HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-05Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
November 5, 2014
1:00 P.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. Larry Davis, County Attorney, Local Government Attorney's (LGA's) Edward J. Finnegan Distinguished
Service Award.
b. House Joint Resolution 363 (2014 Session) to honor Dennis Rooker for his service on the Board of
Supervisors. (Delegate Steve Landes)
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (for approval-action required).
9. Consent Agenda (for information-no action).
1:45 p.m. - Action Items:
10. 2015 Legislative Priorities. (Larry Davis, County Attorney)
11. Transportation Planner Position. (Mark Graham, Director of Community Development)
12. Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee – Public Engagement Plan. (Leo Mallek, Committee
Chair)
13. Appropriation of funds received from VDOT for the condemnation of a portion of CATEC Property used for the
Meadowcreek Parkway. (Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget)
Recess
3:00 p.m. – Work Session:
14. Broadband Update. (Michael Culp, Director of Information Technology/Bill Fritz, Chief of Special
Projects/Vincent Scheivert, Director of Accountability, Research and Technology)
15. 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. - Closed Meeting (2nd floor meeting room).
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
5:00 p.m. – 6:45 p.m. – Work Session:
18. Five Year Financial Plan. (Lori Allshouse)
7:00 p.m.
19. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1105/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 4) [10/6/2020 5:22:14 PM]
Tentative
Public Hearing:
20. Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 2, Administration, Article XI,
Personnel, Division 3, Deferred Compensation, Section 2-1108, Establishment, execution and
amendment of plan, to remove the provision that designates the National Association of County’s Deferred Compensation
Program as the County’s deferred compensation program. The proposed amendment would also re-adopt and re-
establish the County’s plan of deferred compensation for its employees, and would update the applicable section of the
Virginia Code referenced in the County’s ordinance. (Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive)
21. CPA-2014-00001. Route 29-Hydraulic Road Official Map. Ordinance Re-Adopting and
Modifying U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road Official Map – Ordinance to re-adopt and modify an official map originally
adopted December 2, 2009 under Virginia Code § 15.2-2233 et seq., depicting, within the vicinity of the northwest
quadrant of the U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road intersection, the location, centerlines, and existing and future right-of-
way widths of the legally established segments of U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road abutting and on County Tax Map
and Parcel Numbers 61W-03-19A and 61W-03-25. The ordinance and map would be amended to identify the current tax
map and parcel numbers, but the location, centerlines, and existing and future right-of-way widths would be the same as
adopted on December 2, 2009, except as modified to remove rights-of-way dedicated to public use and improvements
constructed since December 2, 2009. (Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney)
Presentations:
22. Natural Heritage Committee Annual Report. (Lonnie Murray, Committee Chair)
23. Local Ebola Preparation Update:
a. TJ Health District. (Dr. Charles Devine, Interim Health Director, and Ryan McKay, Emergency
Planner)
b. University of Virginia. (Dr. Costi Sifri and Nurse Beth Mehring)
24. Route 29 Solutions Project.
a. Project Update. (Mark Graham)
b. Communications. (Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, and Chip Boyles,
Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission)
25. Peer Market Survey Review. (Jane Dittmar)
26. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
27. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
28. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL (by recorded vote):
8.1 Approval of Minutes: November 13, 2013; February 24, May 7, May 14 and June 11, 2014.
8.2 FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriation. (Lori Allshouse)
8.3 FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. (Lori Allshouse)
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1105/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 4) [10/6/2020 5:22:14 PM]
Tentative
8.4 FY 13/14 ACE Easement Appraisals and Purchases. (Ches Goodall)
8.5 Northside Library Lease Extension. (Bill Letteri/Trevor Henry)
8.6 SDP-2014-00060. Farmington Country Club. (Christopher P. Perez)
8.7 FY16 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Participation. (David Benish)
8.8 SDP-2014-00056. Regional Firearms Training Center. (Rachel Falkenstein)
8.9 SUB-2014-00116. John C. Fisher Rural Subdivision. (Rachel Falkenstein)
8.10 VACo 2014 Annual Meeting Voting Credentials. (Ella Jordan)
8.11 Adoption Worker Position. (Kathy Ralston)
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR INFORMATION (no vote necessary):
9.1 Quarterly Capital Report. (Trevor Henry)
9.2 County Grant Application/Award Report. (Lori Allshouse)
9.3 School Board to Board, School Board Chairman.
9.4 FY 2015 1st Quarter Cash Proffer Report. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
9.5 Domestic Violence Fatality Review Program Report. (John Zug)
9.6 VDOT Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, October 2014.
9.7 Strategic Prevention Framework-State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG). (Ron White)
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1105/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 4) [10/6/2020 5:22:14 PM]
Tentative
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1105/0.0_Agenda.htm (4 of 4) [10/6/2020 5:22:14 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2014121 for the CIP
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: 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 $251.05. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of one (1) appropriation as follows:
One (1) Appropriation (#2014121) totaling $ 251.05 for reconciliation of the Capital Improvement Program
projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2014121 for general government and school division programs and
projects as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to regular agenda
Return to consent agenda
Appropriation #2014121 $ 251.05
Source: Borrowed Proceeds $ (60,895.28)*
General Gov’t CIP Fund fund balance $ 60,895.28*
School CIP Fund fund balance $ 251.05
School CIP Maintenance Program $ (45,660.24)*
*These portions of the appropriation do not increase the total County budget.
This appropriation request is to reconcile FY 14 revenues and expenditures of the Capital Improvement Program
as follows.
Reconcile FY 14 revenues and expenditures by appropriating $45,660.24 from the School CIP Maintenance
Program for the Agnor Hurt Elementary School Addition/Renovation Capital Project to support the start up
expenses of the construction phase that occurred in FY 14. The construction phase of the project was
approved and included in the Adopted FY 15 Capital Budget, however, the project experienced
expenditures in FY 14, as it was necessary for School construction work to start in mid -June to ensure that
work would be completed before the start of school in late August. This does not increase the total County
Budget.
There is an appropriation request included in the November 5, 2014 FY 15 Budget Amendment and
Appropriations Executive Summary (Appropriation #2015047) which equally reduces the FY 15 project
budget of the Agnor Hurt Elementary School Addition/Renovation Capital Project and increases the FY 15
project budget of the School CIP Maintenance Program project.
Reconcile FY 14 revenues and expenditures by appropriating $251.05 in School CIP fund balance to
support Murray High School Phase I Capital Project. The project was completed in FY 14. The FY 14
project costs were $251.05 more than budgeted.
Reconcile FY 14 revenues and expenditures by appropriating $60,644.23 in General Government CIP fund
balance to the Regional Firearms Training Center Capital project and to equally reduce the amount of
borrowed proceeds that were budgeted for the Regional Firearms Training Center in FY 14. The project
budget was established as its own separate Fund by Appropriation 2014-089 approved May 7, 2014. The
project revenues that were included as part of the FY 14 budget for this project were not received in FY 14
and the project requires the use of CIP fund balance for costs incurred in FY 14. Upon final closeout of the
project, the County’s share of the remaining fund balance will be returned to the General Government CIP
fund. This does not increase the total County Budget.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2015047, #2015048, #2015049, #2015050, #2015051,
#2015052, #2015053, #2015054, and #2015055 for
local government and school division programs and
projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 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 15 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $452,198.92. A budget amendment
public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the
currently adopted budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of nine (9) appropriations as follows:
Two (2) appropriations (#2015047 and #2015053) to appropriate $113,513.24 for various Capital Improvement
Program projects; of which $83,513.24 will not increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015048) to appropriate $365,806.43 for various school division programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015049) to appropriate $2,000.00 in donations to the Fire Rescue Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2015050) to appropriate $25,452.00 in Federal revenue to the Emergency
Communications Center;
One (1) appropriation (#2015051) to appropriate $10,000.00 in State revenue and $6,745.00 in Federal revenue to
the Sheriff’s Office;
One (1) appropriation (#2015052) to re-appropriate $7,351.49 in Federal revenue to Fire Rescue Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2015054) to appropriate $2,309.00 in Federal revenue to the Department of Social
Services; and
One (1) appropriation (#2015055) to appropriate $2,535.00 in State revenue to the Police Department.
On additional appropriation (#2015057) will be considered separately today as part of the Board’s regular agenda as part
of action item “Appropriation of funds received from VDOT for the condemnation of a portion of CATEC Property used for
the Meadowcreek Parkway.”
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation Appropriations #2015047, #2015048, #2015049, #2015050, #2015051,
#2015052, #2015053, #2015054, and #2015055 for general government and school division programs and projects as
described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to regular agenda
Return to consent agenda
1
Appropriation #2015047 $0.00
This does not increase the total County budget.
Source: Agnor Hurt E. S. Addition/Renovation $ 45,660.24
As the counterpart of the November 5, 2014 FY 14 Appropriation Request #2014121, this request is required to
reconcile FY 14 revenues and expenditures and FY 15 revenues and expenditures by appropriating $45,660.24
from the FY 15 Agnor Hurt Elementary School Addition/Renovation Capital Project for the FY 15 project budget of
the School CIP Maintenance Program project to FY14 for the expenses that were incurred in FY 14. This does not
increase the total County Budget.
Appropriation #2015048 $365,806.43
Source: Donations $ 26,340.00
Federal Revenue $ 339,466.43
This request is to appropriate the following School Division request approved by the School Board on September
11, 2014:
21st Century Community Learning Center grant: This request is to appropriate $141,984.00 for a 21st
Century Community Learning Center Grant received by Benjamin F. Yancey Elementary School. These
funds will be used to expand student participation in the Club Yancey Program, which provides after -school
academic and fitness enrichment programs for students.
This request is to appropriate the following School Division requests approved by the School Board on September
25, 2014:
Title I: This request is to appropriate $197,482.43 in Title I funding. The Virginia Department of Education
increased funding for FY15 by $43,355.75 over the original budget amount of $1,400,000.00. In addition,
there is $154,126.68 of State funds unused in FY14, which may be re-appropriated for FY15. Title I funding
is used to support reading and language arts instruction for students with achievement levels that do not
meet expected standards in the eight elementary schools with free- and reduced-lunch program
participation percentages that are above the County average.
Community Public Charter School: This request is to appropriate $26,430.00 in donations received for
the Community Public Charter School. The mission of the Community Public Charter School is to provide
an alternative and innovative learning environment, using the arts, to help children in grades six through
eight learn in ways that match their learning styles; developing the whole child intellec tually, emotionally,
physically, and socially.
Appropriation #2015049 $2,000.00
Source: Donations $ 2,000.00
This request is to appropriate $2,000.00 from the Fire Rescue Donations Fund to the Department of Fire Rescue.
These donations support various efforts including the car safety seat program, public education and one-time
equipment or station furnishing purchases.
Appropriation #2015050 $25,452.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 25,452.00
This request is to appropriate $25,452.00 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management Local Emergency
Management Performance grant to the Emergency Communication Center. The funds will be used to support
operating costs.
Appropriation #2015051 $16,745.00
Source: State Revenue $ 10,000.00
Federal Revenue $ 6,745.00
2
This request is to appropriate two Sheriff’s Office grants:
Appropriate $10,000.00 from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Speed Reduction grant. This grant will
be used to fund overtime hours in the Sheriff’s Office to provide speed enforcement.
Appropriate $6,745.00 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management State Homeland Security
Program Grant to the Sheriff’s Office to provide funds for the purchase of equipment.
Appropriation #2015052 $7,351.49
Source: Federal Revenue $ 7,351.49
This request is to re-appropriate $7,351.49 in FY14 Fire Rescue Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Fire Training grant funding to provide funds for overtime salary costs incurred to send Fire Rescue firefighters to
required HAZMAT training.
Appropriation #2015053 $30,000.00
Source: North Garden Engine 32* $ 37,853.00
General Gov’t CIP Fund fund balance $ 30,000.00
*This does not increase the total County budget.
This request is to appropriate the following General Government Capital Projects:
Apparatus Replacement Program: This appropriation request is to appropriate $37,853.00 to refurbish
Monticello Engine 112 by reallocating currently appropriated funds budgeted for the refurbishment of North
Garden Engine 32. Originally, Hollymead Engine 121 was to be moved to North Garden. Under the new
fleet plan approved by the Albemarle County Fire and EMS (FEMS) Board in June 2014, Hollymead Engine
121 will be moved to Monticello Station 11 as Engine 112 and will serve as a County reserve. The
refurbishment will be completed and the Engine ready for use in June 2015. This does not increase the
total County Budget.
Economic Development Office: This request is to appropriate $30,000.00 from the CIP fund balance to
support the architectural/engineering design services for the creation of the Economic Development Office
and required Finance Department office modifications to accommodate displaced staff . The proposed work
will include the design and reconfigurat ion of existing spaces at COB-McIntire to accommodate the needs of
the newly created office. The Office of Facilities Department staff created a conceptual plan that requires
further professional development. An appropriation request will be submitted for funds supporting the cost
of construction upon completion of the design phase when the scope and schedule are better defined.
Appropriation #2015054 $2,309.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 2,309.00
This request is to appropriate $2,309.00 of Federal Revenue for the Department of Social Services (DSS) to assist in
addressing the increased Foster Care/Adoption Program workload. The local share will be provided from DSS’s
current appropriated budget. DSS requests to change a current position from part-time to full-time status. Additional
information about this request is included in a separate executive summary on the Board’s November 5, 2014
agenda.
Appropriation #2015055 $2,535.00
Source: Federal $ (42,253.00)
State Revenue $ 44,788.00
This request is to appropriate a net increase of $2,535.00 in revenue from the Virginia Department of Criminal
Justive Services Police Department’s Victim Witness grant. This appropriation also reconciles the difference
between budgeted and actual revenues received from the Federal and State governments to support this effort.
The increased funds will be used for operational expenses to the program .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 13/14 ACE Easement Appraisals and Purchases
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of FY 13/14 ACE Appraisals and Purchases
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg and Goodall
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On November 13, 2013, the Board approved the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee’s request to
have the top five ranked properties from the FY 2013-14 applicant pool appraised. The properties were the Henley
Forest, Inc., Caldwell, Campbell, Woodson, and Stargell properties (see Attachment A). Based on estimated
easement values for these properties prior to the official appraisals, the ACE Committee believed that the ACE
Program fund balance would be enough to purchase some or all of the easements. Even if it were not, the Committee
believed it was prudent to obtain appraisals on lower ranked properties in the event that higher ranked application(s)
were withdrawn.
On September 3, 2014, the Board approved the recommendation of the ACE Committee and staff to: 1) approve the
Henley Forest, Inc. and Campbell appraisals from the FY 2013-14 applicant pool; and 2) authorize staff to invite
Henley Forest, Inc. and Campbell to make written offers to sell conservation easements to the County for the amounts
approved by the ACE Appraisal Review Committee (ARC). Since then, Henley Forest, Inc. submitted its offer to sell a
conservation easement to the County and has accepted the County’s offer to purchase the easement for $363,780.
The Caldwell application has been withdrawn.
The ARC did not initially approve the appraisals of the remaining two properties, Stargell and Woodson, due to
questions regarding development potential and the comparables used. The ARC has met again and has approved
these remaining appraisals based on the detailed responses provided by the appraiser.
Through the first ten rounds of the ACE program, the County has acquired easements on 41 properties and protected
7,555 acres and other open space resources at a 23% discount to net easement value because of grants, donations
and adjusted values from the income grid (see Attachment D).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both
the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
Rural Areas: Preserve the character of rural life with thriving farms and forests, traditional crossroad communities, and
protected scenic areas, historic sites, and biodiversity.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the County has $751,454.60 of reappropriated funds from FY 2013-14 for acquiring easements plus another
$310,394.11 in grants from the Office of Farmland Preservation (OFP): $149,678.46 was awarded in March, 2014 and
$160,715.64 was awarded in February, 2013. These grant funds must be used within two years of the award date and
are held by OFP in a restricted account until the County submits a Reimbursement Claim Form for 50% of the total
acquisition costs. Therefore, the total funds available for the acquisition of all easements in this class of applicants is
$1,061,848.70. With the County’s purchase of Henley Forest, Inc.’s easement for $363,780, a balance of almost
$700,000 remains in the budget for the acquisitions of the Woodson and Stargell easements at a total cost of $329,000.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements would be paid for from existing funds in the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409) and grants from the Office of Farmland Preservation (OFP).
AGENDA TITLE: FY 13/14 ACE Easement Appraisals and Purchases
November 5, 2014
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The ACE Committee and staff recommend that the Board:
1) Accept the Henley Forest, Inc. written offer to sell a conservation easement to the County for the amount of
$363,709;
2) Approve the Stargell and Woodson appraisals from the FY 2013-14 applicant pool (see Attachment A); and
3) Authorize staff to invite the Stargell and Woodson property owners to make written offers to sell conservation
easements to the County for the amounts approved by the ARC (see Attachment C)
ATTACHMENTS:
A – ACE Ranking Evaluation - 2013 Applicants
B – ACE Income Grid
C – Appraisal and Acquisition Costs of ACE Easements
D – Summary of ACE Conservation Efforts
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 12 (FY 12-13)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Tourism Points Status
Henley Forest, Inc. TM 39, Parcel 4 (254.63 acres) yes 83.98 Eligible
(White Hall) TM 39, Parcel 14 ( 5.90 acres)
TM 40, Parcel 1 (375.16 acres)
TM 40, Parcel 27A (134.70 acres)
Totals (770.39 acres)
Caldwell, Joan TM 18, Parcel 39 ( 65.93 acres) 67/33 no 42.31+ Withdrawn
(Free Union) TM 19, Parcel 9 (117.66 acres) 67/33
TM 19, Parcel 11 ( 3.01 acres) 100
TM 19, Parcel 17A ( 1.00 acres) 100
Totals (187.60 acres)
Campbell, John TM 105, Parcel 1A (136.99 acres) no 26.17+ Eligible
(Buck Island)
Woodson, Ronnie TM 99, Parcel 52 ( 90.70 acres) no 21.38 Eligible
(North Garden)
Stargell, Janice TM 119, Parcel 7 ( 91.63 acres) no 20.04 Eligible
(Faber)
Klumpp, Kathleen TM 102, Parcel 19C ( 92.87 acres) yes 19.27 Ineligible
(Carters Bridge)
Pound, Lewis TM 75, Parcel 43 (106.75 acres) yes 11.75 Ineligible
(Red Hill)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 7 applicants 1,478.98 acres
Note: Though we no longer use tourism funds (the hotel tax), tourism value is determined by the
presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria that made a property eligible for
funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the following: contains historic
resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia scenic
highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop protection.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Henley Forest, Inc.
Property: TM 39, Parcel 4 (254.63 acres) 11 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 21 DR’s 222 acres critical slope
TM 39, Parcel 14 ( 5.90 acres) 0 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 2 DR’s 0 acres critical slope
TM 40, Parcel 1 (375.16 acres) 16 DivR’s + 11 DevR’s = 27 DR’s 250 acres critical slope
TM 40, Parcel 27A (134.70 acres) 5 DivR’s + 7 DevR’s = 12 DR’s 85 acres critical slope
Totals (770.39 acres) 32 DivR’s + 30 DevR’s = 62 DR’s 557 acres critical slope
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 17,086’ on several parcels plats/County overlay maps 36.17
Criteria A.2 770.39 acres RE Assessor’s Office 15.41
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 17 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 8.50
Criteria C.1 465 acres in Buck’s Elbow MOD County overlay maps 9.30
Criteria C.2 yes (timbering) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 no road frontage County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 no PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 >250 acres of “prime” forestland County Soil Survey 5.00
Criteria C.7 yes - SFRRR County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 Sugar Hollow Ag-Forestal County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 yes (6%) based on AGI & income grid 0.60
Point Total 83.98 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District; DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
Currently, zero (0) dwellings exist on property; the Henleys want the right to build 3 dwellings.
Since 72% of the property (557 acres) lies on critical slopes, this percentage of the property is nonusable for
development. This leaves 20 “usable” development rights on 28% of the land minus 3 dwellings or DR’s.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Caldwell, Joan (“Longwood”)
Property: TM 18, Parcel 39 ( 65.93 acres) 2 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 7 DR’s no dwellings
TM 19, Parcel 9 (117.66 acres) 5 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 10 DR’s two dwellings
TM 19, Parcel 11 ( 3.01 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s one dwelling
TM 19, Parcel 17A ( 1.00 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s one dwelling
Totals (187.60 acres) 7 DivR’s + 12 DevR’s = 19 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,395’ on PRFA Preservation Tract plats/County overlay maps 4.79
Criteria A.2 188.75 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.78
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 15 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 7.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 2,445’ on Simmons Gap Road County tax map/plats 7.54
1,277’ on Buck Mtn. Road
1,818’ on Markwood Drive
Criteria C.4 yes – historic structures PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 185 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 3.70
Criteria C.7 yes - SFRRR County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 3,000’ on 3 streams landowner 6.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 need tax returns based on AGI & income grid ????
Point Total 42.31 points
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District; DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
Four (4) dwellings already exist. She wants no more homes.
TM 18-39 & 19-9 are owned by Joan, her daughter, and the Donald B. Caldwell Trust in equal 1/3’s. Joan
receives income from the Trust during her lifetime. It will then pass to her daughter.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Campbell, John
Property: TM 105, Parcel 1A (136.99 acres) 6 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 11 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 none plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 136.99 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.74
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 9 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 4.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes – timber harvesting landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 800’ on Buck Island Rd (SR 729) County tax map/plats 2.80
Criteria C.4 no PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 44 acres of “prime” forestland County Soil Survey 0.88
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 4,600’ w/ 100’ RFB’s landowner 8.25
900’ w/ 50-100’ RFB’s
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 need tax returns based on AGI & income grid ????
Point Total 26.17 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District; DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
Wants to retain two dwelling rights (both already existing) that together are <6,500 square feet.
Wants buffers that are 50-100 foot wide
Existing dwellings footprint: 1) 2,592 square feet + basement; 2) 1,388 square feet
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Woodson, Ronnie
Property: TM 99, Parcel 52 (90.70 acres) 4 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 6 DR’s no dwellings
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 <¼ mile of Jimmy Powell plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 90.70 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.81
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 4 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 100’ pipe-stem on Plank Rd. County tax map/plats 2.10
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 55 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 1.14
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 2,330’ on one side of stream landowner 2.33
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 Hardware Ag/For District County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 21.38 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road; CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
Currently has no dwellings. They want the right to have two (2) dwellings
Access is over a narrow pipestem that is 18-20 feet at the narrowest point. In addition, a neighbor (TM 99-
10) has a 15-20 foot right-of-way from SR 692.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Stargell, Janice
Property: TM 119, Parcel 7 (91.63 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s no dwellings
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 no plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 91.63 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.83
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 not in MOD County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,620’ on Green Creek Rd. County tax map/plats 3.62
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 30 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 0.60
Criteria C.7 not in drinking water watershed County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no on scenic river plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 50’ wide buffer on 4,994’ on landowner 7.49
two streams
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 not in Ag/For District County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 20.04 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
Only wants to allow one (1) future dwelling on property.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Klumpp, Kathleen
Property: TM 102, Parcel 19C (92.87 acres) 4 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 ¼ mile from Redlands plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 92.87 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.86
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 4 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.00
Criteria C.1 67 acres in Carters Mtn. MOD County overlay maps 2.99
33 acres in ridge area boundary
Criteria C.2 yes (hay and timbering) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 50’ right-of-way off SR 627 County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 yes – Southern Albemarle RHD PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 71 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 1.42
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 no stream frontage landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 yes (Carters Mtn. Bridge Ag-For) County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 donation based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 19.27 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District; DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Ineligible
Owner: Pound, Lewis
Property: TM 75, Parcel 43 (106.75 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 no plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 106.75 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.14
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 10.89 acres in Dudley Mtn. MOD County overlay maps 0.22
Criteria C.2 yes (timbering) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 right-of-way off Route 29 County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 57 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 1.14
Criteria C.7 not in drinking water watershed County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 not on scenic river plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 1,750’ on 1 side of stream landowner 1.75
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 not in Ag/For District County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 11.75 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road; CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
Contains one (1) small dwelling.
