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 2nd day of April, 2014.
View Memo
Return to agenda
ZMA 201300014
BOS April 2, 2013
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA201300014, North Pointe Neighborhood
Investments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Applicant requests to amend approved proffers for
ZMA200000009 relating to the construction and
completion of the Phase III Road Improvements. No
additional dwellings proposed.
STAFF:
Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish, Grant
PRESENTER(S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On March 12, 2014, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for the North Pointe Neighborhood
Investments rezoning request (ZMA201300014). Action on this rezoning amendment was deferred to the Board
of Supervisors Consent Agenda on April 2, 2014 in order for technical changes to be made to the proffers. No
substantive changes were made to the proffers.
DISCUSSION:
The proffers have been technically revised, reviewed and found to be acceptable by the County Attorney.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to approve ZMA 201300014,
North Pointe Neighborhood Investments , with revised proffers dated March 25, 2014 (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution to approve ZMA 201300014
Attachment B: Proffers dated March 25, 2014
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ZMA 2013-00014
NORTH POINTE NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENTS - NP, LLC
WHEREAS, the application of Neighborhood Investments - NP, LLC, to amend the zoning map for Tax
Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-022K0 (the “Property”) is identified as ZMA 2013-00014, North Pointe
Neighborhood Investments (hereinafter, “ZMA 2013-00014”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Neighborhood Model District, subject to the “North Pointe
Community” application plan, last revised June 13, 2006, and the proffers accepted in conjunction with ZMA
2000-00009; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2013-00014 proposed to amend the proffers applicable to the Property to change the
timing and the obligation of the Property to construct Northwest Passage as provided in Proffer 5.3.1(c) and to
make other changes to the proffers previously accepted by the Board of Supervisors in conjunction with its
approval of ZMA 2013-00007, which pertained to other parts of the lands subject to the North Pointe Community
application plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing for ZMA 2013-00014 on March 12, 2014 after notice was
provided as required by Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285, and Albemarle County Code § 18-33; and
WHEREAS, the Board deferred acting on ZMA 2013-00014 in order to allow an amended proffer
statement to be submitted that made only changes in form to the statement; and
WHEREAS, an amended proffer statement has been submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that upon consideration of the material and relevant factors
in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284 and for the purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good
zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby amends the zoning map and approves ZMA
2013-00014 with proffers dated March 25, 2014 submitted by Neighborhood Investments - NP, LLC in
conjunction therewith; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Property also shall continue to be subject to the North Pointe
Community application plan.
* * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a
regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2014083, #2014084, #2014086, #2014087, #2014088,
#2014090, #2014091 and #2014093 for general
government programs and school division programs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Walker, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
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 $569,964.18. 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 eight (8) appropriations as follows:
One appropriation (#2014083) totaling $99,670.00 for various capital projects. This appropriation will not
increase the total County budget;
One appropriation (#2014084) totaling $397,207.00 to appropriate funding related to state revenue from
the Abott Labs asset forfeiture funds for the Police Department’s training program;
One appropriation (#2014086) to appropriate $28,991.00 from the Training Pool to various departments
for training and professional development. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget;
One appropriation (#2014087) totaling $119,320.01 for various school division grants and programs;
One appropriation (#2014088) totaling $6,998.67 for donations to various general government programs;
One appropriation (#2014090) totaling $10,898.00 for the grant funding related to a Strategic Prevention
Framework – State Incentive Grant from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention through Virginia Commonwealth University
(VCU);
One appropriation (#2014091) totaling $10,000.00 for transitioning the County’s warehouse facility; and
One appropriation (#2014093) totaling $25,540.50 for various Emergency Communication Center (ECC)
projects approved by the Emergency Communication Center Management Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #2014083, #2014084 #2014086, #2014087, #2014088, #2014090,
#2014091 and #2014093 for general government programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Appropriation #2014083 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Funds from Existing Capital Projects
This appropriation request is to appropriate $10,700.00 from the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Dam
Break Study project to the CIP Stormwater Management Program. The Dam Break Study is complete and
will not be using the remaining balance. The Stormwater Management Program supports anticipated
projects related to Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mandates.
This appropriation request is to appropriate $75,600.00 that had been previously appropriated to purchase
a Brush Truck 64 for the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company (SPVFC) to support the purchase of
Command vehicle 20 for the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company (ERVF C).
This funding was originally allocated to the ERVFC to replace its Command vehicle 20, but the funding was
amended on August 7, 2013 in appropriation 2014-018 in order for the SPVFC to purchase Brush Truck 64,
which exceeded its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and was determined to no longer be safe for
operation on the road. Since the approval of appropriation 2014-018, the SPVFC has determined that this
amount of funding would not be sufficient to purchase a replacement and that Brush Truck 64 can be
safetly operated in the short-term by reducing its weight by limiting the amount of water and equipment it
carries.
Upon the Board’s approval of this appropriaton, the ERVFC Command Vehicle 20 will be replaced in FY14
as initially planned and the SPVFC’s Brush Truck 64 will be replaced in FY17.
This appropriation request is to re-appropriate $13,370.00 in funding that had previously been appropriated
to the Crozet Library to the Crozet Streetscape Phase II Project. The Crozet Library is complete and will not
be using the remaining balance. The budget for the Crozet Streetscape Phase II Project requires additional
funding to cover the cost of a retaining wall at the edge of the Crozet Library property. This was originally
included in the Crozet Library project scope but got shifted to the Crozet Streetscape Phase II project scope
due to the timing of the installation of a segment of storm sewer. After the approval of this request, the
Streetscape project will include the retaining wall cost, and the close-out of remaining library project funds
will be completed. The Streetscape project is scheduled to be completed November 2014.
Appropriation #2014084 $397,207.00
Source: State Revenue $ 397,207.00
This request is to appropriate $397,20 7.00 in state revenue from the Abott Labs asset forfeiture funds for the
enhancement of the Police Department’s Crisis Intervention Team through “Train the Trainer” training, crisis
negotiations training, travel for training, tasers, Crisis Intervention and Crisis Negotiations Teams’ cell phone
consoles and a crisis negotiations response vehicle. This supports the Police Department’s ability to obtain training
for the County’s officer’s in Crisis Intervention, provide tasers for officer’s that do not currently have one in the field,
and provide enhanced capabilities of the Crisis Interventions and Negotiations Teams through cell phone consoles
and a Team response vehicle. The Office of the Attorney General announced the award of these funds on
December 18, 2013. The award stipulates that all funds be expended within 24 months from receipt of transfer ,
which was December 18, 2013.
Appropriation #2014086 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Training Pool $ 28,991.00
This request is to appropriate $28,991.00 from the Training Pool to various departments for approved training
opportunities and professional development. The Board approved a Training Pool of $50,000.00 in the FY 14 budget
to support the County’s strategic objective to expand opportunities for training and professional development. After
this appropriation, $22,560.00 will remain available in the Training Pool.
Appropriation #2014087 $119,320.01
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $ 43,645.01
State Revenue $ 75,675.00
This request is to appropriate the following School Division requests approved by the School Board on January 9,
2014 and February 13, 2014:
The appropriation of $1,131.45 that was received by the Albemarle Resource Center (ARC) from IBBS of
Virginia DBA K-12 Textbook Solutions. These funds were issued to the ARC for the sale of old textbooks.
The appropriaton of $33,128.31 in reimbursement from the school division’s insurance company, Virginia
Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool ( VaCORP). These funds are to reimburse the
school division for expenses to repair damage to Broadus Wood Elementary School building that occurred on
December 5, 2013.
The appropriation of $10,060.25 in miscellaneous grants and donations, including $675.00 in State
Revenues, received by Albemarle County Public Schools. These funds will be used for a variety of
programs in the School Division.
The appropriaton of $75,000.00 in National Board Incentive Bonus Payment awards from the Department of
Education. The National Board Certification is an extensive year -long assessment of actual teaching
practice based upon high and rigorous standards established by the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Through this process, teachers document their subject matter knowledge;
provide evidence that they know how to teach their subjects to students most effectively; and demonstrate
their ability to manage and measure student learning. The School Division has 15 teachers that meet these
standards. In recognition of this achievement, the Department of Education issues the National Board
Incentive Bonus Payments to these teachers. An initial award is set at $5,000 (pre -tax) with a subsequent
annual award of $2,500 (pre-tax) for the life of the certificate (10 years). This appropriation totals
$75,000.00 in awards.
Appropriation #2014088 $6,998.67
Source: General Fund Fund Balance $ (159.00)
Special Revenue Fund Balance $ 7,157.67
This request is to appropriate donations received in previous fiscal years for the following general government
departments and programs:
$6,440.00 to the Department of Fire Rescue. Donations to this department support various efforts including
the car safety seat program, public education, smoke detectors, and one-time equipment or station
furnishing purchases;
$303.33 for the Acquisiton of Conservation Easements (ACE) program;
$255.34 for the Bright Stars program; and
$159.00 for undesignated general government operations.
Appropriation #2014090 $10,898.00
.
Source: Federal Revenue $ 10,898.00
This request is to re-appropriate $10,898.00 in funding associated with a Strategic Prevention Framework – State
Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) from FY 13 to FY 14. The purpose of the grant funding is to reduce the number of motor
vehicle crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers between the ages of 15 and 24. The Strategic Prevention
Framework – State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) grant funds are received from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention through Virginia Commonwealth University
(VCU). VCU, as the Prime Awardee, provides these federal grant funds to the County as its Subcontractor.
The County, in its previous capacity as fiscal agent for the Commission on Children and Families (CCF), received the
first SPF-SIG Project grant for the time period of February 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013 in the fall of 2011. CCF
was dissolved in December 2012, so the second SPF-SIG Project Grant was awarded directly to the County for the
time period of February 1, 2013 through May 31, 2014 for a total grant award of $205,629.00. This re-appropriation
request is for $10,898.00 in grant funding that was received in prior years and has not been appropriated for use in FY
14. VCU extended the Subcontract Agreement until May 31, 2014, allowing these grant funds to be expended in FY
14.
Appropriation #2014091 $10,000.00
.
Source: Sale of Surplus $10,000.00
This request is to appropriate $10,000.00 to the Finance Department/Purchasing Division for temporary personnel to
assist with moving the contents of the existing warehouse to the new warehouse that will be co-located with the
Northside Library. Funds to support this effort will be available by the sale of surplus County vehicles in April. The
County’s current warehouse space lease expires on May 31, 2014. The County is preparing to move the contents of
the existing warehouse (including confidential records, files, equipment, and surplus property) to the new Northside
Library/Storage Facility building, a significantly smaller space. This transition will require consistent attention through
the sale and distribution of surplus property, clean up and preparation for the move from the existing storage space
and the set up of the new warehouse. The timing of the Library project may require temporary storage in trailers on
the new Northside Library site until the storage component of the building is ready. The Department of Finance
requests two months funding for a temporary employee to assist with efficiently managing these efforts. Currently
Purchasing, Building Services, and General Services have been workin g on this transition process, however,
adequate time and attention cannot be consistently given to this transition effort due to the departments’ multiple
priorities. This temporary position would provide proper oversight of and assistance with this process.
A fully developed plan for the management of the new warehouse facility will be brought to the Board of Supervisors
for consideration in FY 15.
Appropriation #2014093 $25,540.50
.
Source: ECC Fund Balance $25,540.50
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC,
appropriate funding from the ECC’s fund balance for the following requests, which have been approved by the ECC
Management Board:
Requests $13,540.50 for a mobile data system software maintenance agreement for January 1, 2014 through
June 30, 2014.
Requests $12,000.00 for painting the interior of the Em ergency Communications Center.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment to Albemarle County Purchasing Manual
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to amend the County’s Purchasing Manual by
amending the procedures for small purchases and
adding procedures for procurement from small
businesses and minority-owned, women-owned, and
service disabled veteran-owned businesses
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Burrell and Okken
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County’s Purchasing Manual, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors, governs and guides local government
and school purchases in accordance with the Public Procurement Act of the Virginia Code.
Under the Virginia Public Procurement Act, public bodies are enabled to adopt their own small purchase procedures for
purchases if the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed $100,000. Chapter 22 of the Albemarle
County Purchasing Manual outlines the County’s current small purchase procedures.
Additionally, Virginia Code § 2.2-4310(B) requires: “All public bodies shall establish programs consistent with this chapter
to facilitate the participation of small businesses and businesses owned by women, minorities, and service disabled
veterans in procurement transactions. The programs established shall be in writing and shall comply with the provisions of
any enhancement or remedial measures authorized by the Governor pursuant to subsection C or, where applicable, by the
chief executive of a local governing body pursuant to § 15.2-965.1, and shall include specific plans to achieve any goals
established therein.”
DISCUSSION:
After review and discussion, staff is recommending changes to the small purchase procedures as set forth in Attachment
A to improve efficiencies in the County’s procurement and payment processes. Proposed amendments to the County’s
small purchase procedures include:
Increase the amount for which a purchase order is required from purchases over $1,000 to purchases over $5,000; and
Increase the amount for goods or nonprofessional services for which a purchase can be made with one quotation from
up to and including $1,000 to up to and including $5,000.
The proposed language for small purchases up to and including $5,000 is adapted from the Commonwealth’s small
purchase procedures (http://www.eva.virginia.gov/library/files/APSPM/Chapter5.pdf). These proposed changes are also
consistent with the procedures of comparable localities (e.g. Hanover, Henrico, Fauquier, and Frederick counties). The
proposed revisions would allow for service improvements, efficiencies and cost savings to the County through greater use
of the Purchase Card program; would allow the Purchasing Department to focus more on higher value contracts (67% of
Purchase Orders are currently for purchases below the $5,000 threshold but they represent only about 20% of the total
dollars spent with purchase orders); and would provide operational efficiencies in obtaining goods and services in a timely
manner, without the loss of proper oversight.
Staff is also recommending the addition of Chapter 29, Participation of Small Businesses and Minority-Owned, Women-
Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses in County Procurement, as set forth in Attachment B to better
document compliance with Virginia Code § 2.2-4310(B). The proposed new Chapter 29 is intended to facilitate the
participation of small businesses and businesses owned by women, minorities, and service disabled veterans in County
procurement transactions.
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.
AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to Albemarle County Purchasing Manual
April 2, 2014
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is expected other than increased efficiencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) to amend and re-adopt the Albemarle
County Purchasing Manual by amending Chapter 22, Small Purchases, and by adding Chapter 29, Participation of
Small Businesses and Minority-Owned, Women-Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses in County
Procurement.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Proposed Purchasing Manual Chapter 22
B – Proposed Purchasing Manual Chapter 29
C – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
22-1
Supp. 9-7-11 4-2-14
Chapter 22. Small Purchases
Summary
This chapter establishes the procedures to be followed when the cost of
the goods or services to be procured is not expected to exceed $50,000.
If goods or nonprofessional services are sought to be procured, one of the
three following procedures shall apply, depending on the expected cost of
the procurement: (1) procurements up to $1000; (2) procurements
between $1001 and including $5,000; and (32) procurements between
greater than $5,001 $5,000 up to and including $50,000. A separate
procedure applies when professional services are being procured.
Essential Information in this Chapter
The using department shall make a good faith determination as to whether the cost of the
procurement is expected to exceed $50,000.
Neither the purchasing agent nor the using department shall procure goods or services in a
piecemeal manner in order to avoid formal procurement procedures that would otherwise
apply.
The receipt of written quotations is preferred, even if verbal or telephone quotations are
authorized.
If goods or nonprofessional services are sought to be procedural, one of three informal
procurement procedures applies. A separate procedure applies when professional services
are sought to be procured.
Key References to the Code of Virginia Applicable to this Chapter
Section 2.2-4303(G): Small purchases for goods and nonprofessional services
Section 2.2-4303(H): Small purchases for professional services
22-1 General
This chapter establishes the procedures to be used for single or term contracts
when the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed $50,000.
The following general principles apply to all procurements made pursuant to this
chapter:
Determination of estimated cost of procurement: The using department
shall make a good faith determination as to whether the cost of the
procurement is expected to exceed $50,000 as provided in section 4-5.
Providing for competition: These small purchase procedures are intended
to provide for competition whenever practicable, and shall be applied to
further this intent.
22-2
Supp. 9-7-11 4-2-14
Piecemealing of procurement prohibited: Neither the purchasing agent nor
the using department shall procure goods or services in a piecemeal
manner, otherwise split a procurement into multiple procurements, or
request or require that the selected vendor invoice the County at intervals,
for the purpose of reducing the estimated cost of the procurement to
below the $50,000 threshold.
Written price quotations are preferred: The receipt of written quotations is
preferred, even if verbal or telephone quotations are authorized, in the
event that a dispute arises after the order is placed regarding terms or
pricing.
Travel and training expenses whose costs not expected to exceed
$50,000 exempt: Travel and training expenses whose costs are not
expected to exceed $50,000 are exempt from the procedures set forth in
sections 22-2, 22-3 and 22-4. These costs, which may include those for
job-related training, continuing education, and associated meals, lodging
and other related and authorized expenses, are subject to the approval of
the using department and the purchasing agent.
Purchase Order required over $1,000 $5,000: A Purchase Order is
required on any purchase over $1,000 $5,000.
22-2 Goods or Nonprofessional Services: Cost Not Expected to Exceed $1000
Where the estimated cost of goods or nonprofessional services is $5,000
or less unless exempted (see Part 4), purchases may be made upon
receipt of a minimum of one (1) written or telephone (oral) quotation.
Additional sources may also be solicited. Other quotes received that were
not solicited shall be considered. If more than one quote is received, the
award shall be made to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. A
record of the quotation must be kept with the file. If a telephone quote is
solicited, a record shall be kept of the name and address of the vendor(s)
contacted, the item description or service offered, price quoted, delivery
dates and terms, names of persons giving and receiving the prices and
the date the information was obtained. Notation on the requisition form is
considered to be an adequate record.
Additional competition should be sought whenever there is reason to
believe a quotation is not a fair and reasonable price.
If the cost of the goods or nonprofessional services is not expected to exceed
$1000, the using department is authorized to procure goods or services without
obtaining bids or quotations provided that the purchases are made on the basis
of one of the following circumstances:
Cost is lowest of current price list: The cost of the items purchased is the
lowest of the supplier's current price lists in the office of the purchasing
agent.
22-3
Supp. 9-7-11 4-2-14
Uniform pricing: All vendors are known to have the same price for the
goods or services to be purchased.
Reorder: The purchase is a reorder of goods purchased on a previous bid
or part hereof obtained within six months prior to the proposed purchases.
If none of these circumstances apply, then the goods or services shall be
procured using the procedure set forth in section 22-3.
22-3 Goods or Nonprofessional Services: Cost Expected to be Between $1001
and $5000
If the cost of the goods or nonprofessional services is expected to be between
$1001 and $5000, the following procedure shall apply:
Scheduling: The purchasing agent should allow at least one to three
business days to complete a procurement based on verbal or telephone
quotations, and at least five business days to complete a procurement
based on written quotations.
Price quotation: The purchasing agent shall make a reasonable effort to
obtain at least three price quotations from vendors. When soliciting a
price quotation, the purchasing agent shall describe the goods or services
desired, the quantity, the date by which delivery or performance is
expected to be made, and that the County is seeking competitive
quotations.
Documentation of price quotation: If the purchasing agent receives a
verbal or telephone price quotation, he shall record, for the contract file:
(1) the name of the vendor quoting the price; (2) the name of the individual
quoting the price; (3) the manufacturer and model of the goods or a
description of the services; (4) the unit price; (5) the payment terms; (6)
the promised delivery or performance date; and (7) the date the quotation
was received.
Confirmation of verbal or telephone price quotation: The purchasing agent
shall request that any vendor providing a verbal or telephone price
quotation confirm its quotation in writing. The confirmation shall provide
the information listed in the preceding paragraph.
Selection of vendor: The purchasing agent shall select the vendor
providing the lowest price quotation. However, if the vendor materially
fails to provide the written confirmation required by the preceding
paragraph or if the purchasing agent determines that the vendor is not
responsible, then the purchasing agent shall select the vendor providing
the next lowest price quotation and shall state the basis for the decision in
writing and place it in the procurement file.
22-4
Supp. 9-7-11 4-2-14
The purchasing agent may require that any procurement of goods or services
otherwise subject to this section comply with the procurement procedures set
forth in section 22-4, or the competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation
procurement procedures set forth in parts 2 or 3.
22-43 Goods or Nonprofessional Services: Cost Expected to be Between Greater
Than $5,001 $5,000 up to and including $50,000
If the cost of the goods or nonprofessional services is expected to be greater
than between $5001 $5,000 up to and including $50,000, the following procedure
shall apply:
Scheduling: The purchasing agent using department should allow at least
five business days to complete a procurement.
Price quotation: The purchasing agent using department shall obtain at
least three (four, if the cost is expected to exceed $30,000) written price
quotations from vendors. When soliciting a price quotation, the
purchasing agent using department shall describe the goods or services
desired, the quantity, the date by which delivery or performance is
expected to be made, that the County is seeking competitive quotations,
and the date by which written price quotations must be received in the
office of the purchasing agent using department.
Posting of public notice: Purchases under this section that are expected to
exceed $30,000 shall require the posting of a public notice on the
County’s website, the Virginia Department of General Services' central
electronic procurement website, and/or other appropriate website(s).
Contents of written price quotation: A written price quotation submitted by
a vendor shall contain the following information: (1) the name of the
vendor quoting the price; (2) the name of the individual quoting the price;
(3) the manufacturer and model of the goods or a description of the
services; (4) the unit price; (5) the payment terms; (6) the promised
delivery or performance date; and (7) the date the quotation was made.
Selection of vendor: The purchasing agent using department shall select
the vendor providing the lowest price quotation. However, if the vendor
fails to provide a written price quotation which contains all of the
information required by the preceding paragraph or if the purchasing agent
determines that the vendor is not responsible, then the purchasing agent
shall select the vendor providing the next lowest price quotation and shall
state the basis for the decision in writing and place it in the procurement
file.
The purchasing agent may require that any procurement of goods or services
otherwise subject to this section comply with the competitive sealed bidding or
competitive negotiation procurement procedures set forth in parts 2 or 3.
22-5
Supp. 9-7-11 4-2-14
22-54 Professional Services: Cost Not Expected to Exceed $50,000
If the cost of professional services (as defined in section 1-5 of this Manual) is
not expected to exceed $50,000, the following procedure shall apply:
Scheduling: The purchasing agent should allow at least five business days
to complete the procurement.
Negotiation with one or more vendors: If the cost is not expected to
exceed $15,000, the using department is authorized to negotiate with one
or more vendors. If the cost is expected to be between greater than
$15,001 $15,000 up to and including $50,000, the using department shall
contact and interview a minimum of three vendors. The negotiations may
be conducted either in person or by telephone, and shall consist of
identifying the services desired, the date by which performance is
expected to be made, the qualities of the vendor described in the following
paragraph, and the cost for such services.
Selection of vendor: The using department shall recommend to the
purchasing agent the vendor to be selected. If the using department
negotiated with more than one vendor, the using department shall
recommend the vendor it determined to be the most qualified, responsible
and suitable; cost shall not be the sole determining factor. The purchasing
agent shall notify the selected vendor, whose select ion shall be contingent
upon the County and the vendor entering into a written agreement.
Written agreement: The purchasing agent shall prepare a written
agreement approved by the county attorney which shall contain, at a
minimum, the following information: (1) the name of the selected vendor;
(2) a detailed description of the services to be provided; (3) the cost of the
services to be provided; (4) the payment terms; and (5) the promised
performance date.
The purchasing agent may require that the procurement of professional services
otherwise subject to this section comply with the competitive negotiation
procedure set forth in part 3.
29-1
Supp. 4-2-14
Chapter 29. Participation of Small Businesses
and Minority-Owned, Women-
Owned, and Service Disabled
Veteran-Owned Businesses in
County Procurement
Summary
This chapter outlines the County’s policy promoting procurement from small
businesses, and businesses owned by minorities, women, and service disabled
veterans.
Essential Information in this Chapter
This County policy is to assure that small businesses and businesses owned by minorities ,
women, and service disabled veterans have the maximum practicable opportunity to
participate in County procurement transactions.
Key References to the Code of Virginia Applicable to this Chapter
Section 2.2-4310(B): Participation of Small, Women-Owned, Minority-Owned, and Service Disabled
Veteran-Owned Business in Procurement
29-1 Definitions
The terms set forth below shall have the following meanings unless the context
clearly requires otherwise.
a. “Control” means exercising the power to make policy decisions.
b. “Operate” means being actively involved in the day-to-day management of the
business.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the terms “Minority individual,”
“Minority-owned business,” “Service disabled veteran,” “Service disabled veteran
business,” “Small business,” and “Women-owned business” shall be as defined
in Virginia Code § 2.2-4310(E) or its successor(s), as amended.
29-2 Policy
It is the policy of the County of Albemarle, acting through its officers, agents
and employees, in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of the Virginia
Public Procurement Act, to:
29-2
Supp. 4-2-14
a. Actively promote the procurement or lease of goods, services, insurance, or
construction, from small businesses or businesses owned by minorities,
women, and service disabled veterans in an equally competitive manner.
b. Include participation from qualified small businesses and minority-owned,
women-owned, and service disabled veteran-owned businesses on
solicitation lists.
c. Assure that small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned, and
service disabled veteran-owned businesses are solicited whenever they are
potential sources.
d. Utilize a list of small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned, and
service disabled veteran-owned businesses published by the Virginia
Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity and the Department of
Veterans Services.
e. Where procurement requirements permit, establish delivery schedules which
will encourage participation by small businesses and minority-owned, women-
owned, and service disabled veteran-owned businesses.
f. Cooperate with, and use the services and assistance of, the United States
Small Business Administration, the Virginia Department of Small Business
and Supplier Diversity and the Department of Veterans Services, and other
public or private agencies.
g. Participate to the maximum extent possible in all local and regional
purchasing fairs for small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned,
and service disabled veteran-owned businesses.
RESOLUTION TO AMEND AND RE-ADOPT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PURCHASING MANUAL
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual (“Manual”) delineates
not only the requirements of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, but also the methods
and procedures that best enable the County to procure the highest quality goods and
services at a reasonable cost and in an efficient, fair, and competitive manner; and
WHEREAS, the Manual was last amended on September 4, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the best interests of the County to amend the
County’s procedures for small purchases not expected to exceed $50,000, and to adopt
procedures in accordance with the Virginia Code for the participation of small businesses
and minority-owned, women-owned, and service disabled veteran-owned businesses in
County procurement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby amends and re-adopts the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual by
amending Chapter 22, Small Purchases, and by adding Chapter 29, Participation of Small
Businesses and Minority-Owned, Women-Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned
Businesses in County Procurement.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of
___ to ___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
_________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Loan Extension
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve second loan extension for Lewis & Clark
Exploratory Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis and Henry
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center (“LCEC”) leases property jointly owned by the County of Albemarle and the City of
Charlottesville located at Darden Towe Park for the purpose of establishing the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center. The
LCEC was awarded grants totaling $800,000.00 from the Transportation Enhancement Fund Program (“VDOT
Enhancement Program”) administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) to provide funding (to be
combined with other funds to be raised by the LCEC) for the construction of an educational building, an access road and
parking area, and a connecting trail network at Darden Towe Park. The LCEC’s application for the VDOT Enhancement
Program required the County to be responsible for accepting the grant from VDOT. The County was r equired to enter into
a Project Agreement with VDOT to ensure VDOT’s requirements for funding eligibility were met. The County then entered
into a separate Pass-Through Agreement with LCEC that, in turn, passed along all of the County’s responsibilities under
the VDOT Enhancement Program to the LCEC, including holding the County harmless from any liabilities created by the
County’s acceptance of the VDOT Enhancement Program grants.
The LCEC advised the County that its fund-raising efforts had fallen short of its goal and by letter dated March 19, 2013,
requested that the County and the City provide funding assistance in the form of a short-term loan to ensure the project
would be completed and all requirements related to the enhancement grant would be met. The total shortfall was
estimated at $260,000. In order to assist the LCEC and ensure that the grant requirements would be met, the Board, at its
April 3, 2013 meeting, approved an appropriation of $130,000 to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) for the
purpose of the EDA providing a short-term loan to the LCEC. The City of Charlottesville committed to contribute the other
$130,000 required to make up the $260,000 shortfall.
The EDA loan agreement and note were executed on April 17, 2013, and pursuant to the loan agreement and note terms
and conditions, the $130,000 loan was due and payable to the EDA by October 17, 2013. In a letter to the EDA dated
August 27, 2013, the LCEC advised the County that it would be unable to raise all of the funds ($130,000) by the
repayment deadline and requested a six-month extension. The Board, at its October 2, 2013 meeting, approved LCEC’s
requested extension of six months and requested that the EDA extend the date by which the loan is due and payable
subject to the same terms and conditions. The October 2, 2013 executive summary (Attachment A) stated that staff was
sympathetic to the LCEC’s extension request, but that it would recommend an examination and reconsideration of the
terms and conditions of the loan if any additional extensions were requested.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4. Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies.
DISCUSSION:
In a letter to the EDA dated March 10, 2014 (Attachment B), the LCEC advised the County that it will be unable to
raise all of the funds ($130,000) by the extended repayment deadline of April 17, 2014, and have requested an
additional six-month extension. The County-EDA agreement allows for the extension if approved by the County and
the EDA; however, the EDA-LCEC promissory note will have to be amended to allow a second extension. Staff has
determined that the LCEC has neared substantial completion of the project, and that it will require all of its current
funds to finalize the project and to begin operating the facility. Given the LCEC’s progress on the project, staff again
recommends approval of the LCEC’s request to extend the loan repayment deadline. However, if the LCEC requests
any further extensions, staff will recommend, at a minimum, that a partial-repayment plan be implemented.
AGENDA TITLE: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Loan Extension
April 2, 2014
Page 2
If the Board is agreeable to this extension, the EDA can consider extending the repayment period and amending the
promissory note.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no impact to the budget for this extension, as the funds have been previously appropriated. Upon repayment,
the $130,000 would be returned to the County’s Capital Reserve.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) approve LCEC’s requested repayment deadline for repayment of the loan to
October 17, 2014; 2) request that the EDA extend the date by which the loan is due and payable and amend the
promissory note to allow for the extension subject to the same terms and conditions; and 3) authorize the County
Executive to sign an amended loan agreement and promissory note with the EDA on behalf of the County after
approval of form and substance by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – First Extension - October 2, 2013 Executive Summary
B – Second Extension - Lewis & Clark Request Letter
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Loan Extension
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve loan extension for Lewis & Clark Exploratory
Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis and Henry
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 2, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center (“LCEC”) leases property jointly owned by the County of Albemarle and the City of
Charlottesville located at Darden Towe Park for the purpose of establishing the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center. The
LCEC was awarded grants totaling $800,000.00 from the Transportation Enhancement Fund Program (“VDOT
Enhancement Program”) administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) to provide funding (to be
combined with other funds to be raised by the LCEC) for the construction of an educational building, an access road and
parking area, and a connecting trail network at Darden Towe Park. The LCEC’s application for the VDOT Enhancement
Program required the County to be responsible for accepting the grant from VDOT. The County was required to enter into
a Project Agreement between VDOT and the County to ensure VDOT’s requirements for funding eligibility were met. The
County then entered into a separate Pass-Through Agreement with LCEC that, in turn, passed along all of the County’s
responsibilities under the VDOT Enhancement Program to the LCEC, including holding the County harmless from any
liabilities created by the County’s acceptance of the VDOT Enhancement Program grants.
The LCEC advised the County that its fund-raising efforts had fallen short of the goal and by letter dated March 19, 2013,
requested that the County and City provide funding assistance in the form of a short-term loan to ensure the project is
completed and all requirements related to the enhancement grant are met. The total shortfall was estimated at $260,000.
In order to assist the LCEC and ensure that the grant requirements are met, the Board, at its April 3, 2013 meeting,
approved an appropriation of $130,000 to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) for the purpose of the EDA
providing a short-term loan to the LCEC. The appropriation was subject to the following conditions: (1) an agreement
between the County and the EDA regarding the EDA’s reimbursement of the funds to the County when the LCEC repays
the loan; (2) a note or some other instrument acceptable to the County Attorney by which the LCEC would agree to repay
the loan to the EDA within 6 months; and (3) the City of Charlottesville contributing or committing to contribute the other
$130,000 required to make up the $260,000 shortfall.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4. Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies.
DISCUSSION:
The EDA loan agreement and note were executed on April 17, 2013, and funds were forwarded to LCEC by check
dated April 18, 2013. Pursuant to the loan and note terms and conditions, the $130,000 loan is due and payable to the
EDA on October 17, 2013; provided that, upon receipt of a written request from the LCEC before October 17, 2013,
the EDA, at its sole discretion, and with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, may extend the due date. In a letter
to the EDA dated August 27, 2013 (attached), the LCEC advised the County that they will be unable to raise all of the
funds ($130,000) by the repayment deadline and have requested a six-month extension.
Staff is sympathetic to this extension request, however, it would recommend an examination and reconsideration of
the terms and conditions of the loan if any additional extensions are requested.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no impact to the budget as the funds have been previously appropriated. Upon repayment, the $130,000
would be returned to the Capital Reserve.
AGENDA TITLE: Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Loan Extension
October 2, 2013
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve LCEC’s requested extension of six months and request that the EDA
extend the date by which the loan is due and payable subject to the same terms and conditions. Future extension
requests are not recommended under current note terms and conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Lewis & Clark Extension Request Letter
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP201300011 – Old Trail Village, Block 2B – Special
Exception to Authorize Variation #14 from ZMA2004-0024.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special exception to authorize variation from the spatial
enclosure and building height regulations for the
Rutherfoord Hotel.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Benish and Mr. Newberry
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: April 2, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors approved the original rezoning for Old Trail Village on September 14, 2005. Another rezoning
was approved November 12, 2008 to amend the Code of Development for Block 2 to allow “rest home, nursing home,
convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution” as a by-right use, which now contains an assisted living facility
known as the Lodge at Old Trail. Block 2B is a 0.80 acre area located in the southwest corner of Block 2 between the
Lodge and Block 1 (see Attachment A). The applicant is proposing a hotel and restaurant on this site, which is a by-right
use within this block .
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
This variation request has been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations. Variations are considered
by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Sections 33.5 a nd 33.9. Staff is recommending
approval of this variation request.
VARIATION REQUEST #14:
The Code of Development uses a spatial enclosure ratio for regulating building height and massing. This ratio caps the
maximum number of stories for each building based on several factors such as the width of right-of-way, sidewalk and
planting strip width and front setback. In the CT5 section of Old Trail, the Code of Development permits building heights
up to 3.5 stories (or up to 6 stories, if located at an intersection with a roundabout), but the proposed hotel is a 4 story
structure (see Attachment B). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variation from the 3.5 story height limit to allow the
proposed 4 story building.
Staff notes that the Code of Development aims to integrate a range of uses in this section by using a variety of building
facades and architectural features that are properly proportioned to their surrounding areas. Permitting an additional 0.5
story for Block 2B would support this intent without compromising health, safety or welfare. The applicant has also
received a County-wide Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB. Staff analysis of the variation request under Section
33.9 is guided by factors in Section 8.5.5.3(c) as provided below:
1. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
This request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
2. The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensit y of development.
It would be possible to achieve a similar height and massing as the proposed building without a variation because
the Code of Development specifies that attics do not count as a “story” when calculating the spatial enclosure
ratio. This proposal does not increase the density beyond the maximum permitted density in this block.
2
3. The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other development
in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of any development in this district is unaffected.