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which conservation easement
applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned as
provided below. Points shall be rounded to the first decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a
national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one
additional (1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-
quarter (1/4) mile, but not adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or
local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points.
2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of usable division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half
(1/2) point for each usable division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the
number of retained division rights from the number of division rights. A division right includes all by-
right divisions of both 2-acre lots and the 21-acre residual lots. Each right represents the right to build a
single dwelling.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain
overlay district, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. An additional one (1) point may be awarded for
each twenty (20) acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area
boundary” means the area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on
county mountain overlay district elevation maps. If the landowner elects to use these points in the
ranking criteria, the Deed of Easement shall prohibit all construction within the MOD. No farm building
or agricultural structure may be allowed unless prior written approval is obtained from each Grantee”.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family
member’s principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3)
points if one family member has as a secondary occupation working the farm sufficient to qualify for the
land use tax program.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or
byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two
(2) points, with one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage; or the parcel
adjoins a public road: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
road frontage; or, the parcel is substantially visible from, but is not contiguous to, a public road
designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance cor ridor under section 30.6.2
of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points. If the landowner elects to use points in the
ranking criteria for frontage on a Virginia scenic highway or byway, any new dwelling shall have a 250’
setback from said roadway or shall not be visible in any season of the year from the scenic road on a site
approved by the Grantee. Otherwise, one (1) point will be awarded for each one thousand (1000) feet of
road frontage.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or
state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two (2)
points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for
Monticello and in the possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains artifacts or a site of
archaeological or architectural significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural
historian under the United States Department of Interior’s professional qualification standards. If the
landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria for artifacts or sites of archaeological or
architectural significance, the Deed of Easement shall require the permanent protection of these resources
as designed by Department of Historic Resources.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural heritage inventory or
a qualified biologist has submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to the
ACE Program and the Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the applicant: five (5) points; or the
parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an occurrence listed on the State Natural Heritage Inventory:
two (2) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for
agricultural lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources
conservation service classifications found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of
Albemarle County, Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of
five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris
Greene Lake Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins
the Ivy Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the Moormans River), Wards Creek
(of the Moormans River), Doyles Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna Reservoir River,
North Fork Rivanna River, Totier Creek Reservoir, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch
River (of the North Fork Rivanna River, Rivanna River, Jacob’s Run, or the Hardware River, Rockfish
River, James River, any waters designated as “Exceptional Waters” by the Virginia Water Control Board,
any public water supply reservoir or emergency water supply reservoir: one (1) point for each one
thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half
(1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. If the landowner elects to use these points in
the ranking criteria, any new dwelling shall not be visible from the river or require a 250’ setback from
the river so as to maintain the natural, scenic quality of the property from the river.
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to
establish or maintain vegetative forest buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those terms
are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000)
linear feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1½) points
for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater t han fifty (50) feet but not more than one
hundred (100) feet wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater
than one hundred (100) feet wide. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in
such a permanent easement, then the above-referenced points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a
county-sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points.
12. One (1) point for a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management
Plan approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry.
D. County Fund Leveraging.
1. State, federal, or private funding identified to leverage the purchase of the
conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the purchase price for which those funds
can be applied.
Sec. A.1-109. Easement terms and conditions.
Each conservation easement shall conform with the requirements of the Open-Space Land Act of
1966 (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) and of this appendix. The deed of easement shall be in a form
approved by the county attorney, and shall contain, at a minimum, the following provisions:
A. Restriction on division. The parcel shall be restricted from division as follows: (i) if the
parcel is less than one hundred (100) acres, it shall not be divided; (ii) if the parcel is one hundred (100)
acres or larger but less than two hundred (200) acres, it may be divided into two (2) lots; (iii) if the parcel
is two hundred (200) acres or larger, it may be divided into as many lots so as to maintain an average lot
size of at least one hundred (100) acres, plus one additional lot for any acres remaining above the required
minimum average lot size (e.g., an eight hundred fifty (850) acre parcel may be divided into as many as
nine (9) parcels, eight (8) of which maintain an average lot size of at least one hundred (100) acres, and
the ninth of which consists of the remaining acres).
B. Protection of mountain, scenic and historic resources. The deed of easement shall
include the following restrictions if the owner is eligible for points under section A.1-108 for the
resources identified therein:
1. Mountain resources. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process
under section A.1-108(C)(1) for mountain protection, the deed of easement shall prohibit establishing all
primary and accessory structures and other improvements, provided that one or more farm buildings or
agricultural structures may be permitted within the mountain overlay district with the prior written
approval from each grantee; the deed of easement also shall assure that the parcel is used and maintained
in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to mountain resources and, in
particular, the Mountain Design Standards in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Scenic highways and byways. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation
process under section A.1-108(C)(3) for adjoining a Virginia scenic highway or byway, the deed of
easement shall require that each new dwelling (a) have a two hundred fifty (250) foot setback from the
edge of the right-of-way of the scenic highway or byway or (b) if within two hundred fifty (250) feet of
the edge of the right-of-way of the scenic highway or byway, be sited in a location approved by each
grantee prior to issuance of a building permit to assure that the dwelling is not visib le from the scenic
highway or byway at any time of the year.
3. Stream Buffers. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(7) for being located within a watershed named therein or adjoining a stream named
therein, the deed of easement shall require a stream buffer along any perennial stream, as that term is
defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code.
4. Scenic rivers. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(8) for adjoining a Virginia scenic river, the deed of easement shall require that each
new dwelling (a) have a two hundred fifty (250) foot setback from the top of the adjoining stream bank or
(b) if within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the top o f the adjoining stream bank, shall be sited in a
location approved by each grantee prior to issuance of a building permit to assure that the dwelling is not
visible from the scenic river at any time of the year.
5. Historic resources. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process
under section A.1-108(C)(4) for sites of archaeological or architectural significance, the deed of easement
shall require that no such site shall be razed, demolished or moved until the razing, demolition or mo ving
thereof is approved by each Grantee.
6. Voluntary Stream Buffers. If the owner voluntarily requested in his application
that the parcel be awarded points in the evaluation process under section A.1-108(C)(9) for a voluntary
stream buffer, the deed of easement shall require a stream buffer along any perennial or intermittent
streams, as those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code.
C. No buy-back option. The owner shall not have the option to reacquire any property rights
relinquished under the conservation easement.
D. Other restrictions. The parcel also shall be subject to standard restrictions contained in
conservation easements pertaining to uses and activities allowed on the parcel. These standard
restrictions shall be delineated in the deed of easement and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to,
restrictions pertaining to: (i) the accumulation of trash and junk; (ii) the display of billboards, signs and
advertisements; (iii) the management of forest resources; (iv) grading, blasting or earth removal; (v) the
number and size of primary and secondary dwellings, non-residential outbuildings and farm buildings or
structures; (vi) the conduct of industrial or commercial activities on the parcel; and (vii) monitoring of the
easement.
E. Designation of easement holders. The county and one or more other public bodies, as
defined in Virginia Code § 10.1-1700, and designated by the board of supervisors shall be the easement
holders of each easement. The public body or bodies who may be designated by the board shall include,
but not be limited to, the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority and the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation.
Appraisals & Acquisition Costs for ACE Easements - FY 13/14
Pape & Company - Appraised July, 2014
Applicant Total Appraised Value Easement Value (% FMV) ACE Payment (% EV)
Henley Forest, Inc. $1,620,000 $ 387,000 (24%) $ 363,780 (94%)
(White Hall)
Campbell, John $1,370,000 $ 274,000 (20%) $ 175,360 (64%)
(Woodridge)
Woodson, Ronnie $1,070,000 $ 72,000 (7%) $ 72,000 (100%)
(North Garden)
Stargell, Janice $ 458,200 $ 257,000 (56%) $ 257,000 (100%)
(Faber)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Totals $4,518,200 $ 990,000 $ 868,140 (88%)
Notes:
1. % FMV = easement value/total appraised value
2. % EV is the percent of easement value paid by ACE according to the income grid.
Summary of ACE Conservation Efforts since 2000:
94 applicants
acquired easements on 41 properties
protected 7,555 acres
eliminated 459 development lots
protected over 3,691 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
protected lands with over 35,000 feet along state roads
protected lands with over 21,000 feet along a scenic highway or entrance corridor
protected 523 acres of mountaintop
protected over 85,000 linear feet of streamside with buffers
28/41 properties have “tourism” value
11/41 properties in a Rural Historic Districts
25/41 properties adjoin permanently protected land
15/41 lie in the watershed of a drinking supply reservoir
30/41 are working family farms
Year Applicants Closed (Acres) DR’s Eliminated
Round 1 11 4 (1,045 ac) 88 DR’s (purchased)
Round 2 8 5 (1,157 ac) 24 DR’s (purchased)
Round 3 8 5 ( 911 ac) 62 DR’s (purchased)
Round 4 8 2 ( 647 ac) 34 DR’s (purchased)
Round 5 10 6 (1,110 ac) 66 DR’s (purchased)
Round 6 7 5 ( 583 ac) 44 DR’s (purchased)
Round 7 9 2 ( 558 ac) 26 DR’s (purchased)
Round 8 14 3 ( 472 ac) 32 DR’s (purchased)
Round 9 11 5 ( 741 ac) 59 DR’s (purchased)
Round 10 8 1 ( 331 ac) 24 DR’s (purchased)
Total 94 41 (7,555 ac) 459 DR’s
Number of easements acquired: 41 easements
Acres protected: 7,555 acres
Development lots eliminated: 459 DR’s eliminated
ACE appropriations: $ 11,547,243
Easement acquisition cost (what we paid): $ 11,050,610
Closing costs (appraisals, title insurance etc.): $ 198,304
Net easement acquisition costs: $ 11,248,914 ($1,489/acre)
Grants: $ 1,613,843 (VOF, OFP, VLCF)
Donations: $ 22,500 (PEC)
Income adjustment (from income grid): $ 1,709,720
Totals Savings $ 3,346,063 (23% of easement cost)
Total easement cost (before grants, donations & adjusted values): $ 14,594,977 ($1,932/acre)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Northside Library Lease Extension
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve Fourth Lease Modification and Extension
Agreement
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Kamptner, Herrick and Henry
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County currently leases 15,572 square feet of space from Rio Associates Limited Partnership at 300 Albemarle
Square for use as the Northside Library. The original 1991 lease was extended by a First Lease Modification and
Extension Agreement entered into on November 1, 2004, a Second Lease Modification and Extension Agreement entered
into on October 1, 2009, and a Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement entered into on June 1, 2014. The
current lease term expires January 31, 2015.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities
DISCUSSION:
The new Northside Library and Storage Facility is currently under construction at 705 Rio Road (former Phillips Building
Supply building) and will provide a permanent location for the library. A construction schedule extension of 40 calendar
days is necessary due to delays in construction over the summer from unexpected site, building, and structural issues
related to existing conditions. The County is planning on substantial completion of the new library in late February 2015
and occupancy in March 2015 based on the extended schedule.
Because the new library will not be ready for occupancy by January 31, 2015, when the current library lease at the
Albemarle Square location expires, a lease extension through March 31, 2015 is necessary. The landlord, Rio Associates
Limited Partnership, has agreed to a two-month extension, from February 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015, at the current
monthly rental amount of $25,953.33, subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in the previously modified and
extended lease.
The County Attorney’s office has prepared a “Fourth Lease Modification and Extension Agreement” (Attachment A) to
extend the lease for two months, which has been forwarded to the landlord for review and execution.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY15 Adopted Budget anticipated a new Northside library opening date of November 2014. A revised opening date of
April 2015 will have an approximate $60,000 impact to the General Fund, primarily due to 1) the additional expense for the
County’s share of the lease at the current library location; and 2) the County’s reduced revenue from delaying the
beginning of the lease at the new library location, where the County will lease space to Jefferson Madison Regional
Library. Staff recommends $60,000 be set aside in reserve from the year-end FY14 unaudited revenue over expenditures
to address these one-time impacts. The Northside Library project budget includes sufficient contingency funds to cover
these costs; therefore, year-end adjustments will be made to effectively restore the use of these reserve funds once the
project is complete.
AGENDA TITLE: Northside Library Lease Extension
November 5, 2014
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) authorizing the County Executive to sign,
in a form approved by the County Attorney, the Fourth Lease Modification and Extension Agreement between the County
of Albemarle and Rio Associates Limited Partnership to extend the Northside Library lease through March 31, 2015.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Fourth Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
B – Resolution Approving the Fourth Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Page 1 of 3
FOURTH LEASE MODIFICATION AND
EXTENSION AGREEMENT
This FOURTH LEASE MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT
entered into this 8th day of October, 2014, by and between RIO ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, hereinafter referred to as "Landlord", party of the first part, and the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as "Tenant," party of the
second part,
W I T N E S S E T H :
THAT WHEREAS, by LEASE dated the 31st day of January, 1991, commencing on the
1st day of July, 1991, and originally scheduled to end on the 30th day of June, 2001 (hereinafter
referred to as "said Lease"), which Lease was held over by prior written consent of Landlord on a
month-to-month basis at the same rental rate as the rate that prevailed for the 10th year of said
Lease, Landlord leased to Tenant a portion of certain real property situated in the County of
Albemarle said property being more particularly described in said Lease as 15,572 square feet
located at 300 Albemarle Square, in Charlottesville, Virginia, which Lease was further extended
between the parties by the FIRST LEASE MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION
AGREEMENT entered into on the 1st day of November, 2004, commencing November 1, 2004
and expiring October 31, 2009, which Lease was further extended between the parties by the
SECOND LEASE MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT entered into on the 1st
day of October, 2009, commencing November 1, 2009 and expiring October 31, 2014, and
which Lease was further extended between the parties by the THIRD LEASE MODIFICATION
AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT entered into on the 1st day of June, 2014, commencing
November 1, 2014 and expiring January 31, 2015;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained, the parties hereto do hereby covenant and agree to and with each other as follows:
FIRST: Said Lease, as previously modified and extended, shall be extended for an
additional 4th extended term (hereinafter “the Fourth Extended Term”) of two (2) months
commencing February 1, 2015 and expiring March 31, 2015 on the same terms and conditions as
set forth in said previously modified and extended Lease, except as follows:
SECOND: The fixed minimum monthly rental for the Fourth Extended Term, under
Provision 2(a) herein shall be twenty-five thousand, nine hundred fifty-three and 33/100 Dollars
($25,953.33).
Page 2 of 3
THIRD: Except as herein modified, all of the terms and conditions of said Lease shall
remain in full force and effect.
FOURTH: The signatories whose names are herein below affixed are authorized to bind
their respective parties to the terms and conditions of this FOURTH LEASE
MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this FOURTH LEASE
MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above
written:
TENANT:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ______________________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
STATE OF VIRGINIA,
OF , TO WIT:
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify
that Thomas C. Foley, whose name as County Executive of the County of Albemarle, Virginia is
signed to the foregoing FOURTH LEASE MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION
AGREEMENT dated as of October 8, 2014, has acknowledged the same before me in my
jurisdiction aforesaid.
Given under my hand this _____day of _______________, 2014.
Registration No.:_______________
My commission expires:________________________.
____________________________________
Notary Public
Page 3 of 3
LANDLORD:
RIO ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: Dumbarton Properties, Inc., its Agent
By: ________________________________
James N. Plotkin, President
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF HENRICO, TO WIT:
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify
that James N. Plotkin, whose name as President of Dumbarton Properties, Inc., Agent for the
Landlord, Rio Associates Limited Partnership, is signed to the foregoing FOURTH LEASE
MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT dated as of October 8, 2014, has
acknowledged the same before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid.
Given under my hand this _____day of _______________, 2014.
Registration No.:_______________
My commission expires:________________________.
____________________________________
Notary Public
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FOURTH LEASE MODIFICATION
AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
AND RIO ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
FOR THE NORTHSIDE LIBRARY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle leases from Rio Associates Limited
Partnership 15,572 square feet located at 300 Albemarle Square for use as the Northside
Library; and
WHEREAS, the original lease for the Northside Library was first dated January
31, 1991, and was extended by a First Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
entered into on November 1, 2004, by a Second Lease Modification and Extension
Agreement entered into on October 1, 2009, and by a Third Lease Modification and
Extension Agreement entered into on June 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the current lease term expires January 31, 2015, and the
replacement facility will not be available for occupancy until March 2015; and
WHEREAS, the attached Fourth Lease Modification and Extension Agreement
extends the lease of the Northside Library through March 31, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the
County Attorney, the Fourth Lease Modification and Extension Agreement between the
County of Albemarle and Rio Associates Limited Partnership to extend the Northside
Library lease through March 31, 2015.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a
vote of _______ to _______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
______________________.
_________________________________
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:
SDP201400060 Farmington Country Club
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special Exception for waiver of requirements of
County Code § 18-4.2.3 to allow disturbance of
critical slopes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Benish, Perez, and
Greene, M.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Critical slopes are slopes of 25% or greater. County Code § 18-4.2.3 prohibits a structure, improvement, or land
disturbing activity to establish a structure or improvement from being located on critical slopes unless a special
exception is approved by the Board.
The applicant, Farmington Country Club, is requesting approval of a Minor Site Plan amendment to construct additional
parking to serve the country club. This would include the expansion of the lower parking lot south of Tennis Road and
adjacent to the existing driving range, and the construction of a new biofilter in the same general area. See
Attachments A and B for the request and the site plan. In order to construct these improvements as proposed,
Farmington County Club is requesting a special exception to authorize the disturbance of a small area of man-made
critical slopes.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenues that support community goals.
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both
the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
DISCUSSION:
County Code §§ 18-4.2.5 and 18-33.5 authorize the Board to approve a special exception to waive the requirements
of County Code § 18-4.2.3 to permit the disturbance of critical slopes. The area of the proposed improvements in
Farmington is approximately 2.63 acres, of which 0.21 acres is comprised of critical slopes (0.08% of the project
area). The critical slopes appear to be man-made and created pursuant to the construction of the existing lower
parking lot and driving range. Engineering and Planning staff have no concerns with the critical slopes disturbance
request. See Attachment C for staff’s analysis of the relevant factors for the critical slopes waiver request.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact will result from authorizing this special exception.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) to approve this special exception to
allow the critical closed to be disturbed.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Critical Slopes Waiver Request
B – Site plan sheet depicting critical slopes and proposed development
C – Critical Slope Waiver Analysis
D – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
3040 Avemore Square Pl.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Phone: 434.984.2700
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
PO Box 4119
Lynchburg, VA 24502
Phone: 434.316.6080
www.wwassociates.net
Critical Slopes Waiver Analysis
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
These are slopes that appear to have been constructed at some point in the development of the Farmington
Country Club. The applicant is proposing to construct additional parking and rehabilitate and construct
additions to existing buildings in the area.
Areas Acres
Total site 2.63 acres approximately
Critical slopes .21 8% of site
Critical slopes disturbed .21 100% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative
locations: County Code § 18-4.2.6(c) states that “ accessways, … and any other public facilities necessary
to allow the use of the parcel … shall not be subject to the requirements of this section 4.2.2, provided that
the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists.” Staff has determined
that this critical slopes disturbance is not exempt from the requirements of County Code § 18-4.2.2.
Engineering staff reviewed the following factors under County Code § 18-4.2.5(a)(1) and (2):
“movement of soil and rock”
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement
of soil.
“excessive stormwater runoff”
Stormwater runoff will be reduced in this area, as the site will drain to a stormwater basin.
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper
stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
This area is visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. Some of the slopes were created
with the parking and building construction.
“septic effluent”
This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the foregoing review, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the
critical slopes as shown. The applicant will address each of the foregoing factors during construction so that
the disturbance of critical slopes will not pose a threat to the public drinking water supplies and floodplain
areas, and so that soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal issues will be mitigated to
the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
Planning staff reviewed the following factors under County Code § 18-4.2.5(a)(3) to be considered for this
application for a special exception:
a. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;
b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section
4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
c. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions,
excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of
critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would
result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or
d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be
served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
It is staff’s opinion that the proposed disturbance of critical slopes would favorably satisf y factors (a) and (b)
above because the proposed disturbance would not be of a detriment to public health, safety or welfare and
the development, as proposed, will satisfy the intent and purposes of County Code § 18-4.2 to an equivalent
degree. There are no planning concerns with the proposed critical slope disturbance request and resulting
development, and staff does not recommend any conditions of approval.
Based on Engineering and Planning’s review above, there are no concerns that would cause staff to object to
the approval of the critical slope disturbance request.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Farmington County Club (“Farmington”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number
060E2-00-00-00100 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Farmington filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SDP 2014-
00060, Farmington County Club, to waive the requirements that prohibit the disturbance of critical slopes, as
the Property is depicted on the pending site plan amendment under review by the County’s Department of
Community Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the application, and its supporting analysis included as Attachment C
thereto, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code § 18-4.2.3, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to authorize the disturbance
of critical slopes in Farmington’s expansion of its lower parking lot south of Tennis Road and adjacent to the
existing driving range and the construction of a new biofilter necessary to construct additional parking to
serve Farmington.
* * *
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 _________________________.
__________________________________
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:
FY16 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Participation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution authorizing participation in the VDOT Revenue
Sharing Program and project(s) proposed for Revenue
Sharing funds
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry, Benish, Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Staff is preparing applications for VDOT’s FY16 Revenue Sharing Program. VDOT requests applications every fall in
order to determine the level of state funds needed to maximize local participation in this program. The FY 16 Revenue
Sharing Program can potentially match dollar-for-dollar a locality’s contribution toward transportation project funding up to
$10.0 million, however, at this time, VDOT doesn’t know what the final allocation for the FY16 Program will be.
For the past several years the County has used Revenue Sharing Program funds primarily for sidewalk construction
projects identified in the County’s CIP. In June 2014 VDOT awarded $1.6 million in FY15 Revenue Sharing funds for the
sidewalk and bikelane improvements on Ivy Road (from City limits to near the Route 29/250 Bypass) and sidewalk
improvements on Barracks and Hydraulic Roads. In 2013 VDOT awarded the County $1.1 million in FY14 Revenue
Sharing Program funds. This allocation along with the County’s match is funding the following projects:
Enhanced signal synchronization on US 29 north (City limits to Hollymead)
Construction of four sidewalk projects described as:
- Rio Road east (from Stonehenge to Pen Park Road and Pen Park Road);
- Old Lynchburg Road Asphalt Walkway Upgrade (from Region10 Offices to Fifth Street),
- Avon Street (in two locations near Mill Creek and Arden Drive); and
- US 250 in Crozet (in the Cloverlawn and Blue Ridge Shopping Center area).
Staff is proposing to request FY16 Revenue Sharing Program funds to cover projected funding shortfalls/additional costs
for the four FY14 Revenue Sharing Program sidewalk projects described above.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and
improves the capacity to serve community needs.
DISCUSSION:
The collective cost for the four FY14 Revenue Sharing Program sidewalk projects described above is anticipated to
exceed current available funding. This is due to unanticipated design, right-of-way, construction, and associated
administrative costs for the projects, as well as modifications to the original scope not considered in the original project
cost estimates. Factors that have resulted in the need for additional funds include:
New stormwater / TMDL requirements have significantly increased project costs for design, right-of-way and
construction.
VDOT design/review process must be followed and has resulted in higher design consultant fees.
VDOT right-of-way acquisition regulations that necessitate hiring an acquisition consultant to supplement staff
resources and require informing owners of their right to be paid fair market value. This makes obtaining
donated rights-of-way and easements more difficult.
VDOT construction administration, inspection and documentation requirements for locally administered
projects were not fully understood at the time initial cost estimates were generated for these projects
(example: VDOT requires a certified project inspector to be on site at all times during the full construction
period, as well as extensive documentation and record keeping)
AGENDA TITLE: FY16 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Participation
November 5, 2013
Page 2
Refinement and/or changes in the project scope arising during the project scoping phases. For example:
o Avon Street project – VDOT issues with a proposed mid-block crosswalk at the Cale Elementary School
entrance resulted in a shift in the sidewalk alignment and extension of the sidewalk to provide pedestrian
access to the signalized intersection at Mill Creek Drive.
o Rte 250 West in Crozet (Cloverlawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center) – scoping discussions with VDOT
regarding pedestrian crosswalk(s) and safety resulted in the need for additional improvement costs and
possible consideration of a roundabout to both manage traffic flow and provide pedestrian connectivity.
At this time, the anticipated shortfall for the four FY14 sidewalk projects is $1.7 million (anticipated total cost of the
projects is presently estimated at $3.2 million). Staff is requesting a total of $2.0 million ($1.0 million Revenue Sharing,
$1.0 million County match) to cover the anticipated shortfall. If the actual shortfall is less than this amount, any
remaining/unused funds can be transferred to other existing or future Revenue Sharing Program funded projects.
All four FY14 Revenue Sharing Program sidewalk projects address deficiencies in the sidewalk network and
pedestrian safety. These projects also provide access to nearby public and private parks, schools and/or service
centers. The Rio Road and Old Lynchburg Road projects provide access to existing transit routes. Due to the
importance of providing for pedestrian safety and multi-modal transportation facilities in the Development Areas, as
well as the priority already placed on these currently funded projects, staff recommends that Revenue Sharing
Program funds continue to be used to for the construction of sidewalks identified in the Capital Improvements Program
(see Map, Attachment A).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Participation in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program leverages matching funds from VDOT to advance important
transportation projects. The County has appropriated $1,050,000 for the local match for the FY16 Revenue Sharing
request (account code 4-9010-41020-441200-950081-9999).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment B) approving the County’s participation in
the Revenue Sharing Program for FY16, and requesting $1,000,000 in Revenue Sharing Program funds for sidewalks
and related improvements that will be constructed by the four FY14 sidewalk projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Location Map of Projects
B – Resolution
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
Sidewalk Improvements Location Map ATTACHMENT A
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 22, 2014
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
2239 ft
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Sidewalk Improvements Location Map ATTACHMENT A
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 22, 2014
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
560 ft
Points of InterestAIRPORTCOLLEGE/UNIVERSITYCOMMUNITYFIRE/RESCUE STATIONGOVERNMENTHOSPITALLIBRARYPOLICE STATIONPOST OFFICERECREATION/TOURISMSCHOOLParcel InfoParcelsSidewalk Improvements Location Map ATTACHMENT AMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesOctober 22, 2014GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)444 ftUS 250 West in Crozet
RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to submit an application for up to
$1.0 million of revenue sharing funds through the Virginia Department of Transportation
Fiscal Year 2015/16 Revenue Sharing Program; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to commit a $1.0 million match in order to
compete for a Revenue Sharing Program award; and
WHEREAS, these funds are requested to fund the County’s Sidewalk
Construction Program to install new sidewalks along roadways in the following locations:
1. Old Lynchburg Road, (new construction and replacement/relocation) from
Region10 Offices to Fifth Street;
2. Rio Road, from existing sidewalks to the Pen Park Road intersection and on
Pen Park Road;
3. Avon Street at three locations: 1) from Peregory Lane to Mill Creek Drive; 2)
from Stoney Creek Drive to Arden Drive, and 3) from Mill Creek Drive to Cale
Elementary School (on the east side of Avon street);
4. US 250 West in Crozet, in the Cory Farms and Blue Ridge Shopping Center
area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby commits to provide up to $1.0 million of matching funds in its
application for up to $1.0 million of revenue sharing funds from the Virginia Department
of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program and requests that the Virginia Department
of Transportation approve the County’s application.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a
vote of ______ to ______, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
_________________________.
________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ___ ___
Mr. Dittmar ___ ___
Ms. Mckeel ___ ___
Mr. Mallek ___ ___
Mr. Palmer ___ ___
Ms. Sheffield ___ ___
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP201400056 Regional Firearms Training Facility
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special Exception for waiver of curb requirement in
parking area under County Code § 18-4.12.15(g)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Benish, Falkenstein
PRESENTER(S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The County, on behalf of the County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, proposes to construct a
19,861 square foot indoor firearms training facility and associated parking at 2300 Milton Road (Attachment A). The
proposed parking area includes thirty (30) spaces as required by the Zoning Ordinance for classroom assembly areas.
County Code § 18-4.12.15(g) requires curbs to be established at the edges of parking areas or access aisles in
commercial and institutional development parking areas of eight (8) or more spaces. The parking spaces for the indoor
firearms training facility are proposed to be flanked by wheel stops rather than the required curbing. Therefore, the
applicant has requested a special exception to waive the curb requirement for the parking area and access isles.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both
the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
DISCUSSION:
County Code § 18-4.12.2(c) allows design requirements of parking areas to be waived by special exception upon
considering whether the proposed waiver would equally or better serve the public health, safety or welfare. The
applicant’s justification for the waiver request is to maximize the capabilities of the site’s proposed bioretention facility
while still providing an adequate and safe parking area for vehicular and pedestrian traffic (Attachment B). According
to the applicant, using wheel stops rather than curbing will allow runoff to flow from the parking area to the biorention
facility, which will evenly disperse flow.
The indoor firearms training facility will be used by local law enforcement agencies and will not be open to the general
public. Therefore, there is not expected to be a high volume of traffic using the facility and parking area. The County
Engineer and Zoning Administrator have reviewed the plan and the request for the special exception and have no
objections. Staff opinion is that the design of the parking area would equally or better serve the public health, safety
and welfare.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) to approve this special exception to
waive the requirement for curbing in the parking area as required by County Code § 18-4.12.15(g).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Initial Site Plan
B. Waiver request from applicant
C. Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
SITE PLAN4C-103ROANOKE, VA 24011213 SOUTH JEFFERSONā ā)$;ā āWWW.CLARKNEXSEN.COM123456ABCDECN NO:DATE:DESIGN:DRAWN:REVIEW:REVISIONSSHEETOF5REGIONAL FIREARMS TRAINING CENTER
2300 Milton Rd. Charlottesville, VA 2290253648/4/2014RUTaHFWNo.DateDescription3040 Avemore Square Pl.Charlottesville, VA 22911Phone: 434.984.2700ASSOCIATESENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSPO Box 4119Lynchburg, VA 24502Phone: 434.316.6080www.wwassociates.netWWA FILE NUMBER: 214032.03
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia (“UVA”) is the owner of Tax Map
and Parcel Number 09300-00-00-00700 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the County, acting as the agent for the County, the City of Charlottesville, and UVA, is
the applicant for a site plan for a regional firearms training facility to be located on the property; and
WHEREAS, the County filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SDP 2014-
00056, Regional Firearms Training Facility, to waive the requirement that curbs be established at the edges
of parking areas or access aisles in commercial and institutional development parking areas of eight or more
spaces within the proposed parking area of the to-be-constructed regional firearms training facility as
depicted on the pending site plan for the Property under review by the County’s Department of Community
Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the application, and its supporting analysis, and all of the factors
relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code § 18-4.12.2(c), the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to authorize the use of wheel stops rather than the
required curbing at the edges of the parking areas of the to-be-constructed regional firearms training facility.
* * *
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 _________________________.
__________________________________
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:
SUB201400116 – John C. Fisher Rural Subdivision
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special Exception from Building Site Requirement
under County Code § 18-4.2.2(a)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Benish, Falkenstein
PRESENTER(S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant proposes to divide a 8.549 acre lot (Parcel X) off of an existing 77.877 acre parcel (See Attachment A). The
parcel, Tax Map 96 Parcel 13, is zoned Rural Areas and currently contains one dwelling that accesses the property from
Spring Valley Road (Rt. 634). The property is mostly covered in critical slopes (See Attachment B) and the proposed
division would result in Parcel X not having a building site that meets the requirements of County Code § 18-4.2.2(a).
County Code § 18-4.2.2(a) requires that each parcel have a building site of 30,000 square feet or more and have such
dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a
rectangle inscribed within the building site. The building site may not contain, among other things, land within critical
slopes. The applicant is requesting a special exception to waive the requirement of the rectangular five (5) to one (1)
building site.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both
the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Parcel X has a contiguous area of over 30,000 square feet outside of critical slopes, but this area fails to
meet the requirement that the building site be rectangular with a ratio of no more than 5:1. The residue parcel that
would result after the proposed subdivision does have a building site that meets the requirements of § 18-4.2.2(a).
Because Parcel X already contains a dwelling, the division would not result in any new dwellings being added to the
building site that does not meet the requirements of § 18-4.2.2(a).
County Code § 18-4.2.2(a)(3) authorizes the Board to waive or modify the rectangular shape requirement by special
exception upon consideration of the recommendation from the Virginia Department of Health and consideration of
three factors: i) The parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; ii) No
reasonable alternative building site exits; and iii) Modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less
degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to. The applicant has provided
justification for the special exception (Attachment C), and staff’s analysis of the three factors are found in the Staff
Report (Attachment D). Staff concluded that two of the three factors are satisfied. Staff also concluded that the third
factor – that the modification would result in less degradation than if the rectangular dimensions were adhered to –
was not satisfied. However, staff concluded that the modification would not create any more degradation. The Virginia
Department of Health has provided approval for this subdivision (Attachment E).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recom mends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment F) to approve this special exception to
waive the building site requirement of County Code § 18-4.2.2(a).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed subdivision plat dated July 7, 2014
B. GIS map showing critical slopes
C. Special Exception request from applicant
D. Staff Report
E. Virginia Department of Health approval
F. Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
David L. Collins, L.S. , P.E.
Land surveying / Civil Engineering
1188 Berry Hill Road, Nellysford, Virginia 22958
Office:434-361-1113 • E-MAIL: dlc.ls.pe@gmail.com
Page 1 of 2
Sept. 10, 2014
Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
RE: SUB201400116 John C. Fisher
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We would like to pursue a Special exception to the Subdivision Ordinance 18-4.2.2 regarding requirements
of the building site, for a subdivision that includes an existing house on a portion of T.M.P. 96-13 near the
area of Heards and Heard Mountain.
Parcel X was originally applied for and given tentative approval in 2002 as a 3.5 Acre lot around an existing
house, but the plat was not recorded. The parcel being applied for today is the same area with an added 5
acres bounded primarily by ridgelines and roads. It is totally wooded except for the cleared areas around
the house, drainfield, and driveway access. The driveway from St. Rt. 634 to where it leaves the outside
boundary line towards the house (approximately 900’), was an old road, built to access orchards when the
property was farmed as an apple orchard.
Most of the lot is in critical slopes except for the area at the house. That area, based on the Critical
Resource Plan layer of the County GIS, overlaid with the proposed lot, is over 40,000 square feet, more
than the required 30,000 sq.ft., but does not fit the rectangular shape description requirement called for in
the Subdivision Ordinance, 18 - 4.2.2a.1.
Addressing the Special Exception requirements follows:
(i) The parcel is a steep sloped, mountain terrain lot which is accessed by an existing old farm
road along the southerly boundary. The house, internal driveway, and existing, approved
septic drainfield and reserve, create the only non-wooded area on the parcel; the area also
comprises the only buildable, non-critical slopes on the parcel. The clearing is sited just below
the high point of the proposed lot and is directed to the south, looking in to Nelson County.
The historical farm use created many trails and terraces that today, provide walking
opportunities to enjoy the mountain terrain and flora that are part of it.
(ii) The constructed building site is the only non-critical slope area of the proposed Parcel X,
except for a narrow valley and drain swale at the south-east corner of the Parcel where the
well is located. The building site is an area greater than the required minimum, but does not fit
the strict interpretation of the rectangular shape description requirement of the Ordinance. An
area of slightly steeper slopes, shown as critical slopes [based on the GIS mapping], comprise
a portion of the existing, approved drainfield and break up the two non-critical slope areas of
the building site.
Page 2 of 2
(iii) Waiving the rectangular shape requirement has allowed this site to be constructed with a very
minimum amount of clearing and grading. The approved drainfield, driveway, parking and
outside gathering areas provide adequate open space around the house, without needing to
clear additional wooded areas of the non-critical slopes to create a building site.
Again, the existing permitted house is sited on the only non-critical area of the proposed Parcel X, of 8.5
acres. It has an existing approved septic drainfield and reserve.
The existing house, driveway, parking, and gathering areas have been sited to fit the terrain, but the area
does not fit the description of a rectangle, as called for.
We respectfully request that a Special Exception be granted for this proposed lot.
Thank you very much for your help.
Sincerely,
David L. Collins, L.S., P.E.
Enclosure: Non-Critical Slope Map (Revised)
JOHN C. FISHER RURAL SUBDIVISION SPECIAL EXCEPTION
NOVEMBER 5, 2014 BOS
D-1
STAFF PERSON: Rachel Falkenstein
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: November 5, 2014
Staff report for Special Exception request for SUB201400116 John C. Fisher – Rural
Subdivision.
County Code § 18-4.2.2(a)(3) authorizes the Board to waive or modify the rectangular shape
requirement for a building site by special exception upon consideration of the recommendation
from the Virginia Department of Health and consideration of whether (i) the parcel has an
unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; (ii) no reasonable
alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result
in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to.
The Virginia Department of Health has granted approval of the individual onsite sewage system
for this proposed subdivision.
Staff has reviewed the application in accordance with section 18-4.2.2(a)(3) as follows:
(i) The parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical
condition;
The existing 77.877 acre parcels is comprised of mostly critical slopes, or slopes of 25% or
greater. The parcel, which has three development rights, has only a few small areas that are
not considered critical slopes, and only one building site meeting the requirements of 18-
4.2.2(a)(1).
(ii) No reasonable alternative building site exists;
According to Albemarle County GIS-Web there is only one site on the entire 77.877 acre
parcel outside of critical slopes that meets the building site requirements of § 18-4.2.2(a)(1).
Since two building sites are needed for the proposed subdivision, no alternative building site
would be possible.
(iii) Modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or
adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to;
While the modification of the rectangular shape would not result in less degradation of the
parcel or adjacent parcels, the modification would not create any more degradation. The
existing dwelling was built in 2001. The non-compliant building site on proposed Parcel X is
more than 30,000 square feet and contains the existing dwelling, but this site does not meet
the rectangular shape requirement of the ordinance. Without the proposed subdivision, a
second dwelling would be permitted on this parcel on the one building site, resulting in two
dwelling units on a parcel with only one building site.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, John C. Fisher (“Fisher”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 09600-00-00-
01300 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Fisher filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SUB 2014-00116,
John C. Fisher Rural Subdivision, to waive the requirement that no one dimension of a building site exceed
any other by a ratio of more than five to one on Parcel X, which will consist of 8.549 acres and currently
contains one dwelling, as the Property is depicted on the pending subdivision plat for the Property under
review by the County’s Department of Community Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the application, and its supporting analysis included as Attachment D
thereto, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code § 18-4.2.2(a)(3),
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to waive the rectangular
five to one building site requirement on Parcel X.
* * *
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 _________________________.
__________________________________
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:
Adoption Worker Position
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of an Adoption Worker Position from Part-time
to Full-time
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Ralston
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
During the Kaine administration, First Lady Anne Holton developed an increased focus on permanency for foster children
and led the statewide Children’s Transformation project that, among other positive changes, pushed adoption to the
forefront. As a result of that and other policy changes, the adoption caseload exploded statewide. Two years ago
Governor McDonnell led a campaign to increase adoptions of foster children and the caseload increased again. Both of
these initiatives were done without additional resources being provided to the local departments of social services (LDSS).
The Department now finds itself with an opportunity to address the overwhelming adoption caseload (that continues to
grow) and is the reason for this request at this time outside of the normal budget process.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County Government’s ability to provide high quality services that achieves community
priorities.
DISCUSSION:
The Foster Care/Adoption Program of the Albemarle County Department of Social Services (ACDSS) currently has
two part-time workers, one of which is a Senior Worker. The Senior Worker has recently announced her intent to retire
on February 1, 2015, and ACDSS is requesting to increase this position to a full-time worker. We are not requesting
that it remain a Senior Worker. At this point, the team has more need of worker time to manage the increasing
caseloads and demands rather than a senior position.
There are several key factors in support of this request including significant prevailing state mandates related to
adoption services, changes in policies governing adoption services, increased adoption caseloads and projected
continued growth in caseloads, and worker caseload measures beyond the reasonable capacity of the two part-time
positions. A more detailed justification of the need for the conversion of a part time senior worker to a full time worker
position is provided in Attachment A
BUDGET IMPACT: This request is for consideration of an additional appropriation of $7,961for additional salary and
benefits for the January through June 2015 timeframe to address the opportunity presented by the retirement of a
long- time employee and the need for additional staff support by increasing the part-time senior position to a full-time
position. The required ongoing additional annual funding of $15,921 would be included in the annual budget process
beginning in FY 16. The additional position time and associated costs would generate new federal revenue of $2,309
in FY 15 and $4,617 in FY16 for a net local dollar impact of $5,652 in FY 15 and $11,304 in FY 16. Appropriation
#2015054 in the amount of $7,961 is included as part of the FY 15 Budget Amendment and Appropriations Executive
Summary, also being presented to the Board for consideration on Novem ber 5.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the request to change one part-time senior
adoption worker position to a full-time adoption worker position and approve Appropriation #2015054 on the November
5, 2014 FY15 Appropriation Request.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Position Request
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Adoption Worker request
ACDSS
August 14, 2014
During the Kaine administration, First Lady Anne Holton developed an increased focus on
permanency for foster children and led the statewide Children’s Transformation project that,
among other positive changes, pushed adoption to the forefront. As a result of that and other
policy changes, the adoption caseload statewide exploded. Then Governor McDonnell led a
campaign two years ago to increase adoptions of foster children and the caseload increased
again. Of course, this was done without additional resources being provided to the local
departments of social services. We find ourselves with an opportunity to address our
overwhelming adoption caseload (that continues to grow) and is the reason for this request at this
time outside of the normal budget process.
Our Foster Care/Adoption Program currently has two part-time workers one of which is a Senior
Worker. The Senior Worker has recently announced her intent to retire and we are requesting to
increase this position to a full-time worker. We are not requesting that it remain a senior. At this
point, the team has more need of worker time to manage the increasing caseloads and demands
rather than a senior position. Following are key issues that we believe support this request:
1. VDSS policy mandates the provision of adoption services to children in foster care.
Section 63.2-319, Code of Virginia requires each local board to provide child welfare
services. The definition of “child welfare services” includes “Placing children in
suitable adoptive homes in cases where restoration to the biological family is not
possible or appropriate.” Additionally, VDSS is also mandated to provide post
adoption services after the legal finalization of the adoption to support, maintain, and
sustain the adoptive placement.
2. Over the past year, the existing two part-time adoption workers have provided post
adoption services to over 74 families. These families are ones who adopted children
with significant special needs. Without ongoing case management services to these
families, these children are at risk of reentry into foster care. The Virginia
Administrative Code (22 VAC 40-705-150(D)) provides local departments with the
authority to provide preventive services proactively. Post adoption services also include
preventive services to children about whom no formal complaint of abuse or neglect has
been made, but for whom potential harm or removal from the home exists. Referrals
from the community and individual citizens for these services cannot be consistently met
with quality service at this time as the Department is bound by statute to provide
mandated services first.
3. Currently ACDSS has 74 families receiving post adoption assistance. During FY 2013
ACDSS finalized three adoptions. In FY 2014 our agency finalized eight adoptions.
ACDSS is not simply required to manage the adoption subsidy assistance payments and
yearly monitoring requirements. Post adoption cases require a number of case
management activities, including preparing and presenting at the local Family
Assessment and Planning Teams for subsidy-funded residential placements, meeting with
families to discuss concerns and problems, providing crisis intervention, coordinating
referrals to mental health providers including in-home services, renegotiating subsidy
agreements, preparing the subsidy funding approval requests; and, as policy mandates,
providing case management services for adoptive families who receive subsidy from an
outside locality. These activities are provided in order to avoid adoption disruption and
reentry into foster care. Historically, our two part-time workers have managed the post
adoption caseload while simultaneously carrying full foster caseloads, ideally, i.e. 5-6
foster care cases for a 20 hour/week position. Throughout this past year, the average
foster care workload weight for these positions was 60.6 (target weight is 53.30). This
weight does not include the time needed to manage the post adoption cases or other
duties. For example, our senior adoption worker was also responsible for conducting any
adoption search request that comes from Central Office. Finally, both of these workers
were considered secondary worker by partnering with the foster care worker to fulfill the
service plan responsibilities towards the concurrent goal of Placement with Relatives
and/or Adoption. They attended service planning meetings/family partnership meetings,
contacted relatives, completed family genograms and met with foster parents regarding
their decision to provide permanency for the child. With the increase in the subsidy
caseload as well as the increase in special needs children, these cases have increasingly
required a higher level of case management oversight.
4. As mentioned above, these workers are not only responsible for the secondary worker
tasks, but also for the primary case management responsibilities for children whose goals
have changed to adoption. ACDSS has approximately 113 children in care right now, 30
of which are poised for adoption. Dividing 30 cases between two part-time workers
would mean they would carry 15 cases each – double what is considered to be a full
caseload. This responsibility would be on top of the post adoption services described
above. The only recourse the team has now is to maintain the case with the foster care
worker who does not have adoption expertise and who already carries 15 – 17 cases.
Over the past year the average workload for a foster care worker was 173.2 (target weight
is 106.6).
5. The current children with an established or concurrent goal of adoption are all in various
stages. Given our concurrent planning process, ACDSS rarely has children who are freed
for adoption but are not in an adoptive home, however when this situation arises, it
requires the worker to conduct an intensive search for a home.
6. Over the past year there have been significant policy changes and requirements in
adoption increasing the time needed to effectively manage a case.
7. The adoption subsidy negotiation process has changed considerably. The paperwork
requirements have become more laborious as illustrated by the following list of required
forms:
a. Full Disclosure of Child Information, Adoptive Home Placement Agreement,
Screening Tool, and Information Sheet on Adoption Assistance (AA) Program.
Application for AA, Worksheet for Assessing and Negotiating AA,VEMAT, , AA
Agreement, Annual Affidavit, Request for VEMAT Administration due to
Change in Behavior, Request for Addendum, Addendum, and the Checklist for
Child’s AA Paper Case Record.
b. The LDSS now has to enter into a negotiation regarding the amount of the
enhanced maintenance. Unlike with foster care, where the child automatically
receives the amount established by the VEMAT, adoption subsidy policy now
requires the LDSS to inform the adoptive parents of the VEMAT results and that
the actual amount of enhanced maintenance in the AA agreement will be
negotiated. Given our Concurrent Planning process in most situations these
parents will be the same as when the child was in foster care. This is a process
change is, in ACDSS’ opinion contrary to the best interest of the child. ACDSS
has maintained that the child is eligible for the maximum amount he/she is
entitled to and the requirement to negotiate this entitlement is awkward at best.