4. The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the special exception, subject to the following condition:
1. Development results in a building that is in general accord with the architectural drawings numbered A2.1 and
A2.2 entitled “The Rutherfoord Hotel at Old Trail” and dated 07-08-2013 (provided as Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. GIS map of the subject property and surrounding area
B. Architectural Drawings of Rutherfoord Hotel at Old Trail
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
Attachment A - Area Map for Block 2B
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 23, 2014
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
190 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Grant Application/Award Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary of grant applications submitted during the
time period of February 14, 2014 through March 13,
2014
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Walker, Letteri, Allshouse, L, and
Shifflett, K
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the County’s Grant 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 that were approved during the time
period of February 14, 2014 through March 13, 2014.
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 February 14, 2014 through March 13, 2014
Applications were approved for the following grants:
Granting Entity Grant Type Amount
Requested
Match
Required
Dept Purpose
Virginia
Commission for
the Arts
FY15 Local
Challenge Grant
State $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Management
& Budget
Supports independent arts organization for
arts activities in the locality. Piedmont Council
for the Arts was selected as this year’s local
organization.
Junior League of
Charlottesville
2014
Community
Grant
Local $ 1,000.00 None Social Services If awarded, Family Support workers will use
these funds to purchase summer kits for
children on the Family Support Worker'
caseloads. Families will receive an age
appropriate summer kit containing a variety of
activities to improve family engagement.
Virginia Highway
Safety Office
FY15 VA DUI
Enforcement
Grant to ACPD
Federal $ 30,082.00 $ 2,301.00 Police Additional funds would allow for increased
DUI enforcement in the County, with an
expected outcome of reduced DUI-related
traffic crashes.
Virginia Highway
Safety Office
FY15 VA Speed
Enforcement
Grant to ACPD
Federal $ 34,136.00 $ 2,611.00 Police Additional funds would allow for increased
traffic safety enforcement in the County.
Virginia
Department of
Motor Vehicles
Selective
Enforcement -
Speed
State $ 28,800.00 $ 14,536.20 Sheriff Additional funds would allow for overtime
hours for the Sheriff’s Office to provide speed
enforcement.
Awards were received for the following grants:
No awards were received during this time period.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Supervisors
From: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary to Planning Commission
Date: March 18, 2014
Re: 2013 Planning Commission Annual Report
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia says that, among its duties, the Planning Commission shall, “5.
Make . . . an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the commission and the
status of planning within its jurisdiction.” Attached you will find a report summarizing the activities of
the commission in 2013. On March 18, 2014, the Planning Commission approved this report. I am
forwarding the report to the Board of Supervisors as specified in the Code of Virginia.
2013 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2013.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT CURRENT TERM
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice-Chair Jack Jouett 1/10 - 12/31/13
Don Franco Rio 1/10 - 12/31/13
Cal Morris, Chair Rivanna 1/12 - 12/31/15
Ed Smith Samuel Miller 1/10 - 12/31/13
Rick Randolph Scottsville 1/12 - 12/31/15
Thomas Loach White Hall 1/12 - 12/31/15
Bruce Dotson At-Large 1/12 - 12/31/13
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/13 - 12/31/13
2013 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = ___34___
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS # Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
1 1 - 1
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 10 7 - 3
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 1 - -
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 1 1 - -
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 14 10 1 3
Special Use Permit (SP) 23 20 1 2
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) - - - -
Final Site Plan (SDP) - - - -
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 2 2 - -
Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - - -
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) - - - -
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) - - - -
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) - - - -
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 14 13 - 1
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) - - N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) - - N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 1 1 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) - - N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 1 1 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) - - N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) - - N/A N/A
PC Minutes 43 43 N/A N/A
Other 4 4 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
15 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 7 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) - N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) - N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) - N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit (SP) - N/A N/A N/A
Other 3 N/A N/A N/A
2013 HIGHLIGHTS
The CPA considered was the Comprehensive Plan review and update (including the regional Livability
Project review)
ZTAs considered included Wireless (Phase I), Off-site Signs, Family Day Homes, Inoperative Vehicles,
Noise (Phase I), Steep Slopes, Dam Break Inundation, Residential and Industrial Uses in the Downtown
Crozet District and the Flood Hazard Overlay District
The STA considered was the Subdivision Ordinance Process Improvements
The CCP considered was the Rio Road Public Property Uses (including the new Northside Library)
ZMAs considered included Church of Our Saviour, Avon Park II, Riverside Village, The Lofts at
Meadowcreek, Pantops Corner, Out of Bounds, 1306 Crozet Avenue, Piedmont Environmental Council,
Albemarle Place (aka Stonefield), North Pointe and Hollymead Town Center
SPs considered included Faith Christian Center, 5th Street Station, Bellair CSA Barn, Faith & Grace
Christian Fellowship, All Things Pawssible, Regents School, Field School, Commonwealth Office, Les Yeux
Du Monde, Roberts House and Public Garage, Mahone Family Additional Development Right and several
Tier III wireless facilities (towers)
SUBs considered included Houndstooth and Kuttner
Other matters covered included AFD additions and renewals, the Capital Improvements Program and
the Community Development Work Program
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Water Resources Community Engagement Process
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion about Advisory Committee Formation and
Consultant Scope of Work
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Catlin, Shadman,
Graham, and Harper
PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin, Doug Walker
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On January 8, 2014, the Board directed staff to develop a process to inform the public and to seek input on preferences
for funding mandated enhancements regarding two separate water resource protection programs. On February 5th, the
Board approved processes for obtaining community feedback on mandates related to both programs, including: (1)
meeting additional responsibilities due to changes to the Virginia Stormwater M anagement Program (VSMP) (Program 1),
and (2) complying with new requirements under the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit ,
including achieving pollutant load reductions as part of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan (Program 2). The Board
approved the engagement plan and, with respect to Program 2, directed staff to bring back a discussion regarding
formation of an Advisory Committee and a potential scope of work for a consultant, both to assist complying with new
requirements under the County’s MS4 permit.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies.
DISCUSSION:
As mentioned above, the County will engage the community regarding the new water protection mandates. The Board
approved a process dividing this community engagement into two programs. Program 1 will address the current
ordinance considerations focused on active land use development and Program 2 will address the requirements of the
MS4 program and long-term funding solutions. Both programs are described below.
Program 1: VSMP
This program has been focused on targeted outreach to the development community and other interested
stakeholders, including holding a roundtable with stakeholder representatives regarding changes to the VSMP on
March 6th. To date, staff has not heard concerns about the proposed revised Water Protection Ordinance and has
received only a request for clarification on the grandfathering provisions required by recent amendments to the State’s
stormwater regulations, which will be incorporated into the ordinance. Staff believes the ordinance can be ready for
public hearing in May and plans to assure that interested parties have access to the proposed ordinance at the time it
is first advertised, if not sooner.
Program 2: MS4
As described in the Board-approved Community Engagement Plan, this program is the more expansive effort.
Whereas Program 1 was largely focused on educating the public on the mandated stormwater requirements, Program
2 is intended to provide a recommendation on permanent funding solutions for the County’s MS4 program. In order to
meet the desired public participation level and goals identified in the community engagement plan, staff recommended
the following:
Appointment of a short-term stakeholder Advisory Committee
Because the complicated nature of the new requirements of the MS4 program creates the need for sustained
community engagement throughout an ongoing education and recommendation development process, staff
recommends that the Board establish a short-term stakeholders Advisory Committee, which would not be a
permanent, ongoing group. Instead, the Advisory Committee would fulfill its responsibility and be disbanded
AGENDA TITLE: Water Resources Community Engagement Process
April 2, 2014
Page 2
following the development of a recommendation for funding the County’s MS4 program to the Board and
would help ensure broad-based and informed input into the decision making process. In combination with the
Advisory Committee, the plan recommends education and outreach opportunities to the general public, as
well as more targeted stakeholder groups. The Advisory Committee approach proved very successful as an
efficient way to obtain critical community feedback at important milestones during the new Crozet Library
design process and has been employed by nearby jurisdictions, such as Charlottesville and Harrisonburg, to
reach decisions on funding issues for similar programs. A full description of a proposed charge,
membership and organization is included in Attachment A.
Consideration of consultant assistance
The dedication of necessary time and the level of knowledge and expertise required to inform and guide
discussions of the Advisory Committee on the complex technical and funding issues related to the MS4
program is beyond County staff’s current capacity. Staff recommends engaging a technical consultant, as
some of our peer localities have done. A full description of a proposed scope of work is included in
Attachment B.
Timeline for completion of a recommendation
The program calls for this work to be completed in time to be used in developing the FY17 - 21 Five Year
Plan. A complete timeline focused on this date of completion has been incorporated into the committee
charge provided in Attachment A. This may or may not include implementation of the recommended funding
strategy in the FY17 budget, depending on the complexity of implementation.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff has estimated that a consultant’s assistance would cost between $40,000 and $60,000 for approximately
nine months of work. Funds for this service are available in a General Services fund already appropriated for
MS4-related consulting services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to proceed with the proposed engagement process, including
procuring a consultant, and for the Board to initiate its process to appoint members to the Advisory Committee, all in
accordance with the timeline outlined above.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Advisory Committee Charge, Membership and Organization
B – Consultant Scope of Work
Return to agenda
County of Albemarle
Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee
Charge Statement, Membership and Organization
April 2014
Advisory Committee Charge
The Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee is an advisory committee to help the
County develop a permanent funding source to comply with new requirements under the
County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, including achieving pollutant
load reductions as part of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan. The Committee will be charged
with a) providing direction and advice on a public/stakeholder engagement process
including direct interaction ; b) considering and balancing the concerns/issues of the
affected stakeholders and building public consensus for committee r ecommendations; c)
reviewing alternative funding mechanisms; and d) making a recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors on a final preferred funding option.
The preferred funding program should be based on the Board’s direction to date regarding
maintaining compliance with increased MS4 permit requirements.
The Advisory Committee shall work directly with the County’s project team including
consultants and staff. Its work shall be coordinated with the County’s overall efforts to
improve water resource protection and maintain compliance with state and federal water
quality mandates.
The Advisory Committee will conclude its work when a final recommendation is made to
the Board of Supervisors no later than October 30, 2015. The Committee shall provide
periodic updates to the Board on the progress of their work as appropriate. The following
are anticipated milestones for this work:
April 2014 – Staff develops RFP for technical consultant
May 2014 – RFP submittals due to County for consideration
June 2014 – Board invitation for committee members
June 2014 – Interview and select consultant
July 2014 - Consultant contract completed
August 2014 – Board appointments made
August 2014 – Consultant begins working with staff to prepare background
information for committee
September – December 2014 – Committee develops understanding of issues and
possible recommendations
January 2015-May 2015 – Committee develops recommendations
June – August 2015 – Committee report completed
September 2015 – Committee report delivered to Board
October 2015 – Board selects funding solution to be applied to FY 17-21 Five Year
Plan
Membership Selection Process
The Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee shall consist of approximately fifteen
(15) voting members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Appointments will be based
on staff recommendations , nominations from community and business groups and
individual applications .
Membership Selection Criteria
The Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee will be composed, at a minimum, of the
following representatives:
One member of the Board of Supervisors to serve as a liaison
One member of the Planning Commission to serve as a liaison
One representative from a Community Advisory Council
One representative from a homeowners association
One large property owner
One representative from the Farm Bureau
One representative from the Soil and Water Conservation District
One representative from the faith community
One representative from the Town of Scottsville
One representative from an environmental protection organization
Two representatives from the general public
Assistant County Executive
County Attorney’s Office
County Water Resource Manager
The Board of Supervisors will appoint members based on their qualifications and interest
in serving on the Committee. An individual may be appointed to represent more than one
of the above referenced groups. The Board will strive to appoint an overall membership
that is diverse in age, abilities, experiences, professions, interests, etc.
Member qualifications include:
Experience working within a consensus -driven decision-making process, and a
commitment to such a process in fulfilling the Committee's responsibilities as
outlined in the charge statement;
Willingness to work within established County procedures and processes;
Ability to be open -minded; to listen and be respectful of the values, views and
opinions of other representatives;
Ability to share information with, and receive in formation from the community
at large;
Ability to meet once a month and possibly more often over the next year; and
Being a resident of Albemarle County (while every effort should be made to
include County residents, this may not be appropriate in all cases)
Advisory Committee Organization
The Board of Supervisors shall designate the Committee Chair. The consultant team and
other County staff shall se rve as technical representatives and shall be responsible for
assembling and compiling all information and reports necessary for the Committee's work to
progress, including meeting notes.
Meetings will be held approximately once a month. The date and tim e of Committee
meetings shall be established at the first meeting; additional meetings may be called by the
Chair. All meetings will be open work sessions, where the general public is invited to attend
to listen and observe, unless public participation is deemed appropriate by the Chair. Active
participation will be extended to the general public at open houses, workshops and public
hearings. In addition to the Advisory Committee, the project will include a public
engagement program for the public at large to include active participation at open houses,
workshops, and other appropriate venues.
No quorum shall be necessary to conduct business, but no vote will be taken unless a quorum is
present. A majority of the voting members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum.
Decisions shall be made, if possible, by an indication of general consensus among the
Committee members present. Staff (other than appointed members) will not participate as
decision makers. When this method does not serve to establish a clear direction, the chair shall
call for a roll-call vote. When an agreement cannot be achieved on an issue, business shall
proceed and County staff shall document and present minority positions for future Board of
Supervisor consideration.
Facilitation will be provided in those instances when it is considered beneficial in helping the
Committee achieve its stated purposes.
Purpose Statement, Requested Services and Evaluation Criteria for Consulting Services related to the
determination of a Water Resources Funding Mechanism
The purpose of this solicitation is as follows:
Albemarle County is currently planning for the expansion of its water resource programs to address new
MS4 Program requirements, including TMDL-related pollutant reductions. The County is considering
establishing a permanent, dedicated funding mechanism to adequately support these programs. A
broad community engagement process – facilitated by a stakeholder Advisory Committee – is an
important initial step in helping the Board of Supervisors determine the most appropriate funding
strategy for the County. This process must be properly informed by relevant, accurate, complete and
up-to-date information and analyses. Therefore, Albemarle County is seeking proposals from firms
having relevant, meaningful experience in Virginia assisting local governments through the process of
analyzing, selecting, and implementing an appropriate funding mechanism.
Requested services may include the following:
Understand the County’s goals related to water resources, existing County programs and
programs necessary to meet new State and Federal mandates, and applicable sections of the
County Code, including the Water Protection Ordinance
Review and analyze the County’s existing information technologies (GIS) and financial systems
Estimate the costs of various levels of program implementation
Advise on various funding options
Evaluate various rate structures and revenue estimates
Advise on incentives and credit policies (if applicable)
Assist in the development of public education and presentation materials
Participate in meetings with a stakeholder committee and elected officials and assist in
facilitating group understanding and consensus
Prepare reports summarizing information and decisions
Submissions should include the following:
descriptions of past firm projects relevant to the requested services
summary of the firm’s general approach to projects of this nature, including major tasks and
deliverables
resumes of the proposed project manager and team
list of all similar projects, including specific clients served within the last five years
Proposals will be evaluated based primarily on the following:
Overall qualifications of the firm to meet the stated purpose of the engagement and the general
scope of work as requested.
Specific experience of the firm, project manager and key project team members with projects
similar to what is contemplated by County
The firm’s performance capacity, size and demonstrated ability to be responsive
Information obtained from references and other past or present clients.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Determine approach to evaluate near-term and long-
term solid waste services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Shadman
PRESENTER (S): Doug Walker, Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Over the last two years, the County has considered alternatives to continuing the contract for solid waste services with the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), including the construction and operation of up to three convenience centers in
the County. During this period, the County has maintained service agreements with the RSWA for the operation of the
Ivy Material Utilization Center (MUC) and the McIntire Road Recycling Center (McIntire). At its January 8, 2014 meeting,
after a public hearing on the matter, the Board suspended further consideration of any convenience center location until
such time as the County completes an evaluation of long-term strategies for solid waste management services and
develops a public process for vetting specific approaches with citizens. It then requested that the RSWA approve an
amendment to the Ivy MUC and McIntire agreements to provide for a one year extension of the agreements to June 30,
2015. This action was taken to allow the County additional time to consider its long-term options for solid waste services.
On January 28, 2014, the RSWA Board agreed to the County’s request to extend the agreements through FY 15. The
Board formally approved the extension of the agreements on March 5, 2014.
The RSWA operates the Ivy MUC as a transfer station pursuant to a regulatory permit issued by the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and is therefore obligated to meet all regulatory requirements of the permit as determined
by DEQ. On February 26, 2014, County staff met with representatives from the RSWA and DEQ to discuss the
continued operation of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station. In that meeting, DEQ clarified that, while it would allow RSWA
to continue to operate the Ivy MUC as a transfer station as requested by the County for another year, RSWA must act by
April 1, 2015 to either 1) issue a final notice of intent to close the Ivy MUC as a transfer station no later than July 1, 2015;
or 2) provide a formal written plan, including a firm schedule, in which the RSWA commits to achieving full compliance
with current standards for a transfer station either at the Ivy MUC or at another specific location.
See previous Executive Summaries (Attachments A, B and C) for additional background information.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs .
DISCUSSION:
The County is challenged to address both long-term solid waste management issues and interests and the much
more urgent regulatory deadline to continue current solid waste services provided by the RSWA at the Ivy MUC
transfer station.
Near-Term Needs
In discussing the continued use of the Ivy MUC to provide on-going solid waste service needs in the County, it is
important to highlight the distinction between a transfer station and convenience center. A transfer station, such as
that currently operated by RSWA at the Ivy MUC, requires an operating permit issued by DEQ. This permit enables
RSWA to accept a higher volume and broader array of waste materials, including large loads and waste delivered by
commercial haulers.
In contrast, a convenience center does not require a DEQ permit but does not allow the collection of certain waste
materials, including waste delivered by commercial haulers. During the course of the last year, much of the
conversation regarding solid waste services and delivery systems focused on convenience centers for the collection
of recyclable materials and household waste as an alternative to the continued operation of the Ivy MUC as a transfer
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Options
April 2, 2014
Page 2
station. Convenience center services previously approved and/or desired by the Board are identified in the November
13, 2013 Executive Summary (Attachment B).
Staff believes that more clarity from DEQ is needed regarding what is and is not allowed at a convenience center.
Confirmation of the specific types and levels of service desired by the Board would enable staff to work with the
RSWA, DEQ and others to develop viable alternative proposals for the construction and operation of a transfer station
or a convenience center. For example, in addition to the materials highlighted above, the Board may want to allow
refrigerators and other items, which would require special handling, the disposal of clean fill and large loads of
vegetative waste, which would require machinery and labor, the use of dump trailers and/or other mechanized means
of material transfer from vehicles, and/or the collection of “commercial waste” to the extent that such waste would not
change the designation of the facility to a transfer station.
Currently, the Ivy MUC is owned by the RSWA and the RSW A is the holder of the DEQ permit. If continued operation
of the Ivy MUC is desired, the Board could continue to contract with RSWA or consider an alternative arrangement in
which the County operates the site as a convenience center through General Services or a suitable contract with a
private firm. It should be noted that if the County desires to continue the use of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station, the
County would be required to obtain a permit from DEQ. County operation of the site as either a convenience center
or transfer station would require leasing the property from RSWA and addressing significant liability issues.
Recycling
Staff believes that there may be some ways to move quickly to improve recycling opportunities in the County. In put
from Board members and others has highlighted the interest for improved recycling as an important goal. While
specific alternatives have not been vetted, staff does think that some measure of improvement can be identified and
implemented in the near term, even while long-term options and alternatives are being considered.
Long-Term Issues and Interests
Staff notes that the longer-term evaluation of solid waste service issues, options, opportunities and challenges will
require significant public engagement and active citizen and stakeholder participation. While there is some concern
with staff’s capacity to focus simultaneously on both the immediate need to resolve compliance and service delivery
issues at the Ivy MUC and to launch a comprehensive long-term evaluation of solid waste services generally, it is
reasonable to consider designing a public engagement process around a re-evaluation of the January, 2008 draft
Solid Waste Strategic Plan, which was prepared for the RSWA by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB)
(Attachment D).
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY15 proposed budget includes $60,000 for the County’s share of the operation of the McIntire Recycling Facility
and $390,000 for the net cost to continue operation of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station through June 30, 2015.
Future capital and operating budget impacts will be determined based on a decision by the Board to operate the Ivy
MUC facility either as a transfer station or as a convenience center, with consideration of specific services to be
provided. It is anticipated that costs will be off -set in part by revenue from fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In order to meet DEQ’s deadline of April 1, 2015 for the RSWA to either issue a notice to close the Ivy MUC as a
transfer station or to provide a written DEQ compliance plan, staff believes that the Board must decide whether to
continue use of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station or a convenience center. Staff recommends that the Board direct
staff to prepare and provide at a future meeting additional information to assist the Board in determining which
approach is the most desirable considering costs for construction and operation, as well as services to be provided.
If the Board finds that improved recycling services is a priority, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to bring
back to the Board for further consideration viable alternatives for providing increased recycling opportunities for
County residents in the near term.
Finally, staff proposes to use input from the Board’s April 2nd discussion of this matter to develop a Public
Engagement Plan for long-term solid waste solutions, including a process using community involvement to identify
and evaluate specific solid waste issues and alternatives. Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to develop the
Plan with a focus on a comprehensive evaluation of the January, 2008 draft report prepared for the RSWA by GBB.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Options
April 2, 2014
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
A - January 8, 2014 Executive Summary
B - November 13, 2013 Executive Summary
C - October 9, 2013 Executive Summary
D – GBB’s January, 2008 Draft Solid Waste Strategic Plan
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service – Southern
Albemarle Convenience Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Receive public comments regarding locating a
convenience center either on Mill Creek Drive, near the
Monticello Fire Station, or on Esmont Road, near the
Keene Post Office
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Henry, Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE: January 8, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 10, 2013, the Board considered a specific proposal received in response to a RFP for solid waste services
along with alternatives for providing solid waste services in the County (See Attachment A). At that meeting, the Board
determined its interest in opening three convenience centers as well as maintaining financial support for the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority’s operation of the McIntire Recycling Center. The Board also indicated its interest in
discontinuing financial support of the Ivy Materials Utilization Center once at least one of the convenience centers is
operating. Also at that meeting, staff presented the option of a convenience center located on Mill Creek Drive
adjacent to the Monticello Fire Station and the Board expressed interest in seeing an option for a site better situated to
serve the southern Albemarle Rural Area. Staff was directed to proceed towards opening at least one convenience
center by July 1, 2014, and to arrange an opportunity for public input regarding the location of and services to be
provided at the convenience centers.
On October 9, 2013, the Board considered a proposal for a convenience center on Esmont Road near the Keene Post
Office (Attachment B). Staff indicated that if the Board decided on a location at that time, it would be possible to make
the facility operational by July 1, 2014. With this information, the Board directed staff to proceed with the design of a
convenience center on the Esmont Road site and to evaluate the other two convenience center locations using the
presented site selection criteria.
On November 13, 2013, the Board again reviewed solid waste services, including additional site options that were
considered by staff and found by staff to be either unacceptable or marginally acceptable. After consideration, the
Board agreed to:
1. Continue financial support of the RSWA McIntire Recycling Center, subject to the City of
Charlottesville agreeing to continue its support;
2. Approved staff’s list of proposed services to be provided at convenience centers, subject to final
contract negotiations; and
3. Agreed to provide an opportunity to receive public comments regarding preferences for the southern
Albemarle convenience center location at either Mill Creek Drive or Esmont Road.
This meeting is to provide an overview of both sites and an opportunity for the Board to receive public comment in
advance of a final site selection.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
Public Information
In advance of this meeting, staff has taken the following actions to assure the public is aware of this opportunity for
public comment and has an opportunity to review information regarding convenience centers in general and both sites
in particular:
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service – Southern Albemarle Convenience Center
January 8, 2014
Page 2
Provided an internet site where citizens may review site layout for both facilities, pictures of typical facilities,
information on typical convenience center operations and specifics on the facility the County is proposing. A
link to this web site is provided as Attachment D.
Mailed a notice of the meeting and information to all adjacent property owners. This included an explanation
of the convenience centers, an FAQ informational sheet, information on how to access the web site, and a
point of contact in the County if they have questions or are interested in other information.
Provided information for community meetings led by Board members, including display boards showing the
convenience center site plans; and attended those meetings to take notes and answer questions.
Contacted the media to assure the public is made aware of the opportunity for public comment at this meeting
and has the opportunity to understand the decision before the Board.
Finally, staff have been available to answer questions from the public as they have been received.
At this point, staff believes the affected public is well informed and prepared to offer comment.
Board Consideration
Staff believes that this meeting will provide the Board the opportunity to review both locations a final time and to
receive public comment before providing direction to staff. From a technical perspective, staff has found both sites to
be acceptable for the proposed services and believes the costs of developing the facility will be similar at both
locations. Thus, the question is which location best serves the customers and has an acceptable level of impact. The
following is provided to assist the Board in evaluating this:
Issues Keene Mill Creek
Convenience to Customers Located near the geographic center of
Southern Albemarle and near Route 20.
Few potential customers live close to the
facility.
Easy access for southern Albemarle
customers travelling to Charlottesville or
other County customers using I-64.
Traffic / Safety Entrance location is acceptable. Nearby
intersection of Esmont Road and Route
20 does not meet modern intersection
standards but the Post Office has shown
that traffic can safely use this location
Entrance location is acceptable, nearby
intersections at Route 20 and Avon are
signalized and judged acceptable.
Possible conflicts with Monticello High
School are judged minimal
Visibility / Aesthetics Densely wooded site provides large
wooded buffers. Two houses within 600
feet of facility will be well screened by
woods. Plan for fence and landscaping to
supplement wooded buffer.
Open site will require extensive
screening, but elevation differences will
eliminate need for full screening from
some adjacent properties. Tandem
School has buildings approximately 600
feet from this location, but no residences
within 1,000 feet.
Noise / Lights Facility will operate during daylight hours,
with possible exception of times between
7 AM and 6 PM in winter months.
Lighting will be limited to security lighting
with full cutoffs to assure no glare on
adjoining properties, but there are no
other existing lights in area.
Facility will operate during daylight hours,
with possible exception of times between
7 AM and 6 PM in winter months.
Lighting will be limited to security lighting
with full cutoffs to assure no glare on
adjoining properties. Adjoining fire
station already well lit.
Comprehensive Plan Goals Community facilities are encouraged to be
located in the Development Areas. This
site is in the Rural Area.
Community facilities are encouraged to
be located in the Development Areas.
This site is in the Development Area.
Timing Considerations
Staff notes that, while it appears possible to have the facility operational by July 2014 with a decision on January 8th,
there is no margin for additional delays if the July 2014 date for commencing operations is to be maintained. If further
delays occur, the following should be anticipated:
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Service – Southern Albemarle Convenience Center
January 8, 2014
Page 3
The County’s current agreement for services at the IVY MUC expires on June 30, 2014. To avoid a period of
time when the County has no solid waste services in place, a contract extension with RSWA would be needed
for the period of time from July 1, 2014 until the convenience center is operational. Staff has raised this
possibility with RSWA staff but the availability of service is not guaranteed, nor has the RSWA Board agreed
to support this extension. RSWA staff was supportive of this extension, provided issues and funding can be
addressed.
RSWA is required to give the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) a minimum of six months
notice when it is closing the transfer station. As RSWA has no agreement for the County to continue funding of
services into FY 15, it will need to notify DEQ of a proposed closing of the Ivy MUC on July 1, 2014. DEQ
could grant an extension on this notification should RSWA and the County later negotiate an extension to keep
the Ivy MUC operational, but this is a complicating factor to an agreement extension.
Based on the FY14 operations agreement, the County provides roughly $1,000 / day to RSWA for operational
support of the Ivy MUC. If it becomes necessary to seek a continuation of services into FY15, it will be
necessary for the Board to identify and approve funding for this previously unanticipated expense.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff previously estimated construction costs for three convenience centers at $1 Million. Detailed cost estimates are
not yet available. It is possible costs could be higher, and staff will have a more accurate estimate once a detailed
design is available. The initial review suggests that the cost would be similar for both sites.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After reviewing staff’s presentation and receiving public comment, staff requests that the Board decide on a site and
direct staff to proceed to design and construction.
If the Board is not prepared to decide on a location, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to initiate negotiations
with RSWA for the continuation of services at the Ivy MUC into FY15. The length of the extension should assure that
there is no period of time when solid waste services are not available to County residents.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – July 10, 2013 Solid Waste Executive Summary, with proposal attached
Attachment B – October 9, 2013 Solid Waste Executive Summary
Attachment C – November 13, 2103 Solid Waste Executive Summary
Attachment D – County Web Site for Convenience Centers
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Services – McIntire Recycling and Southern
Albemarle Convenience Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Determine whether to request an extension of the current
Rivanna Solid W aste Authority agreement for recycling
services at McIntire through FY 15 and consider alternative
locations for Southern Albemarle Convenience Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Shadman
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 13, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the October 9, 2013 Board meeting, questions were raised as to whether the Board was interested in extending the
County’s agreement with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to provide recycling services at its McIntire Road
facility through fiscal year 2015. The current agreement will expire effective June 30, 2014. Staff indicated information
would be brought to this meeting so the Board could make an informed decision.
In addition, at the same October 9th Board meeting, the Board concurred with staff’s recommendation that a Southern
Albemarle Convenience Center be located at the County-owned Property in Keene. The related Executive Summary for
that issue is provided as Attachment A. Since October 9th, several Board members have indicated that there is some
community interest in the Board considering other possible locations. Staff will review alternative locations with the Board
at this meeting and will confirm the services to be provided at the convenience centers.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
McIntire Recycling
The RSWA currently provides recycling services to the City and County at its McIntire facility. Because recycling
revenues are less than the expense, the RSWA requires an agreement by which the City and County subsidize this
operation at an anticipated cost of $85,821 for FY 14, of which the County’s share is $60,075. The RSWA’s 2011
and 2012 data indicates this facility is processing approximately 2,100 tons of material per year. Assuming the
tonnage remains the same in 2013 as in 2011 and 2012, this subsidy equates to $40.87 per ton for RSWA to break
even on this operation in FY14. Staff also notes the annual tonnage is about 44% of what it was five years ago.
The RSWA has not yet developed a budget estimate of what City and County financial support will be required to
keep the McIntire facility operational in FY15, but initial conversations suggest this cost should be close to the FY14
amount. Recognizing the closing of the Ivy Materials Utilization Center will likely result in some lost economies of
scale, staff recommends a budget estimate of $60,000 for FY15. Additional uncertainty arises from whether there will
be an appreciable drop in use of the McIntire facility as a result of new County convenience centers that provide the
same services in the County. While a drop in tonnage at the McIntire facility would create some reduction in
expenses, it would produce a much larger reduction in revenues associated with product sales. Effectively, the cost
to the County would increase because the processing cost per ton of recycled materials would increase. Staff
believes the following factors support extending the McIntire agreement through FY15:
Only one of three planned convenience centers is programmed to be open at the start of FY 15 and no dates
are yet established for the other two facilities. This will limit recycling opportunites for some residents.
The McIntire facility has been popular with some County residents and has strong support. Without an
acceptable alternative, some residents will believe that the County’s commitment to recycling has weakened.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Services – McIntire Recycling and Southern Albemarle Convenience Center
November 13, 2013
Page 2
Staff finds the the following factors support ending the agreement on June 30, 2014:
McIntire provides a very small part of the community’s recycling. Most residents can and do use combined
trash and recycling services.
McIntire is a relatively expensive operation. As noted above, the needed subsidy for FY 14 is over $40/ton
and could increase in FY 15.
Convenience Center Services
While discussed with the Board and covered in the Request for Proposals earlier this year, staff needs to confirm the
desired services at the convenience centers. The following list reflects staff’s understanding:
Household garbage, commonly called MSW ;
Recycling, including paper, cardboard, plastic containers, metal, and glass containers. Staff is working with
the understanding these services should not have a fee and should be separate from MSW ;
Bulk waste, including items such as furniture, small loads of brush, and debris from small household
improvement projects;
White goods, including stoves, refrigerators, water heaters and dehumidifiers
Tires and wheels; and
Electronic goods.
In addition, staff will work with the contractor to attempt to provide the following services:
Paint;
Motor oil and antifreeze; and
Batteries and fluorescent bulbs.
The following services would not be provided:
Houshold hazardous waste collection;
Commercial solid waste;
Land clearning / stumps and debris; and
Clean fill disposal
Southern Albemarle Convenience Center Location
In evaluating possible convenience center locations in Southern Albemarle, staff considered Keene to provide the
best balance when applying the selection criteria reviewed by the Board in October. Staff also noted that it is critical to
start design now if the facilty is to be operational by July 2014. Since then, several Board members have identified an
interest by the Town of Scottsville to provide a convenience center at the Scottsville Community Center. If the facility
is to be opened by July 2014, any change to the location must be made now. Staff noted the following when applying
the selection criteria to this Scottsville location.
Adequate size – For planning purposes, staff has assumed a minimum exclusive area of 150 feet by 300
feet, which is slightly more than one acre. The actual facility will likely be somewhat smaller, but this is
needed to assure size issues are avoided during design. This area is not available at the Scottsville
location without either eliminating ball fields or the community center parking lot. Resolution of those
issues was judged to prevent the convenience center being operational by July 2014.
Neighbors – It was noted that several of the possible locations would be within 100 feet of the apartments
adjacent to the Scottsville Community Center. To staff’s knowledge, these residents have not been asked
about support for this convenience center location.
Central location to service area – This site is at one end of the service area. While Scottsville has a higher
population density, a primary concern with the convenience center location was convenience to those more
remote residents who have difficutly finding a commercial hauler that provides service to their area. The
Scottsville location may force those rural residents to drive further out of their way to use this facility.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As noted above, if the decision is to continue support for the McIntire facility, staff recommends a minimum of
$60,000 be budgeted in FY15. Remaining budget considerations for the convenience centers have previously
been addressed.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Services – McIntire Recycling and Southern Albemarle Convenience Center
November 13, 2013
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends:
1. The Board determine if support for the McIntire Recycling facility should continue through FY 15. If the
support is continued, staff will include $60,000 in the proposed FY15 budget for this service and will advise
RSWA of the County’s desire to request an extension of the current agreement through FY15.
2. The Board determine if any changes are needed to the proposed services to be provided at the convenience
centers.
3. The Board confirm that the Keene property remains the best location to provide a convenience center for
Southern Albemarle, and that the planning should continue for this facility to be operational by July 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – October 9, 2013 Executive Summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Solid Waste Convenience Centers
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board direction regarding solid waste and
recycling services and locations of convenience centers
after receiving public input.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Shadman
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 9, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 10, 2013, the Board considered a proposal the County received for providing solid waste and recycling services
(Attachment A). The Board determined that there was interest in opening three convenience centers and in continuing
financial support of the McIntire Recycling Center, and that there was no interest in continuing financial support of the Ivy
Materials Utilization Center after at least one of the convenience centers was operating. Staff was directed to proceed with
opening at least one convenience center by July 1, 2014 and to arrange an opportunity for the public to provide input to the
Board regarding the location and services to be provided at the convenience centers.
This work session is intended to address the following:
1. Provide an opportunity for the public to provide input on services to be provided at the proposed convenience
centers.
2. Establish a site selection process for locating the convenience centers, including criteria for site selection.
3. Determine if there is a site for a convenience center that the Board is prepared to authorize staff to proceed with
design and to initiate the process for construction with the goal of the site becoming operational by July 1, 2014.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
Public Input
Staff has identified three areas where it believes input would be useful regarding the design and operation of the
convenience centers. Each of those is further discussed below.