8. HB407 would allow the commissioner to release information to an adoptee if the birth
parents are deceased. This will likely increase the number of adoption search requests we
receive from VDSS as currently an order from the Circuit Court is required.
9. OASIS (VDSS automation system) documentation requirements have increased. LDSS
is now required to enter information when we are funding a residential placement through
subsidy. LDSS is also required to enter all of the payments to the foster family including
the basic and enhanced maintenance, non-recurring costs, and special service payments.
Historically, we have only been required to enter the basic maintenance payment.
10. VDSS has established the Adoption Assistance Review Team which conducted an on-site
audit earlier this year. The plan is to have regular reviews similar to the IVE reviews.
The purpose of this review is “to collaborate with Albemarle County DSS in order to
facilitate compliance with federal, state and Virginia Department of Social Service
(VDSS) adoption assistance requirements and guidance.” This new process will bring an
increased risk of charge backs for any errors.
.
Budget Analysis
Request consideration for additional $7,961 based on January-June 2015 to address the
opportunity and the need. Ongoing additional funding would be $15,921. The position and
associated costs would generate additional revenue of $2,309 for FY 15 and $4,617 for
FY16.
Salary
FY15 budget
FTE 1% raise Benefits
Position
Total
Carolyn Pettit (Grade 16)0.5 37,259 15,112 52,371
FTE
Salary 10% of
minimum Benefits
Position
Total
Foster Care Worker (Grade 15)1.0 49,036 19,256 68,292
FY 16 and
beyond FY 15
15,921 7,961
4,617 2,309
11,304 5,652Local Cost
Foster Care Budget Considerations
Change from P/T Senior Worker to F/T Worker
Funding Gap
Federal Revenue
Office of Facilities Development (OFD)
Capital Projects Status Report
3rd Quarter CY 2014
November 5, 2014
The Office of Facilities Development (OFD) is pleased to provide the third quarter
Capital Projects Status Report for calendar year 2014. This report provides summary
level information on all projects managed by OFD, both Capital Projects and Capital
Maintenance Projects.
The third quarter was an exhilarating time for the OFD team!! Substantial completion
was achieved on the Seminole Trail Fire Station Addition/Renovation project and an
Occupancy Permit was issued October 3rd. Additionally, OFD supported maintenance
projects in seventeen schools this summer with substantial completion reached on time
for school opening this fall (one project involved security improvements at 13 school
entrances). The Crozet Streetscape project is nearing completion and will improve
pedestrian connectivity within downtown Crozet as well as providing economic benefits
and increased vitality for business owners. Notable projects currently under
construction include: Northside Library and Storage Facility; Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School Addition/Renovation; and the completion of Belvedere Boulevard from Rio Road
to Free State Road (at the railroad bridge). The design of the Regional Firearms
Training Center is progressing in the construction-drawing phase with the regional
partners finalizing the Operating Agreement, Land Lease, and final budget
appropriations.
The following sections provide a summary on all projects and more detailed information
of select Capital Projects. Based on feedback from the Board requesting budget history
on a project, OFD staff has added a sample report to the Regional Firearms Training
Center detailed report. We are interested in feedback on how the budget history
information is shown and if the Executive Office and Board would like the incorporation
of this additional information for the other major CIP projects.
We hope you find this report useful and informative as the OFD team is proud of the
work it does for the County and its citizens.
“Helping to Build a Better Albemarle”
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 1 of 12
CAPITAL PROJECTS
Substantially Complete Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire
Department (STVFD)
Addition/Renovation
Addition (7,500 sq. ft.) to
STVFD and full renovation of
the existing facilities (~7,500
sq. ft.). Includes 2-bay
addition, expansion of living
quarters and full renovation of
existing facility to bring it to
code and improve the facilities
to properly support the highest
call volume station in the
County.
Occupancy permit
issued October 3rd!!
Volunteers have moved
into new facility.
Punch list work in progress
– final completion
November 2014.
$4,046,615
Substantial Completion
10/3/14
Occupancy permit
Western Albemarle High
School (WAHS) Stormwater
Impacts
Design and construct a
stormwater management
(SWM) facility and improve
head of channel at the back of
WAHS. SWM facility will provide
storm water attenuation/
treatment in the form of a
biofilter for the stormwater
runoff from the driver's
education parking lot.
Contractor worked with
Luck Stone to replace
biofilter material (at Luck
Stone’s cost) since biofilter
was not draining properly.
Remediation work
completed and accepted.
Final punch list work in
progress.
$184,346 Substantial Completion
September 2014
School Security
Improvements
Design and construction of
improved entrances at thirteen
(13) schools to create a more
secure entrance. The project
was bid with four Base Bids:
Base Bid A (5 schools); Base
Bid B (4 schools); Base Bid
C (1 school); Base Bid D (3
schools).
Substantial completion
achieved on 8/8/14.
Punch List work complete.
Construction Contracts
awarded to 3 contractors
totaling $376,287; change
order work - $3,902.
Project completed
$119,000+ under
appropriated budget.
$500,000 Substantial completion
August 2014
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 2 of 12
In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet Streetscape Phase II Relocation of overhead electric
and utility lines from Crozet
Avenue, new stormwater
drainage system, first block of
Main Street (Library Avenue),
and pedestrian, vehicular, and
streetscape enhancements
along Crozet Avenue from The
Square to Tabor Street.
Final asphalt, concrete
corrective work, and
landscaping complete.
Installation of crosswalk
pavers in progress and
nearing completion.
Final pavement striping
dependant on weather.
Anticipate October 2014
substantial completion
(contractually Nov 18).
$4,539,014
Streetscape –
Substantial Completion
November 2014
Northside Library and Storage
Facility
Provide a permanent location
for the Northside Library and
long-term County warehouse/
storage space. The new facility
(repurposing of existing
building) would provide
approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of
library space, and over 20,000
sq. ft. of warehouse space.
Construction approximately
55% complete as of
September.
Schedule extension of 40
calendar days necessary to
accommodate construction
delays from unexpected
site, building, and
structural issues related to
existing conditions.
Albemarle Square Library
2-month lease extension
necessary.
Low bid on furniture $90k
under budget.
Lower and library level dry
wall complete and prime
coat painting started in
lower level.
Finalizing completion date
for storage area.
Meeting with JMRL and
City IT personnel.
$11,843,740
Substantial completion
February 2015
Occupancy permit
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 3 of 12
Belvedere Bond Default
Project
Complete the Belvedere
Boulevard and Residential
"Block" roads, drainage, water,
sanitary sewer and related
construction according to the
approved development plans.
Phase 1 of the work is
Belvedere Boulevard from Rio
Road to Free State Road (RR
bridge); Phase 2 is the
remaining Belvedere Boulevard
(Free State Rd. to the Village
Green) and the residential
"Blocks" (3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A).
Funds for this project are from
the developer’s performance
bonds.
Phase 1 Work:
Board appropriated funds
to complete work.
Curb demo/replacement &
cross drains completed.
Work planned Oct/Nov
includes milling and base
asphalt replacement, final
surface asphalt, and
pavement markings.
Phase 2 Work: comprised of
multiple development bonds
necessitating dividing project
into individual Bid Items for
each bond resulting in award
of four contracts.
All road and utility work
substantially complete.
Compiling information and
plans (test reports, plats,
as-builts) necessary for
VDOT and ACSA
acceptance.
Change order pending to
correct outlet pipe leakage
in Basin #4 forebay.
$3,675,790
(Bond Default
Funds)
$500,000
(County Funds)
Phase 1 Work –
Substantial Completion
November 2014
Phase 2 Work –
Improvements
substantially complete.
Submittals to VDOT and
ACSA for acceptance 4th
Quarter 2014
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 4 of 12
Lewis & Clark Exploratory
Center
Construction of an educational
building (including
transportation exhibits and
river history), an access road
and parking area, and a
connecting trail network, all
located at Darden Towe Park.
Funded by a grant through the
VDOT Transportation
Enhancement Fund Program
($800,000) combined with
other funds raised by the Lewis
& Clark Exploratory Center
(LCEC).
Board approved 3rd loan
extension request 10/1.
Final mechanical, electrical,
and water and sewer line
inspections approved.
LCEC’s project manager to
address items required to
pass remaining final
inspections (plumbing and
building).
LCEC to work cooperatively
with contractor to
coordinate project
completion.
Final grant reimbursement
will not be issued until
VDOT has inspected and
signed-off on the project.
$800,000
(Grant only)
Completion anticipated
4th Quarter 2014
Agnor Hurt Elementary School
Addition & Renovations
Construction of 11,200 s.f.
addition consisting of seven (7)
classrooms, one (1) full-sized
SPED classroom, faculty
workroom, offices and
associated support spaces.
Renovations of 3,500 s.f.
consist of security
improvements at front
entrance, upgrades to media
center, and addition of air
conditioning to the kitchen.
Replacement of existing chiller,
exhaust fans, roof top units
and boilers. Site improvements
include additional parking and
modifications to student drop-
off areas.
Phase I construction
substantially complete
August 2014 (site work for
new road and bus loop and
relocated playgrounds).
Phase II construction
underway (complete new
entrance, bus loop, cooling
tower - structure &
relocation, begin classroom
addition, underground
utilities relocation).
Extremely low contingency
to start project; current
contingency includes future
anticipated changes
including removal of more
unsuitable school than
anticipated. Schools
notified of contingency
concern.
$5,968,285 Construction to be
completed incrementally
in successive Phases:
Ph. 1 – August 2014
Ph. 2 – December 2014
Ph. 3 – June 2015
Ph. 4 – August 2015
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 5 of 12
Church Road Basin
Stormwater Management
Facility Retrofit
Maintenance/enhancements to
existing regional stormwater
management facility including
survey, design, and
construction. Project will help
the County meet required
pollutant reductions mandated
for the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Easement plat and deeds
executed and recorded.
Notice to Proceed issued to
contractor 10/8/14.
Work to commence
10/20/14.
$426,919 Substantial Completion
2nd Quarter 2015
In Bid/Award Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Voter Registrar Office
Renovations
Expansion and limited redesign
of the Voter Registrar office
suite at COB-5th. The project
will expand the office suite
from 1,140 sf to 1,373 sf,
including a modest expansion
for storage into the existing
Office of Housing and floor plan
redesign of the suite to
maximize functionality,
optimize work flow process,
and alleviate congestion during
absentee voting.
Project currently being
advertised for construction.
Bid opening scheduled for
10/30/14.
Construction starts January
2015.
$106,660 Substantial Completion
1st Quarter 2015
In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Crozet Elementary School
Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Sidewalk
Provide improved walking and
bicycling routes to Crozet
Elementary School for students
from residential neighborhoods
by constructing curb and
sidewalk on the west side of
Crozet Avenue from Ballard
Drive to the school. The
improvements also include
installation of a manually
activated crosswalk warning
system at the pedestrian
crossing to the school.
Additional appropriation
(proffer revenue) approved
by Board to fully fund
construction.
Plan redesign complete
and revised plans
submitted to VDOT for
approval.
Obtain VDOT approval of
revised final plans and
authorization to advertise.
$293,000
Re-advertise 4th
Quarter 2014 ~ 2-3
months construction
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 6 of 12
Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk Replacing or constructing
approximately 1100 feet of
sidewalk and drainage
improvements along the west
side of Crozet Avenue from
Saint George Avenue to Crozet
Elementary School. Partially
funded with FY13 Revenue
Sharing Funds.
Board approved right-of-
way and easement
acquisitions.
County Attorney’s office
finalizing deed and
recordation.
Obtain VDOT approval of
Final Plans & Project
Manual and authorization
to advertise.
$755,878
Bid/award 4th Quarter
2014 ~ 6 months
construction
South Pantops Drive/State
Farm Boulevard Sidewalk
Improvements
Construction of 3500 feet of
curb, gutter and sidewalk which
will serve several residential,
business, and commercial
establishments. Partially funded
with FY13 Revenue Sharing
Funds.
Appraisals approx. 90%
complete.
Work with County Attorney
Office to complete deeds for
required acquisitions.
Obtain BOS approval of
acquisitions.
Obtain VDOT approval of
Final Plans & Project
Manual and authorization
to advertise.
$1,019,408
Bid/award 4th Quarter
2014 ~ 6 months
construction
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 7 of 12
Hydraulic Road and Barracks
Road Sidewalk Improvements
Partially funded with revenue
sharing funds and supports
pedestrian safety by providing
sidewalk improvements.
Hydraulic Road - construction
of approx. 1700 feet of
sidewalk on the north side
between Commonwealth Drive
and Georgetown Road.
Barracks Road: 1) construction
of approx. 1000 feet of
sidewalk on the north side
from Barracks West
apartments to existing
sidewalk west of Georgetown
Road intersection;
2) construction of crosswalks
and two segments of sidewalk
(650 ft total) on the south side
between Georgetown Road
intersection & Westminster
Road, and between South
Bennington Road & 29/250
Bypass ramps.
Surveys for both projects
completed.
Design plans are currently
in progress.
Barracks Road – cemetery
investigation beginning in
October 2014 – expected
completion in November
2014.
Public engagement meeting
to be held once cemetery
investigation is complete.
$1,588,600
Bid/award 3rd Quarter
2015 ~ 5 months
construction
Fontaine Avenue Sidewalk Construction of a short
sidewalk (~160') from the end
of the Fontaine Research Park
paved path to the end of
sidewalk at the City line. This
project closes the walkway gap
which may create safety issues
if left unconnected.
Sketch plan and detail and
Project Manual about 95%
complete.
Submit sketch and detail to
VDOT (permit section) to
assure its acceptable prior
to bidding.
$102,189 Bid 4th Quarter 2014
~ 2 months construction
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 8 of 12
Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive
Sidewalk
Completion of the sidewalk
connection from Hollymead to
Sutherland Schools. The
required right-of-way has been
donated.
Staff will provide a minimal
design plan sheet based on
survey base map since
proposed sidewalk is within
existing right-of-way.
Provide a design that
complies with the new
stormwater / TMDL
requirements.
$209,164 Bid 1st Quarter 2015
~ 2 months construction
FY14 Revenue Sharing
Projects - Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Improvements
1. Old Lynchburg Road
Walkway Upgrade
2. Avon Street Walkway/
Crosswalks Phase 1
3. Rio Road (Meadowcreek
Pkwy to Stonehenge)
4. US Rte 250 West, Crozet
(Harris Teeter)
Worked with VDOT to split
projects into 2 separate
UPCs (Old Lynchburg Road
project has a separate UPC
from the other three
projects).
Expenditure line items
established and Board
appropriated funding.
Consultant secured to
provide support for
administration of VDOT’s
Local Administration
Program (LAP)
requirements.
Internal Project SharePoint
site currently being
developed for each UPC
project.
$1,500,000 Secure civil engineering
firm for design services
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 9 of 12
Regional Firearms Training
Center
Design and construction of a
regional indoor firearms
training facility, which includes
a 50-yard qualification range
and 50-yard tactical range, 16
shooting lanes (original scope
20-24 shooting lanes),
classroom, office, bathrooms
and storage areas (control
platforms eliminated from
original scope). The range will
be located on property owned
by UVA on Milton Road.
Total project cost estimate
based on schematic
drawings and refined
project needs ~$6.8M.
Conclusion of executive
meeting with fiscal
management staff from
County, City, and UVA was
agreement to establish a
not to exceed (NTE) total
project budget of $6M.
Request Board approval of
additional funding to
establish NTE budget.
Design Development plans
submitted and under
review by project design
team.
Initial site plan meeting
results in VDOT requiring
modifications to the
entrance which could be
$50k-$100k in additional
costs.
Finalize operating
agreement and land lease
terms and request Board
approval.
$4,865,422
(Proposed
$6M)
Agreement in place for
operations & funding –
4th Quarter 2014
Complete design/site
plan approval – 4th
Quarter 2014
Bid/award – 1st Quarter
2015 ~ 6-9 months
construction
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 10 of 12
Carrsbrook Pipe Repair The corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) drainage pipes of the
Carrsbrook Drive dam have
corroded and a large eroded
hole has formed on the
downstream side of the dam as
a result of the failing pipes. The
pipes are located on two
private properties and partially
within the VDOT right-of-way
of Carrsbrook Drive. The large
eroded hole is located within
private property and, if not
repaired, could damage
Carrsbrook Drive, and is a life
safety concern.
Temporary repair complete
(hole filled in and rip-rap
swale installed).
Permanent repairs will be
within an easement to be
acquired by the County.
Easement plats submitted
to CDD for review and
County Attorney office
working on draft deeds.
Analyzing drainage area
and completing runoff
calculations to confirm
replacement pipe size is
adequate.
County Attorney office
working with VDOT on
agreement for work in
right-of-way.
$167,236 Substantial Completion
1st Quarter 2015
MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
Substantially Complete Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Yancey Elementary School
Roof Replacement
Replace existing ballasted roof
systems at Yancey Elementary
School main building and 1990
addition (29,320 SF). New
roofing system will be adhered
EPDM roofing system with
new insulation.
Punch list work completed.
No contingency used.
$473,364 Substantial completion
August 2014
Stone-Robinson Elementary
School Roof Replacement
Replace existing ballasted roof
at Stone Robinson Elementary
School. New EPDM roof
system (23,295 sf).
Punch list work 99%
complete. No contingency
used.
$261,730 Substantial completion
August 2014
Cale Elementary School Roof
Replacement, Phase II
Replace 2nd half of ballasted
school roof. New roof system
will be same as Phase 1,
insulation self adhering EPDM
roof.
Punch list work completed.
No contingency used.
$357,600 Substantial completion
August 2014
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 11 of 12
Cale Elementary School
Parking Lot Expansion
Design and construction of an
additional twenty-five (25)
parking spaces on the
southeast side of the school.
Punch list work completed. $158,633 Substantial completion
August 2014
Monticello High School Track
Replacement
Design and construction
services to demolish and
replace existing track at
Monticello High School football
stadium.
Punch list work in progress.
Construction Contract -
$129,798, Change Orders -
Deduct ($57.50); no
contingency used.
$165,000 Substantial completion
September 2014
Vehicle Maintenance Facility
(VMF) Lift Replacement
Phase III
Phase III of multi-year phased
replacement of bus and
vehicle lifts originally installed
with the construction of the
VMF in the early 1980’s. This
phase replaces one (1) bus
lift.
Punch list work completed. $198,000 Substantial completion
August 2014
Ivy Creek School Exterior
Masonry Wall Repairs
Evaluate cracking and
deterioration of exterior c.m.u.
walls at various areas around
perimeter of school, prepare
plan for repair, and initiate
construction to remedy the
situation.
Punch list work completed. $26,620
Substantial completion
August 2014
Office of Facilities Development
Capital Projects Status Report – 3rd Quarter, CY 2014
Page 12 of 12
In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
Stormwater Multi-Facility
Maintenance Projects
Includes maintenance
(sediment removal/dredging)
and upgrades to existing
regional stormwater
management facilities and
channel (Four Seasons Lower
Basin dredging, Four Seasons
Upper channel improvements,
and the Branchlands (Hillsdale
Road) forebay sediment
removal). Phase 1 scope is
complete and included
surveying and analysis of
existing facilities to determine
required improvements and
possible enhancements.
Phase 2 scope includes design
and construction of
recommended
improvements/enhancements.
Four Seasons Upper Pond
Dredging: Project complete;
fish pond restocked.
Branchlands (Hillsdale Road)
Forebay: Notice to Proceed
pending Contractor securing
off-site waste area.
Four Seasons Channel:
Secure and record required
easement and then execute
construction contract. HOA
sent out mailing for 2/3
homeowners to approve
project. Response expected
within 60 days.
$373,404 Four Seasons Upper
Pond Dredging –
Complete
Branchlands Forebay –
Substantial Completion
Fall 2014
Four Seasons Channel
– Substantial
Completion Spring 2015
Court Square Air Handling
Units (AHU) and Controls
Replacement
Replace existing AHU’s with
new and replace pneumatic
controls with digital.
All duct work associated with
new units has been cleaned.
AHU serving Circuit Court has
been installed and is
operational.
One of two units to be
replaced in General District
Court has been removed with
installation of new unit in
progress.
$429,689 Substantial completion
November 2014
In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone
COB-McIntire AHU
Replacement
Replace existing air handling
units along with main duct
cleaning. Humidity control to
be included.
Final design documents
under review.
Advertise for bid mid-
November.
$700,217 Substantial completion
2nd Quarter 2015
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Addition/Renovation
Description:
Addition (7,500 sq. ft.) to Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) and full renovation of
the existing facilities (~7,500 sq. ft.). Total scope includes a 2-bay addition, an expansion of living
quarters and full renovation of the existing facility to bring it to code and improve the facilities to
properly support the highest call volume station in the County.
Status:
Occupancy permit issued October 3, 2014!! Volunteers have moved in new facility. Punch list work in
progress – final completion November 2014. Grand Opening Ceremony planned for November 23,
2014.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Pre-design Complete 01/11/13 01/18/13 7
Design Complete 03/22/13 04/26/13 35
Bid Opening Date 04/11/13 05/31/13 50
Notice of Intent to Award 04/18/13 07/23/13 96
Notice to Proceed 04/29/13 08/26/13 119
Renovation Demo Complete 06/14/13 10/13/13 121
Excavation - Addition Complete 07/05/13 10/04/13 91
Structural Elements Complete 09/06/13 05/22/14 258
Building Dried-In 11/29/13 06/13/14 196
Finishes Complete 02/28/14 09/12/14 196
Site Work Complete 03/21/14 09/29/14 192
Substantial Completion 04/04/14 10/03/14 182
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[May 2012]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 3,836,670 $ 4,046,615 $ (209,945)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 3,836,670 $ 4,046,615 $ (209,945)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 426,320 $ 546,812 $ (120,492)
Hard Costs $ 3,126,500 $ 3,386,796 $ (260,296)
Contingency $ 283,850 $ 113,007 $ 170,843
Total $ 3,836,670 $ 4,046,615 $ (209,945)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 164,973
Paid to Date: $ 3,531,837
A/E Contract (DJG, Inc. – includes Add. & Renov.) Construction Contract (Kenbridge Construction)
Original Agreement $428,444 Bid Award $3,001,754
Approved Changes $ 10,946 Approved Changes $ 138,671
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 91,010
TOTAL $439,390 TOTAL $3,231,435
A/E Change Orders: Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – MEP redesign for Value
Engineering changes
$10,946 1 – Underground sewer lines under
engine bay floor; sanitary pipe to tie-
in washer boxes to sewer line; add
mop sink
2 – Replace various doors/ hardware
to comply with code requirements
3 – Dumpster rental for volunteers
demo; add section of concrete
footing to CMU wall
4 – Underground water line to riser;
add an energy recovery ventilator
5 – Schedule extension (18 days)
6 thru 9 – Various changes due to
unforeseen site/field conditions, or
owner requested
10 thru 16 –Various structural,
electrical, HVAC & site work
Pending – Final change orders for
various revisions, upgrades, and
changes
$ 10,882
$4,330
$2,386
$10,080
$0
$29,505
$81,488
$91,010
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Northside Library and Storage Facility
Description:
Provide a permanent location for the Northside Library and long-term County warehouse/storage space
by repurposing an existing building located on property recently purchased at 705 Rio Road West
(formerly Phillips Building Supply). The new facility would provide approximately 30,000 square feet
of library space, and over 20,000 square feet of warehouse space. The Northside Library is currently
located in leased space at Albemarle Square, and the County warehouse/storage space is currently
located in leased space at the former Comdial building on Seminole Trail. The new facility will
eliminate the need for those two leased spaces.
Status:
Construction work underway and approximately 55% complete as of September 2014. A construction
schedule extension of 40 calendar days is necessary to accommodate delays in construction over the
summer from unexpected site, building, and structural issues related to existing conditions. Substantial
completion is planned for February 2015. Because the new library will not be ready for occupancy by
January 2015, when the current library lease at the Albemarle Square location expires, a lease extension
through March 2015 is necessary.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Schematic design Complete 09/15/13 09/15/13 0
Design Complete 12/31/13 12/31/13 0
Bid Opening Date 01/31/14 02/12/14 12
Notice to Proceed 02/15/14 03/31/14 44
Demolition Complete 03/01/14 05/07/14 67
Site Work Complete 05/01/14 01/30/15 274
Substantial Completion:
Basement Storage Area 05/01/14 11/26/14 209
Library 09/30/14 02/24/15 147
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[May 2013]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 11,820,373 $ 11,843,740 $ (23,366)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 11,820,373 $ 11,843,740 $ (23,366)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 3,764,625 $ 4,221,247 $ (456,622)
Hard Costs $ 7,402,498 $ 7,475,489 $ (72,991)
Contingency $ 653,250 $ 147,004 $ 506,246
Total $ 11,820,373 $ 11,843,740 $ (23,367)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 3,427,538
Paid to Date: $ 7,547,408
A/E Contract (HB+M Architects) Construction Contract (Kenbridge Construction)
Original Agreement $736,500 Bid Award $6,773,500
Approved Changes $ 14,100 Approved Changes $ 169,891
Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 29,932
TOTAL $750,600 TOTAL $6,973,323
A/E Change Orders: Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Traffic & access analysis
2 – Extended bid phase
assistance
$ 3,450
$10,650
1 – Delete re-roofing scope; delete
sprinkler system standpipe
2 – Mezz duct frame, stair walls, VA
Power conduits
3 – Unilateral Change Order for steel
beam
4 – Various changes due to unforeseen
site/buiding conditions or Building Code
required; credit for deleting painting in
select basement areas
5 – Additional casework
6 thru 8 – Various changes due to
unforeseen site/building conditions,
owner requested or Building Code
required; credit for skylight changes
9 – Schedule extension General
Conditions cost
Pending – Additional changes due to
unforeseen site/buiding conditions
$(73,100)
$43,721
$75,000
$22,349
$43,000
$34,645
$24,276
$29,932
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Regional Firearms Training Center
Description:
Design and construction of a regional indoor firearms training facility, which includes a 50-yard
qualification range and 50-yard tactical range, 16 shooting lanes (original scope 20-24 shooting lanes),
classroom, office, bathrooms and storage areas (control platforms eliminated from original scope). The
range will be located on property owned by UVA on Milton Road.
Status:
Total project cost estimate based on schematic drawings and refined project needs is approximately $6.8
Million. Conclusion of an 8/15/14 executive meeting with fiscal management staff from the County,
City, and UVA was an agreement to establish a not to exceed (NTE) total project budget of $6 Million.
Request for Board approval of additional funding to establish NTE budget scheduled for 11/5/14
meeting. Potential bid deductive alternates being identified/evaluated. Design Development plans
submitted and under review by project design team. Initial site plan meeting results in VDOT requiring
modifications to the entrance which could be $50k-$100k in additional costs.
Regional Operating Agreement and Ground Lease terms have been finalized by the partners. Request
for Board approval of agreement and lease terms scheduled for 11/5/14 meeting.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
A/E Procurement Complete 04/07/14 04/21/14 14
Pre-design Complete 05/26/14 07/10/14 45
Design Complete 09/29/14 12/17/14 79
Bid Opening Date 10/30/14 01/19/15 81
Notice to Proceed 11/27/14 02/16/15 81
Excavation Complete 0
Site Work Complete 0
Substantial Completion 08/25/15 11/25/15 92
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[January 2014]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 4,865,422 $ 4,865,422 $ -
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 4,865,422 $ 4,865,422 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 509,191 $ 670,992 $ (161,801)
Hard Costs $ 4,024,824 $ 5,890,504 $ (1,865,680)
Contingency $ 331,407 $ 279,457 $ 51,950
Total $ 4,865,422 * $ 6,840,953 $ (1,975,531)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ (1,975,531)
Encumbered: $ 345,450
Paid to Date: $ 227,039
* Total project budget based on schematic design
A/E Contract (Clark Nexsen) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $514,137 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 42,276 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 5,154 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $561,167 TOTAL $
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Well and septic design and
analysis
$42,276
Pending – Tier 3 groundwater
assessment
$5,154
Date
Design / Soft
Costs
Construction
(including contingency) Total
Changes (Baseline -
Current Estimate)Scope Changes
Project Budget
Information Source
OUTDOOR RANGE
Baseline Estimate Outdoor Range
(Original CP Budget)Feb-12 163,904.00$ 976,396.00$ 1,140,300.00$ Original CIP for Outdoor Range at old (closed) Keene Landfill, two 18
lane, 50 yd. ranges Original CIP
Revised Estimate Outdoor Range Nov-12 186,627.00$ 1,427,579.00$ 1,614,206.00$ 473,906.00$
Estimate revised to account for additional cost of road, further sound
study, wetlands, additional 100 yd. range. Note: Board stopped
outdoor range project at 6 Feb 2013 meeting.
Revised CIP
INDOOR RANGE
Indoor Range (Regional Firearms
Range Training Center) Baseline CIP
Estimate
Jan-14 509,191.00$ 4,356,231.00$ 4,865,422.00$
Re-start of Indoor Range Project, formally titled Region+A1al Firearms
Range Training Center. Joint partnership with the City of Charlottesville
and UVA to build and run an indoor Firing Range at UVA's Milton Site.
Project assumed 20-24 lanes, an administrative area for training,
storage and weapons cleaning and the site development. CIP estimates
were based upon Concrete Masonry Wall construction, concrete ceiling
and meeting noise ordinance at property line.
Revised CIP
Indoor Range (Regional Firearms
Range Training Center) Current
Project Estimate
Post Schematic Design Cost Estimate
Jul-14 670,992.00$ 6,169,961.00$ 6,840,953.00$ 1,975,531.00$
Post Schematic design estimate shows anticipated cost increases
related primarily to market costs increasing for construction and
material, change of construction material from CMU block to Concrete
Panels and a decision to fully enclose the HVAC units. The material
change and enclosing of the HVAC units will significantly reduce noise
and ensure maximum environmental projection. In order to moderate
the cost increases the scope of ranges have been reduced to 2, 8 lane
ranges with independent HVAC systems and a smaller footprint
attached Admin building. Conclusion of an 8/15/14 executive meeting
with fiscal management staff from the County, City, and UVA was an
agreement to establish a not to exceed (NTE) total project budget of $6
Million.
Executive Summary
REGIONAL FIREARMS RANGE TRAINING CENTER PROJECT BUDGET TRACKER
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Church Road Basin Stormwater Management Facility Retrofit
Description:
The Church Road Basin project includes maintenance and enhancements to the existing regional
stormwater management facility. The project scope includes survey, design, and construction. The
County is required (through the DCR-issued stormwater permit) to reduce pollutant discharges
(nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) to impaired waters having approved TMDLs, or pollution diets.
This project will help the County meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Cheasapeake Bay
watershed.
Status:
Notice to Proceed issued 10/8/14 to North State Environmental. Work to commence 10/20/14. Work to be
substantially complete within 180 consecutive calendar days from the date of commencement, which is
4/18/15. This project is partially funded by a grant through the Department of Environmental Quality’s
(DEQ’s) Stormwater Local Assistance Fund, a new funding program for stormwater pollution reduction
efforts related to Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Charrette Mtg 05/31/13 06/12/13 12
60%-design Complete 07/26/13 10/25/13 91
100% Design Complete 11/08/13 02/28/14 112
Project Out-to-bid 01/10/14 06/15/14 156
Bid Opening Date 02/28/14 07/21/14 143
Notice to Proceed 04/01/14 10/08/14 190
Substantial Completion 12/14/14 04/18/15 125
Grading Plan
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[April 2013]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 449,739 $ 426,919 $ 22,820
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 449,739 $ 426,919 $ 22,820
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 98,739 $ 101,181 $ (2,442)
Hard Costs $ 265,000 $ 298,491 $ (33,491)
Contingency $ 86,000 $ 27,247 $ 58,753
Total $ 449,739 $ 426,919 $ 22,820
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 309,641
Paid to Date: $ 77,352
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract (North State Environmental)
Original Agreement $72,772 Bid Award $298,491
Approved Changes $ 2,310 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ Pending Changes $
TOTAL $75,082 TOTAL $298,491
A/E Change Order:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Easement plat preparation &
grant application assistance
$2,310
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Crozet Streetscape Enhancements Phase II
Phase 2 (Crozet Avenue) and 2A (Main Street and Alleys)
Description:
Phase 2 and 2A of the Crozet Streetscape Enhancements includes relocation of overhead electric and
utility lines from Crozet Avenue, new stormwater drainage system, first block of Main Street (Library
Avenue), and pedestrian, vehicular, and streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from The
Square to Tabor Street.
Status:
Phase 2 – Crozet Avenue:
Project web page maintained to provide project information and construction updates. Final asphalt,
concrete corrective work, and landscaping is complete. Installation of crosswalk pavers in progress and
nearing completion. Final pavement striping dependant on weather. Substantial completion is
contractually November 18th but is expected during the month of October.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 08/30/12 02/28/13 182
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 08/30/12 07/31/13 335
VDOT Approval to Advertise 09/30/12 09/04/13 339
Utility Relocation Complete 10/30/12 10/25/13 360
Advertise 09/30/12 09/11/13 346
Bid Opening Date 10/30/12 10/16/13 351
VDOT "Authorize to Award" 11/30/12 11/13/13 348
Pre-construction Meeting 11/30/12 12/11/13 376
Sign Contract; Issue NTP 11/30/12 01/16/14 412
Community Meeting 11/30/12 12/03/13 368
Groundbreaking Ceremony 04/01/14 04/01/14 0
Ph-A Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk Complete 06/01/13 06/27/14 391
Ph-B Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk Complete 11/01/13 09/22/14 325
Paving Complete 12/01/13 10/03/14 306
Substantial Completion 01/30/14 11/18/14 292
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[March 2007]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 3,700,000 $ 4,539,014 $ (839,014)
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,539,014 $ (839,014)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 590,000 $ 955,131 $ (365,131)
Hard Costs $ 2,770,000 $ 3,578,575 $ (808,575)
Contingency $ 340,000 $ 5,308 $ 334,692
Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,539,014 $ (839,014)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 290,967
Paid to Date: $ 4,218,867
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract (Ph 2A – Library Ave)
Original Agreement $379,000 Piedmont Concrete Contractors
Approved Changes $163,761 COMPLETE (FY11) $780,168
Pending Changes $0
TOTAL
A/E Change Orders:
$542,761 Construction Contract (Ph 2 – Crozet Ave)
Linco, Inc.
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Jarmans Gap Road interim storm
system & historic resources (FY09)
$41,500
2 – Additional plats & transportation
planning services (FY09)
$12,625
3 – Main Street extension to proposed
Library entrance (FY09)
$24,000
4 – Conceptual Downtown Plaza
improvements (FY09)
$ 9,750
5 – Additional plats (FY10) $ 2,750
6 – Temporary tie-in of new Main
Street (FY10)
$21,000
7 – Water & sewer relocation design
(FY10)
$ 7,300
8 – Library storm sewer advance work
(FY12)
$ 5,961
9 – Finalize const. documents (FY13) $38,875
Bid Award $1,474,350
Approved Changes $ 75,408
Pending Changes $ 2,773
TOTAL $1,552,531
Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Retaining wall construction;
storm piping changes
$17,248
2 – Bio-filter modifications;
drainage structure corrections; tree
removal; striping
$32,217
3 – Bio-filter curb plates; various
changes/corrections at various
properties
$25,944
4 – Various changes due to
unforeseen site/field conditions,
unused allowance credit
$2,773
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Crozet Elementary School Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Project
Description:
Provide improved walking and bicycling routes to Crozet Elementary School for students from residential
neighborhoods by constructing curb and sidewalk on the west side of Crozet Avenue from Ballard Drive to
the school. The improvements also include installation of a manually activated crosswalk warning system at
the pedestrian crossing to the school. This project is partially funded by a VDOT Safe Routes to School
grant. A separate Revenue Sharing project extends the sidewalk from Crozet School to Saint George
Avenue.
Status:
Additional appropriation (proffer revenue) approved by Board on October 1, 2014, to fully fund construction.
Plan redesign complete and revised plans submitted to VDOT for approval. Obtain VDOT approval of revised
final plans and authorization to advertise - target 4th quarter 2014; approximately 3 months construction. Staff
and the contractor will evaluate whether to start construction over the winter or delay until early spring
depending on weather conditions.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 04/30/12 02/20/13 296
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 05/31/12 12/30/12 213
VDOT Approval to Advertise 06/30/12 07/30/13 395
Bid Opening Date 08/15/12 10/28/13 439
Re-advertise Project 01/08/14 10/21/14 286
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract
( * ) 09/15/12 12/20/14 826
Waterline Relocation Complete 04/15/14 06/15/14 61
Curb/Drainage Complete ( * ) 11/15/12 01/30/15 806
Sidewalks Complete ( * ) 11/30/12 02/15/15 807
Paving Complete ( * ) 12/15/12 02/28/15 805
Substantial Completion ( * ) 12/15/12 02/28/15 805
* Staff and the contractor will evaluate when to start construction which could occur as soon as
December or may be delayed until early spring at the latest, depending on weather.
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[January 2012]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ -
Future Appropriations $ - $ 103,000
$
(103,000)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 190,000 $ 293,000 $ (103,000)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 43,300 $ 88,432 $ (45,132)
Hard Costs $ 134,500 $ 186,025 $ (51,525)
Contingency $ 12,200 $ 18,544 $ (6,344)
Total $ 190,000 $ 293,000 $ (103,000)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 15,368
Paid to Date: $ 40,064
A/E Contract (Anhold Associates)
Original Agreement $20,697
Approved Changes $15,325
Pending Changes $ 0
TOTAL $36,022
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Prepare documents to relocate
existing waterline conflicting with
proposed stormwater utilities
$2,524
2 – Redesign plans and construction
documents
$12,801
Construction Contract
Bid Award $
Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $
TOTAL $
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Crozet North Sidewalk
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety by replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of sidewalk and drainage
improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet Elementary
School. This project is partially funded with Revenue Sharing funds. A separate Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Grant project provides improved pedestrian crossing at the school and extends side walk to Ballard
Drive.
Status:
Board approved right-of-way and easement acquisitions on September 3, 2014. County Attorney’s office is
finalizing deed. Obtain VDOT approval of Final Plans & Project Manual and authorization to advertise - target
4th quarter 2014; approximately 6 months construction. This project and the South Pantops/State Farm
Boulevard Sidewalk Improvement Project are considered “one project” by VDOT under the FY13 Revenue
Sharing award so the two projects must be bid and awarded as a single project. Required VDOT approvals
(design, right-of-way, authorization to advertise) for both projects are necessary before the project can be bid.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 02/14/13 02/28/14 379
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 09/30/14 564
VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 10/30/14 563
Bid Opening Date 05/31/13 12/15/14 563
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 06/30/13 01/10/15 559
Curb & Drainage Complete 08/31/13 04/01/15 578
Sidewalks Complete 09/30/13 05/30/15 607
Paving Complete 10/15/13 06/20/15 613
Substantial Completion 10/15/13 06/30/15 623
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 661,400 $ 815,878 $ (154,478)
Future Appropriations * $ - $ (60,000) $ 60,000
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 661,400 $ 755,878 $ (94,478)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 104,200 $ 268,526 $ (164,326)
Hard Costs $ 497,200 $ 424,674 $ 72,526
Contingency $ 60,000 $ 62,678 $ (2,678)
Total $ 661,400 $ 755,878 $ (94,478)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 10,178
Paid to Date: $ 128,424
* Future transfer to South Pantops Drive/Sate Farm Boulevard revenue sharing sidewalk project
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Assoc.) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $40,000 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 1,600 Approved Changes $
Additional Agreement $31,596 Pending Changes $
TOTAL $73,196 TOTAL $
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 - Eliminate bid/construction
observation; add plats & final
engineering services.
Additional Agreement: Waterline
relocation design, right-of-way
acquisition and construction phase
services.
$ 1,600
$31,596
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: South Pantops Drive/State Farm Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety along the north side of South Pantops Drive and west side of State Farm
Boulevard by constructing 3500 feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk which will serve several residential,
business, and commercial establishments. Construction will be partially funded with FY13 Revenue
Sharing Funds.
Status:
Appraisals approximately 90% and consultant preparing determinations of just compensation. Board approval
of acquisitions is required. Obtain VDOT approval of Final Plans & Project Manual and authorization to
advertise - target 4rd quarter 2014; approximately 6 months construction. This project and the Crozet Avenue
North Sidewalk Improvement Project are considered “one project” by VDOT under the FY13 Revenue Sharing
award so the two projects must be bid and awarded as a single project. Required VDOT approvals (design,
right-of-way, authorization to advertise) for both projects is necessary before the project can be bid.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Design Complete 12/31/12 10/01/13 274
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 9/30/2014 564
VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 10/30/2014 563
Bid Opening Date 06/01/13 12/15/2014 562
Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of
Contract 07/01/13 1/10/2015 558
Curb & Drainage Complete 09/01/13 4/1/2015 577
Sidewalks Complete 10/01/13 5/30/2015 606
Paving Complete 10/15/13 6/20/2015 613
Substantial Completion 10/31/13 6/30/2015 607
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[July 2008]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 512,000 $ 959,408 $ (447,408)
Future Appropriations * $ - $ 60,000 $ (60,000)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 512,000 $ 1,019,408 $ (507,408)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 60,000 $ 313,343 $ (253,343)
Hard Costs $ 410,000 $ 645,424 $ (235,424)
Contingency $ 42,000 $ 60,641 $ (18,641)
Total $ 512,000 $ 1,019,408 $ (507,408)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 18,906
Paid to Date: $ 138,274
* Future transfer from Crozet Ave North revenue sharing sidewalk project.
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract
Original Agreement $ 39,116 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 9,369 Approved Changes $
Additional Agreement $ 49,595 Pending Changes $
Approved Changes $ 22,088 TOTAL $
TOTAL $120,168
A/E Change Orders (Original Agreement):
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Update survey (FY09) $ 600
2 – Additional survey (FY09) $ 6,950
3 – Add topo survey, plats & final
engineering; eliminate bidding/
construction observation (FY12)
$ 1,819
A/E Change Orders (Additional Agreement):
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Temporary easement plats $8,888
2 – Additional right-of-way and
easement acquisition services
$13,200
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Hydraulic Road and Barracks Road Sidewalk Improvements
Description:
Provide for pedestrian safety by making sidewalks improvements along Hydraulic Road and Barracks
Road. The Hydraulic Road sidewalk improvement involves the construction of approximately 1700 feet
of sidewalk on the north side of Hydraulic Road between approximately 300 feet east of Commonwealth
Drive and Georgetown Road. The Barracks Road sidewalk improvement involves: 1) the construction of
approximately 1000 feet of sidewalk from the Barracks West apartments on the north side of Barracks
Road to the existing sidewalk west of the Georgetown Road intersection; and 2) the construction of
crosswalks and two segments of sidewalk (650 ft total) on the south side of Barracks Road between the
Georgetown Road intersection and Westminster Road, and between S. Bennington Road and the 29/250
Bypass ramps. This project is partially funded with FY13 and FY15 Revenue Sharing Program funds.
Status:
Survey for both projects is complete and design plans are currently in progress. Two burial sites were
found during the survey process; a sub-consultant has been authorized to verify the limits of the sites.
Once confirmed, construction impacts will be ascertained, if any. Public engagement meeting to seek
public input on project will be held as soon as possible after the burial site impacts have been
determined.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Pre-design Complete 10/01/14 10/01/14 0
Design Complete 05/01/15 05/01/15 0
Bid Opening Date 06/01/15 06/01/15 0
Notice to Proceed 07/01/15 07/01/15 0
Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 04/01/15 04/01/15 0
Substantial Completion 12/01/15 12/01/15 0
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[January 2014]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 1,588,600 $ 1,588,600 $ -
Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ -
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 1,588,600 $ 1,588,600 $ -
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 617,600 $ 624,020 $ (6,420)
Hard Costs $ 873,900 $ 873,900 $ -
Contingency $ 97,100 $ 90,680 $ 6,420
Total $ 1,588,600 $ 1,588,600 $ 0
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ 0
Encumbered: $ 196,374
Paid to Date: $ 148,067
A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn Construction Contract
Original Agreement $323,256 Bid Award $
Approved Changes $ 13,164 Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ Pending Changes $
TOTAL $336,420 TOTAL $
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
1 – Assist support public meeting
process
$13,164
Page 1 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project: Agnor-Hurt Elementary Additions & Renovations
Description:
Construction of an 11,200 sq. ft. addition consisting of seven (7) classrooms, one (1) full-sized SPED
classroom, faculty workroom, offices and associated support spaces. Renovations of 3,500 sq. ft. consist
of security improvements at front entrance, upgrades to media center, and addition of air conditioning to
the kitchen. Replacement of existing chiller, exhaust fans, roof top units and boilers. Site improvements
include additional parking and modifications to student drop-off areas.
Status:
Construction to be completed incrementally in four successive Phases. Phase I construction (site work
for new road and bus loop and relocated playgrounds) substantially complete. Phase II construction
(complete new entrance, bus loop, cooling tower - structure & relocation, begin classroom addition,
underground utilities relocation) underway with substantial completion planned for December 2014.
Extremely low contingency to start project; current contingency includes future anticipated
changes/work including removal of more unsuitable school than anticipated. Schools have been notified
of contingency concern.
Project Schedule:
Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days)
Schematics Complete 11/14/13 11/14/13 0
Construction Docs Complete 03/31/14 04/02/14 2
Bid Opening Date 04/30/14 05/08/14 8
Notice to Proceed 06/05/14 06/18/14 13
Start Construction 06/16/14 06/19/14 3
Phase 1 - Start 06/16/14 06/19/14 3
Phase 1 - Finish 08/18/14 08/18/14 0
Phase 2 - Start 08/19/14 08/19/14 0
Phase 2 - Finish 11/26/14 12/19/14 23
Phase 3 - Start 12/20/14 12/20/14 0
Phase 3 - Finish 06/12/15 06/12/15 0
Phase 4 - Start 06/13/15 06/13/15 0
Phase 4 - Finish 08/01/15 08/01/15 0
Substantial Completion 08/01/15 08/01/15 0
Final Completion 09/01/15 09/01/15 0
Page 2 of 2 November 5, 2014
Project Budget:
Baseline
[January 2014]
Current
Estimate At Completion Variance
Funding
Appropriated to Date $ 5,868,285 $ 5,930,503 $ (62,218)
Future Appropriations $ 37,782 $ (37,782)
Additional Source $ - $ - $ -
Total $ 5,868,285 $ 5,968,285 $ (100,000)
Use of Funds
Soft Costs $ 616,772 $ 588,062 $ 28,710
Hard Costs $ 4,913,694 $ 5,327,722 $ (414,028)
Contingency $ 337,819 $ 52,501 $ 285,318
Total $ 5,868,285 $ 5,968,285 $ (100,000)
Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - $ -
Encumbered: $ 4,486,057
Paid to Date: $ 915,102
Appropriation includes schools maintenance money for HVAC, paving. Future appropriation represents
estimate of reallocation of project management services from maintenance account.