Services Provided – The proposal in Attachment A includes the following services:
Bagged Municipal Solid Waste – to include self contained compactor
Cardboard – to include self contained compactor
Recycling – Containers provided for paper, metals, glass, and plastic
Other – White goods, pallets, computer / electronics not required to be treated as hazardous waste would be
accepted
Subsequent discussions with the proposer and the Board have focused on expanding this to include the following services:
Bulky Waste / Other MSW - Container proposed for disposal of old furniture, home materials, etc.
Vegetative Waste – Small load would be allowed with the MSW or Bulky Waste. Large truck loads would be
directed to the contractors facility at Zion Crossroads
At the July 10 Board meeting, the proposer offered that it may be possible to expand the recycling options and to allow
other materials collected to include items such as paints, batteries, and fluorescent bulbs. Staff plans to explore these
options with the proposer, based on Board interest expressed for those services.
Hours of Operation –Staff required in the proposal that the contractor commit to keeping the convenience centers open
to the public a sufficient number of days and hours to satisfy public needs. However, the proposal is flexible regarding the
days and hours of operation. Public input is necessary to determine the days and hours of operation considered
necessary for convenient service.
AGENDA TITLE: Solid Waste Convenience Centers
October 9, 2013
Page 2
Location of Convenience Centers - The Board has indicated an interest in locating the facilities to maximize
convenience to the largest geographic areas rather than locating the facilities at the fringe of the Development Areas.
Staff has attempted to illustrate this with the map provided as Attachment B. There are four circles shown to illustrate
approximate service areas, with the easternmost circle representing the existing private f acility operated at Zion
Crossroads, which is already available to the public.
Site Selection Process – For the purpose of evaluating possible convenience center sites, staff recommends the
following criteria:
Convenience / Location – Includes consideration of the proximity to the center of the circles shown in Attachment
B and distance from a primary highway that provides easy access.
Size / Shape – Determine the parcel has adequate room for a convenience center.
County Owned – A parcel that is already owned by the County eliminates the time and expense to purchase the
property.
Entrance Corridors – While convenience to a primary highway is important, the County’s expressed interest in the
Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines provides a challenge for this type of use.
Number of residences within 1,000 feet of facility – Staff has noted that there have been issues in other
communities for nearby residents related to noise, smell, vermin, and property values.
Utilities – Primarily related to availability of electricity, noting there can be a significant cost in bringing electricity to
a site.
Topography – The closer the property is to a “pad ready” site, the lower the development costs will be and the less
time it will take to prepare the site.
Improvements needed – This includes consideration of entrance improvements required by VDOT, screening and
fencing required, as well as other possible considerations (e.g. utility relocation).
First Facility - Due to the lead time required for the design and construction of a facility and the Board’s direction to have
at least one facility operational by July 2014, a decision is needed as soon as possible for at least one convenience center
location. Staff has considered the above selection criteria and previous Board input, and has determined that the County-
owned property on Esmont Road in Keene appears to satisfy the site selection criteria (Attachment C). This is a seven-
acre site previously planned for a transfer station at the time the Keene Landfill was closed, but never used for that
purpose. This site is near the center of the circle for the southern part of the County (Attachment B), has no residences
within 500 feet of the proposed site and only two within 1,000 feet of the site, and is located close to a primary highway but
not directly on an Entrance Corridor.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff estimates that startup costs for a convenience center may be as high as $300,000, noting this estimate may vary
dependent on specific site conditions. The CIP currently contains funds appropriated for the Ivy Landfill Remediation in
excess of those needed in FY14. The option of shifting those funds for the construction of convenience centers was
discussed with the Board in July, and staff is recommending this as a funding source.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the following:
After receiving public input, provide direction to staff regarding the services, site selection and design of
convenience centers.
Direct staff to proceed with site selection analysis using the map provided as Attachment B and the selection
criteria provided in this report and to work directly with the Supervisor in whose district a site is being considered.
Each site will require Board approval before proceeding to design and construction.
Direct staff to proceed with the design of a convenience center at the Keene property, noting that the initial design
cost should not exceed $50,000 and that staff will provide a cost estimate for construction to the Board prior to
advertising for bids.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – July 10, 2013 Solid Waste Executive Summary, with proposal attached
Attachment B - County Map, Typical Service Areas
Attachment C – Keene Property
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review of the Planning Commission’s
recommended draft Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
Echols
PRESENTER (S): Elaine Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 12, 2014, the Board received initial input from the public on the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment (“CPA”)
recommended by the Planning Commission in July and August of 2013. Thirty-seven (37) speakers provided comments
on the following topics:
Format and length of document
Amount of detail related to Virginia Code requirements
Amount of detail related to existing Comprehensive Plan, especially in Natural Resources and Rural Area
Chapters
The vision statement
Sustainability
Surface and groundwater
Recommendations related to expanding the natural resources extraction overlay district
Prioritization of economic development activities
Recommendations for Rural Area residential development
Recommendations for Rural Area lower level of service
Rural Area lodging and restaurants
Community services for crossroads communities
Density at the high-end of the range in the Development Areas, especially in the Village of Rivanna
Southern and Western Neighborhoods master plans
Expansion areas in Places 29 and Southern Neighborhoods (Somerset Farm)
Solid waste recommendations
After the March 12th public hearing, the Board agreed to finalize its process for review of these and other topics of Board
interest at its April 2, 2014 meeting. The Board indicated an intention to begin the review with the Plan’s vision statement.
A suggestion was also made that review of the goals/objectives/strategies (found in the Plan Summary) should take place
before proceeding to a sequential review of each chapter in the Plan. The Board directed staff to provide one or more
approaches for the Board to consider in undertaking a systematic review of the draft Plan.
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:
On April 2nd, staff will ask the Board for a decision on the approach the Board would like to follow for reviewing the
Comprehensive Plan. After that, staff will solicit the identification of additional topics to cover in the review of the
Plan. Finally, staff will lead a discussion with the Board on the vision and will seek feedback regarding whether or
how the Board desires to revise the vision to better reflect specific aspects that are important to the Board.
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
April 2, 2014
Page 2
Based on comments and intentions expressed by the Board following the March 12 public hearing, staff offers two
slightly different approaches for the Board’s review of the draft Plan:
1. Review of vision statement, followed by review of goals/objectives/strategies (as found in the Plan
Summary), followed by sequential review of each chapter, including policy issues relevant to each
chapter as raised by the Board and the public, and updated information provided by staff.
Staff believes that this approach would first provide a “big picture” discussion, with details discussed later in a
chapter-by-chapter review. During the review of chapters, the Board could then base its decisions on the
goals/objective/strategies relevant to each particular chapter, but could also revisit them as necessary.
2. Review of vision statement, followed by sequential review of each chapter, including relevant
goals/objectives/strategies, policy issues raised by the Board and the public, and updated information
provided by staff.
This approach would begin with the vision statement, and then proceed with Chapter 1. The
goals/objectives/strategies would be reviewed on a chapter-by-chapter basis, rather than collectively, early in
the process. At the end of the process, staff would revise the Plan Summary to reflect the
goals/objectives/strategies decided on throughout the review.
Under either approach, after the Board has completed its review of a final draft, a second public hearing will be held
prior to the Board taking action to adopt the Plan.
Attachment A outlines both review approaches and organizes the known topics for review by chapter, including those
identified by staff and those raised by the public on March 12th. Staff identified topics that have arisen since the
Planning Commission made its recommendation, such as decisions regarding the indoor firing range, changes to the
flood hazard overlay district, and the County’s acceptance of the Arrowhead Farm land. Staff also included topics
provided by Board members over the last several months, such as biodiversity in the Development Areas and policing
standards. Finally, topics are included that may need further attention, such as inclusion of the wireless policy, which
was inadvertently left out of the draft provided to the Planning Commission.
The process identified in both approaches will require at least eight Board work sessions prior to completion of the
final draft for a second public hearing. Staff has included a proposed review schedule consisting of eight work
sessions for both options, but has not assigned specific dates for those meetings. The frequency of meetings will
dictate how quickly the review can be completed, a public hearing can be held, and the Plan can be adopted. It is
hoped that the process can be completed before the end of the 2014 calendar year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Recommendations in the draft Comprehensive Plan include recommendations for future capital improvements and
operations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff prefers the first approach and recommends that the Board proceed with this approach for review and discussion
of the Plan. Both approaches include a review and discussion of the vision statement (Chapter 2, page 2.3 in the
draft Plan) as part of the Board’s April 2 work session and staff will ask for direction from the Board on the vision
statement at that time.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Alternative Methodologies for Review of the Comprehensive Plan
B – Summary of March 12, 2014 Public Hearing Comments
Return to agenda
CPA 2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
Alternative Approaches for Review by Board of Supervisors
1. Review of vision statement, followed by review of goals/objectives/strategies (as found in the Plan
Summary), followed by sequential review of each chapter, including policy issues relevant to each
chapter as raised by the Board and the public, and updated information provided by staff.
April 2, 2014 Beginning of Review Process
a. Verification of topics
b. Confirm process for review
c. Review and decision on Chapter 2: Vision, based on page 2.3 of Plan Draft
Meeting 2 Summary and Chapter 13: Implementation
a. Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
b. Priorities
Meeting 3 Chapter 1: Introduction
a. 1998 Sustainability Accords
b. Area B
Chapter 3: Growth Management
Chapter 4: Natural Resources
a. Surface and groundwater recommendations
b. Strategy 3a: Consider expansion of mineral extraction overlay
c. Biodiversity protection in the DAs
d. Potential modification of floodplain recommendations, based on recent work on FHOD
regulations
Meeting 4 Chapter 5: Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Preservation
a. Monticello Viewshed
Chapter 6: Economic Development
a. Priorities in relation to other recommendations in Plan
Meeting 5 Chapter 7: Rural Area
a. Statements on residential development in RA
b. Recommendations for lodging and restaurants
c. Recommendations for crossroads community services
d. Recreational facilities
e. Implementation Table for projects in Rural Area (from PC meetings)
f. Area B Recommendations
Meeting 6 Chapter 8: Development Areas
a. Capacity Analysis
b. Expansion Area Requests, including Places 29 request from United Land Co.
c. Neighborhood Model, Priority Areas, Urban Agriculture
d. Recommendations for City-Co work on Rivanna River in Pantops
e. Village of Rivanna: density recommendations, water tank addition to Master Plan, and
Land Use Plan map addition
f. Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, including Somerset Farm and
implementation table (inadvertently not included)
Meeting 7 Chapter 9: Housing
a. Affordable Housing Policy
Chapter 10: Transportation
a. Multi-modal options and roads
Chapter 11: Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems
a. County land donations for preservation/conservation purposes
Meeting 8. Chapter 12: Community Facilities
a. Level of Service Policy
b. Police officers/1000 population
c. Solid waste recommendations
d. Indoor firing range
e. Wireless Policy
Chapter 13: Implementation
a. Reaffirm priorities
b. Performance Measurements
Any recommendations on format changes
Final Draft Completed by Staff
Meeting 9 Final Public Hearing and Adoption
* * * * *
2. Review of vision statement, followed by sequential review of each chapter, including relevant
goals/objectives/strategies, policy issues raised by the Board and the public, and updated information
provided by staff.
April 2, 2014 Beginning of Review Process
a. Verification of topics
b. Confirm process for review
c. Review and decision on Chapter 2: Vision, based on page 2.3 of Plan Draft
Meeting 2 Chapter 1: Introduction
a. 1998 Sustainability Accords
b. Area B
Chapter 3: Growth Management
Meeting 3: Chapter 4: Natural Resources
a. Surface and groundwater recommendations
b. Strategy 3a: Consider expansion of mineral extraction overlay
c. Biodiversity protection in the DAs
d. Potential modification of floodplain recommendations, based on recent work on FHOD
regulations
Chapter 5: Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Preservation
a. Monticello Viewshed
Meeting 5 Chapter 6: Economic Development
a. Priorities in relation to other recommendations in Plan
Chapter 7: Rural Area
a. Statements on residential development in RA
b. Recommendations for lodging and restaurants
c. Recommendations for crossroads community services
d. Recreational facilities
e. Implementation Table for projects in Rural Area (from PC meetings)
f. Area B Recommendations
Meeting 6 Chapter 8: Development Areas
a. Capacity Analysis
b. Expansion Area Requests, including Places 29 request from United Land Co.
c. Neighborhood Model, Priority Areas, Urban Agriculture
d. Recommendations for City-Co work on Rivanna River in Pantops
e. Village of Rivanna: density recommendations, water tank addition to Master Plan, and
Land Use Plan map addition
f. Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, including Somerset Farm and
implementation table (inadvertently not included)
Meeting 7 Chapter 9: Housing
a. Affordable Housing Policy
Chapter 10: Transportation
a. Multi-modal options and roads
Chapter 11: Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems
a. County land donations for preservation/conservation purposes
Meeting 8. Chapter 12: Community Facilities
a. Level of Service Policy
b. Police officers/1000 population
c. Solid waste recommendations
d. Indoor firing range
e. Wireless Policy
Chapter 13: Implementation
a. Reaffirm priorities
b. Performance Measurements
Any recommendations on format changes
Final Draft Completed by Staff
Meeting 9 Final Public Hearing and Adoption
Board of Supervisors Comprehensive Plan Update
Public Hearing March 12, 2014
Comments from Public
Speaker #Name Subject Comment
2 Linda O’Conner Southern Neighborhood
Master Plan
Wants a town center at Mill Creek between Avon Street Extended and Route 20.
Sees this as opportunity for development and to merge two existing/proposed
shopping centers into one. Said the there is an opportunity to develop land beside
the fire station on Mill Creek Drive which could include uses of community center
and educational facilities.
3 Pam Riley Southern Neighborhood
Master Plan
Said Southern Neighborhood is developing rapidly and by the time they have next
master plan update in 4-5 years there will be no more vacant land. Called for
more details in the plan now. Wants a town center in Mill Creek and more
guidelines for mixed-use developments. Wants more visioning and design work to
go into the development of the plan. Said she participated in the forums on the
Southern and Western Neighborhoods but would also like an opportunity for just
the Southern Neighborhood to come together to form a vision for the area.
5 Roger Schickedantz Southern Neighborhood
Master Plan
Opposed to increasing the LI footprint in the Southern Neighborhood. Said plan
attempts to represent LI as more palatable than it really would be by having it
lumped in with office uses. Said most community is not in favor of increasing
industrial activity. Said about 37% of frontage along Avon St between city line and
Route 20 is already degraded or industrial-type use. He was told the justification
for the increase in LI uses in Southern Neighborhood was to allow for medical
research but thought a better site for this would be the old Blue Ridge Hospital.
17 Doug Arrington Southern Neighborhood
Master Plan
Asked for clearer maps. Said color codes have changed from current land use plan
which makes it difficult to compare the two plans for changes. Said proposed
parkways will not happen due to circumstances. Wants more transportation
infrastructure. Wants town hall meeting for Southern Neighborhood to explain
the changes in the new plan.
6 Antoinette Brewster Rural Area
Concerned with expanded development and commercial uses in the Rural Area.
Said this is last vestige of green untouched beauty and warned Board to go slowly
and think about how this expansion would affect water supply, roadways, scenic
beauty.
1 of 8
Board of Supervisors Comprehensive Plan Update
Public Hearing March 12, 2014
Comments from Public
7 Benjamin Brewster Rural Area
Called for the Board to be careful in expansion of uses in the Rural Area. Said term
“by-right” is used too frequently. Said he likes the idea of performance standards
but they should be clear and enforceable. Expressed concerns about crossroads
developments and said they should be done with care to the impacts. Also
concerned about the increase in by-right lodging.
8 Paula Beasley Rural Area
Opposed to expansion of by-right uses in the Rural Area. Cited statistics about the
decreasing number of farms. Not in favor of removing language from 2004 plan
about decreasing fragmentation of land. Said that the County should not cater to
the perception that lodging is a Rural Area use. Said that draft strategies 1A-1F
work well and should be kept.
9 Hal West Rural Area
Concerned with language allowing broader uses in the Rural Area disguised as
agriculture. Large events and noise are not harmonious with the rural areas and
can hamper agricultural productivity. Plan needs clear language distinguishing
what is rural vs. what is urban. Suggested keeping urban uses, such as large, loud
events in development areas. Called Board to carefully review any standards
proposed for Rural Area uses.
10 Barbara West Rural Area
Said the new recommended uses in the Rural Area will make Albemarle no longer
special. Allowing one large event in Rural Area will set a precedent and then
everyone must be allowed large events in Rural Area. Urged the Board to keep
large events and large enterprises in development areas.
30 Morgan Butler, SELC Rural Area
Said this Comp Plan update is very important because may be years or decades
before it is done again. Said County should be a leader in environmental
protection and responsible growth management. Said the SELC's concerns were
outlined in a letter submitted to Board in February. Concerned with commercial
uses in Rural Area such as new commercial lodging. Urged BOS to tread carefully
and further study potential impacts of these uses before moving forward with the
change.
35 Jim Balheim Rural Area
Former Albemarle leader on conservation movement. Put a conservation
easement on his property 30 years ago. Commercialization of Rural Area flies in
the face of people committed to conservation. Past plans have worked well for
rural preservation for last 30 years.
2 of 8
Board of Supervisors Comprehensive Plan Update
Public Hearing March 12, 2014
Comments from Public
19 Jerome Beasley Rural Area
Do a thorough Review
Opposed to expanded uses in the Rural Area. BOS should retain
recommendations of 2004 Rural Areas Plan. Said Rural Area is County's greatest
resource. Asked where will infrastructure such as roads and water will come from
to support new uses. Asked how events will affect roads, water, noise and lights.
Said these uses will degrade rural character. Called for more thorough review.
32 Jeff Warner, PEC Rural Area
Do a thorough review
Concerned with policy shift in Rural Area. Said new RA draft is almost singularly
focused on commercial activities that have little to do with agriculture and
downplays the concerns of suburbanized countryside. Said the cost of the
expanded development should be studied against the backdrop of rural
development. Wanted to know the cumulative effect of new uses such as Castle
Hill Cidery, Keene firing range, campground at Howardsville. Asked BOS to be
methodical in revisions.
11 Carol Thorpe , Chair of
JATP
Reduce size of plan
Do a thorough review
Said State code calls for simple, advisory plan. Said 400+ page plan with 55 page
executive summary can be neither. Asked BOS to honor previous Board’s decision
to go through the plan chapter by chapter.
13 Helen Swift-Dovel,
JATP Do a thorough review
Asked the Board to honor previous BOS decision by reviewing the plan chapter by
chapter. Said we need to be very mindful of what we put in plan because SB241
will make the Comprehensive Plan become law.
16 Charles Battig, JATP
Reduce size of plan
Do a thorough review
Property rights
Said law calls for plan that is general in nature and advisory, but the plan
summary is 55 pages. Said the plan is too long and is a micromanagement of
everything and contradicts goals to protect individual property rights. Called for
line-by-line review of plan.
23 Joe Draego Level of service to RA
Said two minutes is not enough time for presentations and format is not
productive for feedback. Said the average times given citizens throughout the
nation is 3-5 minutes. Said the plan proposed reducing services in the Rural Area.
Asked for BOS to respond to his questions.
3 of 8
Board of Supervisors Comprehensive Plan Update
Public Hearing March 12, 2014
Comments from Public
24 Audrey Wellborn,
JATP Private Property Rights
Concerned about private property rights. Has been involved in update process for
3 years has and that throughout the participation process at least 1/3 of citizens
were concerned about protecting private property but these concerns are not
addressed in the plan. Has had suggestions and questions about TDR, rural
definition, identify habitats but no answers from BOS or PC.
25 Jim Moore, JATP Reduce plan size
Language
Said plan is better organized but size is still too large. It uses very high brow
language such as, “ratio of available jobs to employed people should be equal.”
He has been requesting comparison of the draft and previous plans for almost a
year. Requested Board and staff use Wiki-style content management software.
Opposed to the philosophy of a codified statutory comment into the plan that
says the plan, "has been and continues to be the primary tool by which we retain
our values." Said he is offended by the statement and doesn't appreciate the
paternal tone.
12 Jack Marshall, ASAP Better vision statement
Optimal population
Said vision statement needs to be improved, suggested addition of phrase “a
thriving community with population size not significantly larger than it is today.”
Said notion of sustainability has nearly vanished from this draft of the Comp Plan
and that economic development is characterized in the plan as more important
than sustainability. He is opposed to the suggestion in the Growth Management
Chapter that planning must accommodate open ended population growth. Plan
should estimate optimal sustainable population size.
14 Tom Olivier, Sierra
Club Better vision statement
Said he was representing himself and that having a single sentence vision
statement is not substantive enough. Suggested one page version of vision
drafted by Sierra Club. Said draft plan states existing growth management policy
was "a success and cornerstone to the rest of the plan" but he would describe
policy as a failure as population continues to grow and county continues to
sprawl. Admonished BOS not to be passive about population growth and plan
should identify best or right size for the community. Stronger language is needed
for sustainability, quality of life, natural resources. Called for rebuilding of
planning department with natural resources staff. Called for thorough study of
impacts of relaxed regulations in rural areas and study of the expanded extraction
zone in Schuyler.
4 of 8
Board of Supervisors Comprehensive Plan Update
Public Hearing March 12, 2014
Comments from Public
36 Kirk Bowers, Sierra
Club Better vision statement
Oversimplification of plan is a liability. Suggested a more detailed vision
statement as recommended by Sierra Club vision statement. Also stated the
Sierra Club is opposed to expansion of the growth areas. Said with approved
development plans in growth areas they are already over capacity.
20 Nancy Flynn Schuyler mining overlay
Said she would like to know more about the expanded mining overlay. Said the
plan is vague. The current boundaries of areas permitted for mining and deeds of
property are outdated. Said these need to be updated and accurate before doing
new boundaries of an overlay.
21 Bonnie Harden Schuyler mining overlay
Said she was fighting against aggressive push to reactivate mineral rights on
properties with homes. Said the deeds need to be updated and she is not in favor
of increased mining rights in Comp Plan.
28 Laura Emrick Schuyler mining overlay
Asked about the motivation for expansion of mining overlay. Moved here to live
in nature and does not want expanded mining. Said residents of community
strongly support protection of the environment.
26
Salvatore Giordano,
BOD of Quarries
Association
Schuyler mining overlay
Opposed to expansion of mining overlay district. Asked about motivation for
expansion of overlay. Said it was not coming from mining company according to
recent meeting with company. Said it could be a slippery slope that would open
the door to other mining activities.
29 Tina Twitchell Schuyler mining overlay
Concerned with expanded mining overlay. Already suffering from truck traffic and
dynamite blasts. Concerned about proximity of mining activity to her home and
impact on the environment.
37 Jo Higgins Schuyler mining overlay
Said that text is incorrect about mining operations on page 4.22 in Natural
Resources section. Text says soapstone mining in Albemarle “closed and
reopened in 1995.” This information refers to plant in Nelson County, not the
mining operation. Polycore, the current company running plant/mining operation,
is ambivalent about new overlay since they are grandfathered. Education of
property owners is important so they know about these mining issues - most
deed issues relate to civil matters over ownership of mineral rights.
5 of 8
Board of Supervisors Comprehensive Plan Update
Public Hearing March 12, 2014
Comments from Public
4 Dennis Odinov, Chair,
VOR-AC
Density
recommendations
Said pages 8.3, 8.10, 8.11 encourage growth to occur on the high end of the
density range. Calls this a one size fits all approach because the density is
calculated based on gross acreage, not buildable acreage and many parcels have
wetlands, critical slopes and streams that can’t be built out. Cited an example of a
ZMA that had 40% of land covered in wetlands or parks. Said the resulting
buildout of this development more resembles urban density than neighborhood
density. Called for removing this language and changing the basis for calculating
density.
15 Neil Means , VOR-AC Density
recommendations
Called for removing language on pages 8.10, 8.11 that recommends growth on
high end of density range. Said County previously came to agreement with
Rivanna Village Association on full density range and this language ignores the
lower part of the range altogether. Said this language skews the intention of the
master plans, is a redefinition of density recommendations and calls it a breach of
trust with the County's own citizens.
31 Betsy Gohdes-Baten,
VOR-AC
Density
recommendations
Concerned about recommendation for density on higher end of density range.
Said this approach will not work as long as unbuildable acreage is considered in
the density calculations. Said this will result in overcrowded, unattractive
communities.
1
Martha Levering,
Charlottesville League
of Women Voters
Natural Resources
Committee
Solid waste
Wants stronger goals for disposal of solid waste and more consideration for
recycling. Said the Planning District's recycling rate is lower than the state
average. Community Facilities Objective 7 sets minimum waste disposal goals that
focus on cost efficiency. Said the plan should focus on additional goals such as
increasing recycling rates.
18 Karen Yates, League
of Women Voters
SWM
Stronger Natural
Resources Goals
Said plan was well organized, clear, well written. Some strategies and action items
from current plan are now part of the narrative. This language is not strong
enough and does not have enough legal backing. Called for incorporating new
SWM requirements into new plan. Mentioned water protection strategies that
are scattered throughout the existing plan.
6 of 8
Board of Supervisors Comprehensive Plan Update
Public Hearing March 12, 2014
Comments from Public
34 Nena Harrell, United
Land Corporation Expansion of DA
Wants expansion of development areas at Rivanna Station, South of Hollymead
Town Center, and on Somerset Farm. Somerset Farm can replace the density lost
from Biscuit Run, it has the necessary infrastructure, can be town center for Mill
Creek.
22 John Chavan, PAC-AC Expansion of DA -
Industrial
Said his property, located next to 200-room hotel at the Shadwell interchange, is
not rural. He said a VDOT study from 2000 says 30,000+ cars pass in front of his
property every day. Noted the Site Assessment for Availability and Demand of
Industrial Property in 2011 done by the County saying there is demand and need
for land near interchanges and he has that land.
27 Charles Winkler, city
resident Roads and transportation
Said roads and highways are not enough of a priority in the Transportation
chapter. Said he is a hostage of the County because he can't vote in the County
but relies on County roads to get home in the City. Wants collaboration from City
and County on roads in addition to transit. Suggested indicators of progress to be
decreased travel time for drivers, reduction in accidents and fatalities on
roadways and synchronization of traffic signals.
33 Neil Williamson, Free
Enterprise Forum Economic Development
Suggested BOS update proffer policy as part of the Comp Plan revision. Said that
Plan says that Economic Development must be done in conjunction with all other
Comp Plan goals. The opposite should also be stated, that all other goals should
be done in keeping with Economic Development Goals. Concerned about
language relating to unmet needs for business in the county and said that county
should not be determining these needs.
7 of 8
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
B. F. Yancey Elementary School Community Use
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Status update of community use at B. F. Yancey
Elementary School
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Crickenberger
PRESENTER (S): Bob Crickenberger
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On December 13, 2012, the Board of Supervisors and the School Board approved the charter for a work group
(Attachment A) whose members were to be appointed by the County Executive and Superintendent of Schools. The
purpose of the work group was to explore and recommend potential community - wide use of B.F. Yancey Elementary
School to serve the southern Albemarle community. The charter for the work group identified the following “Primary
Objectives of the Work Group”:
1. Identify service needs of the southern Albemarle community including review of existing needs assessments
and other data compiled by the County and other community partners over the past 5 -10 years.
2. Develop recommendations for enhanced use of the school building. Ideas for strategies might include first
identifying how much and what kind of space may be available, identifying any restrictions on the use within the
building and identifying activities/programs that are aligned with continuing the building as an elementary school.
3. Identify other individuals, entities, and/or organizations already engaged in or interested in enhanced service
delivery, and to determine feasibility for public/private partnerships to support program development.
4. Conduct research into best practice models where successful programs or uses have been identified and
implemented.
5. Research avenues of possible funding support for model programs, including foundations with interest in
enhanced service delivery in settings such as the Yancey Elementary School.
On December 12, 2013, the attached Final Report of the Yancey Work Group (Attachment B) was presented to the Board
of Supervisors and the School Board. Recommendations were discussed and the Board directed staff to bring back an
update of community use, programming and opportunities.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents.
Goal 2: Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
Goal 6: Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges.
DISCUSSION:
Members of the Yancey Work Group have met regularly since April 2013 to accomplish the above objectives. As a
result of their work, the following services have been implemented at Yancey Elementary School:
Quick Start Tennis –Basic tennis for adults and children of all ages sponsored by a QuickStart Tennis Grant.
Introduction to Computers – Beginner class for adults to learn and/or improve computer skills in partnership
with Adult Education.
Baby Steps – Drop-in playgroup for infants to school-age children in partnerships with Club Yancey,
Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Community, organized community volunteers and the Southern
Albemarle Family Practice.
Open Gym – Open on weekends to all ages in partnership with the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation
Department.
Cyber Sundays – Community Internet access in the school in partnership with the Southern Albemarle
Intergenerational Community Committee and Club Yancey.
AGENDA TITLE: B. F. Yancey Elementary School Community Use
April 2, 2014
Page 2
Reading, Writing, or Speaking English – The Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville/Albemarle has partnered
with Yancey Elementary and Club Yancey.
Social Services Day - Dedicated days and times to provide resource and benefit information to the
community in partnership with the Albemarle County Department of Social Services.
Open Doors Learning Catalog (Attachment C) - An informational publication of ongoing activities at Yancey
and community events throughout southern Albemarle in partnerships with Community Education, Yancey
Elementary and Club Yancey.
Veggie Village at Yancey – Grant awarded to Club Yancey by Quick Start Tennis and Piedmont Master
Gardens that provides Club Yancey afterschool program participants with the opportunity to enhance their
gardening skills and harvest their own vegetates.
Club Yancey partnering with the Thomas Jefferson Gardening Club to grow flowers and make landscape
improvements to the school.
Weekly reading and one-on-one tutoring in partnership with Club Yancey and volunteers from the Jefferson
Area Board for Aging (JABA) and the Scottsville JABA Senior Center.
Additional action steps and program elements supported by the members of the Yancey Work Group that are currently
scheduled or proceeding are as follows:
Establish B.F.Yancey as an Intergenerational Education Learning Center for southern Albemarle.
Continuation of the Parks and Recreation partnership.
Expanding JABA programming to include additional leaning opportunities for all ages.
In partnership with JABA, applying for a VDOE 21st century community center grants that supports Club
Yancey.
April 16 - Community Expo – Introduction of the New Yancey Community Center through presentations from
students, community organizations and other community resources.
April 19 - Community Egg Hunt.
FY 2014/15 approved Capital Facility Improvements - Land purchase, new septic system and roof
replacement totaling $1,119,066.00.
Further, the members of the Yancey Work Group recommend the following additional actions:
1. The County Executive and Superintendent of Schools appoint the Yancey Work Group as the Yancey
Advisory Panel for Intergenerational Programming for southern Albemarle and establish its continuing
function by charter.
2. The School Board dedicate funding for Club Yancey to support the salary of a Director and to expand and
facilitate intergenerational programming. The School Board, pursuant to 26 USC § 170 (c) (1), can accept
tax deductible charitable contributions designated to support Club Yancey.
3. Funding of an additional $10,000.00 to be used for Club Yancey for personnel and space cost for youth and
adult Intergenerational educational programs throughout the school day in addition to after school, evenings
and weekends.
4. The Board of Supervisors and School Board authorize a letter of endorsement and financial commitment
(Attachment D) to be used in the solicitation of grant opportunities that encourage private and public
partnerships.
5. The County staff and Long Range Planning Committee continue to partner with the Yancey Advisory Panel
in identifying existing facility needs and attain design and cost estimate for future facility needs for
Intergenerational educational programs throughout the school day in addition to after school, evenings and
weekends for southern Albemarle.
In partnership with B. F. Yancey Elementary School, Club Yancey, the Yancey Work Group and community volunteers
providing intergenerational programming and services to the citizens of southern Albemarle, County and School
Division staff have provided in-kind staff and program support in excess of $38,000.00 since April, 2013. Part of this
contribution was in the form of Parks and Recreation staff supervision of the Open Gym on weekends from January
through March of 2014 with funds available in the Parks and Recreation FY14 budget for programs. This support
enabled the school to be open for non-school purposes with Parks and Recreation paying the cost of the gym
supervisor. B.F. Yancey School also benefits from the Family Support program through the the Albemarle County
Department of Social Services. This support is on-going and is valued at approximately $34,000 annually.
AGENDA TITLE: B. F. Yancey Elementary School Community Use
April 2, 2014
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
Members of the Yancey Work Group have expressed an interest in continuing four hours of community-based
programming each weekend and have requested the Board’s consideration of funding support in FY14 and FY15 for
this purpose. The cost to use the school for four hours of weekend programming through Parks and Recreation would
be $115 per weekend. That level of support would translate to $1,495.00 for the remainder of FY14, and $5,980 for
FY15. It is assumed that only the $28.75/hour Custodial Fee would be assessed by the School Division and that the
$17.25 Use Fee would be waived. If the Board supports either request, it is suggested that it consider the use of
Reserve for Contingencies for the FY14 portion and either identify one-time funding for FY15 or support an increase in
the FY15 General Fund Budget for Parks and Recreation in an amount necessary to cover the cost as described.
Further, as indicated above, members of the Yancey Work Group have also expressed an interest in $10,000 to be
used for Club Yancey for personnel and space cost for youth and adult intergenerational educational programs
throughout the school day in addition to after school, evenings and weekends. If the Board supports such a request at
this time, it is suggested that one-time money be identified in FY14 or FY15 for this purpose and that the matter be
revisited as an on-going operating expense as part of the upcoming 5-year Financial Plan discussion.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1. Direct staff to work with the members of the Yancey Work Group to draft a Charter for the establishment of
a Yancey Advisory Panel for Intergenerational Programming as a way to guide the on-going work of the
community stakeholders regarding the community use of the Yancey School. It is understood that the
Charter would also be submitted to the School Board for its consideration
2. Authorize the attached letter of endorsement (Attachment D)
3. Direct staff regarding any support for additional funding for weekend programming through Parks and
Recreation and/or additional funding for support of Club Yancey as described hereinabove.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Yancey School Work Group Charter
B – Final report of the Yancey Work Group
C – Yancey Learning Catalog
D – Letter of Endorsement
Return to agenda
bemadi County
Public Schools
Albemarle County
B.F. Yancey School Work Group
Charter
The Albemarle County School Board and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
seek to identifu additional uses for the B.F. Yancey Elementary School as a result of
reduced student enrollment and to ensure maximum use of the building beyond
traditional classroom use. The Boards are interested in understanding, on a broader level,
actions that can be taken to improve services to the citizens of southem Albemarle
County within the capacity of this school building.
Keeping in mind the overall missions and visions of both the school system and general
govemment, the work gfoup to be developed to undertake this assessment is charged with
developing recommendations for both boards that would include the identification of
service needs in the area as well as new and existing partners willing to engage in
enhanced delivery of service in southem Albemarle. Additionally, the boards are
interested in leaming about model programs, funding sources and/or gtant opportunities
that will address identified service needs in the southern Albemarle area; therefore, the
work group shall consider these alternative forms of financing to accomplish any capital
investment required to undertake any needed alterations to the building.
Primary Objectives of the ll/orkgroup
l. ldentify seruice needs of the southem Albemarle community including review of
existing needs assessments and other data compiled by the County and other
comlnunity partners over the past 5- l 0 years.
2. Develop recommendations fbr enhanced use of the school building ldeas for
strategies might include first identifying how much and what kind of space may
be available, identifying any restrictions on the use within the building and
identifying activities/programs that are aligned with continuing the building as an
elementary school.
3. Identify other individuals. entities, and/or organizations already engaged in or
interested in enhanced service delivery, and to determine feasibility for
public/private partnerships to support program development.
4. Conduct research into best practice models where successful programs or uses
have been identified and implemented.
5. Research avenues of possible funding support for model programs' including
foundations with interest in enhanced service delivery in settings such as the
Yancey ElementarY School.
While it is not the responsibility of the work group to provide cost estimates for the
recommendations, the work group should be mindful of the potential cost and scope of
projects recommended and the need to implement said recommendations with non-
traditional funding sources, partnerships and grants. lt is critical to consider
public/private partnerships, thus the work group is empowered to explore potential
avenues for these kinds of agreements.
Resources Available to the ll/ork Group
The County Executive and School Superintendent shall ensure that sufficient
administrative staffing support will be made available for the activities ofthe work group.
However, it is expected that the work group will draw upon its membership and others in
the community for support as well.
Work Group Membership
The work group will include a total of 12 members to be appointed by the County
Executive and School Superintendent as follows:
o Six (6) community members selected through an application process similar to
one utilized by the School Division for its Redistricting Committee appointment
process
o Six (6) members representing community agencies and partners as identified by
general govemment and school division staff
Co-chairs of the work group are to be selected by the County Executive and School
Superintendent.
Tineline
It is anticipated that applications for participation on the work group will be
advertised/solicited in February/March 2013 and the group will organize its first meeting
during the month of April 2013. At this time, the group will determine its own meeting
ilequency and schedule as well as group roles and norms, facilitation, note taking, etc'
The Workgroup will report on its progress to the Board of Supervisors and to the School
Board in July and subrnit its final report & recommendations to both bodies in December
2013.
Final Report of the
Yancey Workgroup
Prepared for the:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County School Board
December 12, 2013
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
2
Table of Contents
Section
Number
Section Title Page
Executive Summary 3
1 History of B.F. Yancey School and
the Community
6
2 Community Needs 12
3 Potential Partnerships With
Agencies and Organizations
14
4 Best Practice Models 18
5 Building Options for the School 21
6 Possible Funding 23
7 Recommendations of the
Workgroup
26
Appendices
A Workgroup Charter 28
B Members of the Workgroup 30
C Needs Assessment Survey Results 31
D Yancey Town Hall Results 32
E Current Community Partnerships 34
F Long Range Planning Project
Summary
35
G Additional Resources 37
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Benjamin F. Yancey Elementary School has a rich history in Albemarle County and is
deeply coveted by the Southern Albemarle community and local agencies. Enrollment
has been declining in recent years, and though the school has been successful, rising costs
per pupil have caused the Albemarle County School Board and the Long Range Planning
Commission to explore the possibility of closing the school.
In December of 2012 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle
School Board created a workgroup through charter to be appointed by the County
Executive and Superintendent of Schools in order to further explore and recommend
potential community-wide uses of B.F Yancey Elementary School for the purpose of
serving the Southern Albemarle community. In that charter the following “Primary
Objectives of the Workgroup” were identified:
1. Identify
service
needs
of
the
Southern
Albemarle
community
including
review
of
existing
needs
assessments
and
other
data
compiled
by
the
County
and
other
community
partners
over
the
past
5-‐10
years.
2. Develop
recommendations
for
enhanced
use
of
the
school
building.
Ideas
for
strategies
might
include
first
identifying
how
much
and
what
kind
of
space
may
be
available,
identifying
any
restrictions
on
the
use
within
the
building
and
identifying
activities/programs
that
are
aligned
with
continuing
the
building
as
an
elementary
school.
3. Identify
other
individuals,
entities,
and/or
organizations
already
engaged
in
or
interested
in
enhanced
service
delivery,
and
to
determine
feasibility
for
public/private
partnerships
to
support
program
development.
4.
Conduct
research
into
best
practice
models
where
successful
programs
or
uses
have been identified and implemented.
5. Research avenues of possible funding support for model programs, including
foundations with interest in enhanced service delivery in settings such as the
Yancey Elementary School.
The workgroup has met continually since April to accomplish these objectives. Through
an examination of a past needs assessment, a survey conducted by the workgroup,
meetings with local agencies, and a town hall meeting sponsored by the workgroup, the
following needs were identified:
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
4
• After School Programs for Youth
• Workforce Skills
• Childcare for infants/toddlers
• JABA Community Center and Resources
• Access to Technology
• Mental and Physical Health Programming.
According to community input, it is important that:
• The school remain open
• Current promised improvements occur
• The educational experience and safety of the students at Yancey Elementary
School stay at the forefront of any increased building use.
The workgroup also explored funding opportunities, examined the current building
project in the Capital Improvement Plan and researched best practice models. As a result
of these various activities, the workgroup agrees on the following recommendations:
1.) That the negotiations on land purchase and septic upgrades required for current
and future use be completed by the beginning of the 2014-15 school year.
2.) That Albemarle County pursue the creation of an intergenerational learning center
to be housed at B.F. Yancey Elementary School that would provide space for
local agencies to deliver needed services for the Southern Albemarle community.
3.) That the pursuit of the center be implemented in three phases to consist of the
following time frames and actions:
a. Phase I – January 1, 2014- August 1, 2014; Athletic programs sponsored
by Yancey Tennis Boosters, a recreation basketball program, parenting
classes, health information sessions, and an open technology lab will be
held during normal operating hours when class is not in session using
current facilities. The school principal, the director of Club Yancey, the
Office of Community Engagement, the Department of Parks and
Recreation and the Department of Social Services will help to coordinate
these efforts using current staffing.
b. Phase II – August 1, 2014 – August 1, 2015; Programs from Phase I will
continue. In addition, adult classes involving technological and workforce
skills will be conducted. Additional health programs will be offered as
well as additional classes for toddlers and early learning. Mental health
services and programs for the aging population will be sought from
community partners. The school principal, the Office of Community
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
5
Engagement, and the Department of Social Services will help to
coordinate these efforts. The Club Yancey Director position should be
made the Director of these programs for Phase II. This position’s salary
should be moved into the County Budget.
c. Phase III August 1, 2015, The addition to the current building in the
Capital Improvement Plan is expanded to create more space, as outlined in
Chapter 5 of this report for community agencies to run and coordinate
their own programs throughout the school day in addition to after school,
evenings, and weekends. The Director of Intergenerational Programming
of Albemarle position is created. The new Director collaborates with the
school principal, the Office of Community Engagement, and outside
agencies to run programs including Club Yancey.
4.) That an ongoing fundraising committee be appointed to work with County staff in
the implementation of this plan and to solicit foundation, corporate, government
and individual donors who have an interest in the future of Southern Albemarle in
order to raise money for building, programming, and the establishment of a
foundation to provide future funding.
5.) That the Long Range Planning Committee meet with the Leadership Team of the
workgroup, Building Services Staff, and a representative from the County
Executive’s office and the School Superintendent’s office to design and attain a
cost estimate of increasing the project currently in the Capital Improvement
Campaign.
6.) That the Board of Supervisors commits to funding an amount no less than
currently projected in the Capital Improvement Plan in order to help secure
private and grant donations toward completion of a larger project and
programming.
7.) That future programming be designed to honor the history of the Yancey
Elementary School, enrich the lives of the residents of Southern Albemarle, and
further the educational experience of the students of B.F. Yancey Elementary
School. This will utilize the Community School model as well as a Place-based
Learning Model for students.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
6
CHAPTER 1: History of B.F. Yancey
Elementary School and the Community
Introduction
B.F. Yancey School is situated on seven acres in rural Southern Albemarle County. It
serves a diverse population of 152 students from grades kindergarten through fifth grade.
The present brick building is the product of numerous expansions and renovations and
currently occupies over 27,000 square feet of the property. The growing school bears
testament to the efforts and dedication of the Esmont community to develop and broaden
educational opportunities for each new generation of young scholars.
The first iteration of Yancey was a one-room cabin built of logs and other crude materials
on a one-acre wooded lot and served the community’s African American population. As
the school has changed physically, it has also figuratively represented greater social and
cultural changes. Always a symbol of pride and development in the Esmont community,
its current presence represents cooperation and unity as it has grown in its ability to
extend learning opportunities to all of the local population. Looking back over the history
of Yancey reflects this cultural change and explains how it has come to acquire its iconic
nature in the Esmont community.
B.F. Yancey Workgroup
Yancey has not been without its challenges throughout its history. The very existence of
the school has been in potential jeopardy in recent years as the Albemarle County School
Board has been forced by budget constraints to consider the closing of the building.
While this outcome has fortunately been avoided thus far, it has become increasingly
important to demonstrate the reasons this school is vital to the community and to
Southern Albemarle County. Towards highlighting that value, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors and Albemarle County School Board appointed a committee called
the B.F. Yancey Workgroup in April 2013.
The B.F. Yancey Workgroup has worked to assess conditions and make
recommendations to improve services for the citizens of Southern Albemarle County,
including reviewing the present level of public and community services in the area and
identifying organizational partners willing to aid in expanding resources. The committee
continues to research funding opportunities as well as to examine other programs that
could model how best to deliver services in rural settings. Another goal has been to
identify additional possible improvements, additions, and uses for Yancey beyond its
erroneously perceived singular function as “just” an elementary school.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
7
One potential supplementary use of Yancey is to expand the building’s operations in such
a way that community members can access needed resources as identified by local
citizens. The committee researched the history of Esmont and its schools as part of its
commitment to understanding the rich culture of this population. The ultimate goal is that
by gathering and processing this information the Yancey Workgroup determines to better
understand the unique needs of the community and how best to meet those needs.
History of Esmont
Esmont is a town of just over 30 square miles located seven miles northwest of
Scottsville in Southern Albemarle County, Virginia. Populated since the mid-18th century,
Esmont was settled after the Civil War both by ante-bellum plantation owners and
African-American residents who purchased plots of the rich soil in order to grow their
own crops and raise livestock in a self-subsistent lifestyle (Esmont Oral History Project,
2002). A large contributor to the growth in the area was the opening of a large soapstone
quarry in the neighboring town of Alberene. The quarry was prosperous and continued to
grow, employing as many as 2000 men in the area as it entered its golden ages in the
1920s (Ashmore-Sorensen, 2012).
With rapid development and population growth, Esmont’s resources expanded to include
a post office, general merchandise and grocery stores, and a school by the end of the
nineteenth century (Ashmore-Sorenson, 2012). The railroad built through the area in the
early 1900’s to connect nearby soapstone plants stimulated further growth in the area as
this form of transportation allowed more accessibility to and from a previously relatively
isolated area (Bruce, 1924).
Life before the middle of the twentieth century meant a simpler manner of living. The
Esmont Oral History Project (2002), a project of JABA’s Esmont Senior Center,
collected several black residents’ recollections of early life in Esmont. These oral
histories described a past when most men and boys were hired by local (predominantly
white) farm owners as farmhands, while women and girls were employed as domestics in
the plantation homes. As the town grew, however, so did opportunities, and Esmont
residents increasingly took jobs in diverse fields such as education, construction, and
nursing or working on the railroad, or joining the military.
Esmont has historically faced challenges with poverty, with many older residents
remembering childhoods where their houses were insulated with only newspaper, shoes
were a rare luxury, and hardship was a part of daily life (Oral History Project, 2002). Yet
Esmont has always had a rich sense of community, where church and school served as
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
8
social places where residents could come together and enrich themselves spiritually and
educationally.
Esmont has had a population of both white and black residents since its earliest days. As
with blacks and whites all over the United States throughout history, segregation and
racial discrimination have played a part in the historical narrative of the town. The
Esmont Oral History project (2002) asked their interviewees about their memories of
racism and found common threads in their experiences and memories of segregated life
in Esmont. Esmont was divided along an invisible yet distinct line between (what is now)
the Porters Road area and the neighborhood to the west on what is now Esmont Road,
around the Esmont Post Office. Black children went to school on Porters Road, while
white children attended the Esmont School in what was known as “The Bottom” on
Esmont Road (Eubanks, 2013).
While schools and residences were segregated, those who lived in the area during that
time recall that while the division between whites and blacks was just “understood” and
people tended to “keep to their own.” Acts of overt racism seemed to primarily occur in
the nearby towns of Scottsville and Charlottesville (Oral History Project, 2002). One area
resident described the general feeling about the neighboring town as “Scottsville was
always somewhere we went to do what we had to do and come out of there…Scottsville
was just Scottsville” (History Project, 2002). Esmont residents named several white
families that were known as more open to their black neighbors and the relationships
between the white farm owners who employed blacks from Esmont were reported as
generally harmonious.
Many important changes were rapidly happening during this time and Esmont was not
exempt from the effects of greater cultural transformation. As major regional and national
events like World War II and civil rights activism and legislation unfolded in the United
States, it caused Esmonters, both black and white, to gain new perspectives on race
relations (Oral History Project, 2002). With this new perspective, Esmonters took
advantage of new opportunities to demand full citizen rights, especially so in the field of
education. Looking back at local schools’ pathway to desegregation demonstrates how
these changes unfolded in this diverse rural town.
First Schools in Esmont
In 1878 Confederate Veteran John Haden Lane donated an acre of his land in order for a
crude one-room log cabin to be constructed as a school in which the local African-
American population could be educated. Lane was also the school’s first teacher
(Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion, 1946). The school was named The Loving
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
9
Charity Lodge and taught students in grades 1 through 6 (“Scottsville Schools,” 2001).
The school doubled as a church. A description of the school published in 1946 says “It
has two small windows, slab plank benches with no back rest and only the desk which
was crudely formed” (Virginia, 1946). The original school structure is still standing and
is now called the Odd Fellows Hall. It functions today as JABA’s Esmont Senior Center,
and serves as a venue for community and fraternal organization meetings.
White children in Esmont attended the Esmont School, located on Esmont Road, near the
post office and train depot. Some of the local children travelled and attended school in
nearby Scottsville, which opened the first public school in Albemarle County in 1871
(“Scottsville Schools,” 2001). Both black and white children walked to school for many
years before public transportation was made available (Oral History Project, 2002).
Benjamin Franklin Yancey, Educator and School Founder
Benjamin Franklin Yancey (1870-1915) was a pillar of the Esmont community and
widely influential as one of the first black educators in Central Virginia. Born in
Howardsville, Virginia, he was educated at the Hampton Institute and returned to Esmont
to take his first teaching position at Black Branch School in Southern Albemarle County
(Brickhouse, 2000). Like John Haden Lane, Yancey was dedicated to advancing learning
opportunities for local children. He was enthusiastic about literature and the pursuit of
education and wanted to impact the lives of future scholars to come.
As an African-American scholar who had faced unique challenges in furthering his
education in a then-segregated world, Yancey was particularly passionate about the
educational opportunities of young black students (“A Long-Awaited Education,” 2008).
During Yancey’s time, the post-emancipation years, African Americans faced great
disadvantages in education and Yancey wanted to give black youths in his neighborhood
a school that could provide them with the skills they would need to move up in society.
Living in Esmont and being part of the community inspired him to dedicate his time and
dedication to creating educational opportunities for the area youth around him as well as
for generations to come.
In 1906, Benjamin Yancey joined together the African-American men of the community
and organized a school league. A women’s league was organized the following year.
(Eubanks, 2013). The men and women of the leagues worked together and through their
fundraising efforts were able to purchase three acres of land on Porters Road in 1912.
Yancey was instrumental in the founding of the wooden six-room school that was built
on this land in 1915 (Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion, 1946). The new learning
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
10
facility was named the Esmont Colored School (later called Esmont High School) and
was a significant achievement and a source of pride to a community that built it
themselves without state funding (“Scottsville Schools,” 2001). This great effort was
necessary during this time, when improvements in facilities, teaching resources and
course offerings lagged behind those funded for white children.
The Esmont Colored School educated children in grades 1 to 8. Yancey, along with his
wife, ran the school and taught young African American children basic skills (“A Long-
Awaited Education,” 2008). In the 1930s the Esmont Colored School became so
overcrowded that a two-room house nearby on Porters Road was converted into more
classroom space. The converted house was known as “The Little School” and took the
grade school age children kindergarten through 4th grade while Esmont High School
served 5th through 11th grade (Eubanks, 2013). Additional land was purchased for future
expansion to better accommodate the growing student population.
Yancey died at age 45 in 1915, leaving behind his wife, Harriet, and his two children,
Roger and May. May would become a teacher and continue to teach in Esmont, while
Roger went on to law school and became a judge in Essex County, New Jersey (Yancey,
n.d.). Yancey’s legacy continues in Esmont. It is through the strength and commitment to
education he epitomized that the current elementary school was built and opened in
September of 1960 for children K – 5 with a teaching staff of 7. The School Board at that
time and the community agreed to name the school in honor of B.F.Yancey and his
commitment to Esmont.
Yancey Today
After Benjamin Franklin Yancey died in 1915, the community and PTO continued to
work to expand and grow Esmont’s schools. 1951 saw big changes when Albemarle
County opened Jackson P. Burley School in Charlottesville, combining the three black
high schools in Albemarle; Esmont High School, Jefferson High School and Albemarle
Training School (“Jefferson School History,” 2010). In 1964 the Civil Rights Act,
outlawing discrimination based on race and guaranteeing equal educational opportunities,
was passed and the impact on schools was profound. The integration process was a
prolonged and often painful effort that many Esmont residents vividly recall (Oral
History Project, 2002). Yancey elementary became desegregated and slowly grew and
adapted to a new diverse student body that continues today.
It is difficult for the Esmont community to imagine such an iconic and important place
that has gone through so many evolutions and overcome so many challenges closing its
doors to the people that helped build and make it what it is today. According to resident
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
11
and former Yancey teacher Waltine Eubanks, “The school is the hub of our community.
It is where people gather for events and where activities are offered for their children.”
(2013).
Whether Yancey remains an elementary school or adapts once again to respond to the
needs of the community, the need will continue for this enduring symbol to keep its doors
open. It has been described as “a critical thread in the fabric of the [Esmont] community”
(Richardson, 2012). As Albemarle School Board member Diantha McKeel said, “’It’s not
that Yancey is another small school. It’s a school that came about through very special
circumstances that need to be honored (Richardson, 2012).’” Yancey, as evidenced by its
rich history, has always been and continues to be of great import not only to the town of
Esmont but also to Southern Albemarle County as a whole.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
12
CHAPTER 2: Community Needs
Given that one of the workgroup’s primary objectives was evaluating how the school
could be used during and outside of school hours to enhance the community, we set out
to assess the area’s needs for expanded services.
A starting point for the evaluation was a 2008 feasibility study looking at unmet needs for
childcare and services for seniors in the Albemarle region. The survey found that fully
one-third of families reported needing childcare closer to home for infants, preschool and
elementary school age children. Furthermore, there were no licensed childcare providers
in the area, though multiple elementary schools provide afterschool programs. While
there are two senior centers in the Southern Albemarle region, the feasibility study had
looked at combining the two sites at a central location. It appears that the draw of co-
location of senior center programming with childcare for possible intergenerational
contact was significant.
Next, a survey was distributed during the months of June and July to families of Yancey
School students, community members at Esmont Community Day, Brown’s Market,
Scottsville Ace Hardware Store, the Scottsville Library, local churches, the Scottsville
Farmer’s Market and Scottsville Elementary School. The goal of the survey was to
obtain a rank-ordered list of services that members of the Southern Albemarle community
felt were needed. One hundred eighty-nine surveys were collected from a convenience
sample of available people. Citizens were asked to identify which of 17 different
services they felt were both important and strongly needed. Two specific categories were
felt to be very important and needed by over 80% of respondents: Workforce Skills/Adult
Education and After School Programs for Youth. Other services felt by many survey
respondents to be very important and needed were childcare for the very young, youth
development and college access programming. Mental health services, family and
parenting resources, programs for the elderly and primary medical and dental care
services that the workgroup and agencies considered highly needed by the community
were considered important and needed by roughly 60% of respondents.
Additionally, as more fully described in Chapter 3, the workgroup met with
representatives of Albemarle County service providers who were considered to be
stakeholders and potential partners in providing services at the school for the community.
These organizations included the Albemarle County Police Department, Jefferson Area
Board of Aging, Region Ten, the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Club. While each
organization expressed deep commitment to residents of the community, it was
recognized that funding for expanded services would be needed from external sources.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
13
Finally, the group hosted a town hall meeting to present suggested options to the
Southern Albemarle community and to obtain feedback. The workgroup felt that
validation of results of the survey and our process up to that point would best be achieved
by presenting it to the community for comment. The session generated significant public
comment and interest. While a complete summary of findings is in the appendix to this
report, a few points were key:
1. Keeping the school open is very important to the members of the community who
were present at the town hall.
2. Keeping the school open requires certain renovations and an expansion of the
septic system – completing the purchase of the necessary land for the septic
system expansion is needed before any discussion of expanded services.
3. The community favors enriching the experience for school children by bringing in
new opportunities for learning such as working with senior citizen volunteers,
bringing in businesses to teach about local resources, and working on ways to
increase parent involvement by providing opportunities and services needed by
parents on school grounds.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
14
CHAPTER 3: Potential Partnerships With
Agencies and Organizations
On May 13, 2013, at a meeting of the Yancey Workgroup, members decided on a process
to engage local agencies in our dialogue about the future of Yancey School.
An initial list of agencies and key individuals was created:
Adult Education
Alermarle County Police
Department
ACPS
Boys & Girls Club
CATEC
Chamber Of Commerce
Churches (Alliance of
Churches)
Club Yancey
Health Dept./Physicians
JABA
Office of Community
Engagement
Parks and Recreation
PVCC
Principal of Yancey
Region 10
Social Services
YMCA
The workgroup members also decided on four basic questions to ask all participants:
1. In what ways could the community and local businesses be involved in the school?
2. What service needs could be met using the school’s facilities?
3. How can we generate funds for the school through providing these services?
4. How can you or your organization help the school?
Groups were invited to participate in a forum on June 17th to “provide input regarding key
social structural issues relevant to southern Albemarle, including service levels, gaps in
services, and trends observed or projected for southern Albemarle.” Agency leaders
representing JABA, Region 10, Piedmont YMCA and the police, as well as a
representative from the County’s building services department discussed the needs and
key issues relevant to Southern Albemarle, including service provision, service levels,
gaps in services, and trends observed or projected for Southern Albemarle. Joe Letteri
presented the forum with a detailed assessment of possible expansions to the school
building and related issues including the septic system.
The workgroup’s dialogue with agencies increased the collective understanding of the
history and dynamics between the Scottsville community and Esmont. The dialogue led
to a shared recognition of how duplicative efforts may complicate the success of
programming in the two communities. It was decided thar engaging in direct and open
conversation with Scottsville leaders would be the best approach in discussing programs
that would benefit both communities. As a result, both Reverend Bruce Lugn from the
Scottsville United Methodist Church (UMC) and Mt. Zion UMC in Esmont and James
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
15
Pierce from the Boys and Girls Club attended a workgroup meeting.
Member of the workgroup also held a series of one-on-one discussions with directors and
managers of a wide range of community organizations that could be potential partners.
These included CHIP, CYFS, CATEC, PVCC, various UVA agencies, Virginia
Cooperative Extension Service, JAUNT, QuickStart, Club Yancey, Big Brother/Big
Sister, the DSS, Parks and Rec and a number of others. Out of these discussions the
following points emerged:
• There are major needs in the area, from an aging population, low income levels,
lack of relevant job skills training, lack of supports for mental wellness, lack of
day care and family support services.
• There is concern expressed that these needs are not being currently met.
• There is overwhelming support and interest for the potential outcomes of the
workgroup. All the agencies at the forum commended the Board of Supervisors
and School Board for this initiative.
• Agencies regard Yancey School as an ideal location and facility.
Specific ideas and concerns included:
• Provide extensions to JABA services, such as aerobics;
• Youth development, healthy living, living responsibly;
• Infant care and after-school care – partner with Club Yancey;
• Involve middle and high school kids and UVA students as volunteers;
• Summer camps; sports programs – soccer, tennis, lacrosse;
• Literacy and computer training; résumé writing;
• Interagency and intergenerational approach would be best;
• Many of the agencies are already working together on other projects, such as the
Jefferson School City Center;
• Want a facility that is open all year, weekends, and pre- and after-school hours;
• Transportation is a concern, but JAUNT already operates in the area and is willing
to expand its services.
• Facilities they require are actually small, and would, on the whole, be easily
accommodated:
o secure offices
o computers, files, media room
o day care would require small outside play area
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
16
o dining hall
o gymnasium
o several old classrooms
o parking
o sports facilities
o grounds, for community garden, other ideas
• Many of the existing school facilities and classrooms can be used.
In late October, agencies were sent an e-mail to update them on the activities and findings
of the workgroup. The e-mail also requested a response for inclusion in the final report
that would outline how each agency envisioned being part of the future for Yancey
School. The following chart summarizes the responses received from eight agencies.
Organization
Name
Contact
Person
E-mail Current
Yancey/
S.
Albemarle
Activities
Proposed
Short Term/
Easy First Step
Longer Term
Proposed
Activities
What would
need to happen
first
Virginia
Cooperative
Extension
Ellie
Thomas
elliet@vt.edu Club Yancey
School
Garden
Monthly Workshop
including plant
clinic, lawn
fertilization,
propagation
Farm Planning, Family
& Consumer Sciences,
4-H
Extend outreach to
other VCE
departments
Charlottesville-
Albemarle
Technical
Education Center
Bruce
Bosselman
bbosselman@
k12albemarle.
org
Training to become
Nurses Aide,
Pharmacy Tech,
Dental Assistant,
Apprenticeships in
construction trades,
cosmetology,
barbering
Identify what skills
employers are
looking for, hire
qualified
instructors. Student
& employers pay
tuition
Children, Youth
& Family
Services
Melissa
Cohen
mcohen@cyfs.
org
Existing
ParentingMo
bile group in
Southern
Albemarle
Additional
ParentingMobile
group to Yancey
School with parent
education and support,
early learning
playgroups and
literacy activities,
access to health and
wellness programs,
and community
engagement.
Transportation,
classroom and
securing $21,440
for 42 week school
year
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
17
Albemarle
County Parks &
Rec
Amy Smith ASmith@albe
marle.org
Club Yancey,
Yancey
Summer
School, and
Community
Education for
Adults
Weekend Open
Gym
Karate, yoga, exercise,
sports clinics
Address
transportation and
scholorship needs.
Need gym,
bathrooms,
instructors, county
funding
Albemarle
County Police
Department
Gregory
Jenkins
JENKINSG@
albemarle.org
Police
presence
Office hours for
District Officer to
meet with citizens
on quality of life
issues
Adult learning
sessions on elderly
fraud prevention,
internet safety and
highway safety
programs.
Office, telephone,
meeting and
bathroom access
Jefferson Are
CHIP
Judy Smith judy.smith@ja
chip.org
Provide home
visiting
services to
children, ages
0-6, and
pregnant
women from
low income
families
Use small office
space to meet with
clients and provide
parenting
information and
resources
Conduct monthly
parenting classes
working with CYFS
playgroups and home
visiting staff and could
start parent support
groups
Additional funding,
small office and
meeting room
space
JABA Donna
Baker
DBaker@jaba
cares.org
Tuesday and
Thursday
program at
Esmont
Community
Center
Expand role of
Friends in School
Helping (FISH)
Relocate Exmont CC
program to YES. Open
Aging Resource
Center.
Interfenerational
programs including
garden, pre-school or
day-care, elder
education. Expand
JABA collaboration
with UVA School of
Nursing, School of
Medicine
No additional
county funding
needed to move
Esmont CC
program. Do need
handicap accessible
gathering and
program space,
dedicated office,
access to kitchen,
handicap accessible
adult-sized
bathrooms, access
to outdoor space
and gym.
Piedmont Family
YMCA
Brookes
Sims
bsims@piedm
ontymca.org
None
currently
Expand programs
of Club Yancey.
Utilize open gym
for organized
sports leagues. Run
short summer camp
program
Open/operate
community-wide
licensed child
care/afterschoo/summe
r day camp. Expand
youth sports program
using P&R fields and
gym space
1. Classroom space
for afterschool
(rent free); 2.
Exclusive access to
child care facilities
(rent free); 3.
funding/staff; 4.
Access to P&R
sports facilities.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
18
CHAPTER 4: Best Practice Models
The B. F. Yancey School Workgroup addressed the element of its charge requesting that
we “conduct research into best practice models where successful programs or uses have
been identified and implemented”.
Among activities responding to this element, the workgroup:
(a) visited the Charlottesville Jefferson School City Center, including tours and/or
discussions with agencies and services housed in the Center including the Carver
Recreation Center’s programs - gym, group exercise program, and teen center
(with technology for home work, after school programs and other activities) -
the Jefferson Area Board on Aging program, the Piedmont Family YMCA
Intergenerational Learning Center and infant care programs, and others; and
discussed examples of other innovative programs based in local schools (e.g. the
example of a school in rural Rappahannock County, VA1), and
(b) discussed some leading descriptive models for schools that appeared particularly
relevant to the context of the Yancey School, the local community, and the
Southern Albemarle community - the Community School model and the model of
Place-based Learning – and invited community discussion regarding these
models during the workgroup’s September 21 town hall forum.
This chapter highlights the latter discussions.
Community School Model
A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships between the school
and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, health and
social services, youth and community development and community engagement
leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities.
(Coalition for Community Schools, accessed at http://www.communityschools.org)
As a Community School, the school facilities become centers of the community,
including for evening and weekend programs. As a community hub the facilities bring
together a wide range of community partners providing opportunities for children, youth,
families and communities. As collaborators youth, families and community residents
work as partners with schools and other community institutions to develop programs and
services for high quality education and educational outcomes, development of youth,
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
19
support of families across the life course and for a variety of needs; and all these partners
work together actively to design, support, evaluate, and sustain programs. All partners
“focus on strengthening the local leadership, social networks, economic viability and
physical infrastructure of the surrounding community”. Examples of programs many
Community Schools engage in include adult education, after school programs for youth
and families, community engagement and development, early childhood and other youth
development programs, and programs for physical and mental health and wellbeing. 2
Place- based Learning Model
Place-based learning takes the real world around the school — the community —
and turns it into a 21st century learning laboratory … Students learn skills and
concepts while learning about and contributing to their place. By working on
things like oral histories, water quality studies, community gardens, or student-led
community tax centers, students are active learners, engaged and making a
difference” (The Rural School and Community Trust, accessed at
http://www.ruraledu.org).
Successful adoption of a Place-based Learning Model for the school results in all
stakeholders - students, teachers, and community residents – to look at their communities
in new ways, reflect on their histories and cultures and identify strengths and needs of the
school and its community. These stakeholders can identify unconventional resources and
opportunities that hold academic potential that might become the basis for innovations in
the curriculum and other resources for learning, innovations in using school facilities,
and innovative approaches to sustaining the school. “For communities facing serious
economic and social challenges – as do most rural schools - this kind of involvement
from young people can dramatically improve the quality of life of local residents and the
viability of the community itself … [and] there is evidence that students in classrooms
and schools that employ place-based learning make academic gains that exceed those of
students in more traditional classrooms”. The Rural and School Community Trust
identifies strategies for leveraging community resources as part of building opportunities
for learning in the school.
The workgroup did not discern that the Community School and the Place-based Learning
Models would to be mutually exclusive, but rather to be within a spectrum of possibilities
for the Yancey School and its local community stakeholders and broader Southern
Albemarle community of resources, opportunities, and possible partners. Each may
employ similar strategies toward their goals - government planning-driven strategies,
local community resources-driven strategies, business enterprise-driven strategies, a
foundations-funding driven strategies – or combinations of strategies.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
20
Another important strategy common to both must be baseline and ongoing assessment of
community needs and resources. Thorough, effective, participatory assessment can help
overcome what are identified as tragic failures: failure to act, failure to invest, and failure
to have and maintain a visionary focus that aims for real impacts.3
A documentary – Schools That Change Communities - and a condensed short video
accessed at http://www.docmakeronline.com/schoolsthatchangecommunities.html assembles
inspiring vignettes about how schools can help transform communities. Strategies of
open and honest assessment, strategically reaching out to stakeholders who can expand
opportunities for the school, and finding effective and creative ways to sustain efforts –
toward an exciting vision of the school and its community – are part of both Community
Schools and Place-based Learning Models.4
Community Response
The September 21 town hall forum included assessment of community views regarding
school models. One of the topics in the small group discussions (four groups with 12 or
more people in each group) during the well-attended forum was on how the Yancey
School could ‘fit’ with the Community School Model and the Place-based Learning
Model. Data from the forum are reported elsewhere in this report, but we highlight some
findings here. Many comments spoke to a blending of Community Schools and Place-
Based Learning Models.
One group recommended expanding the library and upgrading its technology in order to
offer a community library outside school hours. The same group identified needs across
the life course – from day care, to adult learning, to intergenerational activities – that are
consistent with the school’s educational mission. Another group highlighted
opportunities through local partnerships to increase the exposure of Yancey School
students to broad ‘real-world’ experiences through business and organizational
partnerships with classrooms; and that such partnerships could be used to increase
parental involvement with the school. All groups readily identified businesses,
organizations, and groups that might be invited to be active stakeholders in the success of
the school as a centerpiece for building a strong community, both locally and in the
broader Southern Albemarle area.
**Footnote References Can Be Found in Appendix G
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
21
CHAPTER 5: Physical Building Options
A major consideration in the recommendations of the Yancey Workgroup is space in the
building. Currently, the building is at or near capacity in terms of usage of space during
the school day. This would not prevent steps being taken to use the building as a
community center outside of regular school hours.
In particular, the committee recommends that mental health, organizations for the aging,
recreation programs, job skills programs, and general health organizations be invited to
use the building in the evening to run programs for the community. Some potential
offerings could include:
• Job Skills Classes or Strands
• Adult/Youth Recreation Leagues
• Help in filling out Social Service Forms and Applications
• Parenting Classes
• Health Screenings
Beginning these types of activities immediately can help to change the culture of the
school into one of community center. However, in order to create the most benefit for the
students of Yancey and the community of Southern Albemarle, a more integrated center
that operates during school hours should be sought.
To accommodate potentially interested partners during the school day, more space would
be required to maintain academic and safety standards. The ACPS Long Range Planning
Committee has previously submitted a report and a plan for an addition to the school as
part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) (Appendix G). Joe Letteri from Albemarle
County Building Services met with the workgroup to explain the plan and to discuss the
limitations of the sewage system, the current lack of land, and the cost of additions. The
project in the CIP is based on the school day, and the students’ education. In order to
plan and accommodate community partners during the school day, the Long Range
Planning Committee should re-examine their recommendation in an effort to
accommodate community partners.
In particular, we would recommend to the long-range planning committee that they
consider the following adjustments to their plan:
• Making the new wing larger than 5800 square feet to accommodate 10 new
classrooms for the current students.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
22
• Using the current main office suite to be offices for other agencies to be in close
proximity to the cafeteria, library, and other common spaces, while maintaining
some distance from the new wing to provide for student safety.
• Making Rooms 1 and 2 and the Faculty Lounge and Workroom into the new main
office and ancillary offices for specialists.
• Creating a music and art studio in rooms 3, 5, 6, and 8.
• Using rooms 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 as a potential daycare facility with their own
entrance in the back of the building and in the hallway.
• Expanding the side parking lot out the side and leaving the bus loop in its current
position.
• Making the entrance by the gym a second main entrance for the students
Based on interest from potential partners, some or all of these recommendations would
allow shared space of music and art studios, the library, and cafeteria for the school
students and the community at large. The cost of such a project would need to be
determined, as well as the cost difference to operate such a building.