A/E Contract (SHW Group) Construction Contract (Haley Builders)
Original Agreement $400,500 Bid Award $4,947,000
Approved Changes $ Approved Changes $
Pending Changes $ 10,000 Pending Changes $ 75,622
TOTAL $410,500 TOTAL $5,022,622
A/E Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
Pending – Rework utility
relocations in courtyard; site plan
revisions
$10,000
Construction Change Orders:
No. & Brief Description Amount
Pending – Additional
unsuitable soil removal;
various changes/revisions
$75,622
Project Vendor Contract Type Amount CO No.Scope
Date Approved
by CE Office
Reason:
>25% or >$50K
Southern Albemarle Convenience Center Site
Due Diligence (Keene & Mill Creek
Properties)
Draper Aden Associates Planning $5,885.50 1
Reconciliation of expenses incurred to perform due
diligence on Keene and Mill Creek sites as directed by
the Board.
04/23/14 >25%
Northside Library and Storage Facility Kenbridge Consruction Construction $75,000.00 1
Unilateral Change Order - Add steel beam at central
column line per Architect’s Bulletin #14 (final cost to
be based on time and materials, Not-To-Exceed
$75,000.)
07/23/14 >$50k
Crozet Streetscape Phase II A. Morton Thomas & Associates Construction
Inspection $35,211.92 1
Inspection services to allow full-time inspection on
VDOT Revenue Sharing project for the duration of the
project.
08/28/14 >25%
State Farm Boulevard and South Pantops
Drive Sidewalk Kimley-Horn & Associates Design $13,200.00 2 Additional services required to secure right-of-way
and temporary construction easements 09/03/14 >25%
Crozet Elementary School SRTS Sidewalk and
Crossing Improvements Anhold Associates Design $12,801.00 2 Prepare re-design of plans and construction document
to reduce construction costs 09/15/14 >25%
Change Orders Requiring County Executive Office Approval
January 2014 - September 2014
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 September 13, 2014 through October 17, 2014.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Allshouse, L., and
Shifflett, K.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 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 supporting the Board’s Aspirations statements and the
County’s Mission to enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level
of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of three grant awards received during the time period of
September 13, 2014 through October 17, 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 - September 13, 2014 through October 17, 2014
Applications were made for the following grants:
No grant applications were made during this time period.
Awards were received for the following grants:
Granting Entity Grant Type Amount
Received
Match
Required
Match Source Department Purpose
Department of
Transportation
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
Department of
Motor Vehicles
(DMV) Speed
Reduction
State $10,000.00 $5,000.00 Budgeted
within
Sheriff’s Office
Department’s
Budget
Sheriff This grant will be used for overtime hours
for the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office to
provide speed enforcement.
Virginia
Department of
Emergency
Management
FY15 Local
Emergency
Management
Performance
Grant (LEMPG)
Federal $25,452.00 $8,484
each from
County,
City, and
UVA
Budgeted
within ECC
Department’s
Budget
Emergency
Communications
Center (ECC)
This grant will be used to support the
development and maintenance of a
Comprehensive Emergency Management
Program. The funding will be used to
support the ECC by augmenting salary,
website support, training and education,
materials and supplies, and technology
equipment.
Virginia
Department of
Emergency
Management
FY14 State
Homeland
Security Program
Grant
Federal $6,745.00 0 None Sheriff This grant will be used to provide funds for
the purchase of one Thermal Imaging
Camera for use by the Sheriff’s Office
Search and Rescue Team to aid in the
detection of evidence, suspects and missing
persons.
Board-to-Board
November, 2014
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Henley Gymnasium Addition—The Board approved a schematic design for the Henley Gymnasium Addition at
its October business meeting. Currently, due to space limitations, the 800-student school must conduct some of
their physical education classes outdoors. During inclement weather, those classes move inside to add to the
overcrowding. The addition, included in the 2014-2015 Capital Improvement budget, will provide a multipurpose
space, fitness center, and support spaces in a design that promotes lifelong healthy lifestyle skills. The Board will
approve a final plan in January before construction begins. The new gym will be complete by winter of 2015.
Student SAT and AP Scores--Albemarle County students turned in strong performances on the Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT), averaging a College and Career Readiness Benchmark score 148 points higher than their
peers in Virginia and 197 points better than the national average. The College Board’s college and career
readiness benchmark combines scores in critical reading, math and writing and it is used to assess the likelihood
that a high school student is prepared for academic success in college. Students from Albemarle, Monticello,
Murray and Western Albemarle high schools had mean scores of 563 in critical reading, 566 in math, and 539 on
the writing exam. Average scores across the state were 515 in reading, 512 in math, and 493 in writing.
Respective national scores were 492, 501 and 478. The statewide scores were the second highest among all 50
states in reading and the sixth highest in math and writing, according to the Virginia Department of Education.
Albemarle County students also outperformed their peers in Virginia on Advanced Placement (AP) exams. Scores
for AP tests range from one to five. A test score three or higher can earn the student college credit. According to
the Virginia Department of Education, 61 percent of students taking the AP exam scored three or higher, ranking
Virginia third among all states in the nation. In Albemarle, 77 percent of students who took the AP exam earned a
score of three or higher.
Planning the School of the Future--The Board devoted its October 23 work session to exploring a multifaceted
approach to re-designing the division’s high schools to enhance its delivery of state-of-the art contemporary
learning to students. The goal is that this learning should more closely align student skills and capabilities with
current and projected workforce needs. Earlier this year the division received a $20,000 planning grant from the
state to develop such a learning model that can serve as a best practice for school divisions throughout Virginia.
Pilot projects are being considered for each high school that would focus Western Albemarle High School on
flexible uses of technology; Albemarle High School on flexible curriculum pathways; Monticello High School on
flexible uses of space and Murray High School on flexible scheduling and community engagement. The current
timeline calls for full implementation of the new model for the 2018-19 school year.
Inclement Weather Changes for Employees—Also at its October 23 meeting, the Board approved a liberal leave
policy for employees during periods of inclement weather, permitting employees to use annual leave or comp
time to stay at home if the employee believes travel conditions make it unsafe to report for work. The school
division also will decide on whether facilities should be open during such times in place of the current practice,
which bases that decision on whether the Central Office Building is open or closed.
Western Albemarle Scholastic Bowl Team--Western Albemarle High School’s scholastic bowl team, which is the
reigning state champion, is setting their sights on a higher goal for the new season which began this month. The
team is ranked second in the nation after completing the 2013-14 year having won all 20 of its regular season
competitions. Western Albemarle earned the highest score of any team in any classification at the state
tournament. More than 5,000 high schools across the country compete in the high school quiz bowl, which tests
student knowledge of academic subjects across the entire curriculum. Students earn points for their team by being
the first to correctly answer questions posed by a moderator. The questions are designed to test students on the
depth and quality of their knowledge and encourage students to excel across several subject areas. The season will
begin with a match October 29th at Fluvanna High School.
Sutherland Student Fundraiser--Students from Sutherland Middle School, one of only three Smithsonian
Schools in the nation, has launched a kickstarter campaign to raise $20,000 by November 8th. The monies will be
used to modernize the school’s engineering and design classroom and to expand opportunities for all students to
benefit from a curriculum more closely aligned with business needs. The classroom is devoted to the practice of
mechatronics, the joint application of design and manufacturing skills to create products conceptualized by
students. The kickstarter project, Maker Space, would benefit all students in all disciplines. It will encourage
students to become producers, not just users of technology and enable students to improve their creativity, critical
thinking, teamwork and communications abilities. This in turn, will better prepare students for post-graduate
success, whether in college or the workforce. For a more information on the campaign and to contribute, visit:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/smssharks/sutherland-makerspace.
National Recognition for Division--A video production crew for The George Lucas Educational Foundation
devoted two days to interviewing principals, teachers and students at Monticello High School and Cale
Elementary School this past week. The interviews profiled the school division’s 21st century instructional model,
including our maker curriculum, classroom technology use and project-based learning. This is the first time the
foundation, which was created in 1991, is devoting its best practice videos to the work of an entire school
division. The videos will be featured on the foundation’s Edutopia web site, which promotes educational
excellence to a national audience of educational professionals, policy makers and businesses.
National School Bus Safety Week--The division’s outstanding school bus safety record was highlighted at its
annual recognition event for transportation department employees earlier this month. More than 150 school bus
drivers cover more than 12,000 miles each day to transport students throughout the county. That’s the equivalent
of two round trips from Charlottesville to Los Angeles every day. During the past two years, school division bus
drivers have transported students more than four million miles without a student injury due to a bus accident. The
department’s mechanics have completed over 1,000 preventive maintenance services for school buses this past
year and also provided maintenance services for another 700 local government vehicles.
1st Quarter Donations and Grants--A total of $70,532.46 was received by various Albemarle County Public
Schools in cash donations in the first quarter of the 2014-2015 school year. This included funds received from
school PTOs and individual donors. A full listing of the 1st quarter donations is available at
http://esblogin.k12albemarle.org/attachments/ce2a5646-3503-4f3d-89e1-a72f502ef61f.pdf.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2015 1st Quarter Cash Proffer Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on cash and non-cash proffer revenue and
expenditures July-September 2014
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Graham, McCulley,
Higgins, Ragsdale, Allshouse L., and Harris
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has
been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report on
August 6, 2014, which included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for April
through June, 2014. This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the first quarter of Fiscal Year
2014 (July-September). The next quarterly report will be on the Board’s February 4, 2015 agenda.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and
improves the capacity to serve community needs.
DISCUSSION:
Proffer Activity for Fiscal Year 2015 First Quarter (July-September)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter that provided new cash
proffers.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $46,136,985.90. This reflects new proffered revenue
(described above) in addition to 2013 annual adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet
obligated) from proffers in which annual adjustments were proffered.
C. 1st Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $196,910.94 from existing cash proffers during this
quarter from the following developments:
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL INTENDED PURPOSE
Belvedere $5,000.00 Historical Markers
Belvedere $7,500.00 Affordable Housing
Estes Park $20,986.71 CIP
Grayrock West (f.k.a.
Patterson) $40,922.68 CIP
Livengood (Glenmore S5) $23,652.20 CIP/Affordable Housing
Leake (Glenmore K2) $22,349.35 CIP/Affordable Housing
Old Trail $24,000.00 Crozet Parks/Schools
Riverside Village $30,000.00 Park Master Plan or Darden Towe Park Improvements
Wickham Pond II $22,500.00 CIP-Crozet
TOTAL $196,910.94
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2015 1st Quarter Cash Proffer Report
November 5, 2014
Page 2
D. 1st Quarter Expenditures and Appropriations: A total of $375,000 in proffer funds from Stonefield were
expended during this quarter on the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department renovation and addition.
Current Available Funds: As of September 30, 2014, the available proffered cash on-hand is $4,302,335.00 (including
interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects while others may
be used for general projects within the CIP. Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $2,318,209.16 (including interest
earned), is currently appropriated (Attachment A). The net cash balance is $1,984,125.84 and Attachment B provides
information on how the net cash balance may be used for future appropriations to CIP projects.
FY 2014 Survey of Cash Proffers for Commission on Local Government
The State requires that localities accepting cash proffers report to the Commission on Local Government annually. The
County’s report for FY 2014 is attached (Attachment C). During FY 2014, the County collected $880,318 in cash proffers.
The amount expended in FY 2014 is $302,199. Appropriations, including interest that accrued in FY 2014, totaled
$550,000 and are reflected on Attachment A.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a source of revenue to address impacts from development and they support the funding of important
County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash proffer funding for current or
planned FY14–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for other projects. In addition, non-cash
proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer funds on an
ongoing basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is
appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Summary of Cash Proffer Fund Activity (updated through September 30, 2014)
B- Net Available Cash Proffer Funds and Potential Use of Funds
C- Commission on Local Government FY 2014 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
UPDATE: 10/3/14FUND # PROFFER NAMETOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS Projects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSREMAINING AVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSACTIVE8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $2,610,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,140.87($375,000.00)$1,126,140.87 $1,125,000.00 $332.87 Agnor Hurt E S Add/RenovRio Library/Storage FacilityTransporation Revenue Sharing ProgramHydraulic Road and Barracks Road Sidewalks$0.00 $808.00 $808.008548 AVINITY (CIP) $1,439,982.05 $652,071.32 $428.30 $0.00 $652,499.62 $75,000.00 $0.00 $577,071.32 $428.30 $577,499.628548 AVINITY (Affordable Housing) $313,500.00 $99,000.00 $58.03 $0.00 $99,058.03 $0.00 $0.00 $99,000.00 $58.03 $99,058.038534 AVON PARK$59,000.00 $59,000.00 $5,787.32 $0.00 $64,787.32 $59,000.00 $5,596.33 Avon Street Sidewalks $0.00 $190.99 $190.998536 BELVEDERE STATION $400,250.00 $136,750.00 $895.56($58,009.66)$79,635.90 $30,000.00 $0.00 Orchard Acres Rehabilitation Project $49,500.00 $135.90 $49,635.908531 ECKERD PHARMACY $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $2.00 $0.00 $6,002.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,000.00 $2.00 $6,002.008578 ESTES PARK $1,405,542.73 $206,555.01 $0.00 $0.00 $206,555.01 $0.00 $0.00$206,555.01 $0.00 $206,555.018520 GLENMORE$893,000.00 $752,000.00 $129,935.05($875,364.10)$6,570.95 $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $5,570.95 $6,570.958521 GLENMORE$569,000.00 $334,600.00 $56,342.39($375,000.00)$15,942.39 $0.00 $0.00 $5,900.00 $10,042.39 $15,942.398523 GRAYROCK$62,500.00 $62,500.00 $13,326.98($74,880.00)$946.98 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $946.98 $946.988577 GRAYROCK WEST $192,340.71 $102,306.70 $0.00 $0.00 $102,306.70 $61,384.02 $0.00$40,922.68 $0.00 $40,922.688576 HADEN PLACE$0.00 $23,100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23,100.00 $20,669.02 $0.00$2,430.98 $0.00 $2,430.988527 HOLLYMEAD AREA C $210,000.00 $169,523.75 $5,251.72($112,442.36)$62,333.11 $59,523.75 $2,741.04 Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk $0.00 $68.32 $68.328528 HOLLYMEAD AREA D $481,000.00 $480,999.68 $23,892.85($473,712.00)$31,180.53 $20,085.18 $11,061.19 Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk $0.00 $34.16 $34.168545 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1 $609,000.00 $109,000.00 $653.54($28,506.62)$81,146.92 $30,733.69 $322.73 Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk $50,000.00 $90.50 $50,090.508572 LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP $2,133,708.45 $94,418.25 $0.00 $0.00 $94,418.25 $0.00 $0.00$94,418.25 $0.00 $94,418.258573 LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing $324,720.00 $14,760.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,760.00 $0.00 $0.00$14,760.00 $0.00 $14,760.008544 LIBERTY HALL $137,600.00 $134,400.00 $288.69($86,500.92)$48,187.77 $22,400.00 $130.49 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet Streetscapes Phase II$25,499.08 $158.20 $25,657.288574 LIVENGOOD (CIP) $879,837.59 $332,296.52 $0.00 $0.00 $332,296.52 $0.00 $0.00 $332,296.52 $0.00 $332,296.528574 LIVENGOOD (Affordable Housing) $114,595.00 $34,362.23 $0.00 $0.00 $34,362.23 $0.00 $0.00 $34,362.23 $0.00 $34,362.238529 MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE $346,250.00 $419,144.85 $10,816.92 $0.00 $429,961.77 $359,144.85 $10,358.15 Transportation Revenue Sharing Program $60,000.00 $458.77 $60,458.778538 NORTH POINTE $460,000.00 $400,000.00 $28,812.93($420,359.50)$8,453.43 $0.00 $8,451.43 Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk $0.00 $2.00 $2.008537 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE $2,328,000.00 $214,000.00 $1,951.62($99,870.73)$116,080.89 $34,018.99 $0.00 Henley M S Auxiliary Gym Addition $81,981.01 $80.89 $82,061.908546 POPLAR GLEN II $155,600.00 $155,601.00 $224.31($122,699.00)$33,126.31 $0.00 $0.00$32,924.81 $201.50 $33,126.318579 RIVERSIDE VILLAGE $265,981.09 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00$30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.008533 STILLFRIED LANE $78,000.00 $78,000.00 $6,358.41($84,341.07)$17.34 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $17.34 $17.348525 UVA RESEARCH PARK $78,178.00 $78,718.00 $899.81($79,500.00)$117.81 $0.00 $117.72 Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk $0.00 $0.09 $0.098535 WESTERN RIDGE $5,000.00 $5,159.12 $857.46($6,016.58)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00($0.00) ($0.00)8541 WESTHALL (1.1) $90,000.00 $91,000.00 $2,931.16 $0.00 $93,931.16 $51,000.00 $2,728.70 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $40,000.00 $202.46 $40,202.468542 WESTHALL (1.2) $30,000.00 $37,000.00 $950.18($7,000.00)$30,950.18 $23,000.00 $925.91 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet Streetscapes Phase II $7,000.00 $24.27 $7,024.278543 WESTHALL (3.3) $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $168.90 $0.00 $3,168.90 $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $168.90 $3,168.908540 WICKHAM POND $345,161.67 $301,622.90 $4,245.29($183,197.80)$122,670.39 $110,800.00 $2,797.07 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet Streetscapes Phase IIHenley M S Auxiliary Gym Addition $8,721.52 $351.80 $9,073.328549 WICKHAM POND II $405,000.00 $124,725.81 $77.02 $0.00 $124,802.83 $86,756.84 $0.00 Henley M S Auxiliary Gym Addition $37,968.97 $77.02 $38,045.998575 WILLOW GLEN $3,399,856.12 $226,822.89 $0.00 $0.00 $226,822.89 $104,129.19 $0.00 Agnor Hurt E S Add/Renov $122,693.70 $0.00 $122,693.70FUTURE0 5th STREET AVON 3 $258,950.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 5th STREET AVON 4 $103,580.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 5th STREET AVON 5 $103,580.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 AVON PARK II $492,690.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 BARGAMIN PARK $18,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING $334,630.59 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00CASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERS
UPDATE: 10/3/14FUND # PROFFER NAMETOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGS Projects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSREMAINING AVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSCASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERS0 CASCADIA$405,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 FONTANA PHASE 4C $807,353.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2 $17,505,318.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 NGIC EXPANSION $1,478,828.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 OAKLEIGH FARM $1,539,043.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 OUT OF BOUNDS $528,700.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE $1,224,172.69 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.000 THE LOFTS AT MEADOWCREEK $61,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00COMPLETED8530 ALBEMARLE PLACE $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $3,666.41($103,666.41)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.008526 AVEMORE$50,000.00 $50,000.00 $1,286.43($51,286.43)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.008539 GREENBRIER$9,334.00 $9,334.00 $81.72($9,415.72) ($0.00)$0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.008532 HOLLYMEAD AREA B $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $1,521.85($51,521.85)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.008524 SPRINGRIDGE $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $2,214.97($102,214.97)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.008522 STILL MEADOWS $135,000.00 $135,000.00 $17,220.78($152,220.78)$0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00TOTAL$46,136,985.90$7,912,772.03$322,289.47($3,932,726.50)$4,302,335.00$2,272,645.53$45,563.63$2,318,209.16$1,964,006.08$20,119.76$1,984,125.84
NET AVAILABLE PROFFER FUNDS SUMMARY AND USE OF FUNDS 10/8/14FUND # PROFFER NAME NET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSPROFFERED USE OF FUNDSRECOMMENDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $808.00 CIP-GeneralCIP-General FY 15 Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/RenovationFY 13 New Library/Storage FacilityHydraulic Sidewalk8548 AVINITY (CIP) $577,499.62 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5Avon Street Sidewalk (Revenue Sharing Program)8548 AVINITY (Affordable Housing) $99,058.03 Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8534 AVON PARK$190.99 CIP-Neighborhoods 4-Pedestrian Improvements Avon Street Sidewalk (Revenue Sharing Program)8536 BELVEDERE STATION $49,635.90 Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8531 ECKERD PHARMACY $6,002.00 Pantops Transportation Pantops Transporation-Project TBD8578 ESTES PARK $206,555.01 CIP-GeneralCIP-TBD 8520 GLENMORE$6,570.95 School CIP/Other CIP-GlenmorePantops Fire Rescue Station 168521 GLENMORE $15,942.39 CIP-250/Glenmore-Transportation Rt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange8523 GRAYROCK$946.98 Interest/Jarmans Gap Road Improvements Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk (Safe Routes To School)8577 GRAYROCK WEST $40,922.68Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk (Safe Routes To School)8576 HADEN PLACE $2,430.98 CIP-CrozetCrozet Avenue North Sidewalk (Safe Routes To School)8527 HOLLYMEAD AREA C $68.32 CIP-HollymeadCIP-Hollymead (TBD)8528 HOLLYMEAD AREA D $34.16 CIP Hollymead Transportation*CIP-Hollymead Transportation (TBD)8545 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1 $50,090.50 CIP-Hollymead-Greenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing Only Greenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing8572 LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP $94,418.25 CIP-GeneralPantops Fire Rescue Station 168573 LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing $14,760.00 Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8544 LIBERTY HALL $25,657.28 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8574 LIVENGOOD (CIP) $332,296.52 CIP-General Pantops Fire Rescue Station 168574 LIVENGOOD (Affordable Housing) $34,362.23 Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8529 MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE $60,458.77 TransitState Farm/South Pantops Sidewalk8537 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE $82,061.90 CIP-Crozet Parks/SchoolsHenley Middle School Auxillary Gym8546 POPLAR GLEN II $33,126.31 CIP-Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8579 RIVERSIDE VILLAGE $30,000.00 Park Master Plan or Park Improvements at Darden Towe8533 STILLFRIED LANE $17.34 CIP-General or Affordable Housing Project TBD8541 WESTHALL (1.1) $40,202.46 Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIP CIP-Crozet (Transportation Projects)8542 WESTHALL (1.2) $7,024.27 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8543 WESTHALL (3.3) $3,168.90 Greenway bridge in WesthallMust use for specific project8540 WICKHAM POND $9,073.32 CIP-CrozetHenley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition CIP-Crozet Greenway Project CIP-Crozet Project TBD8549 WICKHAM POND II $38,045.99 CIP-CrozetCrozet Avenue North Sidewalk (Safe Routes To School)Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition CIP-Crozet Project TBD8575 WILLOW GLEN $122,693.70 CIP-GeneralAgnor Hurt Elementary Addition/RenovationIvy Road Sidewalk (Revenue Sharing Program)Hydraulic & Barracks Rd Sidewalk (Revenue Sharing Program)TOTAL $1,984,125.84
Commission on Local Government
2014 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
Page 1 of 2 4/14/2014
Date: 9/30/14
Locality: ALBEMARLE County X City Town
Name: REBECCA RAGSDALE Title: SENIOR PLANNER
Phone: 434-296-5832 EXT 3226 Fax: 434-972-4126
Email:
YES NO
Did your locality accept cash proffers at any time during the 2013-2014 Fiscal Year? X
If you answered "No" for the 2013-2014 Fiscal Year, additional information is not needed. Please
return the survey to the Commission on Local Government as indicated on the next page.