Creating such a center would be a way to deliver services to Southern Albemarle and
support the learning of the students at Yancey Elementary.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
23
CHAPTER 6: Possible Funding Sources
The Fundraising Committee identified a variety of possible local, regional and national
funding sources.
Type of
Funding Level Funder Grant Funding
Range
Typical
Grant
Amount
Funding
Season/
Cycle
Website
Areas of
Focus/
Other
Notes
Corporate National State Farm
Good Neighbor
Citizenship
Company
Grants
$25,000-
$100,000 $30,000 9/3 to 10/31
http://www.sta
tefarm.com/ab
outus/commun
ity/grants/com
pany/company
.asp
Corporate National/
State
MeadWestVaCo
Foundation
MeadWestVaco
Foundation
Grants
$5,000-
$500,000 $10,000 Rolling- Fall
http://www.me
adwestvaco.co
m/mwv/groups
/content/docu
ments/docume
nt/mwv049148
.pdf
Education,
Sustainability
Communities,
and
Environment;
send a letter of
introduction
before LOI
Corporate State Verizon Verizon
Foundation
$5000-
$10000 $5,000
Beginning
Jan 1 to Oct
14 each year
http://www.ver
izonfoundation
.org/grants/gui
delines/
Education,
Healthcare,
Energy
Corporate State Walmart Walmart State
Giving Program
$25,000-
$250,000 $30,000 opens in
January
http://foundati
on.walmart.co
m/our-
focus/hunger
Corporate State Wells Fargo Wells Fargo
Foundation
Reviews
proposals
February-
November
https://www.c
ybergrants.co
m/pls/cybergra
nts/quiz.displa
y_question?x_
gm_id=1958&
x_quiz_id=874
&x_order_by=
1
Eliminating the
achievement gap
Fundraising
Opportunit
y
Local Kroger Community
Donations NA Rolling
https://www.c
ommunitygifts
.com/Default.a
spx
Fundraising
Opportunit
y
Local Whole Foods Whole Foods
Foundation
5% of one
day sales NA Rolling
http://www.wh
olefoodsmarke
t.com/donate
Submit app for
Community
Days, which
provide 5% of
sales for a
community
project
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
24
Private
Foundation Local Community
Foundation
Community
Endowment 10/1 and 4/1
http://www.ca
cfonline.org/gr
ant/community
-endowment
One application
per year
Private
Foundation Local Community
Foundation Prana Fund 11/1/13
http://www.ca
cfonline.org/gr
ant/prana-fund
Private
Foundation Local Community
Foundation Bama Works 8/1 and 2/1
http://www.ca
cfonline.org/gr
ant/bama-
works-fund-
dave-
matthews-
band-cacf
One application
per year
Private
Foundation Local
Junior League
of
Charlottesville
Community
Grant
Up to
$2,500 $1,000
Fall 2013
deadline:
10/15/2013
http://www.jlc
ville.org/?nd=a
pplication_pro
cess
Private
Foundation National RGK
Foundation
RGK
Foundation $25,000
Rolling LOI
submission;
applications
reviewed 3x
year
http://www.rg
kfoundation.or
g/public/guidel
ines
Private
Foundation State
Mary Morton
Parsons
Foundation
Capital
Building-
Challenge/
Match Grants
$10,000-
$200,000 3/15 and
9/15
http://www.m
mparsonsfoun
dation.org/con
sideration-
process/
Private
Foundation State Virginia Health
Care Foundation
Health Safety
Net Grant Spring and
Fall Cycles
http://www.vh
cf.org/for-
those-who-
help/what-we-
fund/health-
safety-net-
grants/
Private
Foundation State Virginia Health
Care Foundation
A New Lease
On Life: Health
for Virginians
with Mental
Illness
Not
currently
accepting
applications
http://www.vh
cf.org/for-
those-who-
help/what-we-
fund/a-new-
lease-on-life-
grants/
Private
Foundation State Virginia Health
Care Foundation
Project Connect
Grants
Not
currently
accepting
applications
http://www.vh
cf.org/for-
those-who-
help/what-we-
fund/project-
connect-
grants/
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
25
To maximize the potential for successful fundraising and successful programing the
following should be considered:
1. It is easier to raise private funds when they match contributions from the county
and school board..
2. The success and track record of Club Yancey can be used as the foundation for
the development of additional programs and grant requests. New programs can be
described as additions to Club Yancey and be evaluated, in part, on how they add
value to Club Yancey and the educational experience of Yancey School students
and staff members.
3. The school’s and the school’s PTO’s fundraising potential is not as high as some
other schools’ in order to provide programming.
4. The fundraising opportunities for this program are robust, but will take a
prolonged, committed, and diligent effort to both solicit private donations, as well
as grant funding.
5. The Affordable Care Act will create a new source of funding from non-profit
hospitals for “community benefit” like an intergenerational learning center at the
Yancey Elementary School.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
26
CHAPTER 7: Recommendations of the Workgroup
The Yancey Workgroup has discussed at length the information that has been collected
form the community, agencies, experts, and research. As a group we make the following
recommendations:
1.) That the negotiations on land purchase and septic upgrades required for current
and future use be completed by the beginning of the 2014-15 school year.
2.) That Albemarle County pursue the creation of an intergenerational learning center
to be housed at B.F. Yancey Elementary School, that would provide space for
local agencies to deliver needed services of the Southern Albemarle Community.
3.) That the pursuit of the center be implemented in three phases to consist of the
following time frames and actions:
a. Phase I – January 1, 2014- August 1, 2014; Athletic programs sponsored
by Yancey Tennis Boosters, a recreation basketball program, parenting
classes, health information sessions, and an open technology lab will
operate during normal operating hours when class is not in session using
current facilities. The school principal, the director of Club Yancey, the
Office of Community Engagement, the Department of Parks and
Recreation and the Department of Social Services will help to coordinate
these efforts using current staffing.
b. Phase II – August 1, 2014 – August 1, 2015; Programs from Phase I will
continue. In addition, adult classes involving technological and workforce
skills will be conducted. Additional health programs will be offered, as
well as additional classes for toddlers and early learning. Mental health
services and programs for the aging population will be sought from
community partners. The school principal, the Office of Community
Engagement, and the Department of Social Services will help to
coordinate these efforts. The Club Yancey Director position should be
made the Director of these programs for Phase II. This position’s salary
should be moved into the County Budget.
c. Phase III August 1, 2015, The addition to the current building in the
Capital Improvement Plan is expanded to create more space, as outlined in
Chapter 5 of this report for community agencies to run and coordinate
their own programs throughout the school day in addition to after school,
evenings, and weekends. The Director of Intergenerational Programming
of Southern Albemarle position is created. The new Director collaborates
with the school principal, the Office of Community Engagement, and
outside agencies to run programs including Club Yancey.
4.) That an ongoing fundraising committee be appointed to work with County staff in
the implementation of this plan and to solicit foundation, corporate, government
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
27
and individual donors who have an interest in the future of Southern Albemarle in
order to raise money for building, programming, and the establishment of a
foundation to provide future funding.
5.) That the Long Range Planning Committee meet with the Leadership Team of the
work group, Building Services Staff, and a representative from the County
Executive’s office, and the School Superintendent’s office to design and attain a
cost estimate of increasing the project currently in the Capital Improvement
Campaign.
6.) That the Board of Supervisors commits to funding an amount no less than
currently projected in the Capital Improvement Plan in order to help secure
private and grant donations toward completion of a larger project and
programming.
7.) That future programming be designed to honor the history of the Yancey
Elementary School, enrich the lives of the residents of Southern Albemarle, and
further the educational experience of the students of B.F. Yancey Elementary
School. This will utilize the Community School model as well as a Place-based
Learning Model for students.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
28
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Workgroup Charter
B.F. Yancey School Work Group
Charter
The Albemarle County School Board and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
seek to identify additional uses for the B.F. Yancey Elementary School as a result of
reduced student enrollment and to ensure maximum use of the building beyond
traditional classroom use. The Boards are interested in understanding, on a broader level,
actions that can be taken to improve services to the citizens of Southern Albemarle
County within the capacity of this school building.
Keeping in mind the overall missions and visions of both the school system and general
government, the work group to be developed to undertake this assessment is charged with
developing recommendations for both boards that would include the identification of
service needs in the area as well as new and existing partners willing to engage in
enhanced delivery of service in Southern Albemarle. Additionally, the boards are
interested in learning about model programs, funding sources and/or grant opportunities
that will address identified service needs in the Southern Albemarle area; therefore, the
work group shall consider these alternative forms of financing to accomplish any capital
investment required to undertake any needed alterations to the building.
Primary Objectives of the Workgroup
1. Identify service needs of the Southern Albemarle community including
review of existing needs assessments and other data compiled by the County and
other community partners over the past 5-10 years.
2. Develop recommendations for enhanced use of the school building. Ideas
for strategies might include first identifying how much and what kind of space
may be available, identifying any restrictions on the use within the building and
identifying activities/programs that are aligned with continuing the building as an
elementary school.
3. Identify other individuals, entities, and/or organizations already engaged
in or interested in enhanced service delivery, and to determine feasibility for
public/private partnerships to support program development.
4. Conduct research into best practice models where successful programs or
uses have been identified and implemented.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
29
5. Research avenues of possible funding support for model programs,
including foundations with interest in enhanced service delivery in settings such
as the Yancey Elementary School.
While it is not the responsibility of the work group to provide cost estimates for the
recommendations, the work group should be mindful of the potential cost and scope of
projects recommended and the need to implement said recommendations with non-
traditional funding sources, partnerships and grants. It is critical to consider
public/private partnerships, thus the work group is empowered to explore potential
avenues for these kinds of agreements.
Resources Available to the Work Group
The County Executive and School Superintendent shall ensure that sufficient
administrative staffing support will be made available for the activities of the work group.
However, it is expected that the work group will draw upon its membership and others in
the community for support as well.
Work Group Membership
The work group will include a total of 12 members to be appointed by the County
Executive and School Superintendent as follows:
• Six (6) community members selected through an application process similar to
one utilized by the School Division for its Redistricting Committee appointment
process
• Six (6) members representing community agencies and partners as identified by
general government and school division staff
Co-chairs of the work group are to be selected by the County Executive and School
Superintendent.
Timeline
It is anticipated that applications for participation on the work group will be
advertised/solicited in January 2013 and the group will organize its first meeting during
the month of February 2013. At this time, the group will determine its own meeting
frequency and schedule as well as group roles and norms, facilitation, note taking, etc.
The Workgroup will report on its progress to the Board of Supervisors and to the School
Board in May and submit its final report & recommendations to both bodies in December
2013.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
30
Appendix B – Members of the Workgroup
Charlotte Brody (Coordinator) Howardsville, Virginia 22937
Bob Crickenberger County Parks & Recreation
Craig Dommer (Report Editor) Yancey Elementary School
Frances Feggans (Chair) Esmont, Virginia 22937
Lewis Jackson Esmont, Virginia 22937
Tim Lewis (Resigned) Howardsville, Virginia 22937
Renee Lundgren Esmont, Virginia 22937
Patricia McMullen Esmont, Virginia 22937
Dr. Dawn Osterholt Southern Albemarle Family Practice
Edward Strickler Scottsville, Virginia 24590
Gordon Walker JABA
Liaisons to the Boards
Debbie Chlebnikow Albemarle County Department of
Social Services
Bernard Hairston Office of Community Engagement
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
31
Appendix C – Needs Assessment Survey Results
Yancey Survey Results as of July 8, 2013
very important
important &
needed
good, not
needed unnecessary total
Adult education/Workforce
skills training 157 84.86% 23 12.43% 4 2.16% 1 0.54% 185
After school programs for
young people grades K-12 158 84.04% 24 12.77% 6 3.19% 0 0% 188
Daycare and pre-school for
infants to kindergarten 139 74.33% 40 21.39% 8 4.28% 0 0% 187
Youth development/College
access programs 139 74.33% 36 19.25% 11 5.88% 1 0.53% 187
Job training 138 74.19% 39 20.97% 9 4.84% 0 0% 186
Activities and services for
senior citizens 120 64.52% 49 26.34% 15 8.06% 2 1.08% 186
Mental health services 118 63.44% 39 20.97% 20 10.75% 9 4.84% 186
Recreation/exercise/physical
therapy activities 117 62.90% 53 28.49% 16 8.60% 0 0% 186
Dental and primary care
health services 116 62.37% 46 24.73% 23 12.37% 1 0.54% 186
Family resource
center/parenting skills
classes 116 62.37% 57 30.65% 12 6.45% 1 0.54% 186
EMT training and services 106 56.08% 53 28.04% 25 13.23% 5 2.65% 189
Arts and cultural
performances and exhibits 101 54.89% 54 29.35% 26 14.13% 3 1.63% 184
Space for meetings, parties
and other functions 95 51.35% 52 28.11% 34 18.38% 4 2.16% 185
Police services from a
satellite station 94 50.27% 43 22.99% 35 18.72% 15 8.02% 187
Living history museum with
student involvement 87 48.07% 58 32.04% 29 16.02% 7 3.87% 181
Gardening classes with
student involvement 85 46.45% 61 33.33% 31 16.94% 6 3.28% 183
Start up space for
innovative, rural small
businesses 85 47.49% 51 28.49% 32 17.88% 11 6.15% 179
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
32
Appendix D – Town Hall Meeting Notes
YANCEY TOWN HALL MEETING NOTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 2013
This is a One-Page Summary of the Town Hall Meeting’s Suggestions.
There was unanimous support expressed for the school and its central role in the
community. The general consensus was that the school has to be retained – we need the
school in the community. The school is the heart and soul of the community. We need to
acquire the adjacent land parcels to ensure adequate space, ensure excellent education
within the community, and blend community and education models to create educational
benefit and build community resources.
The main concern of the Town Hall was the purchase of neighboring land for a new
septic system. Questions asked:
-‐ What is the status of the land purchases?
-‐ Is it possible to separate the park and school septic systems?
-‐ By what date can the land purchase be completed?
-‐ Discussion about Yancey has gone on for years. We want to see some
conclusions.
-‐ The county needs to commit to the septic system.
The Recommended Next Steps:
• Acquire needed land.
• Resolve septic system issues.
• Assure long term commitment.
Other main points made were:
• Any extra-curricula programs and services must be safe for students.
• The County needs to ensure that Yancey students have consistent education with
other students in the County.
• We should ask the County for funding, and not just seek grants.
The school needs more space for:
• Upgraded technology.
• An Intergenerational Center. Daycare.
• Expansion of the library so it becomes a community library.
• A Social Services and Health Center.
Other recommendations and observations:
• The school could start with place-based learning and then expand as the facility is
being taken care of.
• Local partnerships can expose students to more real-world experiences. School
enrichment is primary.
• We should create opportunities for partnerships to educate and engage parents in
the value of parental involvement.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
33
• Consider sister schools paired with a business or agency.
• Collaborate with university students/Madison House.
• Create pride in school/have a community based on passion/knowledge/customs of
the older generation.
• The school can act as a hub to attract needed services.
• Need police services.
• Well-funded after-school programs to help students with their school work; Club
Yancey.
• Summer programs; Summer School; summer camp/field trips.
• Adult Education classes. They can take place now within the current building.
• Can the school be used for a meeting space? Are there community groups that
need a meeting space?
Addendum:
At the recent PTO of Yancey School, parents were asked which services they would like
to see provided at the school:
1. A part-time Social Services Office.
2. A part-time Health Department outreach center, with its programs.
3. A Career Center.
4. A Sports Programs for both kids and adults, with instructors.
For further information contact Tim Lewis, Co-Chair, at (434) 286-3282 or
timrlewis@earthlink.net
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
34
Appendix E – Current Community Partnerships
Organization Services for the School
4-H Club Yancey
Albemarle County Department of
Social Services
Family Support Worker
Albemarle County Parks and
Recreation
Club Yancey Programming, Summer
School Programming
Book Baskets Provide books for students to build
libraries at home
Elk Hill Therapeutic Day Treatment; Summer
Camp for eligible students
JABA FISH volunteers in Classrooms
Quick Start Tennis of Central
Virginia
Tennis Programming During and
After the School Day
Thomas Jefferson Gardening Club Yancey School Gardens
UVA Health System Club Yancey Programming
Virginia Cooperative Extension Yancey School Gardens
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
35
Appendix F – Long Range Planning Committee Project Summary
FY2014CAPITALIMPROVEMENTPROGRAMAMENDMENT
FORM1PROJECTREQUEST
RequestingDept. Dept.Ranking
Contact/Ext RequestOrigin
LeadDept./Contact StatusofProject
OFDManagement TypeofProject
OperatingImpacts JointProject
RevenueOffset Start Finish
SiteStatus(Land): Assets
$0 $0
New
NewConstructionͲFacilityYes
JosephP.LetteriͲ975Ͳ9340
$6,798,237
ProjectDescription
PHASE1:Expansion&replacementoftheonsitewasterwatersystem.
Purchaseadjacentparcelsoflandandinstallnewsepticsystem.Worktoincludesurveying,soilinvestigation,engineering&
installtionofthenewsystem.
PHASE2:MaintenanceProjects
PhaseII:MaintenanceProjects:
TheroofsatYancey(29,300sq.ft.EPDM)areinpoorcondition,bothfromaphysicalassessmentaswellasadesign
standard.Yanceywasduetohaveitsroofreplacedpreviously,butwaseliminatedduetopossibleclosureandeconomic
shortfalls.Itisnownecessarythatbothroofsectionsbereplaced.Thereplacementofroofdrainswillalsobeacomponent
ofthisproject.
TheHVACsystemintheoriginalpartofthebuildingisinpoorconditionandinneedofimmediatereplacement.Thisproject
willconsistofnewrooftopAHU’s,newduckwork,newVAVboxesandassociatedcontrols.Inaddition,thisprojectwill
includethereplacementoftheceilinggrids,ceilingtileandlightssincetheywillneedtoberemovedfortheinstallationof
thenewHVACsystem.
PHASE3:Modernization&Addition
Theproposedadditionsofabout6,800sfwillincludetwonewClassroomswithtoilets,asmallResourcespace,sixStaff
Specialistoffices,aKindergartenKitchen,andvarioussupportspaces.TheexistingMediaCenterwillbeexpandedand
modernized,andtheexistingroomsandspacesinthebuildingwillbemodernized.Theclassroommodernizationwill
includenewcabinetsandcounters,newmarkerboards,newceilingsandlighting,newflooring,newwindowshades,new
furniture&technology,reͲpaintingofallexistingpaintedsurfaces,andthereplacementofdoorsanddoorhardware.Toilets
willbeaddedtothreeexistingclassrooms.Additionalparking,playfieldsanddrainfieldswillalsobeconstructed.The
projectwillincorporateLEEDdesignprinciples,strategiesandelements.
$1,508,570
FY21/22 TotalFY18Ͳ22
YesͲSeeForm2Ͳb
None JUL
YanceyElementarySchoolModernization
YanceyElementarySchoolModernization
Study/FacilityAssessment
SchoolDivisionͲBuildingServices
JosephP.LetteriͲ975Ͳ9340
of
2014
CountyProject
JUN
Acquisition&Location
$6,798,237TotalFY14Ͳ22
FY16/17
$0
FY17/18
$0
Note:BesuretocompleteProjectCostSpreadsheetsassociatedwiththeprojectrequest.Inaddition,includeanyothergraphicsthat
describetheproject(i.e.siteplan,map,etc.)
FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21
$0 $0 $0 $0
2015
FundingRequest($)
FY14/15
$5,289,667
FY15/16
$0
TotalFY13Ͳ17FY13/14
LandPurchaseNotRequired CountyͲOwned
ALBEMARLECOUNTY,VIRGINIA
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
36
FY2014CAPITALIMPROVEMENTPROGRAMAMENDMENT
FORM1PROJECTREQUEST
YanceyElementarySchoolModernization
PhysicalLocation:
Neighborhood(Checkallthatapply)
CountyStrategicPlan:
ComprehensivePlan:
GuidingPrinciples:
Other:
EligibleforProffers
EligibleforCoͲlocation
Relatedto/Dependentuponanothersubmittedproject
Public/PrivatePartnership
Other
FormUpdated:(Required)
Date: Initials:6/22/2012 JPL
OtherSpecialConsiderations(Availableproffers,FutureExpansion,SpecialFeatures,etc)
TheexistingsepticsystematYanceywasinstalledin1964andisconsideredtobeneartheendofitsusefulservicelife.Due
tositelimitations,adjacentlotswillneedtobepurchasedtoinstallanadequatesepticsystemforYanceythatmeetscurrent
VirginiaDepartmentofHealthrequirements.Increasesinschoolcapacitywillnotbeallowedwithoutupgradestothe
existingsepticsystem.TheroofandHVACequipmentisalsoattheendofitsusefulservicelifeandneedstobereplaced.
Finally,theinteriorrenovationandadditiontoYanceyarenecessaryforincreasedfunctionalityoftheschooloperationsas
wellasforparitytootherschoolfacilities.
Ifthisprojectisnotcompleted,thesepticsystemcouldfailandadditionalcostswouldbeincurredtoremedytheemergency
situation.Ifthemaintenanceitemsarenotcompleted,theroofand/orHVACequipmentcouldfail.Lastly,withoutphase3
itwillbenecessarytooverutilizethefacilitybyusingmobileclassrooms.
Alternatives/ImpactifProjectNotFunded/Completed:(Required)
ProjectJustification(IncludingRelationshiptoCitedCountyPolicyorPlanAbove)
Changes/ReasonsforRevisions(IfUpdateofanExistingCIPProjectorNewProject)
1
YanceyElementarySchool
57
ThisprojectisconsistentwiththeobjectivesandgoalslistedintheschoolsectionoftheCounty
CommunityFacilitiesPlanandGoals4and5oftheSchoolDivisionStrategicPlan.
4
RelationshiptoanApprovedCountyPolicyorPlan(i.e.CountryStrategicPlan,ComprehensivePlan,ProgrammaticPlan….)
263
ALBEMARLECOUNTY,VIRGINIA
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
37
Appendix G References and Additional Resources
History
Ashmore-Sorensen, K (2012). A history of Alberene Soapstone Company.
http://www.alberenesoapstone.com/why-alberene-soapstone/history-of-alberene-
soapstone-company
Brickhouse, R (2000). Papers of early black educator discovered: Collection sheds light
on segregation-era rural Virginia. Inside UVA Online.
http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2000/12/yancey.html
Bruce, Philip Alexander (1924). History of Virginia. Henry Lee Lane. Chicago:
American Historical Society.
Esmont Oral History Project: Building Digital Communities, Race and Place: African
American Community History, Albemarle County, Virginia. Prepared by the Virginia
Center for Digital History, Charlottesville, VA, 2001-2002.
Eubanks, W (2013). Oral interview, 15 November 2013. Interview conducted by Renee
Lundgren.
Jefferson School History (2010). Jefferson School History Center.
http://jeffersoncitycenter.com/city_center/history.php
Klippstein, R (2005). A place for hopes and dreams. Scottsville Monthly (pp14-16). Vol
4 No. 2.
A Long Awaited Education (2008). The University of Richmond: History engine: Tools
for collaborative education and research.
http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3937
Lane, A. (2013). Oral interview, 24 October 2013. Interview by John Robins.
Nelson and Albemarle Railway Historical Society Website (2013) NEARHS
https://sites.google.com/site/nelsonalbemarle/
Palmer, M (2004). Abandoned Railways of Virginia: The Nelson and Albemarle Railroad
http://www.abandonedrails.com/Nelson_and_Albemarle_Railroad
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
38
Richardson, A (2012). Yancey decision retains critical piece of community’s fabric.
Daily Progress Online. http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/yancey-decision-retains-
critical-piece-of-community-s-fabric/article_330db312-ad8e-573b-8b7d-
3e3973dff6e0.html
Scottsville Schools (2001). Scottsville Museum
.http://scottsvillemuseum.com/school/home.html
University of Richmond (2008). A long-awaited education. History engine.
http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3937
Yancey, D.J. (2013) Genealogical research concerning persons of surname
Yancey/Yancy having African American ancestry.
http://www.geocities.com/djyancey/afr.htm
Virginia: A guide to the Old Dominion (1946). New York: Oxford University Press.
Best Practices
1.Making
the
School
Useful
to
the
Community-‐Rappahannock
County,
Virginia,
in
Rural
Policy
Matters,
The
Rural
School
and
Community
Trust,
April
2006,
accessed
at
http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=2359
2.
A
short
monograph
-‐
The
Rural
Solution,
How
Community
Schools
Can
Reinvigorate
Rural
Education
,
Rural
School
and
Community
Trust
September
2010,
accessed
at
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/pdf/ruralschools.pdf
-‐
highlights
a
chapters
with
examples
of
Effective
Rural
Community
Schools,
Common
Elements,
and
critical
Challenges
and
Solutions.
3.21st
Century
Rural
America,
A
RUPRI
Center
for
Rural
Entrepreneurship
White
Paper,
accessed
at
www.energizingentrepreneurs.org/content/cr_2/2_000305.pdf
4.
Open
and
honest
assessment
can
be
challenging.
For
example,
an
assessment
“need
not
overlook
the
fact
that
some
parents
may
need
special
types
of
assistance,
nor
does
it
make
the
assumption
that
every
community
business
will
contribute
positively
to
the
schools.
It
does,
however,
favor
positive
action
rather
than
unproductive
blaming.
Too
often,
rural
communities
are
blamed
for
their
problems."
Parent
perceptions
of
barriers
to
academic
success
in
a
rural
middle
school,
Professional
School
Counseling,
October
1
2010,
accessed
at
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Parent+perceptions+of+barriers+to+academic+suc
cess+in+a+rural+middle...-‐a0241277784
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
39
Funding
Leveraging Community Benefit for Community Health Improvement from NACCHO
(2010)
MAPP and Non-Profit Hospitals:
Leveraging Community Benefit for
Community Health Improvement
[FACT SHEET]
July 2010
Introduction
With the historic passage of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, non-profit hospitals are being called to
increase their accountability to the communities they serve.
Capitalizing on this momentum, this fact sheet provides
Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships (MAPP)
communities with information that will help them engage their
local non-profit hospitals in community health assessment and
improvement. The fact sheet explains “community benefit” and
recommends ways that MAPP communities can encourage local
non-profit hospitals to support MAPP processes in an effort to
fulfill community benefit requirements.
What is “community benefit”?
Community benefit is central to the mission of non-profit
hospitals and is the basis for their tax exemption. Non-profit
hospitals receive a variety of tax exemptions from federal, state,
and local governments with the expectation that, in return,
they will provide benefits to the community; these laws are
referred to as “community benefit.”1,2 Community benefit has
been defined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as “the
promotion of health for a class of persons sufficiently large so
the community as a whole benefits.”3 Simply put, community
benefit is composed of programs and services designed to
address identified needs and improve community health.
To qualify as community benefit, initiatives must respond to
an identified community need and meet at least one of the
following criteria:
• Improve access to healthcare services;
• Enhance health of the community;
• Advance medical or health knowledge; or
• Relieve or reduce the burden of government or other
community efforts.4
Historically, the majority of community benefit funds have
been spent on “charity care,” while a smaller portion has been
invested in community-based efforts such as community health
improvement planning. The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act revises the tax exemption standards applicable to
non-profit hospitals by adding several new components to
the Internal Revenue Code. Among other revisions, non-profit
hospitals will now be required to conduct a community health
needs assessment, widely publicize assessment results, and
adopt an implementation strategy to meet needs identified by
the assessment. According to the Catholic Health Association,
the new provision “gives great importance to taking a more
strategic approach to community benefit planning.”5
As a partner in the MAPP process, hospitals
can demonstrate collaborating with the
community, including public health experts, to
assess community needs, identify solutions, and
implement health improvement strategies.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
40
[2 ] Fact Sheet: MAPP and Non-Profit Hospitals: Leveraging Community Benefit for Community Health Improvement
What is the relationship between MAPP
and community benefit?
Community benefit presents a unique opportunity to engage
non-profit hospitals in MAPP. MAPP relies on the insights, skills,
and resources of partners committed to improving local quality
of life. Rich with intellectual capital, human resources, and local
knowledge, hospitals are well positioned to play an important
role in community-wide health improvement efforts.
The Public Health Institute, in a recent community benefit
demonstration project report,6 delineated five core principles
for effective community benefit programs: emphasis on
communities with disproportionate unmet health-related
needs; emphasis on primary prevention; building a seamless
continuum of care; building community capacity; and
collaborative governance. The core principles reflected in the
Public Health Institute report align with the MAPP approach. As
a community-wide health improvement process, MAPP does the
following:
• Includes a comprehensive assessment phase that identifies
local public health strengths, challenges, and unmet health-
related needs;
• Emphasizes primary prevention;
• Strengthens partnerships among healthcare providers,
public health professionals, and other stakeholders;
• Mobilizes community members to identify and act on
strategic health issues; and
• Institutionalizes a collaborative approach to planning,
implementing, and evaluating community health
improvement strategies.
Despite historically scarce reporting requirements, many
hospitals have provided substantial community benefits to
their communities for decades; however, beginning in 2009,
as part of new community benefit reporting requirements,
non-profit hospitals were required to complete the IRS form 990
Schedule H.7 The IRS form includes questions about how the
organization assesses community needs and how community
benefit programs are structured to address identified needs.8
In addition, with the enactment of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, non-profit hospitals will be required to
conduct a community health needs assessment at least every
three years and adopt an implementation strategy to address
the community health needs identified by the assessment.
The act requires that the community health needs assessment
“takes into account input from persons who represent the
broad interests of the community served by the hospital
facility, including those with special knowledge of or expertise
in public health.”9 As a partner in the MAPP process, hospitals
can demonstrate collaborating with the community, including
public health experts, to assess community needs, identify
solutions, and implement health improvement strategies.
Tips for Success
When strategizing how to begin the
conversation with a local non-profit hospital,
MAPP communities should consider the
following:
• Relationships are crucial. Find out who
the key community benefit players are
and begin building new relationships
or strengthening existing relationships.
Important contacts may include the
hospital’s director of community health,
director of community benefit, vice
president of planning, marketing director,
hospital board members, and the chief
executive officer.
• Do your homework. Find out more about
community benefit projects currently
underway and identify how MAPP can
complement and build on existing efforts.
• Prepare, prepare, prepare. Draft talking
points that describe how partnering in a
MAPP process can help the hospital build
collaboration, support their community,
fulfill their mission, and meet new
community benefit requirements.
• Become a MAPP expert. Be ready to
describe the MAPP philosophy and
components to a new audience—healthcare
and business professionals. Remember,
hospital staff might be unfamiliar with
public health terminology and may
appreciate explanation of the elements and
value of a broad definition of health. As a
starting point, consider sharing NACCHO’s
Mobilizing for Action through Planning and
Partnerships: A Community Approach to
Health Improvement fact sheet (see www.
naccho.org/na323pdf) with hospital staff.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
41
Fact Sheet: MAPP and Non-Profit Hospitals: Leveraging Community Benefit for Community Health Improvement [3]
How can MAPP communities encourage
local non-profit hospitals to join the effort?
One of the primary tenants of MAPP is its focus on the local
public health system (LPHS). A successful MAPP process
includes active participation from many different sectors of
the community—from the public school system to the faith
community and the hospital system. Recognizing the unique
value that each LPHS partner brings, MAPP facilitators should
spend ample time during “Organize for Success”10 discussing
MAPP’s agency-specific, LPHS-specific, and community-wide
benefits with prospective partners. These conversations present
opportunities for MAPP facilitators and partners to identify
how MAPP can accomplish the priorities of all parties involved
within the context of MAPP’s emphasis on strategic thinking,
community engagement, and LPHS strengthening.11
For non-profit hospitals to fulfill their mission and retain tax
exempt status, they must provide programs and services
that assess and respond to local community health needs.
By engaging in MAPP, hospitals not only work toward
fulfilling their community benefit requirements but also gain
access to a comprehensive dataset that includes information
about community health status, local public health system
functionality, community needs and assets, and local, state, and
national forces of change. Additionally, as with all LPHS partners
that participate in MAPP, hospitals build new partnerships
and benefit from the community’s strengthened public health
infrastructure and improved ability to anticipate and manage
change. United with a common framework and shared values,
non-profit hospitals, local health departments (LHDs), and
LPHS partners can collectively move communities closer to the
ultimate goal of improving the public’s health.
New to MAPP?
MAPP, which includes completion of the National Public
Health Performance Standards Program local instrument, is
a community-wide strategic planning process for improving
community health and strengthening the LPHS. Facilitated by
public health leadership, MAPP provides a framework that helps
communities prioritize public health issues; identify resources
for addressing them; and develop, implement, and evaluate
community health improvement plans. The MAPP process does
not create a strategic plan for the LHD; rather, MAPP results in
a strategic plan for the entire community. MAPP communities
frequently cite the following outcomes:
• Increased visibility of public health;
• New advocates for local public health;
• Increased ability to anticipate and manage change;
• Strengthened partnerships; and
• Strengthened public health infrastructure.
National Health Reform Outlines New
Expectations for Non-Profit Hospitals
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
requires non-profit hospitals to (1) conduct a
community health needs assessment at least every
three years and (2) adopt an implementation
strategy to meet the community health needs
identified by the assessment. The community
health needs assessment must include input from
persons who represent the broad interests of the
community served by the hospital facility, including
those with special expertise in public health and be
made widely available to the public.12
Acknowledgments
Funding for this project was provided by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention under Cooperative Agreement Number
5U38HM000449-02 (CFDA # 93.283). The contents of this
document are solely the responsibility of NACCHO and do not
necessarily represent the official views of the sponsor.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
Julia Joh Elligers
Program Manager
P (202) 507-4234
jjoh@naccho.org
Or visit www.naccho.org/mapp.
Final
Report
of
the
Yancey
Workgroup
December
12,
2013
Page
42
The mission of the National Association of County and City Health Officials
(NACCHO) is to be a leader, partner, catalyst, and voice for local health
departments in order to ensure the conditions that promote health and
equity, combat disease, and improve the quality and length of all lives.
1100 17th St, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036
P (202) 783 5550 F (202) 783 1583
www.naccho.org
[FACT SHEET]
July 2010
References
1. Congress of the United States: Congressional Budget Office.
(2006). Non-profit hospitals and the provision of community
benefits. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from www.cbo.gov/
ftpdocs/76xx/doc7695/12-06-non-profit.pdf.
2. For a comprehensive list of states that have community
benefit laws, visit www.communityhlth.org/communityhlth/
resources/cbmap.html.
3. Barnett, K. (2009). Beyond the numerical tally: Quality and
stewardship in community benefit. Oakland, CA: Public Health
Institute.
4. Catholic Health Association. (n.d.). What counts as
community benefit. Retrieved June 8, 2010, from www.
chausa.org/pages/our_work/community_benefit/what_
counts/overview/.
5. Catholic Health Association. (2010). Health reform and tax
exempt hospitals. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from www.chausa.
org/pages/our_work/community_benefit/overview/.
6. “The Advancing the State of the Art in Community Benefit
(ASACB) demonstration brought together a diverse group
of 70 hospitals in California, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada
to develop and implement a series of uniform standards to
align hospital governance, management, and operations,
and to make optimal use of limited charitable resources
to address unmet health-related needs. The ASACB
demonstration is administered through the Public Health
Institute.” Association for Community Health Improvement.
(n.d.). Advancing the state of the art in community benefit.
Retrieved Jan. 12, 2010, from www.communityhlth.org/
communityhlth/projects/asacb/asacbhome.html.
7. American Hospital Association. (n.d.). IRS Form 990 and
Schedule H. Retrieved Jan. 21, 2010, from www.aha.org/aha/
issues/Tax-Exempt-Status/irs.html.
8. Catholic Health Association (n.d.). IRS Form 990 Videos:
Community Assessment. Retrieved Jan. 13, 2010, from
www.chausa.org/pages/our_work/community_benefit/
irs_form_990/form_990_videos/.
9. One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of
America. (2010). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act: H.R. 3590. Washington: GPO.
10. “Organize for Success” is the first of MAPP’s six phases.
11. State and local reporting requirements for local non-profit
hospitals may vary. While MAPP communities are typically
defined by city, county, and regional identities, hospital
service areas often cross county and city lines, which can
affect community benefit requirements. Creative solutions
can help to ensure all parties meet their individual and
collective needs.
12. One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of
America. (2010).
LearnigLle'Lrln
March /April2014
ng irtYanray
ACPS Community Ed uc.tion
A Partnership with
Albemarle County Schools
Community Education
Iif*long leaning llappen ltere!
,rrinliRi*,nu
I'Lrl>lit Schxrls
Community Education comes to Southern Albemarle!
B. F. Yancey Elemenqry is opening its doors after schoor andon weekends to welcome the community to learn and play.
Join us for free and low-cost classes to improve your skiils,
or just for the fun of it! '
Here's what's happening atYancey:
o Quick Statt Tconis-ljfutndat.s
. Intro to Conputcts-'I\n s<lays
c Bab.r Steps-ll'tdncsd;r.r s
. Open G.r'm lteektnds
t Ctbet Suncl;t.t s
o Spring Easrcr Egg HuntIilINODUCIIOII TO CO}IPUTERS
Are you new to comPuters or interested in improvint your computer skills! This beginner class for
adufts wiff help get you started. Laptops provided for in-class use. Four session s for $7.00 eoch to leorn
emoil, internet, and to moke flyers, letterc ond more!
Tuesday evenings, March 4th, March llth,March l8th, March 25th 6:30-8 pm, Room 12.
$28-00-To register, call 975-9450 or visit wwv.opendoors | .org call for partial payment
arrangements. Cash, Check, Money Order or Credit Cards accepted.
Tought by Ms. Povice Simpson.
R
BabSr S6eps
Baby Steps is a dropin playgroup for
parents/caregivers and children from
infants to school age. Have fun and
build relationships while learning abow
the imponance of play, and childhood
development
Wednesdays 4-6 p.m., Yancey Music Room
Dropin, no registration or fee required
Touglrt by Eorly lntevention Speciotis., Ellen Sherwood
QUrCI START TElrlilS
Adults and children of all ages will enjoy learning
the basics of tennis in this free, indoor dropin
class. We provide the equip
ment, iust wear comf clothes
and tennis shoes for an easy
and fun hmily-friendly activity.
Mondays, Tuesdays and
Thursdays
6-7 p.m.
(No Tuesdays in March)
Yancey Gym
Drop-in, no registration or fee
Tauglrt by Fronc* Feggons & Grohom Poge
()PET GYII WEETEIIDI
Come work up a sweat in our Open
Gym! Balls and eguipment provided.
Saturdays and Sundays
l-6 p.m.
Free and Open to dl ages.
CYBER SUNDAYS
Need to check email or com-
plete a homework assignmem?
Join us in the computer lab for
Cyber Sundays!
Sundays from l-6 p.m.
FreF Ages l3 and Up
SAYE THE DATEI
April 19,20lt- lG30 rm.
Annud Gornmunlcy Eg3 Hunt
.t Slmpson P.rk
fi3.\
Phone 43d975-9,15 |
Fax:434-975-941i
life-long learning Happens Here!
lleed lldp leadingWriting or
Spaking En$ish?
Y{ont to improve your reodng
witng or Englbhspoking
skills? Lheroq Yolunteerc of
Chorloarsvill e I Nbem ode h c
porhered wittr Yoncey to offer
onHrrHne utodng for odu/ds who need help with
their reoding witing or s:peoking skillr. Coll LY(A
ot 977-3838 for informotion. (lnterested in fuing o
uter? LVCA wonrs to heor ftom you, no!)
ACPS COl.ll.lUNlTY EDUCATION
Room 98, Albemade High School
2Z/5 Hydraulic Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 2290 |4'mc''\,
Public Schools
April 2, 2014
To Whom It May Concern
In December, 2012, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County
School Board approved a Charter establishing the B. F. Yancey School Work Group and setting forth
five primary objectives for the Work Group, including to explore and identify community-based issues
in the community served by the school and to recommend potential community uses of the school for
the benefit of southern Albemarle County. The B. F. Yancey Work Group presented its final report at
a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board in December, 2013 and has since
continued to work to initiate a variety of innovative programs that build on the success of Club Yancey
and, in doing so, demonstrate how effectively a community working together can leverage public
support and private resources to maximize the use and benefit of an iconic community facility such as
B. F. Yancey School.
Club Yancey, initiated in 2005 as an after-school and summer program for students in
kindergarten through fifth grade, continues to ensure that children in the Esmont area and
surrounding communities develop the necessary academic, social and physical fitness skills intended
to help break a cycle of poverty for the many at-risk children in the area. This program has benefited
greatly from public -private partnerships that have enabled Club Yancey to serve children whose
families could not otherwise afford participation in after-school and summer enrichment programs.
The Board of Supervisors and the School Board acknowledge the significant work of the B. F.
Yancey Work Group to date and recognize the opportunity to use Club Yancey as a successful model
of community-based service delivery. The Boards support on-going efforts to develop an
intergeneration learning center at the school as a way of broadening and deepening the value of
education, enrichment and health and wellness services to all community members in southern
Albemarle County. Currently, the County provides on-going operating funds for a full-time Family
Support Worker in southern Albemarle County through the Albemarle County Department of Social
Services. This employee dedicates 20-hours each week to the children and families of B. F. Yancey
School at an annual cost of $34,000. As further indication of their support of this project, the Board of
Supervisors and the School Board provided in-kind contributions of approximately $38,000 over the
past 12 months as tangible evidence of a keen interest in the value of public-private partnerships to
serve important community needs. Both Boards continue to support this project and encourage other
public and private interests to contribute to this determined community-lead effort to serve families in
southern Albemarle through delivery of intergenerational education programs at the B. F. Yancey
School.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter of endorsement from the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County School Board.
Sincerely,
Jane D. Dittmar, Chair Ned Gallaway, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County School Board
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Board of Supervisors Annual Retreat
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and discussion of Board of Supervisors Annual
Retreat proposal
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Walker, Davis, Wyatt
PRESENTER (S): Louise Wyatt
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors has formally engaged in the County’s strategic planning efforts since 2001. Strategic planning is
considered a best practice and is a critical component of the adopted excellence framework under which the County
operates. Every five years, the plan is fully reconsidered and the other annual meetings serve as priority setting sessions
for the Board within the context of the strategic plan, as well as an assessment of progress. The County’s current five -year
strategic plan was adopted on July 1, 2012.
At its March 5, 2014 meeting, the Board agreed to have an annual retreat this summer to consider and clarify top
objectives and priorities under each strategic goal going forward and to ensure staff’s work i s aligned with Board priorities.
The Board also expressed support to use an outside facilitator to help manage discussion and to assist the group in
finding common ground and consensus.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The annual retreat shapes and informs the County’s strategic plan.
DISCUSSION:
Based on Board direction, the annual retreat is scheduled for Tuesday June 10th from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at a
location to be determined. Given the importance of this retreat and the need for effective facilitation, as well as the
need to move quickly to begin preparations, staff contacted Tyler St. Clair, an experienced local government
consultant who specializes in working with elected bodies. St. Clair has worked with elected bodies in diverse Virginia
cities and towns such as Staunton, Charlottesville, Falls Church, Newport News, Richmond, Danville, and Manassas ,
and has significant experience facilitating these type retreats. She also provides faculty services to the University of
Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service where she supports the nationally-recognized Senior Executive
Institute and LEAD programs. A full biography of St. Clair is attached (Attachment A). The County’s Leadership
Council recently worked with St. Clair and believes she is well-qualified to facilitate this retreat. Based on her recent
work with the County, she is also familiar with many of the County’s current challenges.
The retreat is an important opportunity to clarify and align the Board’s policy direction with staff work, insuring there is
appropriate focus and resource allocation for both long and short term priorities. As envisioned, the retreat will allow
the Board to build on the strategic plan previously developed for FY 13-17, which has provided valuable guidance to
staff in focusing work, addressing capital projects in a timely way, and insuring thoughtful resource allocation. At the
retreat, the Board will have an opportunity to review the existing FY 13-17 Strategic Plan and make any changes it
feels are necessary as part of the larger priority-setting process. Preparation for the meeting will include individual
interviews between the facilitator and each Board member to acquire input and enable the final design of the retreat to
address the Board’s needs.
Working with the facilitator, staff recommends the following specific goals for the retreat:
1. Gain an understanding of the Board’s individual perspectives on strengths, assets, needs, and desired change
initiatives for the County;
2. Review the current strategic goals and identify any changes that should be made to achieve the desired future of
the County;
AGENDA TITLE: Board of Supervisors Annual Retreat
April 2, 2014
Page 2
3. Clearly articulate the need for and intent of each strategic goal, including projects and initiatives that may be
important over the long term and short term ; and
4. Identify/agree on specific priorities to be addressed over the next three years that are consistent with resources
and capacity.
Staff recognizes the challenge of accomplishing these goals in a single day and expects that follow up work may be
necessary to finalize clear direction on priorities. Any needed follow up will be scheduled at subsequent Board
meetings if necessary. The ultimate outcome of the retreat is expected to be clear direction that drives the County’s
Five-Year Financial Plan in October and annual budget process for FY2016.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY13-17 Strategic Plan provides direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and annual budget
processes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests approval of the proposed consultant and the goals outlined for the retreat, with any amendments the
Board feels are appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A—Biography of Facilitator St. Clair
Return to agenda
A. TYLER ST.CLAIR
205 Madison Street
Lynchburg, Virginia 24504
434-846-2428
ats6t@virginia.edu
A. Tyler St.Clair is a consultant to local government who specializes in working with elected bodies
and staff organizations that are interested in enhancing performance. In addition to her private
consulting, she provides faculty services to the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for
Public Service where she supports the Senior Executive Institute and LEAD program. These institutes
enjoy a national reputation as high-quality career development programs for city managers and local
government staff. Tyler is also a Principal Associate with the Commonwealth Centers for High
Performance Organizations, Inc., a consulting group with extensive organization development
contracts with federal, state, and local governments. CCHPO is well known for assisting organizations
in learning to use the “High Performance Organization (HPO) Model” to diagnose and enhance
organizational performance.
Tyler works with a large array of governing bodies, boards and commissions, and local government
staff members to provide strategic planning, leadership development, team building, organizational
assessment and intervention, and performance coaching. She has worked with many types of elected
and appointed representatives from school boards, water authorities, economic development
authorities, commissions, and professional associations. She uses a highly successful governance
model that helps governing bodies provide collective, visionary leadership for their localities and to
accomplish long and short-range goals. She has worked with every type of department in local
government, implementing high performance strategies first-hand and over time. She brings an
ability to design programs directly related to client needs along with practical experience with
change to her ongoing work with local governments.
Her Virginia clients have included the counties of Orange, Fauquier, Frederick, Franklin, Amherst,
Brunswick, Prince George, Montgomery, Spotsylvania, Bedford, Spotsylvania, Culpeper, Campbell,
Nelson, Rockingham, and Stafford. She has worked with elected bodies in diverse Virginia cities and
towns such as Middleburg, Staunton, Louisa, Leesburg, Waynesboro, Charlottesville, Falls Church,
Herndon, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Chesapeake, Newport News, Richmond, Hampton, Fredericksburg,
Hopewell, Christiansburg, Petersburg, Radford, Danville, Martinsville, Pulaski, and Manassas. Her
out-of-state clients have included San Antonio TX, Rockville MD, Saginaw MI, Bellevue WA, Laredo
TX, Broward County FL, San Bernadino CA, and Martin County FL.
Tyler had a long career with state and local government before joining UVA’s Cooper Center and
CCHPO. She served in a series of professional management positions in the Commonwealth of
Virginia’s Department of Corrections over an eighteen-year period. She coordinated statewide
management development and youth services training for the Department before moving to local
government. Tyler served for eight years as an internal consultant in the City of Lynchburg, Virginia
where she was the primary facilitator of activities related to the City’s reinvention efforts. She
designed and facilitated city council visioning and goal setting, strategic planning, organization
development and many special improvement projects involving city departments and the City’s
business and regional partners.
Tyler graduated from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia with a B. S. in Social Work.
She is certified in the administration of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, the EQi, the Technology of
Participation, and ProSci’s Change Management. She has special skills training in strategic visioning,
mediation, appreciative inquiry, graphic facilitation, National Issues Forum moderation, basic law
enforcement, and a variety of counseling modalities.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Board of Supervisors/City Council Joint Meeting
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consideration of outcomes for a joint meeting with the
City Council
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Wyatt
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At its March 5th meeting, the Board expressed its desire to have further discussion regarding the purpose and outcomes
for a joint meeting with City Council to be scheduled sometime after the Board’s June retreat. Some background on
existing partnerships and past efforts regarding regional cooperation with the City is provided for the Board’s information
(Attachment A).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission Statement: 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 item is scheduled for further Board discussion to provide a framework for scheduling a joint meeting with City
Council. The County Executive has discussed the possibility of such a meeting with the City Manager on several
occasions and they recently identified July as a possible time for the meeting. After further direction is provided by the
Board on the purpose and outcomes for the meeting, it is suggested that the Chair and County Executive meet with
the Mayor and City Manager to finalize plans for the meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact anticipated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide direction on the purpose and desired outcomes for a joint meeting with City
Council and authorize the Chair and County Executive to meet with City representatives to finalize plans for a joint
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – County City Partnership Overview
Return to agenda
County/City Partnerships Briefing
Established regional partnerships in which the County and City work together include:
Public Safety:
Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail
Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention
Charlottesville-Albemarle Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
County/City Fire Services Agreement
County/City Police Mutual Aid Agreement
Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement regional narcotics task force
Public Works:
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (includes McIntire Recycling Facility)
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Human Development:
JAUNT (formerly known as Jefferson Area United Transportation)
Jefferson Area Board for Aging
Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department
Region Ten Community Services Board
Parks, Recreation and Culture:
Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitor’s Bureau
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
Darden Towe Park
Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center
Ivy Creek Natural Area
McIntire Skate Park
Community Development:
Three Party Agreement (County, City, UVA)
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
Piedmont Housing Alliance
Charlottesville Area Transit
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Albemarle County/Charlottesville Virginia Cooperative Extension
Education:
Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC)
Piedmont Regional Education Partnership (PREP) Program
Other partnerships under negotiation:
Regional Fire Training Facility
Fire Mutual Aid Agreement
Other regional partnerships efforts:
Over the years, many studies have been done to explore potential additional partnership between the County and City.
Most recently, in April 2010, at a City/County meeting convened by Delegate David Toscano, the County Board of
Supervisors, the County School Board, the Charlottesville City Council, and the Charlottesville School Board met to
discuss City-County cooperation and initiatives to bring the community together. At that time, those in attendance
agreed to establish working groups (of Councilors and Board members) to further evaluate potential
partnerships/consolidations in the areas of social services, fire/rescue, and schools. A key working principle of the
initiative was to determine whether consolidation would result in “increasing the level of services in both jurisdictions at
the same cost or providing the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayers of both jurisdictions.”
The social services workgroup presented findings to the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2011, and reported that
consolidation of the two departments (City and County) was not viable. The group made the following
recommendations:
o Continue to seek further avenues of collaboration and partnership, and present opportunities for the
elected bodies to support such endeavors.
o Provide opportunities to bring the advisory boards for the respective jurisdictions together to explore
areas of collaboration.
o Explore the creation of dedicated personnel to the increasingly demanding area of emergency
operations planning and preparedness.
o Share resources that allow for an effective response to the English as a Second Language (ESL)
population.
o Provide opportunities for the elected bodies to join in their legislative efforts on matters that impact
Social Services and related human services
The fire/rescue workgroup also presented findings to the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2011, reporting that
that consolidation of the two departments (City and County) would not yield “increased level of services in both
jurisdictions at the same cost or providing the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayers of both
jurisdictions.” Building upon work previously launched by Chiefs Eggleston and Werner in the summer of 2009,
the workgroup shared recommended strategies for further partnership:
o Create a joint technology Request for Proposals
o Continue to standardize policies, practices and equipment
o Coordinate business inspection programs
o Share resources for juvenile fire setter, public education, and investigation programs
o Establish an Incident Command Team to help manage significant events
o Further develop joint policies/programs for the Regional HazMat Team
o Conduct a regional hiring process
o Schedule additional joint continuing education programs for Fire and EMS
o Develop a Fire RMS (Records Management System) knowledge sharing team
o Merge Fire/EMS incident dispatch and combined ECC operations
The Schools workgroup - A number of discussions took place between City School Board and County School
Board members and staff on opportunities for cooperation that might provide cost savings. The discussion was
narrowed down to whether the County Schools could benefit by cooperating with the City Schools in a Virtual
Classroom initiative. Ultimately it was determined that such an initiative would require additional funding by
Albemarle County that was not available and that there would not be any anticipated cost savings achieved by a
joint initiative.
In 2006, the City and County retained the services of Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a Regional Fire and Rescue
Consolidation Study. Matrix completed its evaluation in the spring of 2007 and concluded that “consolidation of the
Departments would offer minimal opportunities to reduce staff levels” and would result in additional costs rather
than cost savings.
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: March 26, 2014
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
For information only please find attached an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through
March 26, 2014.
Appointments and reappointments that need to be made at this time are to the Citizens Transportation Advisory
Committee (CTAC), Equalization Board, Social Services Board, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council.
Listed below are the names of individuals who wish to be appointed and reappointed to the respective committees:
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC): Reappointments
Frances Hooper
Russell Lafferty – Planning Commission Liaison
Equalization Board: White Hall District
Nancy Fleischman
Social Services Board: White Hall District
Angela Lynn
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council: Reappointment
Cyndi Burton
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC):
Liz Palmer
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 waiting 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 Robin Mellen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee Frances Hooper 4/3/2014 4/3/2017 Yes Advertised, No applications recv'd
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee Timothy O'Brien 4/3/2014 4/3/2017 No
Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee Russell Lafferty 4/3/2014 4/3/2017 Yes Planning Commission Liaison
Equalization Board Virginia Gardner 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 No, (White Hall)Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Equalization Board William Rich 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 No, (Rio)
Equalization Board Following application received:
Nancy Fleischman White Hall District
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, 1 applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No
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 Following applications received:
RD "Peppy" Winchel
Pantops Community Advisory Council Rita Krenz 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Amy Preddy 6/30/2014 Resigned
Social Services Board Yris Vaca 12/31/2015 Resigned (White Hall)
Social Services Board Lincoln Lewis 12/31/2015 Resigned (Rivanna)
Social Services Board Following application received:
Angela Lynn White Hall District
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Ann Mallek 12/31/2015 Resigned
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Cyndi Burton 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes
Revised 03/26/2014
Board-to-Board
April , 2014
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Inclement Weather Update—Albemarle County public schools now have missed 11 days due to adverse weather
events. At its March 13 meeting, the School Board agreed to follow its current policy of adding makeup days to
the end of the school year, which this year now will be Friday, June 13. The school division conducted a
community-wide on line survey on various options to make up for lost instructional time. More tha n 6,000
responses were received. Seeking a state waiver to offset some of the lost time was the option that received the
most support and the school division will speak with the state Department of Education to determine if this is a
reasonable possibility.
Students Win Both Best in Show Awards at Piedmont Regional Science Fair-- Students from our three
comprehensive high schools took home 84 awards from the science fair. Albemarle, Western Albemarle, and
Monticello high school students gained 75 percent of all first-place awards, 12 in the 16 categories . Selena Feng,
an Albemarle High sophomore and Caitlin Dutta, a Western Albemarle High junior, were the B est in Show Grand
Award winners and automatically qualified for the International Show in Los Angeles in May. All category
winners will compete in the Virginia State Science & Engineering Fair at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington
on March 29.
Congressman Hurt to Visit Baker-Butle r--Congressman Robert Hurt will be visiting Baker-Butler Elementary
School on Friday, March 21. The Congressman will be visiting the school “STEAM” classroom, whe re students
focus on hands -on projects that incorporate science, technology, engineering, the arts and mathematics.
Human Resources Annual Report--At its February 27th work session, the Board reviewed the annual report by
Human Resources. Among the most significant findings is that teacher retirements continue to decline and have
dropped by 22 percent in two years. A total of 33 percent of all teachers in the division are 50 years of age or
older. In their exit survey, teachers cited relocation or factors that are external to the school system as the most
frequent reasons for leaving the division—about 50 percent of teachers cited these considerations.
Health& Medical Sciences Academy—Four students from Monticello High School’s Health & Medical Sciences
Academy were selected to attend a national conference in Washington, D.C. The conference was for future
leaders in medicine and included sessions with several Noble Prize winners , young scientists, and on biomedical
innovations, one of the county’s targeted industries for job growth. Now in its second year, the academy has
expanded its enrollment from 24 to 67 students and is projected to increase to 120 students next year.
CATEC Strategic Plan—CATEC Principal Adam Hastings presented the plan at the March 13th Board meeting.
It seeks strong partnerships with PVCC and major area employers to develop a regional training model to increase
the employability of CATEC graduates. The idea is to design and operate programs built around the involvement
of employers to ensure that training programs align with their specific needs . Crucial actions would include a
steering committee to evaluate design and operational effectiveness of the model and the creation of one or more
pilot institutes.
Two High School Teams headed to Championships--For the 12th time in the past 13 years, Albemarle High
School’s Forensics team has won the Central Virginia regional championships. The team now will compete in the
state tournament on March 29. Forensics is comprised of a series of a diverse range of public speaking categories
from improvisation to serious dramatic interpretation to storytelling and poetry reading. Separately, the Western
Albemarle Robotics team was among teams from throughout the east coast that were chosen to compete in a
super-regional tournament in Pennsylvania next month. The team also is piloting a course in robotics that could
become part of Western’s curriculum next year.
Battelle Grant—Battelle has announced that they will provide a grant of $20,000 to Albemarle County Public
Schools to support the manufacturing lab program now being developed for the division’s middle schools. In
recent years, Battelle has provide funding for the Health & Medical Sciences Academy, the division’s Coder Dojo
Program, STEM teachers and a program to incorporate the use of geospatial technologies in the humanities.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Historic Preservation Committee’s 2013 Annual
Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Historic Preservation Committee Update on 2013
Committee Activities
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Cilimberg, Maliszewski
PRESENTER (S): Jared Loewenstein
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Historic Preservation Plan was adopted in September 2000. In April 2001, the Board adopted the “Priority
Recommendations for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County” (Attachment A) as the action agenda to be used for Plan
implementation. The Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) held its first meeting on January 8, 2002.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies.
Objective c. Maintain and preserve County-owned historic resources and facilities and work in conjunction with key
stakeholders to enhance awareness of the rich historic assets of this region.
DISCUSSION:
In 2013 the Historic Preservation Committee made progress on several of the Priority Recommendations. Attachment
B is a summary of the Committee's accomplishments, which focused on education programs and addressing
demolitions. Of note is the Committee's recommendation that the County take greater advantage of the Committee's
expertise early in the planning process, when timely assistance can be provided in the identification of potentially
significant historic resources and in the determination of appropriate actions on known historic resources.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact related to this item.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the Historic Preservation Committee’s report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Priority Recommendations for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County
Attachment B: Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee: Accomplishments in 2013
Return to agenda
Attachment A
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS for HISTORIC PRESERVATION in ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1. Create a permanent Historic Preservation Committee to provide assistance and advice concerning
the County's historic preservation program.
2. Compile and maintain a current and comprehensive information base for Albemarle County's historic
resources. This database should include, but is not limited to, the following: Identification of all historic
sites by tax map and parcel number; maintenance of a map of potential prehistoric archaeological
sites, and ready accessibility to all Virginia Department of Historic Resources historic survey inventory
data on Albemarle County resources. This information base should be consulted so that historic
resources may be fully considered in the County's development review process, and should be made
easily available to interested citizens for educational and informational purposes. This information
base should also be coordinated with the County's GIS system.
3. Institute a program whereby new owners of historic properties are notified of the significance of their
property and are given instructions for obtaining additional preservation -related information
concerning their historic resource.
4. Establish a formal definition of the term "significant historic resource" to be used in the
implementation of the County's Historic Preservation Plan.
5. In the event that demolition of a significant historic resource must occur, thoroughly document the
resource prior to demolition. Also encourage documentation prior to major adaptive reuse or
renovation whenever possible.
6. Promote and encourage preservation by making available information regarding state and national
register designation procedures, tax incentives, historic and conservation easements, and other
voluntary preservation measures.
7. Foster community pride, good citizenship, and stewardship of the County’s historic resources through
heritage education programs, beginning with the creation of educational/informational brochures on
various County historic preservation issues, including state and national register listing, tax
incentives, County policy, etc.
8. The Historic Preservation Committee should work with other organizations to initiate and implement
community events for Albemarle County that recognize our historic resources. These events should
be coordinated with other statewide heritage tourism activities and National Preservation Week.
9. To help protect the Monticello viewshed, adopt a more formalized procedure that begins early in the
planning process to encourage cooperation between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and
developers of property within the viewshed.
10. Be prepared to take advantage of resources, as they become available, to assist in implementation of
the County's historic preservation plan.
11. Continue to pursue the implementation of financial incentives for historic preservation, including the
establishment of a revolving loan fund and the requisite enabling legislation.
12. Two years after the adoption of these recommendati ons, evaluate the County's progress on these
preservation priorities, and evaluate the need for an historic overlay district ordinance.
Attachment B
Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee
Accomplishments in 2013
Real Estate Letters
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #3: Owner notification; #6 Promote preservation
Summary: Four committee members serve on a subcommittee to identify recently sold properties of historic value. In
2013, 40 letters were sent to new property owners to inform them of the historic character of their houses and to offer the
HPC as an information resource.
Demolition and Documentation
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #5: Document prior to demolition; #6 Promote preservation
Summary: In 2013 thirty applications were made for demolition permits. Four of those buildings were documented by
members of the HPC prior to demolition. Members of the HPC helped document two additional buildings (Clay Hill and
Out of Bounds) that were not scheduled for demolition. Committee members were also invited to visit Ramsay, where
they toured the historic building and grounds. All members of the committee have participated in documentation efforts.
Database
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #2 Compile comprehensive information base
Summary: All members of the HPC, with the assistance of a Community Development intern (now a committee member),
participated in a massive effort to identify each individual property in the county’s National Register Historic Districts as
contributing or non-contributing (to the overall significance of the district). Once the identification process is complete,
the information will be incorporated into the county’s GIS. Significant progress has been made. Of the 12 districts in the
county, only identification of the Greenwood-Afton district properties remains to be completed. The PEC has assisted
generously with this effort.
Historic Records Committee
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #4 Define significant historic resource
Summary: Following the loss of important county real estate records that generated considerable concern among members
of the historic community and others, two committee members volunteered to serve on the County’s Historic Records
team. The team is charged with helping to determine the nature and extent of historical documents and records produced
and maintained by the county, and with helping to develop appropriate policy, procedure and guideline recommendations
for the safeguarding, retention, storage, destruction or transfer of such records.
Courts Study
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #6 Promote preservation
Summary: In September 2013 the HPC held an extensive discussion on the county’s historic courthouse. Following the
discussion, and after some members visited the site, the committee sent a letter to the BOS recommending that the
architectural integrity of the present building be respected as a significant county resource . The HPC noted that the project
presents an opportunity to save the last part of the original 1803 north wing that was the first part of the present str ucture,
and it could be very attractively interpreted to engage the public, while promoting and strengthening heritage tourism and
additional tax revenues locally.
Joint meeting with the City of Charlottesville Historic Resources Committee
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #8 Coordinate with other preservation organizations
Summary: On September 23, 2013, the County’s Historic Preservation Committee and the City’s Historic Resources
Committee met to discuss the potential for joint collaboration projects. Specifically, the members discussed historic
markers and an audio tour, in addition to existing historic resources of mutual concern, including the old county jail and
the county courthouse.
Manual for Owners of Historic Buildings
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #7 Foster stewardship of historic resources through education programs
Summary: Committee members agreed to pursue the compilation of a manual for owners of historic buildings and have
begun assembling information to this end. Topics to be addressed in the manual include: tax credit information, National
Register nomination information, steps for researching a historic property, standards and guidelines for restoration and
renovation, links to sources of historic information, including photos and maps, and more.
Piedmont Area Preservation Alliance
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #8 Coordinate with other preservation organizations
Summary: Some members attended the Piedmont Area Preservation Alliance annual meeting, with the chair representing
the committee and reporting on the committee’s work accomplished during the year.
Western Bypass Historic Resources
Relevant Priority Recommendation: #7 Foster stewardship of historic resources through education programs
Summary: At several meetings the committee discussed the significance of cultural resources along the Western Bypass
route and the process by which they had been identified. Group discussions culminated in the committee sending a letter
to the BOS in January, 2014 recommending that the Board better integrate historic preservation into County planning
processes by more fully involving the HPC in advance of decisions on projects such as the Western Bypass.
Page 1 of 5
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
April 2014
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection
Improvements at Route 729 Right of Way Advertisement TBD
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy Creek Right of Way Advertisement 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, Rio Mills Road –
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 November 2014
Page 2 of 5
Construction Activities
Route 29 Bypass (FO)0029-002-844
Scope: Construct 6.2 miles of highway between Route 250 to north of South Fork of the Rivanna
River.
VDOT is currently evaluating the effect of the FHWA letter dated Feb 18, 2014.
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250
Next Major Milestone: Completion of Phase 2A
Phase 1B is now complete as Westbound US 250 traffic has been transferred onto Ramps 1 and
4 as part of the Phase 2A configuration. The new C.A.R.S. Access Road is now open with new
emergency traffic signal working to allow the existing entrance to be clo sed for work needed prior
to performing the Phase 2A shift for Eastbound US 250. With transfer of traffic for Westbound US
250, equipment for bridge construction has been mobilized and pile driving has started for
Abutment B. New gas utilities and regulator building are nearing completion for placing into
service prior to abandoning the old lines. Sanitary sewer and waterline installations have been
steadily pursued and are will soon be finished. Birdwood Road work is now complete and has
been opened to traffic in the permanent configuration.
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
Route 708 Dry Bridge Road (NFO)0708-002-283, C501, B659
Scope: Replace bridge; reconstruct approaches, drainage and incidentals
Next Major Milestone: Construct grading, drainage, utilities and new bridge
Contract Completion: 12-Sep-14
I-64 Box Culvert Repair (NFO)BRDG-967-083, N501
Scope: I-64 at Ivy Creek Box Culvert Repair, Albemarle County
Next Major Milestone: Project Completion
Contract Completion: 20-Dec-13
Page 3 of 5
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 20, Stony Point Road @ Route 250, Richmond Road:
Intersection pavement marking review; Study completed; Pavement marking installation pending.
VDOT Study Number - 003-0250-20130301-006
Route 689, Burch’s Creek Road:
Signing review; Study completed; Sign installation pending;
VDOT Study Number – 003-0689-20130910-010
Route 614, Garth Road:
Signing review; Study completed; Sign installation pending;
VDOT Study Number – 003-0614-20130910-010
Route 250 Rockfish Gap Turnpike @ Route 689 Burch’s Creek Road:
Safety study; Study completed; Sign relocation pending;
VDOT Study Number-- 003-0250-20131008-007
Route 250, Richmond Road @ Route 22, Louisa Road:
Pavement marking review; Study completed; Pavement marking installation pending.
VDOT Study Number – 003-0250-20130923-006
Route 606, Dickerson Road @ Route 29, Seminole Trail:
Safety review; Study completed; Pavement marking installation and brush removal pending.
VDOT Study Number- 003-0606-20130819-007
Route 810, White Hall Road @ Route 614, Garth Road:
Safety Study; Study complete; Sign installation pending
VDOT Study Number-- 003-0810-20131016-007
Route 631, Old Lynchburg Road:
Safety Study; study complete; Installation pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0631-20131008-007
Route 22 @ Route 740
Safety review; study complete; installation pending
VDOT Study Number—003-022-20140113-007
Route 825, Crozet
Operational analysis; complete
VDOT Study Number—003-0825-20140128-026
Route 866, Greenbrier Drive:
Speed study; complete; sign installation pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0866-20131204-011
Route 604, School bus stop ahead
Signing review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0604-20140206-010
Under Review
Route 250 @ Town and Country Lane:
Signal warrant study; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20131106-009
Pratt Road and Alderman Road:
Safety review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0302-20131216-007
Page 4 of 5
Route 250 @ Glenmore
Speed study; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20131217-011
Route 250 @ Birdwood
Signal Warrant study; On hold
VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20140113-009
Route 677, Bloomfield Road
Speed study; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0677-20140113-011
Route 1452, Westfield Court
Signing Review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-1452-20140113-010
Route 631, Rio Road @ Fashion Square
Crosswalk review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0631-20140129-020
Route 29 and Plank Road
Safety review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0029-20140130-007
Route 631, Rio Road @ Belvedere
Signal warrants; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0631-20140130-009
Route 620 @ Route 618
Pavement marking review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0620-20140130-006
Route 250 @ 678 Owensville Road for Broomley Road Bridge Detour
Signal warrants; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0677-20140130-009
Route 784
Series of traffic counts; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0784-20140204-013
Route 1421, Fontana subdivision
Multi-way stop; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-1421-20140204-023
Route 250
Traffic counts; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20140207-013
Route 250 @ Tilman Road
Signing review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20140130-010
Page 5 of 5
Maintenance Activities
VDOT Area Headquarters crews completed the following activities during the past month.
For specific route activities, please contact the Charlottesville Residency Office.
Machining of non-hard surface roads has been performed on 37 secondary routes
Patching was performed on 3 primary routes and 15 secondary routes
Culverts and ditches were cleaned on 1primary route and 8 secondary routes
Debris was removed from 1 primary route and 3 secondary routes
All areas prepared equipment and responded to winter weather events
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Broadband Task Force Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
An update regarding Internet Broadband Access for
Underserved Areas of Albemarle County
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Catlin, and Culp
PRESENTER(S): Mike Culp
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On September 4, 2013, the Board directed staff to research grant funding and other strategies to advance the availability
of high speed internet to underserved areas of the County. On October 23, 2013, staff presented its research results to
the Board, and the Board directed staff to proceed with a round table with telecommunications providers to obtain
information regarding plans, ideas and known funding sources to help facilitate additional service installation in the
underserved areas of the County and to identify barriers to providing services in select rural areas. The round table was
held on October 23, 2013, and the outcomes of that round table were presented to the Board on January 8, 2014
(Attachment A). The Board directed staff to proceed with a Broadband Task Force.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy; and
Goal 7. Promote a valued and responsive county workforce.
DISCUSSION:
The Broadband Task Force is composed of three subteams working on the areas set forth below.