If you answered "Yes" for the 2013-2014 Fiscal Year, provide the following information concerning the
cash proffers accepted by your locality: (See definitions on next page.)
FY2013-2014
1. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Collected by the Locality during the
2013-2014 Fiscal Year: $
880,318
2. Estimated Amount of Cash Proffers Pledged during the 2013-2014 Fiscal
Year and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time: $ 0*
3. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Expended by the Locality during the
2013-2014 Fiscal Year: $ 302,199
4. Indicate the Purpose(s) and Amount(s) for Which the Expenditures in Number 3 Above Were Made:
Schools $
Roads and Other Transportation Improvements $
Fire and Rescue/Public Safety $
Libraries $ 302,199
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space $
Water and Sewer Service Extension $
Community Centers $
Stormwater Management $
Special Needs Housing $
Affordable Housing $
Miscellaneous $
Total Dollar Amount Expended
(Should Equal Amount in Number 3 Above) $
Comments:
Use additional
sheet if
necessary.
*2. Total cash proffers pledged in the 2013-2014 Fiscal Year was $1,131,772. None were
conditioned only on time.
Please see other side for instructions.
Commission on Local Government
2014 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
Page 2 of 2 4/14/2014
Please complete this form and return it to the Commission on Local Government by September 30,
2014, using one of the following methods:
•By Mail: J. David Conmy
Commission on Local Government
600 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
•By Fax: (804) 371-7090
•By Email: A Microsoft Word template of this form may be downloaded at
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/pages/cashproffersurvey.htm
Once completed, send it by email to: david.conmy@dhcd.virginia.gov
For any questions, please contact J. David Conmy at (804) 371-8010.
DEFINITIONS
Cash Proffer: (i) any money voluntary proffered in a writing signed by the owner of property subject to rezoning,
submitted as part of a rezoning application and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority granted by Va.
Code Ann. § 15.2-2303, or § 15.2-2298, or (ii) any payment of money made pursuant to a development agreement
entered into under authority granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303.1.
Cash Proffer Revenue Collected [§15.2-2303.2(D)(1), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of revenue collected
from cash proffers in the specified fiscal year regardless of the fiscal year in which the cash proffer was accepted.
Unaudited figures are acceptable.
Cash Proffers Pledged and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time [§15.2-2303.2(D)(2), Code of
Virginia]: Cash proffers conditioned only on time approved by the locality as part of a rezoning case. Unaudited
figures for the specified fiscal year are acceptable.
Cash Proffer Revenue Expended [§15.2-2303.2(D)(3), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of public projects
expended with cash proffer revenue in the specified fiscal year. Unaudited figures are acceptable.
Page 1 of 4
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
November 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 TBD
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 September 2014
Route 250, Bridge replacement over
Little Ivy Creek Preliminary Design Public Hearing January 2016
Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved
Road -- Project Scoping –
2016 TBD
Route 784 Doctors Crossing– Unpaved
Road Scoping TBD
Route 731 Keswick Road – Unpaved
Road Scoping TBD
Route 643 – Reconstruction -- Project Scoping –
2015 --
Route 606 – Dickerson Rd. over North
Fork of Rivanna River -- Project Scoping January 2020
Route 29 Solutions:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 29 and Rio Road RFP RFP Addendum November 2014
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to
Hollymeade Town Center RFP RFP Addendum November 2014
Berkmar Drive Construction RFP RFP Addendum November 2014
Adaptive Signals Construction Signal and Fiber
Optic N/A
Hydraulic Road Grade Separated
Intersection CTB Approval TBD
P.E. Only --
City of Charlottesville
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Best Buy Ramp Pre-Advertisement
Conference Advertisement November 2014
Page 2 of 4
Construction Activities
Route 29 Solutions
All six Route 29 Solutions projects are progressing on schedule. The Route 29/250 Ramp Improvement Project
(Best Buy Ramp) advertisement date has been accelerated to November 10, 2014. Extensive coordination with
the County, City, and Project Delivery Advisory Panel were performed for a change to the aesthetic treatments to
the noise walls. Century Link utility relocation was performed along Route 29 and completed o n October 17, 2014
nearly one week ahead of schedule.
The Project Delivery Advisory Panel held meetings on October 9th and 23rd. The advisory panel has been
discussing items such as schedule, project concepts, aesthetic treatments, and public input. The new
route29solutions.org website was deployed in late August and continues to be improved with features such as a
two-way discussion platform, project simulation videos, and project renderings. The Request for Proposals was
posted to the website.
The three design-build projects (US 29/Rio Road Grade Separated Intersection, Route 29 Widening, and Berkmar
Extended) are on schedule for procurement. The request for proposals was issued to the short-listed offerors on
October 2, 2014. Pursuant to the location public hearing held on September 18th for the Berkmar Extended
project, the Commonwealth Transportation Board provided location approval on October 15, 2014. A design
public hearing was held for all three design-build projects on October 14, 2014 with approximately 209 people
attending the meeting.
The adaptive signal project began phase I in early October with the first milestone completion being November
30, 2014.
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250
Next Major Milestone: Phase 2B
Traffic remains in the Phase 2A configuration, but was recently shifted slightly inside toward the median for EB
US 250 on the East side of the McIntire Road Intersection to access remaining portion of the new bo x culvert,
D603. Work for Retaining Wall on Ramp 2 is progressing, as the Western half of the wall near McIntire Road is
constructed to the full height to include the top coping. Bridge work is also continuously being pursued on the
Abutment A side, as the footings for the wingwall are nearing completion. Placement of #57 Aggregate backfill
material and waterproofing of the structure is ongoing. The roadway for the Abutment A Approach of US 250 on
the West side of McIntire Road has been constructed to the intermediate asphalt elevation. Work for installation
of new Sanitary Sewer, Water and Gas Services continues. Subgrade work has been performed for the new
Shared Use Path, from US 250 to the North where it will connect with path constructed on the VDO T MRE
Project.
Contract Completion: 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: June 30, 2015
Ballards Mill Road 0671-002-6059
Scope: Superstructure replacement, State Forces.
Next Major Milestone: Currently closed, will reopen October 3, 2014.
Proposed Completion: Estimated completion date October 3, 2014
Route 691 Ortman Road 0691-002-6076
Scope: Superstructure replacement, State Forces.
Next Major Milestone: Road Closure, Fall
Proposed Completion: 3 weeks after closure
Dick Woods Road Bridge Over Ivy Creek (NFO)0637-002-284,C501
Scope: Bridge Replacement
Next Major Milestone: Bid Closing October 22, 2014
Proposed Completion: August 4, 2015
Page 3 of 4
Plant Mix Schedule PM7B-967-F14,P401
Scope: Albemarle, Greene, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: The remainder of this contract is to be complete next year. Rte 729 was completed in
May. (5 Sections) of Rte 631 will be completed next year.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Plant Mix Schedule (NFO)PM7A-967-F14,P401
Scope: Albemarle, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Finish I-64 THMACO. Routes 1720 and 1721 will be completed in October. Routes 250
and 302 will be completed next year.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Latex Modified Schedule (NFO)LM7B-967-F14,P401
Scope: I-64 Albemarle
Next Major Milestone: Start Striping October 24, 2014. I-64 completed September 27, 2014. Striping not
completed.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2014
ADAO-967-256,N501
Scope: Replace Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks
Next Major Milestone: Contract executed October 1, 2014. Processing work order the Forest Lakes roll top curb
replacement.
Contract Completion: December 31, 2015
Surface Treatment Schedule ST7A-967-F14, P401
Scope: Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Routes remaining in Albemarle County are: 600, 608, 619, 623, 640, 648, 762, and 842.
(Possibly Next Year).
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Route 688 Midway Road
Rural Rustic: Surface treatment scheduled for the week of October 20th.
Interstate 64 ATSMS Installation
Scope: Installation of communications conduit in median from mile marker 107 (Crozet exit) to mile marker 94 in
Augusta Co.
Next Major Milestone: Completion July 2015.
Contract Completion: July 2015
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 250 at I-64, Exit 124
Signal Phasing Study; complete
VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20140701-024
Route 614 Garth Road
Speed study; complete
VDOT Study Number—003-0614-20140701-011
Route 654 Barracks Road
Signing review; complete
VDOT Study Number—003-0654-20140701-010
Route 250 @ Route 676, Tilman Road
Safety study; complete
VDOT Study Number—003-0676-20140701-007
Route 649
Speed study; complete
VDOT Study Number—003-0649-20140804-011
Route 53
Truck restriction study; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0053-20140804-011
Page 4 of 4
Other areas under review:
-Starr Hill Brewery Crosswalk
-US 250 at Rolkin Road for speed limit and u-turn signs
-US 250 at Faulkner for intersection signs
Maintenance Activities
VDOT Area Headquarters crews completed the following activities during the past month. For specific
route activities, please contact the Charlottesville Residency Office.
Dust control applied to 5 NHS secondary routes
Machining of non-hard surface roads has been performed on 12 secondary routes
Mowing has been completed on all primary routes as well as 48 secondary routes
Ditches maintained on 1 primary route and 1 secondary route
Patching was performed on 2 primary routes and 11 secondary routes
Culverts replaced on 4 secondary routes
Culvert maintenance on 1 primary route and 4 secondary routes
Debris was removed from 1 primary route and 6 secondary routes
Sweeping performed on 2 primary routes and within 7 subdivisions
Shoulders were repaired along 5 secondary routes
Trimming performed on 13 secondary routes
Trash removal on 2 primary routes and 3 secondary routes
Tree removal on 3 secondary routes
All areas have been preparing equipment for emergency winter operations
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Strategic Prevention Framework -State Incentive
Grant (SPF-SIG)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
SPF-SIG Grant Report for Calendar Year 2013
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, White, Smith, Stoddard
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Strategic Prevention Framework – State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) originates through the federal Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Agency (SAMHSA). The prime recipient for the grant in the Commonwealth is the Virginia
Commonwealth University. Albemarle County is a sub-recipient. The yearly funding amount for Albemarle County is
$145,150.00.
Prior to the SPF-SIG intervention project:
Albemarle County had the sixth highest rate of alcohol-related motor vehicle crash (A-MVC) mortalities across all
ages in the State of Virginia.
195 of the A-MVCs that occurred from 2009 to 2011 involved 15-24 year olds.
Of the 15-24 year olds involved in A-MVCs, the average age of the driver involved was 21 years.
A majority of the 195 A-MVCs involved:
o 21-24 year olds (59%)
o males (78%)
118 of the 195 A-MVCs involved Albemarle County residents (61%)
At least 26 students were involved in A-MVCs from 2009-2011, including
o 15 college/university students
o 10 high school students (and one unknown)
o 15 were residents of Albemarle County (58%).
The following results of the survey of 18 to 24 year olds conducted as part of a needs assessment prior to interventions
provided information on alcohol-related behaviors and perceptions of young adults in Albemarle County:
55% felt that it was only somewhat likely that someone driving under the influence would be stopped by law
enforcement
87% do not drive after drinking two or more alcoholic beverages
78% do not ride in a car with someone who has been drinking
Young adults in our area do not understand the relationship between the amount of alcohol that is consumed and
the level of impairment.
Additionally, the survey asked participants to report the number of alcoholic drinks they consumed in the past 30 days and
to predict the number of alcoholic drinks their peers had consumed in the past 30 days. Responses to these questions
revealed that the perception of the amount of alcohol that is consumed by one’s peers is greater than the amount of
alcohol people report they personally consume.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The goal of the County’s SPF-SIG campaign is to reduce the number of A-MVCs in Albemarle County among people
ages 18-24 years. This is achieved by implementing strategies that will lower the number of A-MVCs and that will
AGENDA TITLE: Strategic Prevention Framework -State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG)
November 5, 2014
Page 2
target behavioral change (i.e., perception of risk, perception of consumption patterns, knowledge regarding the effects
of alcohol). The County’s SPF-SIG project implemented three main strategies:
1. Collaboration with the Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD) to increase sobriety checkpoints and
saturation patrols to increase the perception of risk associated with drinking and driving.
2. Social norming campaign paired with media coverage to increase the reach of the normative information
regarding drinking behaviors of young adults in our community, including increasing awareness that most
young adults in our community are not regularly drinking alcohol and most young adults are not driving after
drinking alcohol.
3. Mass media advocacy campaign promoting the efforts of the police and bringing awareness regarding the
problem of alcohol-impaired drivers in Albemarle County.
These strategies were implemented in 2013 (Year 2) of the SPF-SIG project. The ACPD conducted three sobriety
checkpoints and 20 saturation patrols. The ACPD reported that it would have been unable to conduct any sobriety
checkpoints in 2013 without the SPF-SIG grant funding and that it was also able to expand the locations of sobriety
checkpoints due to the funding. Social norms materials were developed and disseminated and the mass media
campaign included press coverage of sobriety checkpoints, news reports on the risks of driving after drinking,
specifically being caught by the police, and social media advocacy. Results of data collected indicate that in 2013:
A-MVCs in Albemarle County decreased 40.7% among people ages 18-24 years old.
The perception of risk associated with drinking and driving increased (1%).
The community’s perception that drinking behaviors are viewed as wrong increased:
o 5%: 18-20 years old
o 4%: 21-24 years old
It should be noted that full implementation of strategies did not begin until the fourth month of the year (April). Although
research indicates that strategies that are in practice for more than one year are more successful than strategies that
are in practice for less than one year, the County’s SPF-SIG project has seen significant success in under one year.
With continued application of the Program’s most successful strategies, the SPF-SIG team predicts continued
success with the SPF-SIG project. A full Year End Report for 2013 is attached and provides more detailed information
regarding the background, strategies, and results of the SPF-SIG project.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The implementation of SPF-SIG is grant funded with federal monies with no direct budget impact to the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action is required by the Board. The information provided in this report is for information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
CY 2013 SPF-SIG Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
This report is focused on the prevention activities that were implemented to decrease the
rate of motor vehicle crashes with drinking drivers 18 to 24 years of age in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia.
The majority of this report is data, as reported in the tables on the following pages.
However, this report begins with a brief overview of the SPF-SIG intervention project in
Albemarle County including the objectives, the strategies implemented, the results of the
interventions with one year of implementation, and a conclusion which includes a discussion
regarding whether the desired results were achieved using the SPF-SIG interventions.
Objectives
Prior to the SPF-SIG intervention project, Albemarle County had the sixth highest rate of
alcohol-related motor vehicle crash (MVC) mortalities across all ages in the state of Virginia. A
total of 195 alcohol-related MVCs occurred among 15-24 year-olds from 2009-2011. Of the 15-
24 year olds involved in alcohol-related MVCs, the average age of the driver involved was 21
years. Most alcohol-related MVCs occurred among 21-24 year olds (59%) and among males
(78%). Males aged 21-24 years living in Albemarle County have an estimated annual rate of 102
crashes per 10,000 population, which is nearly double the state estimated annual rate of 55 per
10,000. One hundred eighteen of the MVCs occurred among Albemarle County residents (61%).
At least 26 students were involved in alcohol-related MVCs from 2009-2011, including 15
college/university students and 10 high school students (and one unknown) per Albemarle
County police records. Among the students involved in an alcohol-related MVC, 58% were
residents of Albemarle County (n=15).
September and November had the highest rates of alcohol-related MVCs during the three
years (11% each). One-fourth of all crashes occurred on a Saturday (27%) and most alcohol-
related MVCs occur over the weekend, 65% of crashes occurring between Friday and Sunday.
More than half of all crashes occurred between 8pm and 4am (63%), with 22% of all alcohol-
related MVCs among the target population resulting between 2:00am to 4:00am. The greatest
number of alcohol-related MVCs occurred on the northern portion of Route 29 and the roads
branching off (40%), with 13% alcohol-related MVCs occurring on Route 29 alone during the
three year period. These crashes on Route 29 occurred primarily in October and November
(38%).
Results from the 18 to 24 year old survey completed as part of the needs assessment prior
to interventions provided information on alcohol-related behaviors and perceptions of young
adults in Albemarle County. Most respondents felt that it was only somewhat likely that
someone driving under the influence would be stopped by law enforcement (55%). The majority
of the population surveyed does not drive after drinking two or more alcoholic beverages (87%)
or ride in a car with someone who was drinking (78%). However, closer examination of the data
revealed a significant difference between males and females. Males in this population are more
likely to drive within two hours of consuming two or more alcoholic drinks than females
(p=0.032), which further supports the need to target the behaviors of males aged 18 to 24 years.
The data also indicated that young adults in our area do not understand the relationship between
the amount of alcohol that is consumed and the level of impairment.
Implemented Strategies
The duration of this grant year was February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014. The
development of materials began February 1, 2013. Development included creating materials,
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
using focus groups to determine the most effective print materials, tweaking the materials based
on feedback from focus groups, and then creating the final product. Implementation of strategies
began April 1, 2013.
Law Enforcement - Sobriety Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols
Many 18 to 24 year old participants in focus group discussed that their peers see little risk
in driving after drinking. Sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols were used to change
perceptions on the risks of drunk driving. A media campaign surrounding increased law
enforcement efforts and the checkpoints/saturation increased the target population’s awareness of
the law enforcement presence in our community. Media advocacy through press releases, media
events, and social media were used to increase community awareness of the increased police
efforts, the positive behaviors of most Albemarle County drivers, and resources to prevent drunk
driving. Local media reported the results of the sobriety checkpoints. The use of social media
through Facebook and Twitter provided additional information regarding law enforcement and
patrols to the target population. The measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the law
enforcement strategies included the number of sobriety checkpoints/saturation patrols, the
number of normative and educational materials distributed, the reach of the checkpoints/patrols,
the percentage decrease in alcohol-related MVCs, and the percentage increase in the perception
of risk of being stopped and receiving a DUI if one were to drive after drinking alcohol.
Social Norms Campaign
A social norms campaign was paired with media coverage to increase the reach of the
normative information regarding drinking behaviors of young adults in our community. The
National Social Norms Institute provided in-kind consultation services to help develop gain-
framed social norms messages. The social norms campaign educated the population on the
drinking and drinking and driving behaviors of young adults including increasing awareness that
most young adults in our community are not regularly drinking alcohol and most young adults
are not driving after drinking alcohol. Elements of the social norms campaign included tradition
print materials (posters, coasters, magnets, BAC cards, newspaper ads), digital media (QR codes
linked to TaxiMagic, social media sites Facebook and Twitter, a website, movie and television
ads), public service announcements (PSAs), and information on safe rides home. All of the print
materials included a normative statement, a positive drinking behavior, and a Quick Response
(QR) code which when scanned linked directly to TaxiMagic. TaxiMagic is a website and
SmartPhone app that allows users to book a taxi and pay for the taxi using their SmartPhone.
The measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the social norms campaign include the number of
print materials created and distributed, the number of advertisements, the number of visits to our
website, the number of QR code scans, the estimated reach of the social norms campaign
materials, the percentage increase in the community’s perception that drinking behaviors are
viewed as wrong, and the percentage increase in the awareness of the social norms surrounding
drinking behaviors and perception of risk of being caught by the police if drinking and driving.
Mass Media Advocacy Campaign
A mass media advocacy campaign promoted the efforts of the police and bought
awareness to the problem of alcohol-impaired drivers in Albemarle County. The mass media
campaign included press coverage of sobriety checkpoints, news reports on the risks of driving
after drinking, specifically being caught by the police, and social media advocacy. The team
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
developed and maintained a Facebook page and Twitter account as well as a website. Media
contacts wrote articles and developed news stories regarding the ongoing campaign to reduce
alcohol-impaired MVCs. The measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the mass media
advocacy campaign include the number of media reports, the percentage decrease in alcohol-
related MVCs, the percentage increase in the perception of risk of being stopped and receiving a
DUI if one were to drive after drinking, the percentage increase in the community’s perception
that drinking behaviors are viewed as wrong, and the percentage increase in the awareness of the
social norms surrounding drinking behaviors and perception of risk of being caught by the police
if drinking and driving.
Results
The results of each strategy are discussed below and outlined in Table 4.
Law Enforcement - Sobriety Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols
The Albemarle County Police Department provided written reports after each sobriety
checkpoint and saturation patrol. The reports documented the number of officers, the number of
hours, the number of drivers stopped during the checkpoint/patrol, and if any DUIs were reported
during that patrol. During the implementation year, there were a total of three sobriety
checkpoints and 20 saturation patrols. A local news station reported on all three of the sobriety
checkpoints including providing the total number of cars that passed through the checkpoint (373
– includes two of the three checkpoints, the last checkpoint data report will be received by the
end of May, 2014). Only one DUI was written during saturation patrols and that was to an
individual outside of our target population.
To determine the percentage of decrease in alcohol-related MVCs, the number of
alcohol-related MVCs for the calendar year 2013 (n=35) was compared to the average number of
alcohol-related MVCs for the calendar years 2009-2011 (n=59). Our goal was to have a 10%
decrease in the number of alcohol-related MVCs. Data from the Albemarle Police Department
and the Department of Motor Vehicles show a total of 35 alcohol-related MVCs, which indicates
a 40.7% decrease in alcohol-related MVCs in Albemarle County.
The goal of a 5% increase in the perception of risk of being stopped and receiving a DUI
was determined by measuring the percentage of respondents who replied it was “Very Likely” or
“Somewhat Likely” that a person would be stopped and receive a DUI if they drove after
drinking on the 18 to 24 year old survey (n=154 to 156; 80%). There was an increase in the
number of people who felt is was “Very Likely” or “Somewhat Likely”, however it was only a
slight increase of 1% (n=142 out of 175; 81%).
Social Norms Campaign
A number of materials and advertisements had to be created and distributed to complete
the social norms campaign. Five hundred posters, 25,000 coasters, 5,000 magnets, and 15,000
BAC cards were created. Of those, 417 posters, 13,500 BAC cards, and all of the coasters and
magnets were distributed. Local radio stations ran 721 PSAs and a local newspaper ran 27
advertisements with normative messaging. There were approximately 1,000 visits to our website
and 202 QR code scans. Data from the 18 to 24 year old survey indicates that 10.4% of the
respondents had heard a radio PSA, 43.9% saw one of the print materials, and 9.4% had used a
BAC card. However, other organizations in our community distribute BAC cards so it is unclear
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
if the respondents used or knew if they had used one of the BAC cards we created and distributed
or if they had used another organization’s BAC card.
A 5% increase in the community’s perception that drinking behaviors are viewed as
wrong as measured by changes in the 18 to 24 year old survey in one year (18-20: n=106 to 110,
21- 24: n=35 to 43) was determined by measuring the percentage of participants who responded
that it was “Somewhat Unacceptable” and “Unacceptable” to get drunk in both age groups. For
both age groups, there was an increase in the percentage of participants who felt it is
unacceptable to get drunk. There was a 5% increase (55% - 60%) for the 18-20 years old age
group and a 4% increase (18% - 22%) for the 21 – 24 years old age group.
There was a change in leadership within the Albemarle SPF-SIG project in the middle of
the implementation year. The previous Project Director calculated the baseline for the
measurement, “5% increase in the awareness of the social norms surrounding drinking behaviors
and perception of risk of being caught by the police if drinking and driving as measured by
changes in the 18 to 24 year old survey in one year (n=54 to 61).” No documentation was made
to explain how baseline was calculated. The current Project Director is unsure how baseline was
determined. The previous Project Director has been contacted but has yet to respond. Therefore,
it is impossible to measure this intermediate impact objective as it is written. However, for the
next year, this question will be divided into two separate questions (1 - 5% increase in the
awareness of the social norms surrounding drinking behaviors; 2 - 5% increase in the perception
of risk of being caught by the police if drinking and driving). Both of these will be measured
separately by answers given on the 18 to 24 year old survey conducted in 2014.