Awareness and Broadband Demand Identification – As the next step in this process, the team is developing a plan
to release a web and paper survey focused on collecting information from County residents regarding the demand for
high speed internet access in the County. The survey will ask questions about the size of households, the reasons for
using the internet, and working from home opportunities. The Virginia Center for Innovative Technology is providing
the survey tool for this effort. The team sought and received approval from various businesses and offices to post
flyers regarding the survey in various locations and is working to obtain permission from additional businesses and
public schools to post fliers in additional locations. The team is now testing the survey instrument and plans to link it
from a dedicated page on the Albemarle County website. With this update, the team is providing information on the
draft public information plan (Attachment B). The team is also developing a plan to include Albemarle County in
Accelerate Virginia’s statewide Internet Speed Test, which will be administered b y the eCorridors program at Virginia
Tech and will collect data from residents across the State in an effort to evaluate the demand for broadband services
in Virginia.
Funding Options Recommendation – This team is continuing to evaluate grant opportunities for high speed internet
funding that may be available from a Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development Planning Grant or
from Connect America Funds. The team is in the early stages of consulting with the County Attorney’s Office
regarding enabling authority for localities to participate in the deployment of broadband services . The team provided
input for a letter from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) expressing interest in participating in the FCC broadband trial experiments. The expression of
interest letter (Attachment C) has been submitted on behalf of all localities served by the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission.
The team attended the FCC March 19 Rural Broadband Workshop online here.
Permitting Process Review, Rights of Way, and Recommendations – The team discussed the process for
obtaining wireless facilities permits and the level of documentation required for submitting a request to construct or
modify a wireless facility. Suggestions to facilitate the permit application process included additional information on
AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Broadband Task Force Update
April 2, 2014
Page 2
the website to clarify the process (specific references were made to developing a flowchart), easy to use applications
and direction to specific staff to address questions. The team discussed Community Development’s ongoing work to
revise the County’s wireless regulations including antenna size, number of permitted arrays and other technical
issues. The team is also researching ways in which the County can promote high speed internet deployment by both
the public and private sector.
The Broadband Task Force is on schedule for releasing the dedicated web page, community survey, and internet
speed test starting April 9, 2014.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The only direct budget impact of moving forward as proposed would be the utilization of staff time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This executive summary and presentation is provided for the Board’s information.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – January 8, 2014 Executive Summary
B – Broadband Task Force Draft Public Information Plan
C – TJPDC Expression of Interest to Participate in FCC Broadband Experiments
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Broadband Task Force Initiation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
An update regarding Internet Broadband Access for
Underserved Areas of Albemarle County
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Catlin, Culp
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 8, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On September 4, 2013, the Board directed staff to research grant funding and other strategies to advance the availability
of High Speed Internet to underserved areas of the County. On October 23, 2013, staff presented its research results to
the Board, and the Board directed staff to proceed with a Round Table with Telecommunications Providers to obtain
information regarding plans, ideas and known funding sources to help facilitate additional service installation in the
underserved areas of the County and to identify barriers to providing services in select rural areas. The Round Table was
held on October 23, 2013. The notes from the Round Table are attached (Attachment A). The purpose of this Executive
Summary is to inform the Board that one of the outcomes of the Round Table is the formation of a short-term Broadband
Task Force. The details of the proposed work for the Broadband Task Force are included in the Discussion section.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy; and
Goal 7. Promote a valued and responsive county workforce.
DISCUSSION:
On October 23, 2013, the Broadband Round Table took place with 29 attendees. The attendees comprised of
Broadband service providers, legal representation of some of the service providers, staff from the Center for
Innovative Technology, and County and School Division staff met for two hours. The Virginia Broadband Map was
discussed and it was clear to all attendees that Albemarle County has many areas of limited to no access to the
internet (underserved.) Attendees then discussed barriers to providing service to those underserved areas and
potential funding mechanisms with many of the providers detailing the complexity of achieving funding for “low
density” locations and physical challenges of deploying the necessary infrastructure (underground cable or above
ground towers). The group then agreed to formulate a task force to focus on three main areas:
Awareness and Broadband Demand Identification, Funding, and Permitting Process.
One of the many ideas gathered at the Round Table was the formation of a short term (6 to 8 months in duration) task
force to examine the issue of underserved broadband internet areas of Albemarle County. An invitation to serve on
the task force (See Attachment B) was sent out to Telecommunications Providers, the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission, the University of Virginia, and various School and Local Government staff on November 19,
2013. The membership was finalized on November 30, 2013 and the first meeting was scheduled on December 13,
2013.
The Broadband Task Force is working on the following objectives:
Awareness and Broadband Demand Identification – This will be a community effort. The Task Force will promote
awareness of the many values of low cost and reliable high speed internet access throughout the County. One of the
ways to do this is through the creation of a "Demand Identification Website" with a three-fold purpose: To provide
awareness of the value, to identify areas of demand through a brief survey, and to collect data from existing
broadband customers through internet speed tests and other customer satisfaction measures. The Task Force will
work to test and then promote the website through all available channels; analyze the data and information collected;
and submit a report to the Board of Supervisors.
AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Broadband Task Force Initiation
January 8, 2014
Page 2
Funding Options Recommendation - While the Task Force researched several grant opportunities to fund
Broadband expansion, there were other funding options mentioned during the Round Table. The Task Force will
review and analyze those other funding options and will include its findings in its report to the Board.
Permitting Process Review, Rights of Way, and Recommendations – A subgroup of the task force will review the
permitting process as it pertains to broadband, the process of obtaining rights of way, and other broadband
infrastructure deployment challenges. The findings will be included in the Task Force’s report to the Board. The
group will not independently pursue any changes to the County’s wireless policy or ordinances related to broadband
deployment. Those ordinance changes will be developed under the Community Development Phase II of the Zoning
Ordinance update of personal wireless facilities.
The Task Force has a goal of providing a report to the Board by April 9, 2014. See Attachment C for a timeline of the
proposed Task Force work.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The only direct budget impact of moving forward as proposed would be the utilization of staff time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with the Broadband Task Force as proposed and to provide a
report to the Board of Supervisors on April 9, 2013
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Broadband Roundtable Notes
B – Broadband Task Force Invitation
C – Broadband Task Force Timeline and Summary of Work
collaborate.org
Mike Culp
1:04pm Tue Mar 4
Albemarle Broadband Task Force PUBLIC INFORMATION PLAN
Project/Activity:
Identify and analyze “pent up” demand for high speed internet access; discover ideas of how the community can
move forward through accelerated deployment of high speed internet.
PURPOSE AND NEED:
Communication plan to share accurate, timely updates regarding the progress of educating the community on the
benefits of affordable high speed internet access for everyone; surveying the community to identify demand, and
participating in the Commonwealth sponsored Internet Speedtest through Accelerate Virginia.
MAJOR MILESTONES:
• Seek and Receive Approval to “Advertise” & Distribute Demand Identification Survey – March 30, 2014
• Update or Add Broadband Page on www.albemarle.org – March 30, 2014 and ongoing
• Frame the Accelerate Virginia Speedtest Tool on www.albemarle.org – March 30, 2014
• Receive Approval of the Broadband Public Information Plan – April 2, 2014
• Announce availability of Survey and Speed Test – April 9, 2014
• Provide Weekly Updates of Status of Survey Responses – Ongoing thru June 2014
• Analyze Survey Results and Report Out – July 2014
STAKEHOLDERS/partnerships:
County staff
CIT
TJPDC
Chamber of Commerce
Libraries
Internet Service Providers
Churches and other Community Organizations (Senior Center, Jaunt, …)
Media
Schools (All)
KEY MESSAGES:
3/10/2014
The effort needs Board of Supervisor approval and involves coordination with multiple parties to gain an excellent
result. Our goal should be to exceed 500? Survey responses and from all districts.
Proposed Public Involvement Activities/Timeline:
Activity Person(s)
Responsible Date Notes
Identify Paper
Survey
Distribution List
Philip
Freeman Mar. 30
Complete listing of all methods of distributing (include
libraries, schools and universities, hospitals, churches, Senior
Center, Jaba, Jaunt, major employers offices, tax bill mini-
flyer)
Who and when will print the paper survey? Where are paper
survey’s returned and who collects and analyzes the results
(enter them into the online survey?)
And gather approvals
Update current
ACVA google
fiber web page
Elaine Mar. 30
Need approved “benefits of high speed” internet “teaser” (e.g.
telemedicine, work from home, bridge digital divide, eliminate
school “snow” days (virtual classrooms.) Plan and deploy
links to:
Accelerate Virginia Speedtest
Broadband Needs Survey Website (CIT)
Develop
Promotion Plan for
Speedtest and
Broadband Needs
Survey
Mike/Lee Mar. 30
Cover all Media channels, plan out our website, facebook, and
twitter updates. Coordinate with distribution of paper survey.
Complete the “what we’ll do with the results, why this is
important” angles. Make certain we have a support channel for
questions about the survey or if people need help. Develop
metrics (how many responses do we hope to receive and by
when) and determine who will track them.
Test and then
Activate Plan TEAM Apr. 10
Do we have all the pieces in place? Who will distribute the
paper survey? Where will the paper surveys be returned
(especially the mini-flyer in the tax bill – what if a tax payer
requests a paper copy – include that they can pick one up at the
closest library?)
Analyze and Post
Results Mike/Lee
Ongoing –
Campaign ends
in June 2014?
Website updates ongoing, Facebook, Twitter, Media outlets –
similar mode to the recent Move2Health campaign?
3/10/2014
Post Mortem TEAM July 2014
Meeting of the
full Broadband
Task Force.
How did we do? What does the data tell us? Does this help us
identify a targeted plan for a specific district, demographic, or
new need? How can the providers use this data – does it help
them redirect their investments?
Updated: 2/21/14
•Add child page
•Print
•Print entire section
Powered by Intelesense Technologies
3/10/2014
collaborate.org
Mike Culp
1:04pm Tue Mar 4
Albemarle Broadband Task Force PUBLIC INFORMATION PLAN
Project/Activity:
Identify and analyze “pent up” demand for high speed internet access; discover ideas of how the community can
move forward through accelerated deployment of high speed internet.
PURPOSE AND NEED:
Communication plan to share accurate, timely updates regarding the progress of educating the community on the
benefits of affordable high speed internet access for everyone; surveying the community to identify demand, and
participating in the Commonwealth sponsored Internet Speedtest through Accelerate Virginia.
MAJOR MILESTONES:
• Seek and Receive Approval to “Advertise” & Distribute Demand Identification Survey – March 30, 2014
• Update or Add Broadband Page on www.albemarle.org – March 30, 2014 and ongoing
• Frame the Accelerate Virginia Speedtest Tool on www.albemarle.org – March 30, 2014
• Receive Approval of the Broadband Public Information Plan – April 2, 2014
• Announce availability of Survey and Speed Test – April 9, 2014
• Provide Weekly Updates of Status of Survey Responses – Ongoing thru June 2014
• Analyze Survey Results and Report Out – July 2014
STAKEHOLDERS/partnerships:
County staff
CIT
TJPDC
Chamber of Commerce
Libraries
Internet Service Providers
Churches and other Community Organizations (Senior Center, Jaunt, …)
Media
Schools (All)
KEY MESSAGES:
3/10/2014
The effort needs Board of Supervisor approval and involves coordination with multiple parties to gain an excellent
result. Our goal should be to exceed 500? Survey responses and from all districts.
Proposed Public Involvement Activities/Timeline:
Activity Person(s)
Responsible Date Notes
Identify Paper
Survey
Distribution List
Philip
Freeman Mar. 30
Complete listing of all methods of distributing (include
libraries, schools and universities, hospitals, churches, Senior
Center, Jaba, Jaunt, major employers offices, tax bill mini-
flyer)
Who and when will print the paper survey? Where are paper
survey’s returned and who collects and analyzes the results
(enter them into the online survey?)
And gather approvals
Update current
ACVA google
fiber web page
Elaine Mar. 30
Need approved “benefits of high speed” internet “teaser” (e.g.
telemedicine, work from home, bridge digital divide, eliminate
school “snow” days (virtual classrooms.) Plan and deploy
links to:
Accelerate Virginia Speedtest
Broadband Needs Survey Website (CIT)
Develop
Promotion Plan for
Speedtest and
Broadband Needs
Survey
Mike/Lee Mar. 30
Cover all Media channels, plan out our website, facebook, and
twitter updates. Coordinate with distribution of paper survey.
Complete the “what we’ll do with the results, why this is
important” angles. Make certain we have a support channel for
questions about the survey or if people need help. Develop
metrics (how many responses do we hope to receive and by
when) and determine who will track them.
Test and then
Activate Plan TEAM Apr. 10
Do we have all the pieces in place? Who will distribute the
paper survey? Where will the paper surveys be returned
(especially the mini-flyer in the tax bill – what if a tax payer
requests a paper copy – include that they can pick one up at the
closest library?)
Analyze and Post
Results Mike/Lee
Ongoing –
Campaign ends
in June 2014?
Website updates ongoing, Facebook, Twitter, Media outlets –
similar mode to the recent Move2Health campaign?
3/10/2014
Post Mortem TEAM July 2014
Meeting of the
full Broadband
Task Force.
How did we do? What does the data tell us? Does this help us
identify a targeted plan for a specific district, demographic, or
new need? How can the providers use this data – does it help
them redirect their investments?
Updated: 2/21/14
•Add child page
•Print
•Print entire section
Powered by Intelesense Technologies
3/10/2014
1
/O=ALBEMARLE/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MCULP
From:Michael Culp
Sent:Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:58 PM
To:Michael Culp
Subject:Albemarle County Broadband Task Force Invitation
Let's make 2014 the year of Broadband for Albemarle County!
Over the past month we completed an internal review of the notes from the Broadband Roundtable and with this e-mail
am inviting membership in a Broadband Task Force.
This is intended to be a "quick hit" task force and together we will refine the scope and schedule from ideas presented at
the Roundtable. The task force will refine and complete its work during the next 4 or 6 months and prepare a
presentation of results and recommendations for a Board of Supervisors Meeting in March or April 2014. See the
attached file for more detail.
Task Force Work Summary
Awareness and Broadband Demand Identification - This is a community effort. We will promote awareness of the
many values of low cost and reliable high speed internet access throughout the County. One of the ways to do this is
through the creation of a "Demand Identification Website" with a three-fold purpose: Provide awareness of the value,
identify areas of demand through a brief survey, and collect data from existing broadband customers through internet
speed tests and other customer satisfaction measures. We will work to test, then promote the website through all
available channels; analyze the data and information collected; and submit a report to the Board of Supervisors.
Funding Options Recommendation - How will broadband expansion be funded? While we researched several grant
opportunities; there were other funding options mentioned during the Roundtable. These other funding options need
further review and development to present as part of the Board of Supervisors' report.
Permitting Process Review, Rights of Way, and Recommendations – A subgroup of the task force will review the
permitting process as it pertains to broadband, the process of obtaining rights of way, and other broadband
infrastructure deployment challenges. The results and recommendations will be included in the Board of Supervisors'
report.
The demand identification website development is already underway. Reaching out today to identify the task force
membership by Nov. 30, 2013. Please let me know by return e-mail or phone call if you are interested or have
questions.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Culp
IT Director
Albemarle County, VA
mculp@albemarle.org
2
434-296-5891
March 11,2014
Letter -Expression of Intea·est
VIA ECFS-Proceeding #WC Docket No. 10-90
Chairman Thomas Wheeler
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel
Conunissioner Ajit Pai
Commissioner Michael O'Rielly
Jonathan Chambers
Federal Conununications Commission
445 12th Street, SW 20024
Washington, DC
@~H
Planning District Commission
401 East waterstleet/P.O. 8ox1505
Cllaflottel'lllle. Vi!X)nla 22902·1505
Telepllone : (434) 97~ 7310 fu: (434) 979-1597 VA Relay Use..: 711
Re: Expression of Interest -Rural Broadband Experiments
Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90
Dear Chairman Wheeler, Commissioners, and Mr. Chambers,
This Jetter is to express t11e Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's interest in participating in
the Rural Broadband Experiments announced at the January 301h FCC Open Meeting. While we do not
have a project to propose, we take this opportunity to document central Virginia's Planning District 1 O's
need for high-speed Intemct service, specifically in the counties of Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, Nelson,
and Fluvanna. We respectfully ask the Federal Communications Commission to consider our area's need
when making decisions regarding the Rural Broadband Trials and any future initiatives related to the
Connect America Fund.
Background
Located in Central Virginia, the Thomas Jefferson Plarming District (TJPDC) serves local governments
by providing regional vision, collaborative leadership and professional service in developing effective
solutions for regional land use, transportation, housing and environmental plaruring. The TJPDC is
primarily rural with an urban core situated in and around the independent city of Charlottesville and the
adjoining rural counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson. The area is centrally
located in Virginia in the eastern foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains approximately 71 miles west o f
Richmond; 110 miles southwest of Washington, D.C.~ and 162 miles northwest ofNorfolk.
Demographics: The Urban area has a population density of 3.2 residents per acre and the remai.tting
rural area has a population density of 0.1 residents per acre. The remaining population is located around
the regions small towns and Census designated places. These include the towns of Scottsville, Mineral,
Louisa, Ruckersville, Stanardsville, and Crozet. (See map for regional layout). The 20 I 0 US Census
population for Charlottesville is 43 ,476 and the population for the five surrounding counties is 191,237.
.. cff~
Planning District Commission
401 £ast Water lllreet/P.O . Box 1505
Cha11ottes.ille. Virzjnia 22902·1S05
Tetep~~one: (434) 97!H310 Fate (434) 979·1597VA Relry llsor.>: 711
The region is predominately forested, with trees covering 69% of the land, some of which are planted
for later harvesting. The remaining land is used for crops and agriculture (18%) and developed land
(7%), with water and wetlands making up 2%; grass shrub scrub and barren land constitutes 4%.
Economic History: Defined as the Charlottesvi11e Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for statistical
purposes, the region boasts a robust economy and growing population. The diverse economy of the
region provides a variety of employment opportunities in government, trade, transportation and utilities,
professional and business services, and the leisure and hospitality industries. The Charlottesville MSA is
home to major manufacturers such as Creative Industries, GE Fanuc, Michelin Tire Corp., and National
Optronics, Inc. The largest private and nonprofit employers within the region are Crutchfield
Corporation, Fork Union Military Academy, Martha Jefferson Hospital, Piedmont Virginia Community
College, State Farm Mutual, Wintergreen Resorts, Inc., the University of Virginia and the University of
Virginia Health Sciences Center. With a civilian labor force of about 1 05,000, the Charlottesville MSA
provides companies with a large labor pool and over 36,000 students enter the workforce each year. The
unemployment rate has remained lower than the state average and was at 4.3% as of November 2013. In
2010 the rural per capita personal income was approximately $29,124 and in 2010 the median family
income was approximately $67,780. Combined with a low cost of living, the Charlottesville MSA is an
affordable area for professionals and families.
Internet Services: There are 33 US census tracks in the TJPDC rural areas meeting eligibility for high
cost locations; of those, 23 meet the extremely high cost location criteria. We have compiled the
following Virg1nia data for our region which has been taken from
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedialrural4 broadband-experiments
County/Name/J D Tracts HCL EHCL
51 003 Albemarle 5100301 0100,0201,0202,0300,0401,0402,0500,0602,0800,0903, 2035 79
1000 11100,11201,11202,11301,11303.11400
51065 Fluvanna 51065020 101,200,300 935 42
51079 Greene 51079030 101,200,200 518 24
51109 Louisa 5ll09950 100,201,202,300,400,500 2886 72
51125 Nelson 51125950 100,200,300 3368 186
Total Locations 9742 403
HCL -Htgh Cost Locations EHCL · Extremely High Cost Locanons
Goals for the Future: The TJPCD envisions a region where teleworkers and rural businesses have
access to high speed internet, allowing efficiencies associated with working from home and competitive
participation in markets that are unrestrained by location. Workforce development will also be favorably
impacted. Because students in rural areas tend to lag behind urban counterparts, access to broadband in
the home will enhance potentials for improved academic achievement, resulting in a stronger workforce.
With investment in rural broadband, new and existing rural businesses will flourish and workforce
development efforts will sustain competitive economic growth and development in the region.
,.·-
QT~n
Planning District Commission
401 East Water Slmet/P.O. Sox 1505
Cha~ottu.llle, Vil!ilnla 22902-1505
Telephone: (434) 979-7310 faA: {434) 979 -159 7 VA Rel~y Ust11: 711
Geographic Territory
Geography: The region's
boundaries are defined by the
I Blue Ridge Mountains,
...... j-I which run north to south
/ / along the Planning District's
\ . ' j western boundary. This c --JJ /,I( mountainous area contains ···-~~ f :<~ ~6f!i~,r;~ •· o s :G ;~ """~: the reoion's highest
/ t4~>0nllf'&t>. t.for~·•.an<l J· \!1:116 t:r "~ ~ '\ 5 ---·· ' elevations and steep slopes.
<,0 1,.
· '..,..6 .. ~ • .? Additionally most of the land
is protected from development by the Shenandoah National Park and the George Washington National
Forest. Traveling east from the mountains the Region enters an area of hilly terrain that is characterized
by rolling hills known as the Virginia Piedmont.
Notably, a portion of the region falls within the National Radio Quiet Zone, established by the Federal
Communications Commission in 1958, to minimize interference with the National Radio Astronomy
Observatory. Locating broadband infrastructure within this boundary adds another regulatory layer to
the pennitting process and requires modification of typical designs. Portions of Greene, half of
Albemarle and most of Nelson Counties are impacted by these requirements.
Teclmology/Service Area: Generally the areas surrounding Charlottesville, beginning just outside the
edge of the urban ring and extending to the farthest edge of the region has minimal or no broadband
service delivered by fiber-optic , cable, or DSL. In some areas wireless is non-existent or spotty at best.
The terrain of mountains, ro111ng hills, river bottoms and forests will require a combination of the
technologies available. Awareness outreach regarding the positive aspects of broadband will also be key
to developing a sustaining customer base of subscribers in the rural areas. Specifically the northwestern,
western and southern portions of Albemarle, the western portion of Greene, the majority of Louisa , the
southern and southwestern portions of Fluvanna, and most of Nelson.
Proposed technology
We fully expect to work with local providers in crafting a solution to providing broadband in our region.
Given the region's varied terrain of mountains, valleys, and Piedmont, service will require a mix of
wireless, cable, fiber, and copper. While we would prefer to see a minimum 25 Mbps in each household
and business, we suspect the price-point would be unrealistic for most families. Our goal would be to
provide monthly service to subscribers at an affordable $35 a month with a minimum speed of 10 Mbps
down and 2.0 Mbps up. It is significant to note that CenturyLink, the most prevalent provider ofDSL in
the region, has issued and Expression of Interest to participate in the IP Trial.
Telernedicine is one potential innovative technology that could be enhanced and expanded in the region.
The University of Virginia and other partners are actively developing a broadband based system for
delivering medical care. Both clinicians and patients would benefit greatly from enhanced connectivity
through the Broadband Trial. "Telehome" monitoring would improve from the rapid transfer rate in data
from patient's home to medical offices and would also provide better response time for the video
... cff~
Planning District Commission
401 East Water Slreet/P.O. Box 1505
Chartottesville, Virginia 22902-1505
Telephone : (434) 979-7310 Fax: (434) 979-1597 VA Relay Users: 711
function of the telehome device. It would also give medical clinicians visiting the patients at home
greater flexibility to connect to the internet to access medical records and patient education information.
Existing Providers
The following is not meant to be a complete list of providers. We have found that identifying speed,
price and service is only available specific to an individual address and is therefore extremely difficult to
acquire. We do know that some of the providers in the region include Verizon Wireless, AT&T,
nTELOS, Comcast, CenturyLink, EarthLink, Hughes Net and others. Verizon has set up "hot spots" in
Louisa County where some can connect. Louisa does have a propagation map identifying where towers
for wireless are needed. Note that in each county there are areas where there is no service.
Century Link EarthLink CVALink Verizon AT&T HughesNet Comcast
Albemarle
DSL ._/
Fluvanna
DSL ._/
Satellite ._/
G reene
DSL ._/
Wireless ._/ ._/
Satellite ._/
Fiber Optic Cable ._/
Louisa
Wireless ._/
DSL (Town) ._/
Ne lson
DSL ._/
Locai or Tribal Government Participation
There are no federally recognized tribes in our region. Ofthe eieven tribes that have been recognized by
the Commonwealth of Virginia, no tribal governments or associations are located in the TJPDC region.
Anchor Institutions
Libraries:
Jefferson-Madison Regional
Central Library
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Fluvanna County Public Library
214 Commons Blvd.
Palmyra VA 22963
Greene County Library
222 Main Street
Stanardsville, VA 22973
Louisa County Library
881 Davis Highway
Louisa, VA 2311 7
Nelson Memorial Library
8521 Thomas Nelson Highway
Lovingston, VA 22949
Crozet Library
5791 Three Notch'd Road
Crozet, VA 22932
Schools
Elementary
Albemarle
Agnor-Hurt Meriwether Lewis
Baker-Butler Virginia L Murray
Broadus Wood Red Hill
Brownsville Scottsville
Paul H. Cale Stone-Robinson
Crozet Stony Point
Mary C. Greer Woodbrook
Hollymead BenjaminF. Yancey
Fluvanna
Central
Carysbrook
West Central Primary
Greene
Greene County Primary
Nathanael Greene
Ruckersville
Louisa
Jouett
Thomas Jefferson
Trevilians
Moss-Nuckols
Nelson
Rockfish River
T_ye River
Health care:
@~
Planning District Commission
401 EastWaterStreei/P.O. Box 1505
Cha~ottesville, Virginia 22902-1505
Telephone: (434) 979-7310 Fax: (434) 979-1597 VA Relay Users: 711
Northside Library
300 Albemarle Square
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Scottsville Library
330 Bird Street
Scottsville, VA 2459
Middle (MS)
Jackson P. Burley
Community Charter
Joseph T. Henley
Jack Jouett
Mortimer Y Sutherland
Leslie H. Walton
Fluvanna Middle
William Monroe MS
Louisa County MS
Nelson County MS
High(HS)
Albemarle
Monticello
Murray
Western Albemarle
Fluvanna County HS
Abrams Academy
William Monroe HS
Technical Ed. Center
Louisa County HS
Nelson County HS
Martha Jefferson Hospital (including satellite facilities listed below)
459 Locust A venue Charlottesville VA 22902
• Martha Jefferson Starr Hill Health Center
• Outpatient Care Center at Pantops
• Outpatient Care Center at Proffit Road
• Health Services at Spring Creek (Zion Crossroads serving Louisa/Fluvanna)
cff~
Planning District Commission
401 EastWaterS!reet,IP.O. Box 1505
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1505
Telephone: (434) 979-7310 Fax: (434) 979-1597 VA Relay Users: 711
University of Virginia Hospital( select rural sate11ite facilities listed below)
1215 Lee Street, Charlottcsvi11e, Virginia, VA 22908
• Crossroads Family Medicine (southern Albemarle)
• Lake Monticello Primary Care (Fluvanna)
• Jefferson Area Board of Aging-Physicians at JABA
• Medical Associates of Louisa
• Stoney Creek Family Medicine
• UVA Imaging/Dialysis Zion Crossroads (Louisa/Fluvanna)
• University of Virginia Research Park (Albemarle County Location)
Transportation
Charlottesville Albemarle Airport
100 Bowen Loop, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22911
The Charlottesville Albemarle Airport (CHO) is a non-hub, commercial service
airport offering one-stop international and domestic destinations, as well as daily non-
stop flights around the U.S. Served by Delta, United Express, American Airlines, and
US Airways offering over daily non-stop flights to and from Charlotte, Philadelphia,
New York/LaGuardia, Washington/Dulles, Atlanta, and Chicago.
Government:
National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC)
2055 Boulders Road Charlottesville, VA 22911
Located in northem Albemarle County in central Virginia, is a major subordinate command
of INSCOM and is the Defense center of excellence for ground force production.
Albemarle County Offices:
County Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
County Office Building
1600 5th Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Greenwood Community Center
865 Greenwood Road
Crozet, VA 22932
Meadows Community Center
5800 Meadows Drive
Crozet, VA 22932
Scottsville Community Center
250 Page Street
Scottsville, VA 24590
Fluvanna County Offices
County Office Building
132 Main Street
Palmyra VA 22963
Fork Union Community Center
5725 James Madison Highway Fork
Fork Union VA 23055
Greene County Offices
County Office Building
40 Celt Road
Stanardsville, VA 22973.
Greene County Visitor Center
8315 Seminole Trail, Suite 2
Ruckersville, VA 22968
Nelson County Offices
Nelson County Administration
84 Courthouse Square
Lovingston, VA 22949
Nelson County Visitor's Center
8519 Thomas Nelson Hwy
Lovingston, VA 22949
.. @~
Planning District Commission
401 East Water StreeVP.O. Box 1505
Cha~ottesville, Virginia 22902-1505
Telephone: (434) 979-7310 Fax: (434) 979-1597 VA Relay Users: 711
Louisa County Offices
Louisa County Administration
1 Woolfolk Ave
Louisa VA 23093
Betty J. Queen Intergenerational Center
522 Industrial Drive
Louisa, VA
Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center
135-A Wood Ridge Terrace
Zion Crossroads, VA 22942
(Fluvanna, Louisa)
Thank you for considering our Expression of Interest in your decisions about the amount
of funding that will be allocated in the Rural Broadband Experiments. We commend the
FCC in this effort to connect rural communities and are ready to help you close the digital
divide.
Sincerely,
Patricia A. Groot,
Grants Administrator
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Cash Proffer Policy
for Public Facilities
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution of Intent and discussion of public process to
update and revise the Cash Proffer Policy for Public
Facilities
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, S. Allshouse,
Ragsdale
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham, Rebecca Ragsdale
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The current cash proffer policy (Attachment A) was adopted by the Board on October 10, 2007. The cash proffer policy is
part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan (CPA 2007-04). The policy was developed following the Fiscal Impact Advisory
Committee’s (FIAC) analysis of the fiscal impacts of development on the County’s public facilities and infrastructure. The
FIAC’s methodology for determining maximum cash proffer amounts by dwelling unit type and the policy is limited to five
capital improvement funding areas: 1) Schools, 2) Parks, 3) Libraries, 4) Public Safety, and 5) Transportation. Other costs
associated with growth, such as stormwater, court facilities, and solid waste, were not included in the evaluation process.
The policy does not fully capture all anticipated infrastructure costs and provides for a number of possible credits towards
the maximum cash proffer amounts.
At its November 6, 2013 meeting, the Board received a staff report (Attachment B) regarding staff’s evaluation of the cash
proffer policy in terms of its effectiveness and potential barriers to development. The Board discussed the information
presented and policy provisions regarding credits against maximum cash proffer amounts. Following this discussion, the
Board expressed its interest in amending the cash proffer policy to provide a credit for the number of dwelling units allowed
for by-right development under the existing zoning and requested that staff include this as part of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. On February 5, 2014, the Board reviewed the Community Development Department’s (CDD) work program
and discussed how a review of the cash proffer policy could be accelerated in the context of the CDD’s other work plan
items. The Board requested that the cash proffer policy be prioritized and brought back for Board review. Today’s work
session starts with a review of the existing policy, consideration of public process options in developing revisions to the
policy, and a request that the Board adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
DISCUSSION:
The uses that may be allowed on land may be changed by amending the zoning map and changing the zoning district
in which the land is situated (a zoning map amendment, more commonly referred to as a rezoning). When land is
rezoned at the request of the landowner, one of the ways in which the impacts from the development that will result
from that rezoning are addressed is through proffers. A rezoning accompanied by proffers is called conditional zoning.
Conditional zoning is enabled by State law to address the inadequacy of traditional zoning methods and procedures
when competing and incompatible land uses conflict. At least in theory, conditional zoning allows land to be rezoned
that might not otherwise be rezoned because the proffers protect the community in which the land is located by
imposing additional regulations or conditions on the land being rezoned.
Proffers are reasonable conditions designed to address the impacts resulting from a rezoning. Typical proffers may
address a wide variety of impacts including impacts to public facilities such as schools, parks and libraries (a
commitment to contribute cash or to phase development to coincide with installation of needed infrastructure), impacts
on transportation (a commitment to contribute cash or to construct necessary transportation improvements such as
AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities
April 2, 2014
Page 2
travel lanes or signals); impacts on natural, historical or cultural resources (a commitment to preserve certain areas,
structures or cultural resources on the site); or impacts on the environment (a commitment to install enhanced erosion
and sediment control measures).
Proffers are not imposed by the Board when it acts on a rezoning application. Instead, proffers are submitted by the
applicant and, by State law, they must be voluntary. The voluntary nature of proffers does not mean that the County is
powerless to engage the applicant in a dialogue as to how the impacts resulting from a rezoning should be addressed.
The County is obligated to identify all of the impacts resulting from a proposed rezoning and identify what needs to be
done to address those impacts through proffers. It is then up to the owner to decide whether it wants to provide
proffers to address some or all of those impacts; the owner at its option may elect not to address all of the impacts,
and instead try to persuade the Planning Commission and the Board that the impacts need not be addressed or that
the proposed project has other public benefits that would justify approving the rezoning, even if some or all of the
impacts go unaddressed in proffers.
Existing Policy
The County’s Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities is an appendix to the Growth Management section of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan. The cash proffer policy establishes general guidelines, a methodology for computing
the impact on public facilities associated with each type of new dwelling unit, and the maximum cash proffer that will
be accepted for each type of dwelling unit. The proffer policy was developed for a number of reasons:
To provide an additional means of funding an increasing demand for infrastructure improvements
associated with growth in the Development Areas. The Growth Management Plan recognizes the need to
fund capital improvements and infrastructure with a higher level of service to Development Areas and
emphasizes the shared responsibility between the County and new development to pay for infrastructure to
address the impacts of new development. The cash proffer policy provides a balance between the developer
increasing its property’s value resulting from rezoning the property to allow more intensive residential
development and assuring funding for improvements needed to reduce the impacts resulting from that
development. This policy only applies to property where the owner is requesting it be rezoned for higher
density and does not apply to “by-right” development.
To respond to recommendations of the Development Process Review Task Force (DPRTF).
Recommendations of the DPRTF 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.”
To simplify the evaluation of rezoning applications. The DPRTF determined one of the major delays in the
consideration of rezoning applications was reaching an agreement on the case-by-case impacts associated
with each proposal.
To create certainty for developers. Because 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.
Process Options
Staff has outlined two approaches to this proposed policy amendment with an attempt to correlate the amount of
public engagement to the breadth of the considered changes. An outline with a timeline and roles for both options is
provided as Attachment C and each option is summarized below.
Option 1 - This option is a simplified process with limited considerations: 1) Update the proffer amounts using the
methodology in Part B of the current policy to calculate maximum proffer amounts; and 2) Update possible credits in
Part C of the policy. Staff believes the maximum cash proffer amount should be recalculated by the FIAC using the
approved methodology and the FY 15 budget (The capital improvement plan for FY 15-19 and the capital needs
assessment for FY 20-24). Based on input from the Board and the development community, staff believes that Part B
of the policy regarding credits should be updated to address, at a minimum, credits for by-right development credits for
land and infrastructure. Given the limited changes with this option, staff believes the opportunity for public input
provided in the typical Planning Commission process for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be sufficient.
Option 2 - This option is a more comprehensive consideration of the policy in which the public would first be
requested to identify desirable changes to any element of the policy. This could include significant changes to sections
regarding both the infrastructure and the credits provided in the policy. This would be a major effort and limit staff’s
capacity to address other Board priorities that may be identified for the next year.
AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities
April 2, 2014
Page 3
For the reasons outlined in the November 6, 2013 Executive Summary, staff believes it is premature to consider a
complete reevaluation of the policy. The policy was adopted just prior to the 2008 recession, and a significant
inventory of zoned property existed at that time. The economy is returning to normal, but a large inventory of previously
zoned property still remains undeveloped. As such, staff believes Option 1 is the more appropriate consideration at
this time and believes this option is consistent with the Board’s direction at the November 6, 2013 meeting.
Resolution of Intent - As part of the process, staff recommends that the Resolution of Intent (Attachment D) be
adopted. This would clarify the Board’s intent to consider changes to the policy and legally initiate the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment process.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Should the Board wish to consider changes to the policy, staff would include consideration of budget impacts with
those changes. 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 FY14–FY18 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment D) and that the Board direct
staff to proceed following the process outlined as Option 1 in Attachment B. Should the Board wish to modify this
process, staff requests the Board identify the specific changes. Staff will then implement the approved process.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities
B - November 6, 2013 Executive Summary
C - Process Options for Amendment of the Policy
D - Resolution of Intent for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to consider revisions to Cash Proffer Policy for
Public Facilities
Return to agenda
1
APPENDIX B
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors October 10, 2007
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
CASH PROFFER POLICY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
2
public facilities; and (iii) administer the collection and expenditure of the proffered funds in
accordance with State law.
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).
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.
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.
c. Exclude dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing under the County’s
definition of affordable housing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
3
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.
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).
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.
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.
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:
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
Development.
(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
4
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.
(2) Maximum credit: The credit cannot exceed the development’s
calculated impact on the applicable public facility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
D. Timing of Contribution and Expenditure of Cash Contributed
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.
5
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.
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
Attachment C
Proffer Policy Update / Revision
Process Recommendation – Option 1
March April May-July August September October
Board April 2nd - Board
considers process
recommendation
and acts on ROI
Board public
hearing on CPA
Planning
Commission
April 8th – Staff
advised PC of Board
direction on process
Planning Commission
develops
recommendation
using Board guidance
Planning
Commission
Public Hearing on
CPA
FIAC Update maximum
proffer amounts per
current policy
Staff Outline proposal for
process and draft ROI
March 13th – Exec
Summary deadline for
April 2nd work session
Board work session
on process
Background
Research other
localities
Data assembly for
FIAC calculations
Supports Planning
Commission and
FIAC in development
of recommendation
based on Board
guidance
Supports Planning
Commission and
FIAC in
development of
recommendation
based on Board
guidance
Present
recommendation
to Board
Public Public comments at
Planning Commission
work sessions
Public comment at
Planning
Commission
public hearing
Public comment
at Board public
hearing
Attachment C
Proffer Policy Update / Revision
Process Recommendation – Option 2
March April May June July August-
December
2015
Board April 2nd - Board
considers process
recommendation and
acts on ROI
Joint PC / Board
work session to
provide direction
on issues
Board
Consideration of
PC
Recommendation
Planning
Commission
April 8th – Staff advised
PC of Board direction
on process
Joint PC / Board
work session to
provide direction
on issues
Planning
Commission using
guidance from
Board
FIAC Update maximum
proffer amounts per
current policy
Update
maximum
proffer
amounts per
current policy
Updates Fiscal
Impacts (if
needed) per Board
guidance
CDD Staff Outline proposal
for process and
draft ROI
March 13th –
Exec Summary
deadline for
April 2nd work
session
Board work session on
process
Prepare for Roundtable
to identify concerns to
be considered with
review
Background Research
on other localities
Conduct Roundtable
Begin assembling
public comments
Complete
assemblage
of public input
June 12 –
Exec
Summary
deadline for
July
Board / PC work
session
Begin work on
issues per Board
direction
Supports Planning
Commission and
FIAC in
development of
recommendation
based on Board
guidance
Public Roundtable – Identify
concerns and desired
changes with existing
policy
Minimum 2 week
period for comments
following roundtable
Public Comment
at Board work
session
Public input
provided at PC
work sessions
ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities was adopted as part of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan on October 10, 2007 so that all new rezoning that include
residential development would pay for the equivale nt of their full impact; and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of the Board to review and update the Cash Proffer
Policy for Public Facilities, including “credits” and other issues identified during a public
study process.
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 consider amending 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.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of
a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ___ to
___, as recorded below, at a meeting held on _________________________.
_________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Phase 2 Wireless Amendments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session regarding possible revisions to the County’s
Personal Wireless Service Facilities regulations.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Fritz, Baldwin
PRESENTER (S): Bill Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 2, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 introduced federal policy promoting the deployment of wireless infrastructure
throughout the United States. In doing so, however, Congress preserved local zoning authority over wireless facilities,
subject to certain limitations. A summary of how wireless network operates and the limitations on localities’ authority to
regulate wireless facilities is briefly addressed in Attachment D.
The County’s W ireless Policy was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan in 2000 and was the basis for the first
ordinance specifically dealing with wireless service facilities in 2004. A major update of the County’s wireless regulations
was adopted in 2013 to address changes needed in response to new Federal laws, FCC rulings and decisions from the
Courts. Industry representatives and staff meet often about specific applications and multiple roundtables have been held
to receive input from industry and other interested members of the public.
The primary focus of the County’s wireless regulations (County Code §§ 18-5.1.40 et seq.) is to minimize the visual
impacts of wireless facilities by regulating antenna size, mounting techniques, number of arrays, tower height, setbacks,
fencing, landscaping and tree preservation.
The wireless regulations classify proposed wireless facilities in three tiers. Tier I facilities require only a building permit.
These are facilities located on or within existing structures. Tier II facilities are often referred to as “treetop facilities.”
Generally, these are facilities composed of new monopoles that are no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within
25 feet. Tier I and Tier II facilities are acted on administratively and require notice of the pending application to abutting
owners. Tier III facilities are proposed wireless facilities that do not qualify as Tier I or Tier II facilities. These facilities are
located in “avoidance areas” or are more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet. Avoidance areas are ridge
areas, parcels with agricultural and forestal districts, parcels within historic districts, and sites on which the proposed
facility would be within 200 feet of a scenic highway or by-way. The County has a long history of approving applications
from all three tiers with very few denials.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
DISCUSSION:
The County’s wireless regulations have been a balance between the desires of the wireless industry and the County’s
efforts to minimize visual impacts and their impact on abutting parcels and the character of the district in which they
are located.
At the direction of the Board and based on the input received at formal roundtables, worksessions and informal
meetings with industry representatives and interested parties, the existing wireless regulations are being considered
for amendment. A summary of the regulations being considered for amendment is included as Attachment A.
Facility Standards
Staff believes that some changes to the Facility Standards for wireless facilities are appropriate to address changes in
technology that have occurred since the adoption of the wireless regulations in 2004. Staff recommends changes to
the tower width, antenna size, mounting standards and definitions. However, further work is required before staff can
provide specific recommendations.
AGENDA TITLE: Phase 2 Wireless Amendments
April 2, 2014
Page 2
The industry has proposed that the wireless regulations be amended to increase the maximum permitted height of
“treetop facilities” from 10 feet to 15 feet above the reference tree. Originally, the permitted height of “treetop facilities”
was 7 feet above the reference tree with up to 10 feet permitted if certain findings were made. This was ultimately
changed to a permitted height of 10 feet. Increasing the height of “treetop facilities” improves the coverage area of a
facility but may also cause increased visual impacts. The height of “treetop facilities” is a compromise between ease
of deployment of wireless service and minimizing visual impacts. Expanding the number of wireless facilities that
would qualify as Tier II “treetop facilities” would allow them to be deployed by-right, subject to the County’s wireless
regulations. Staff will need to analyze such an expansion to ensure that potential impacts can be adequately
addressed by appropriate standards.
Application and Review Standards
Staff also recommends changes to the Application and Review Standards as set forth in Attachment A. The
recommended changes provide for more streamlined applications while still providing the information the County
needs to adequately review applications.
Some members of the public have suggested that wireless facilities be prohibited in some zoning districts. Staff does
not recommend that the wireless regulations prohibit wireless facilities in zoning districts. Instead, staff recommends
that wireless facilities continue to be reviewed for the impacts they would generate. All zoning districts may have
appropriate locations for wireless facilities and the industry should have the opportunity to seek those sites out and
make application. If by-right wireless facilities are permitted, it may be appropriate to allow them to be by-right in some
districts and to require special use permits in other districts.
Staff also recommends that most wireless facilities continue to be allowed by-right subject only to review by staff to
ensure they comply with all applicable regulations. The Board’s consistent decisions over the years on special use
permits for Tier III wireless facilities will allow staff to propose new standards to allow more facilities to be allowed by-
right, subject to performance standards that ensure that the impacts of the facilities are adequately addressed. For
those facilities still requiring Tier III discretionary review by the Board, staff is considering recommending that the
special exception procedure be used rather than the current special use permit process. T he special exception
process provides for a more expeditious review.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Some of the proposed changes could reduce review costs and others may increase cost, but most changes would
have little or no impact. As the ordinance amendment is developed, staff will be able to develop a more accurate
estimate of any changes in review costs and would include this information with the proposed ordinance amendment.
Any changes in the review costs could be reflected in the fees charged for the reviews.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with the development of a zoning text amendment addressing
issues set forth in Attachment A with any further direction provided by the Board on any specific issue at the
conclusion of the work session.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Proposed ordinance changes
Attachment B – Diagram of the impact of changes in antenna size and mounting standards
Attachment C – FCC guidance on interpretation the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
Attachment D – Brief Summary of Wireless Issues
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
Facility Standards
Changes in antenna size and mounting standards.
- The regulations in the current wireless regulations were developed approximately 15 years ago.
Since that time the technology has changed dramatically and the radio frequencies being used
are different from what was used 15 years ago. This changing landscape creates difficulties for
deployment of the most modern technology in Albemarle County. Updating the antenna sizes
and mounting standards to address existing and likely technology should be done.
- Antenna size. Currently the area of an antenna is limited to 1,152 square inches. This has
resulted in the use of antenna that are typically not more than 13 inches wide and of varying
height. The industry has requested the use of larger antenna. It is expected that with current
technology and radio frequency availability that antennas up to 2 feet wide would satisfy existing
and anticipated needs.
- Mountain standards. Current mounting standards require that the antenna be mounted not more
than 12 inches from the face of the tower (“stand-off”). Antennas that are mounted with a
downward tilt provide improved coverage areas and capacity. The lower part of the antenna can
still be mounted 12 inches from the face of the tower but the top of the antenna would be
mounted farther from the tower, thus giving the antenna a downward tilt. Attachment B shows
how this change would look.
- Impacts. The cumulative impact of larger antenna and the use of downward tilt would increase
the visibility of the antennas. Currently, these types of antenna and mounting techniques can be
done if the Board approves a special exception. This potential change includes multiple options:
o Retain existing standards and continue to allow applicants to request special exceptions
to exceed maximum antenna size and the maximum stand-off.
o Allow an increased antenna size and stand-off but retain the 10 foot limit for Tier II
applications.
o Allow an increased antenna size if certain standards are met, such as distance from
roads and dwellings.
o Remove limitations completely.
Modify the definition of an array and remove the limitation on the number of arrays.
- The existing wireless regulations defines an array as “An orderly arrangement of antennas
mounted at the same height on a tower or other structure and intended to transmit a signal
providing coverage over a specific area for a single provider of personal wireless services.” With
changes in technology arrays are becoming more complex. Multiple antennas and amplifiers,
sometimes at differing heights, are proposed to maximize the capacity of a single facility. Staff
opinion is that the concept of an array has changed since the adoption of the original wireless
regulations and needs to be updated or eliminated. Regulation of antenna size and mounting
style is still recommended and will be discussed later in this document.
Increase tower diameter.
- Currently the maximum monopole diameter is limited to 30 inches at the base and 18 inches at
the top. The wireless regulations also require that cabling be routed internally to the tower. The
size of needed cabling is increasing and the tower diameter is restricting the ability to deploy
current technologies. The industry has requested that the maximum diameters be increased to
36 inches at the base and 24 inches at the top. Some in the industry have requested that any
limitation on the diameter be eliminated altogether. Increasing the diameter of the tower is a
compromise between visibility and service provision. Staff opinion is that an increase to 36
inches at the base and 24 inches at the top would have minimal impact.
Allow Tier II facilities to be 15 feet above the reference tree.
- Currently, Tier II facilities may be located up to 10 feet above the reference tree. The industry
has requested that the maximum height be increased to 15 feet to allow for increased
performance of each site. By improving the performance of each site, it is possible that there
would be some reduction in the total number of sites required to provide service to the County.
By allowing the facility to be higher the coverage area is increased. This increased coverage
area may make the installation of a facility more economical in low density rural areas. Staff will
further analyze this request to evaluate solutions that would offset the impacts from the proposed
height increase.
Tree conservation provisions.
- The wireless regulations provide that no trees within 100 feet of a facility may be removed by the
applicant. If the facility is located less than 100 feet from the property line, the adjacent property
owner may remove trees that are within 100 feet of the facility and no violation will have occurred.
Currently staff considers the location of the property line and tree conservation area when
reviewing an application. If trees that provide significant screening of the facility are located on
abutting property, staff will either require the applicant to obtain an easement, recommend that
the facility be relocated, or deny the application. The Board in previous conversations has
expressed some interest in requiring an easement for tree conservation if the facility is within 100
feet of a property line. Staff will further analyze this issue.
Modify setback requirements
- The wireless regulations require that all wireless facilities be setback from the property line a
distance equal to the height of the tower unless an easement is obtained or a special exception
granted by the Board. The industry has requested that the County consider the following
potential changes.
o Allow a reduction in the setback with a letter of consent by the abutting landowner.
Obtaining an easement may be difficult if the property has a mortgage. Also, an abutting
owner may be willing to allow the tower to be close to the property line but not willing to
limit uses on their property by easement. However, the letter would have no binding legal
effect, especially if ownership of the abutting parcel changes.
o Allow a reduction in the setback if the applicant provides an engineering certification that
the structural integrity of the tower will not fail. Under this possible solution, staff would
still recommend some type of minimum setback to address material falling from the tower
such as ice or tools dropped during maintenance.
o Revise the wireless regulations so that only the tower must be setback from the property
line a distance equal to the height of the tower. Currently, all portions of the facility,
including ground equipment, must be setback from the property line a distance equal to
the tower height. Staff supports this proposal, as it allow for more flexibility in siting
facilities. The existing screening provisions of the wireless regulations are adequate.
Set a maximum height limit.
- Limiting tower height to 80 feet in residential districts and 100 feet in all other districts has been
suggested during discussions with interested parties. Staff does not support this type of change.
Any facility height may be appropriate if it is sited properly, and this is evaluated as part of the
County’s review of the application.
Application and Review Standards
Exempt wireless facilities from critical slopes provisions.
- The Board has previously directed staff to make this change. The County has never den ied a
special exception for disturbance of critical slopes to establish a wireless facility. The footprint of
a wireless facility is small. Allowing a wireless facility to disturb critical slopes can aid in placing a
facility in a location which minimizes its overall impact.
Revise tree survey submittal requirements.
- The wireless regulations require the applicant to submitt a tree survey showing all trees within 50
feet of the facility and all trees proposed to be removed. The survey must include the height,
caliper and species. Calculating the height of a tree in the midst of other trees is a costly
undertaking for applicants. The wireless regulations could be revised to require only the height of
the reference tree in order to establish a tower’s height. Knowing the height of the other trees is
not particularly useful information for staff in helping to determine the impact of a facility. That
information is best obtained by visual observation of the site when staff conducts field visits and
by using balloon tests and viewing photo simulations. Using photographs and marking those
trees to be removed and noting that all other trees will remain allows staff to adequately review
the impact of a site and insure that only those trees approved for removal are removed.
Requiring all trees to be surveyed is not necessary in most cases. The wireless regulations could
be amended to allow photo documentation or a survey as deemed appropriate by staff in a
particular situation.
Add a provision to allow the County to require photo simulations.
- The wireless regulations do not require applicants to submit photo simulations. The applicants
have always provided, without hesitation, photo simulations when requested. While it is unlikely
that the industry would refuse to provide photo simulations, staff believes that amending the
regulations to require photo simulations would facilitate the review of applications .
Increase the number of facilities permitted within 200 feet of each other from 3 to 4 before a Tie r III
application is required.
- The wireless regulations allow only up to 3 facilities within 200 feet of one another; any additional
facilities are allowed only by special use permit as a Tier III facility. A site that has good coverage
characteristics for one service provider may work well for multiple providers. The wireless
industry would like to make use of these types of sites by clustering at them without needing to
obtain a special use permit. The limitation of 3 facilities was an effort to address the concern of
“tower farms” being located around the County. It was recognized that the cumulative impact of
multiple facilities in close proximity to one another could have adverse impacts. Additional
scrutiny, in the form of a special use permit review, allowed the Board to ensure that adverse
impacts did not occur. With the revision of the wireless regulations to allow the administrative
approval of Tier II facilities, staff believes it is still appropriate to retain an enhanced level of
review for clustered facilities and does not recommend changing this provision.
Revise or eliminate the list of Avoidance Areas.
- The definition of “avoidance area” includes ridge areas, agricultural and forestal districts, historic
districts, any location in which the proposed personal wireless service facility and three (3) or
more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised
of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet, or within
two hundred (200) feet of any state scenic highway or by-way.
o Ridge Areas are to be depicted on a map approved by the Board, but a Ridge Area map
has not yet been adopted. Mountains and their ridges are important natural resources
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff either will proceed with preparing a map of
the ridge areas or a suitable alternative for the Board’s consideration.
o The number of Historic Districts in the County has increased since the wireless
regulations were adopted in 2004 and they now cover large portions of the Rural Areas.
When a facility is proposed in an Avoidance Area, it must be processed as a Tier III
application. The County has processed a number of applications in Historic Districts that
were treetop facilities that could have been processed as Tier II facilities except for the
fact that they were located in a Historic District. Every request in a Historic District has
been approved by the Board. Staff opinion is that the increased processing involved with
a Tier III application is not necessary to insure that a facility will not adversely impact
historic resources. Staff can and does take into consideration the impact that a facility
may have on historic resources.
o During a roundtable some participants requested the elimination of Avoidance Areas
completely.
Remove the reference to existing dwellings when determining when a substantial change to a site is
proposed.
- Under Section 6409 of the federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, the
County is required to approve eligible collocations and the replacement of equipment on existing
facilities by-right if the additional or replaced equipment does not constitute a “substantial change”
on the physical dimensions of the facility. This law is intended to facilitate the deployment of
wireless facilities. The current definition of “substantial change” in the County’s wireless
regulations provides that, if the existing facility is within 500 feet of a residence, any such change
to the site is considered a substantial change and a more complex review procedure is required.
Requiring a more complex process requires the applicant to submit substantial information and
requires significant County resources for processing. A significant number of applications have
been classified as substantial changes solely because the facility was within 500 feet of a
residence. None of these requests have been denied. Staff opinion is that if the change to an
existing facility meets the standards of the wireless regulations, its proximity to a residence
should not be a criterion for determining if a substantial change is occurring.
- The FCC is considering a proposed rule that would require the County to amend its definition.
Staff will continue to monitor the FCC’s action and advise the Board as needed. In the interim,
some members of the wireless industry have requested that the County reconsider its definition of
substantial change and follow FCC guidance. Staff does not support changing the County’s
definition at this time except as noted in the preceding paragraph.
Exempt wireless facilities from review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
- The wireless regulations have very detailed design standards for the construction of a facility.
This leaves the ARB with limited discretion when reviewing an application. ARB review is limited
to the impact on the Entrance Corridor. Staff review considers the impact on the general area,
including but not limited to the Entrance Corridor. Staff opinion is that ARB staff should continue
to be involved in the review of applications to ensure that the visual impacts of a facility are
mitigated but that they should be exempt from review by the ARB.
Expand the types of facilities that may be established by-right.
- In meetings with the Industry and interested members of the public, expanding the types of
facilities eligible to be established by-right, rather than by special use permit, would allow more
facilities to be established more rapidly. Two options were discussed. One was to allow the
construction of towers up to 60 feet in all zoning districts. The other was to a llow construction by-
right up to 80 feet in residential districts and up to 100 feet in all other districts. The request is to
allow construction without limitation or linking to the concept of a reference tree. Staff will conduct
further analysis before making a recommendation.
Prohibit construction of facilities in some locations.
- Some members of the public have suggested prohibiting the construction of facilities on
residentially zoned property or on “small” rural area parcels. Staff does not support this type of
regulation because it would limit options for deploying wireless service. By using the design
standards in the wireless regulations, the impacts of the facilities can be addressed either through
the applicable standards, or as additional conditions if the proposed facility is a Tier III facility.
Remove references to visibility in the wireless regulations.
- In order for a Tier II facility to be approved, the wireless regulations requires that staff determine
that:
“The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to
minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the
facility. The facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from any state scenic river,
national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent to the river, park or
forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open
space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the
facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for
protection in the deed of easement.”
- An industry representative has requested that references to visibility be removed and that only
objective criteria be used. Staff offers that developing specific criteria was not possible during the
original development of the wireless regulations and doing so now seems no more likely. Staff
agrees with the concept of developing better criteria to address the concept of visibility. Staff will
conduct further analysis before making a recommendation.
Notifications
- The wireless regulations currently require abutting owners to be notified of Tier II and Tier III
applications. At various times the issue of notification has been discussed. There are three main
options as to whom should be notified:
o Notify owners of abutting parcels, as the current regulations exist;
o Notify owners of parcels within a set distance from an application site; and
o Notify owners of parcels based on a visibility criteria.
- Because Tier III facilities require a special use permit, notice to abutting owners is required by
state law and the County Code. Thus, the issue is whether additional notice should be provided
for Tier III application, and what notice, if any, should be provided for Tier II applications.
- Notifying a landowner based upon distance or visibility is complex. For example, a proposed
facility may be less visible to parcels in close proximity than those further away, but this also will
depend on the relative terrain. Thus, distance and visibility become intertwined and will vary with
each application. Current technology available to the County does not allow this to be done
without substantial increases in staff review time to run the software and verify the accuracy. At
this time, staff does not recommend amending the current notice requirements.
- Notifying the public about balloon tests has proven to be problematic. The industry has worked
with the County to schedule balloon tests, in some cases scheduling multiple balloon tests. The
nature of the balloon test requires that they be conducted when w eather conditions are
appropriate – when there is rain, snow or wind. The lightest winds are in the morning and all
balloon tests occur in the morning. Because the weather can change suddenly, balloon tests are
often rescheduled, sometimes at the very last minute. Providing a notification to the public a
week or more before a test is scheduled will likely result in many false notifications. Notification
of rescheduling would be difficult, if not impossible, because tests may be delayed only one day.
Staff has no recommendation on changing how the public is notified about balloon tests.
Eliminate or amend Special Use Permit review.
- A request has been made by the industry that the County eliminate the need for special use
permit review for Tier III facilities and instead use an administrative review process for all
facilities. An alternative suggestion has been to provide an accelerated special use permit
process. The inclusion of a special use permit review process was to ensure that taller sites or
those in sensitive areas would receive increased scrutiny by the County and the public. If a
special use permit is required, the application should be treated as other special use permit
applications are. One option identified by staff, which may address a variety of concerns, would
be to make the special exception procedure available for some applications. This would require
that wireless facilities, by special exception, be reviewed by the Board. The Board has adopted a
policy that, for eligible applications, if no objection to a special exception is raised, the request will
be placed on the consent agenda. If an objection is raised, the application is referred to the
Planning Commission for a recommendation and then is placed on the Boards regular agenda for
discussion. If no objection is raised by staff or qualifying public (those notified), the application
could be placed on the Board’s consent agenda. If an objection is raised, it would be referred to
the Planning Commission and then to the Board for review.
Cell on Wheels (COWS)
- COWS are temporary cell sites most commonly used during emergencies or temporary special
events hosting large numbers of attendees (graduation, Foxfield are examples). The County has
allowed the use of COWS in these circumstances. Staff recommends that this policy be codified
to allow administrative approval of short term placement of COWS.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU OFFERS GUIDANCE ON
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6409(a) OF THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND
JOB CREATION ACT OF 2012
DA 12-2047
January 25, 2013
On February 22, 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Tax Act)1 became law.
Section 6409(a) of the Tax Act provides that a state or local government “may not deny, and shall
approve” any request for collocation, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing
wireless tower or base station, provided this action does not substantially change the physical dimensions
of the tower or base station.2 The full text of Section 6409(a) is reproduced in the Appendix to this Public
Notice.
To date, the Commission has not received any formal petition to interpret or apply the provisions of
Section 6409(a). We also are unaware of any judicial precedent interpreting or applying its terms. The
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has, however, received informal inquiries from service providers,
facilities owners, and state and local governments seeking guidance as to how Section 6409(a) should be
applied. In order to assist interested parties, this Public Notice summarizes the Bureau’s understanding of
Section 6409(a) in response to several of the most frequently asked questions.3
What does it mean to “substantially change the physical dimensions” of a tower or base station?
Section 6409(a) does not define what constitutes a “substantial[] change” in the dimensions of a tower or
base station. In a similar context, under the Nationwide Collocation Agreement with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the
Commission has applied a four-prong test to determine whether a collocation will effect a “substantial
increase in the size of [a] tower.”4 A proposed collocation that does not involve a substantial increase in
1 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, H.R. 3630, 126 Stat. 156 (enacted Feb. 22,
2012) (Tax Act).
2 Id., § 6409(a).
3 Although we offer this interpretive guidance to assist parties in understanding their obligations under Section
6409(a), see, e.g., Truckers United for Safety v. Federal Highway Administration, 139 F.3d 934 (D.C.Cir. 1998), the
Commission remains free to exercise its discretion to interpret Section 6409(a) either by exercising its rul emaking
authority or through adjudication. With two exceptions not relevant here, the Tax Act expressly grants the
Commission authority to “implement and enforce” this and other provisions of Title VI of that Act “as if this title is
a part of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).” Tax Act § 6003.
4 47 C.F.R. Part 1, App. B, Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, § I.C
(Nationwide Collocation Agreement).
2
size is ordinarily excluded from the Commission’s required historic preservation review under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).5 The Commission later adopted the same
definition in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling to determine whether an application will be treated as a
collocation when applying Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934.6 The Commission has
also applied a similar definition to determine whether a modification of an existing registered tower
requires public notice for purposes of environmental review.7
Under Section I.C of the Nationwide Collocation Agreement, a “substantial increase in the size of the
tower” occurs if:
1) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of
the tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation
from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, except that
the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph
if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; or
2) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of mo re than the
standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four,
or more than one new equipment shelter; or
3) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the
body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or
more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is
greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set
forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to
connect the antenna to the tower via cable; or
4) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current
tower site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the
tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
Although Congress did not adopt the Commission’s terminology of “substantial increase in size” in
Section 6409(a), we believe that the policy reasons for excluding from Section 6409(a) collocations that
substantially change the physical dimensions of a structure are closely analogous to those that animated
the Commission in the Nationwide Collocation Agreement and subsequent proceedings. In light of the
Commission’s prior findings, the Bureau believes it is appropriate to look to the existing definition of
“substantial increase in size” to determine whether the collocation, removal, or replacement of equipment
5 See 16 U.S.C. § 470f, see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(4) (requiring applicants to determine whether proposed
facilities may affect properties that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places).
6 See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review
and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as
Requiring a Variance, WT Docket No. 08-165, Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994, 14012, para. 46 & n.146
(2009) (2009 Declaratory Ruling), recon. denied, 25 FCC Rcd. 11157 (2010), pet. for review denied sub nom. City
of Arlington, Texas v. FCC, 668 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.), cert. granted, 113 S.Ct. 524 (2012); 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(c)(1)(B); National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Proposed Tower Registrations,
WT Docket No. 08-61, Order on Remand, 26 FCC Rcd. 16700, 16720-21, para. 53 (2011).
3
on a wireless tower or base station substantially changes the physical dimensions of the underlying
structure within the meaning of Section 6409(a).
What is a “wireless tower or base station”?
A “tower” is defined in the Nationwide Collocation Agreement as “any structure built for the sole or
primary purpose of supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities.”8 The Commission
has described a “base station” as consisting of “radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial cable, a regular and
backup power supply, and other associated electronics.”9 Section 6409(a) applies to the collocation,
removal, or replacement of equipment on a wireless tower or base station. In this context, we believe it is
reasonable to interpret a “base station” to include a structure that currently supports or houses an antenna,
transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a base station.10 Moreover, given the
absence of any limiting statutory language, we believe a “base station” encompasses such equipment in
any technological configuration, including distributed antenna systems and small cells.
Section 6409(a) by its terms applies to any “wireless” tower or base station. By contrast, the scope of
Section 332(c)(7) extends only to facilities used for “personal wireless services” as defined in that
section.11 Given Congress’s decision not to use the pre-existing definition from another statutory
provision relating to wireless siting, we believe the scope of a “wireless” tower or base station under
Section 6409(a) is not intended to be limited to facilities that support “personal wireless services” under
Section 332(c)(7).
May a state or local government require an application for an action covered under Section
6409(a)?
Section 6409(a) states that a state or local government “may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible
facilities request….” It does not say that a state or local government may not require an application to be
filed. The provision that a state or local government must approve and may not deny a request to take a
covered action, in the Bureau’s view, implies that the relevant government entity may require the filing of
an application for administrative approval.
8 See Nationwide Collocation Agreement, § I.B.
9 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, WT Docket No. 10 -
133, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including
Commercial Mobile Services, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd. 9664, 9481, para. 308 (2011).
10 See also 47 C.F.R. Part 1, App. C, Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National
Historic Preservation Act Review Process, § II.A.14 (defining “tower” to include “the on-site fencing, equipment,
switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters, or cabinets associated with that Tower but not installed as part of
an Antenna as defined herein”).
11 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A). “Personal wireless services” is in turn defined to mean “commercial mobile services,
unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services.” Id. § 332(c)(7)(C)(1).
4
Is there a time limit within which an application must be approved?
Section 6409(a) does not specify any period of time for approving an application. However, the statute
clearly contemplates an administrative process that invariably ends in approval of a covered application.
We believe the time period for processing these applications should be commensurate with the nature of
the review.
In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, the Commission found that 90 days is a presumptively reasonable period
of time to process collocation applications.12 In light of the requirement of Section 6409(a) that the
reviewing authority “may not deny, and shall approve” a covered request, we believe that 90 days should
be the maximum presumptively reasonable period of time for reviewing such applications, whether for
“personal wireless services” or other wireless facilities.
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau contact: Maria Kirby at (202) 418-1476 or by email:
Maria.Kirby@fcc.gov.
-FCC-
For more news and information about the Federal Communications Commission
please visit: www.fcc.gov
12 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. at 14012-13, paras. 46-47.
5
APPENDIX
SEC. 6409. WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT.
(a) FACILITY MODIFICATIONS.
(1) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law
104–104) or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any
eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.
(2) ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘eligible facilities
request’’ means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves —
(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;
(B) removal of transmission equipment; or
(C) replacement of transmission equipment.
(3) APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to
relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
ATTACHMENT D
A Brief Summary of Wireless
How wireless networks operate
Wireless networks operate a series of “cells”. Each cell contains one wireless facility consisting of
antenna and other equipment. The antenna may be mounted on a building, tower, powerline, water
tank or other structure. Each cell covers a limited geographic area. Generally, the higher an antenna is
mounted, the larger the geographic footprint covered but other factors such as terrain, antenna type,
frequencies used, ground obstructions (trees and buildings) and even weather also impact the
geographic footprint. Facilities are generally located several miles apart.
Each cell is capable of handling a limited amount of data (voice or data) due to limited frequency
availability. Each provider has access to a specific and limited space of the radio spectrum. The space
each provider has is divided into blocks. This division enables the repeated reuse of a block of the radio
spectrum provided that adequate separation is maintained between cells within the same block, as
represented by the purple cells below. Once the data capacity of a cell is exceeded, the wireless
provider will build one or more new facilities, essentially splitting the cell into a smaller piece and
allowing reuse of the blocks of radio.
Antenna mounted to a tower may be flush mounted as shown below on a monopole.
Or antenna may be mounted so that they stand off from the tower as shown on this latticed tower.
Image from cityofchattahoochee.com
Local regulation of wireless facilities
The local regulation of wireless facilities is primarily limited by the provisions of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and the FCC “Shot
Clock”. (A more complete discussion of this topic may be found in the Land Use Law Handbook available
on the County Attorney’s web page.)
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/County_Attorney/Forms/LUcha
pter35-wirelesstelecommunications.pdf
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves a locality’s ability to regulate wireless facilities but with
the following limitations:
- The County may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; and
- The County may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services.
- The County must act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal
wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time.
- If the County denies a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities
the denial must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written
record.
- The County may not regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions (“RFEs”)
if the facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning RFEs.
Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires that the County
approve any collocation or replacement of equipment if it is not a “substantial change” to the physical
dimensions of the facility. The term “substantial change” is not defined in Section 6409; however,
County Code § 18-5.1.40(f)(6) defines the term.
The “Shot Clock” is an FCC rule that requires the County to act on collocations within 90 days and all
other requests within 150 days. The County’s wireless regulations comply with this rule.
The County regulates wireless facilities using a Tier concept.
- Tier I facilities are (i) within an existing building, (ii) attached to an existing structure,
(iii) located within or camouflaged by an addition to an existing structure,(iv) a collocation or a
replacement that is not a substantially change, or (v) a replacement of a wooden monopole with
a metal monopole. These types of facilities are reviewed administratively in the same manner
as a building permit.
- Tier II facilities are commonly referred to as “treetop facilities”. They are new monopoles no
more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposed tower. These types
of facilities are reviewed administratively in the same manner as site plans or subdivision plats.
Notice to abutting owners is given.
Below is a photograph of a Tier II facility.
Tier III facilities are anything other than a Tier I or II and they are processed as Special Use Permits.
Abutting owners are notified and public hearings by both the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors are required.
The County regulates the design of wireless facilities. Design requirements include, but are not limited
to, the use monopoles (pictures above), flush mounting of antenna, limitations on antenna size, and tree
conservation.
RESOLUTION
Whereas, the Virginia General Assembly did not agree on the approval of a budget by the adjournment sine die
date of March 8, 2014; and
Whereas, funds from the state received by Albemarle County comprise a large portion of revenues necessary for
Albemarle County to deliver many of the public services mandated by the Commonwealth; and
Whereas, the delivery of mandated public services by Albemarle County depends upon a stable and healthy
partnership between state and local governments; and
Whereas, Virginia’s local governments are subject strict, statutory deadlines for approving certain components of
their respective budgets; and
Whereas, local governments under Sections 15.2-2500 and 15.2-2503 of the Code of Virginia are required to
approve their respective budget and tax rates by July 1 of each year; and
Whereas, by May 1 of each year, or at least 30 days after receiving an estimate of state aid, whichever is later,
local governments are required under Section 22.1-93 of the Code of Virginia to adopt an annual school budget; and
Whereas, not later than July 1 of each year, all school divisions under Section 22.1-304 of the Code of Virginia,
must notify teachers of reductions in force due to decreased funding; and
Whereas, failure to approve a budget in a timely manner would disrupt the ability of Virginia’s businesses and
public agencies to operate effectively; and
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Albemarle Board of Supervisors that the Virginia General Assembly and
the Governor of Virginia are urged to reconcile their differences and agree on a FY 2015-2016 budget; and
Be It Further Resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors shall transmit copies of this resolution to
the Honorable Terry R. McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia, and to members of the Virginia General Assembly representing
Albemarle County.
*****
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of ____ to ____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting
held on April 2, 2014.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____