Mass Media Advocacy Campaign
There were four television reports during the implementation phase, two reported on the
overall SPF-SIG project and two reported on the sobriety checkpoints. There were five online
news stories and one news report in the paper version of the newspaper. As reported earlier,
there were 721 PSAs on local radio stations. The intermediate impact objectives and
measurements for the mass media campaign are the same as those for law enforcement and the
social norms campaign. Those results are reported above in the respective sections.
Conclusion
All evidence indicates a successful project for our first implementation year. All areas of
measurement are moving in the desired directions. The most significant outcome so far is the
40.7% decrease in alcohol-related MVCs. The slowest rate of improvement is in regards to the
perception of risk of being stopped and receiving a DUI (1%). The 4% increase in the perception
of drinking behaviors being viewed as wrong in people ages 21-24 years was slightly below our
goal of 5%. However, it should be noted that the increase was only one percentage point lower
than the goal. Additionally, this is a college community where drinking to excess is readily
accepted and often expected. Any increase in such a short period of time can be considered a
success.
As stated previously, the duration of this grant year was February 1, 2013 to January 31,
2014. The measures to determine the effectiveness of the strategies were all collected during the
grant year with the exception of the number of alcohol-related MCVs. This number was
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
collected by counting the total number of alcohol-related MVCs which occurred between the
dates of January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013. The calendar year was used to determine the
baseline for alcohol-related MVCs. For that reason, that same method of measurement was used
during the implementation year. Therefore, it should be noted that the outcomes for the number
of alcohol-related MVCs may be skewed due to the fact that full implementation of strategies did
not begin until the fourth month of the year (April). The total number of alcohol-related MVCs
may have been lower if the strategies had been implemented at the start of the data collection
period as opposed to four months after data collection for alcohol-related MVCs had begun.
Another point of note is due to the time it took to create the social norms and media
campaign materials and due to the time of year the 18 to 24 year old survey was conducted, the
prevention strategies were only implemented for seven months. Research indicates that
strategies that are in practice for over a year are more successful than strategies that are in
practice for less than a year. However, the Albemarle SPF-SIG project has seen significant
success in under a year. With continued application of our most successful strategies, the SPF-
SIG team predicts continued success with our prevention strategies.
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
6
Table 1. Worksheet A-3. Final Approved Jurisdiction Logic Model -
Substance-Related
Consequence
Who, When, Where, Consumption
Behaviors
Intervening Variables / Contributing
Factors Strategies
Motor-Vehicle
Crashes-
Alc-impaired
drivers within
the 15 to 24
year age group
1. 18 – 24 year old
males
2. Weekend
12:00AM – 4:00AM
IV
Perceived Low Risk
CF
Low risk of being caught by
police & harm
IV
Law Enforcement
CF
Low DUI arrests
IV
Perceived Low Risk
CF
Low understanding of BAC to
amount of alcohol consumed
Sobriety Checkpoints
Saturation Patrols
Mass Media Advocacy
Social Norms
Campaign
IV
Law Enforcement
CF
Low DUI arrests
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
7
Table 2. Young Adult Survey Results: 2012 and 2013 (multi-pages)
Age group
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
18-20 years 76.0% (146) 83.0% (146)
21-24 years 24.0% (46) 17.0% (30)
Total 100.0% (192) 100.0% (176)
How much do you think people risk harming themselves physically or in other ways when they do the following?
Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk
Don’t Know or
Can’t Say
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
A. Drink 5 or more drinks of an
alcoholic beverage on one
occasion?
40.3%
(77)
51.7%
(91)
34.6%
(66)
25.6%
(45)
20.4%
(39)
15.3%
(27) 3.1% (6) 2.8%
(5)
1.6%
(3)
4.5%
(8)
B. Drive after drinking 1 or 2 drinks
of alcohol?
26.6%
(51)
27.3%
(48)
43.2%
(83)
32.4%
(57)
23.4%
(45)
28.4%
(50)
5.2%
(10)
7.4%
(13)
1.6%
(3)
4.5%
(8)
C. Drive after drinking 4 or 5 drinks
of alcohol?
84.9%
(163)
72.8%
(126)
8.9%
(17)
13.9%
(24)
5.2%
(10)
6.4%
(11) 0.0% (0) 2.3%
(4)
1.0%
(2)
4.6%
(8)
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
8
In your opinion, how acceptable do you think it is for:
Acceptable
Somewhat
Acceptable
Somewhat
Unacceptable Unacceptable
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
A. Individuals 21 and older to get drunk. 49.0%
(94)
43.7%
(76)
32.8%
(63)
34.5%
(60)
8.9%
(17)
9.8%
(17)
9.4%
(18)
12.1%
(21)
B. Individuals 21 and older to provide alcohol for
people under 21 years old.
12.1%
(23)
13.2%
(23)
18.4%
(35)
23.6%
(41)
30.5%
(58)
31.6%
(55)
28.9%
(74)
31.6%
(55)
C. Individuals 18 to 20 years old to have 1 or 2 drinks. 32.8%
(63)
32.9%
(57)
30.2%
(58)
27.2%
(47)
19.8%
(38)
17.3%
(30)
17.2%
(33)
22.5%
(39)
D. Individuals 18 to 20 years old to get drunk. 19.4%
(37)
20.8%
(36)
25.7%
(49)
19.7%
(34)
17.8%
(34)
20.8%
(36)
37.2%
(71)
38.7%
(67)
E. Individuals 15 to 17 years old to have 1 or 2 drinks? 8.3%
(16)
7.6%
(13)
16.7%
(32)
20.5%
(35)
26.6%
(51)
19.9%
(34)
48.4%
(93)
52.0%
(89)
F. Individuals 15 to 17 years old to get drunk? 4.7%
(9)
3.5%
(6)
8.4%
(16)
13.5%
(23)
17.9%
(34)
15.8%
(27)
68.9%
(131)
67.3%
(115)
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
9
In your community, how likely is it that:
Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Very Likely Not At All Likely Don’t Know
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
A. Someone driving under the
influence would be stopped by the
law enforcement?
18.2%
(35)
21.6%
(38)
54.7%
(105)
48.4%
(87)
12.5%
(24)
17.6%
(31)
4.7%
(9)
2.8%
(5)
9.9%
(19)
8.5%
(15)
B. Someone driving under the
influence would be arrested?
47.1%
(90)
46.3%
(81)
33.5%
(64)
34.9%
(61)
9.4%
(18)
9.7%
(17)
3.1%
(6)
1.7%
(3)
6.8%
(13)
7.4%
(13)
C. A drunken adult, 21 years of
age or older, would be served a
drink of alcohol if they asked for
one in a local restaurant?
40.1%
(77)
40.3%
(71)
30.7%
(59)
29.5%
(52)
13.5%
(26)
17.6%
(31)
5.7%
(11)
1.7%
(3)
9.9%
(19)
10.8%
(19)
D. A drunken adult, 21 years of
age or older, would be old an
alcoholic beverage if they tried to
buy it in a local store?
34.6%
(66)
40.8%
(71)
34.6%
(66)
27.0%
(47)
16.8%
(32)
20.1%
(35)
5.8%
(11)
3.4%
(6)
8.4%
(16)
8.6%
(15)
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
10
During the past 30 days, on how many days did you: **Note separation of age groups for this table
18-20 Year Olds 21-24 Year Olds
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
A. Have one or more alcoholic
beverages?
0 days- 42.1% (61)
1 to 4d- 31.7% (46)
5 to 8 d- 18.6% (27)
9 to 14 d- 2.8% (4)
15 to 29 d- 4.8% (7)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
0 days- 52.7% (77)
1 to 4 d- 30.1% (44)
5 to 8 d- 8.9% (13)
9 to 14 d- 4.8% (7)
15 to 29 d- 0.7% (1)
All 30 days- 2.7% (4)
0 days- 20.0% (9)
1 to 4 d- 35.6% (16)
5 to 8 d- 15.6% (7)
9 to 14 d- 15.6% (7)
15 to 29 d- 11.1% (5)
All 30 days- 2.2% (1)
0 days- 24.1% (7)
1 to 4 d- 44.8% (13)
5 to 8 d- 20.7% (6)
9 to 14 d- 10.3% (3)
15 to 29 d- 0.0% (0)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
B. Have 5 or more alcoholic drinks
for a male or 4 or more for a
female on one occasion?
0 days- 61.4% (89)
1 to 4 d- 21.4% (31)
5 to 8 d- 12.4% (18)
9 to 14 d- 4.1% (6)
15 to 29 d- 0.7% (1)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
0 days- 66.9% (97)
1 to 4 d- 19.3% (28)
5 to 8 d- 9.7% (14)
9 to 14 d- 2.1% (3)
15 to 29 d- 0.7% (1)
All 30 days- 1.4% (2)
0 days- 46.7% (21)
1 to 4 d- 28.9% (13)
5 to 8 d- 8.9% (4)
9 to 14 d- 8.9% (4)
15 to 29 d- 2.2% (1)
All 30 days- 4.4% (2)
0 days- 55.3% (16)
1 to 4 d- 30.0% (9)
5 to 8 d- 13.3% (4)
9 to 14 d- 3.3% (1)
15 to 29 d- 0.0% (0)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
C. Drive (e.g., car, truck, or
motorcycle) within one to two
hours of consuming 2 or more
alcoholic drinks?
0 days- 91.0% (132)
1 to 4 d- 4.1% (6)
5 to 8 d- 4.1% (6)
9 to 14 d- 0.7% (1)
15 to 29 d- 0.0% (0)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
0 days- 90.3% (131)
1 to 4 d- 4.1% (6)
5 to 8 d- 2.8% (4)
9 to 14 d- 1.4% (2)
15 to 29 d- 0.0% (0)
All 30 days- 1.4% (2)
0 days- 76.1% (35)
1 to 4 d- 13.3% (6)
5 to 8 d- 4.4% (2)
9 to 14 d- 2.2% (1)
15 to 29 d- 2.2% (1)
All 30 days- 2.2% (1)
0 days- 93.3% (28)
1 to 4 d- 3.3% (1)
5 to 8 d- 3.3% (1)
9 to 14 d- 0.0% (0)
15 to 29 d- 0.0% (0)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
D. Ride with someone who within
the previous one to two hours
had 2 or more alcoholic drinks?
0 days- 81.9% (118)
1 to 4 d- 11.8% (17)
5 to 8 d- 1.4% (2)
9 to 14 d- 4.9% (7)
0 days- 80.7% (117)
1 to 4 d- 11.0% (16)
5 to 8 d- 2.8% (4)
9 to 14 d- 3.4% (5)
0 days- 64.4% (29)
1 to 4 d- 22.2% (10)
5 to 8 d- 6.7% (3)
9 to 14 d- 2.2% (1)
0 days- 73.3% (22)
1 to 4 d- 20.0% (6)
5 to 8 d- 3.3% (1)
9 to 14 d- 3.3% (1)
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
11
15 to 29 d- 0.0% (0)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
15 to 29 d- 0.7% (1)
All 30 days- 1.4% (2)
15 to 29 d- 4.4% (2)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
15 to 29 d- 0.0% (0)
All 30 days- 0.0% (0)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
How hard is it to get alcohol in your community if you are under 21?
(1) Very Hard 3.2% (6) 6.9% (12)
(2) Sort of Hard 12.8% (24) 14.3% (25)
(3) Sort of Easy 37.2% (70) 30.9% (54)
(4) Very Easy 29.8% (56) 33.7% (59)
(5) Unsure 17.0% (32) 14.3% (25)
If you used alcohol in the past 30 days in your community, how did you get it?
(1) I didn’t use alcohol in the past 30 days. 38.2% (71) 46.2% (80)
(2) I bought the alcohol. 22.6% (42) 16.2% (28)
(3) I got it from friends. 42.5% (79) 38.7% (67)
(4) My parents or other person over 21 gave it to me. 17.2% (32) 16.8% (29)
(5) I took it from my parent’s house. 3.8% (7) 4.6% (8)
(6) I took it from a store. 1.1% (2) 1.2% (2)
(7) Other 3.8% (7) 2.4% (4)
If you drank in the past 30 days, list the top two reasons why you drank:
(1) It breaks the ice. 17.4% (33) 11.4% (20)
(2) It makes socializing easier. 31.6% (60) 25.0% (44)
(3) It is a way to celebrate. 37.4% (71) 33.0% (58)
(4) I like the taste. 24.2% (46) 18.8% (33)
(5) It helps me to fit in. 11.1% (21) 6.3% (11)
(6) There is nothing else to do. 10.5% (20) 4.5% (8)
(7) It makes it easier to flirt and/or hook up. 13.2% (25) 5.1% (9)
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
12
(8) It makes it easier to deal with stress or problems. 16.8% (32) 13.1% (23)
Q10. Were you asked to show ID the last time you bought or tried to buy alcohol in your community?
(1) Yes 27.7% (53) 20.7% (36)
(0) No 7.9% (15) 8.6% (15)
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
Have you ever provided alcohol to someone underage?
(1) Yes 25.7% (49) 13.8% (24)
(0) No 74.3% (142) 86.2% (150)
Have you ever used a fake I.D. to purchase alcohol in your community?
(1) Yes 10.5% (20) 8.0% (14)
(0) No 89.5% (170) 92.0% (160)
What is your gender?
(1) Male 50.5% (94) 47.1% (82)
(2) Female 49.5% (92) 52.9% (92)
Are you currently employed?
(1) Yes, full-time 9.6% (18) 8.1% (14)
(2) Yes, part-time 34.0% (64) 46.8% (81)
(3) No, but I am looking for employment 21.8% (41) 14.5% (25)
(4) No, and I am not looking 34.6% (65) 30.6% (53)
Are you currently attending school?
(1) Yes, I am a full-time student in high school 4.8% (9) 6.4% (11)
(2) Yes, I am a full-time student in college 80.9% (152) 80.9% (140)
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
13
(3) Yes, I am a part-time student in college 12.2% (23) 11.0% (19)
(4) No 2.1% (4) 1.7% (3)
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
(1) Less than High School / High School / GED 58.0% (109) 55.5% (96)
(2) Some College / Technical / 2 Year Degree 38.8% (73) 41.0% (71)
(3) College Graduate 3.2% (6) 3.5% (6)
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
14
2012
% (N)
2013
% (N)
What is your race/ethnicity?
(1) White 63.1% (118) 56.1% (97)
(2) Non-White 36.9% (69) 43.9% (76)
Are you Hispanic or Latino?
(1) Yes 8.5% (16) 9.2% (16)
(0) No 91.5% (172) 90.8% (158)
Which of the following best describes your living arrangement?
(1) In an apartment or house 59.0% (111) 69.8% (120)
(2) In a college dorm or residence hall 40.4% (76) 29.1% (50)
(3) In a fraternity / sorority house 0.5% (1) 1.2% (2)
Do you:
(1) Live alone 5.3% (10) 9.8% (17)
(2) Live with parents/caregivers 31.9% (60) 42.5% (74)
(3) Live with significant other 5.3% (10) 1.7% (3)
(4) Live with roommates/friends 56.9% (107) 45.4% (79)
(5) Live with significant other and children 0.5% (1) 0.6% (1)
Does a drink special (e.g. “all you can drink”, two-for-one, or cheap pitchers) typically influence
(a) the number of drinks you consume?
(1) Always 21.3% (40) 18.3% (32)
(2) Often 37.8% (71) 28.6% (50)
(3) Rarely 8.5% (16) 9.7% (17)
(4) Never 32.4% (61) 43.4% (76)
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
15
(b) where you decide go out for a drink?
(1) Always 23.5% (44) 16.3% (28)
(2) Often 31.0% (58) 29.1% (50)
(3) Rarely 12.8% (24) 8.1% (14)
(4) Never 32.6% (61) 46.5% (80)
In the past 30 days, what percentage of people your age do you think...
(1) Have had at least one drink of alcohol? 63.0% 55.9%
(2) Have had 5 or more drinks of alcohol in one sitting? 41.0% 34.6%
(3) Have driven shortly after consuming 5 or more drinks of
alcohol within a couple of hours?
24.0% 18.2%
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
16
Please report questions and findings about media campaigns that were added to the Young Adult Survey in 2013 so they look sim ilar to those
above (given that there would be no data from 2012).
In the past year, have you seen or heard any of the “You Choose” campaigns? (check all that apply)
(a) Radio 10.4% 18
(b) Newspaper 6.9% 12
(c) Coasters/Posters 17.9% 31
(d) Travel Cups 8.7% 15
(e) QR (Quick Response) Code 2.9% 5
(f) BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) Card 10.4% 18
(g) News Stories 4.6% 8
(h) Facebook 10.4% 18
(i) Twitter 5.2% 9
(j) I have not seen or heard any of the “You Choose”
campaigns
63.6 110
If you answered “Yes” to any of the options in the questions above, did you use any of the information
provided by the “You Choose” campaign? (check all that apply)
(a) No 77.8% 91
(b) Yes, Taxi Magic 7.0% 6
(c) Yes, used QR code to book a cab 2.6% 3
(d) Yes, BAC card 9.4% 11
(e) Yes, planning a designated driver 4.3% 5
(f) Yes, planning the number of drinks to have
before going out
5.1% 6
(g) Yes, counting the number of drinks consumed
while out
5.1% 6
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
17
Table 3. Trend in Number of DUI Arrests and Convictions, 2009-2013
*Attempted to gather data, however did not receive response from Court System
Age of Driver 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
18-20 DUI Arrest 26 37 24 22 10
DUI Conviction 2 * * 24 20
Conviction Rate
(Convictions / Arrests) 8% * * 109% 200%
21-24 DUI Arrest 74 68 43 54 36
DUI Conviction 6 * * 46 36
Conviction Rate
(Convictions / Arrests) 8% * * 85% 100%
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
18
Table 4. Process and Intermediate Impact Objectives: Evaluation Results
Strategies /
Target
Process Measures Intermediate Impact Objectives / Documentation of Evidence
Measure Results Measure Results
1. Sobriety
checkpoints
1. # of sobriety
checkpoints in 2013
2. Quarterly meetings with
core team to discuss
progress/obstacles
3. # of norms and
educational materials
distributed
4. Reach of checkpoints
measured by number of
cars that passed through
and travel on the
selected road
5. Reach of checkpoints
measured by media
reports
1. 3 sobriety checkpoints
(10/13; 2/13; 5/13)
2. 1 meeting held each quarter
with core team to discuss
progress and next steps
3. Posters = 417
Coasters = 25,000
Magnets = 5,000
BAC cards = 13,500
4. October = 223
December = approx. 150
May = unknown at this
time, anticipating results
June 1, 2014
5. 1 media report per
checkpoint = 3 media
reports
1. 10% decrease in alcohol-
related crashes among 18-24
year olds in one year (n=59 to
53).
2. 5% increase in perception of
risk among 18-24 year olds
being stopped and receiving a
DUI as measured by changes
in the 18-24 year old survey in
one year (n=154 to 156).
1. 40.7% decrease (n=35)
2. 1% (n=142 out of 175).
3. Saturation
Patrols
1. # of saturation patrols
2. # of DUI arrests
3. # of media reports
1. 20 Saturations Patrols
2. All ages = 1; Target
Population 18 – 24 = 0
3. 3 media reports
1. 10% decrease in alcohol-
related crashes among 18-24
year old males in one year
(n=59 to 53).
2. 5% increase in perception of
risk among 18-24 year olds
being stopped and receiving a
DUI as measured by changes
in the 18-24 year old survey in
one year (n=154 to 156).
1. 40.7% decrease (n=35)
2. 1% increase (80% - 81%).
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
19
3. Social Norms 1. # of print materials
created & distributed
2. Estimated reach of
materials
3. # of newspaper media
placements
a. Estimated reach of
newspaper ads
4. # of radio PSAs
a. Estimates reach of
radio PSAs
5. # of website hits
6. # of QR code scans
7. % of 18-24 year old
survey respondents who
heard a PSA
8. % of respondents who
saw print materials
9. % of respondents who
used a BAC card
(created/distributed)
1. Posters 500/417
Coasters = 25,000/25,000
Magnets = 5,000/5,000
BAC cards = 15,000/13,500
2. Estimated reach = 25,000
3. # of newspaper placements
= 27
4. # of radio PSAs = 721
5. # of website hits = apprx
1,000
6. # of QR Code scans = 202
7. % of 18-24 year olds hear
PSA = 10.4%
8. % who saw print materials
= 43.9%
9. % who used BAC card =
9.4%
1. 5% increase in the
community’s perception that
drinking behaviors are viewed
as wrong as measured by
changes in the 18-24 year old
survey in one year (18-20:
n=106 to 110, 21- 24: n=35 to
43).
2. 5% increase in the awareness
of the social norms
surrounding drinking
behaviors and perception of
risk of being caught by the
police if drinking and driving
as measured by changes in the
18-24 year old survey in one
year (n=54 to 61).
1. 18 – 20 = 5% increase
(55% - 60%)
21 – 24 = 4% increase
(18% - 22%)
2. Unable to measure at this
time. Next year this
question will be split into
two questions and will be
measured:
a. 5% increase in the
awareness of the
social norms
surrounding
drinking behaviors
using the
percentage of
people who report
seeing the “You
Choose” ads and
materials
b. perception of risk
of being caught by
the police if
drinking and
driving using the
percentage of
people who report
it is “Very Likely”
or “Somewhat
Likely” someone
who drives drunk
will be caught
4. Media
Advocacy
1. # of television reports
2. patrols
a. Social norms
1. # of television reports = 2
2. patrols
d. Social norms
1. 10% decrease in alcohol-
related crashes among 18-24
year old males in one year
(n=59 to 53).
1. 40.7% decrease (n=35)
2. 1% (80% - 81%).
3. 18 – 20 = 5% increase
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
20
coverage
b. DUI
checkpoint
coverage
c. Awareness
reports
3. # of print newspaper
reports
4. # of online news
reports
5. # of radio PSAs
coverage = 1
e. DUI checkpoint
coverage = 2
f. Awareness reports
= 1
3. # of print newspaper
reports = 1
4. # of online news reports =
5
5. # of radio PSAs = 721
2. 5% increase in perception of
risk among 18-24 year olds
being stopped and receiving a
DUI as measured by changes
in the 18-24 year old survey
in one year (n=154 to 156).
3. 5% increase in the
community’s perception that
drinking behaviors are viewed
as wrong as measured by
changes in the 18-24 year old
survey in one year (18-20:
n=106 to 110, 21- 24: n=35 to
43).
4. 5% increase in the awareness
of the social norms
surrounding drinking
behaviors and perception of
risk of being caught by the
police if drinking and driving
as measured by changes in the
18-24 year old survey in one
year (n=54 to 61).
(55% - 60%)
21 – 24 = 4% increase
(18% - 22%)
4. Unable to measure at this
time. Next year this
question will be split into
two questions and will be
measured:
a. 5% increase in the
awareness of the
social norms
surrounding
drinking behaviors
using the
percentage of
people who report
seeing the “You
Choose” ads and
materials
b. perception of risk
of being caught by
the police if
drinking and
driving using the
percentage of
people who report
it is “Very Likely”
or “Somewhat
Likely” someone
who drives drunk
will be caught
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
21
Table 5. Outcome Results: Trend in the Number of MVCs with Drinking Drivers Aged 18-24
Driver’s Age Sex
# MVCs
2009
# MVCs
2010
# MVCs
2011
# MVCs
2012
# MVCs
2013
18-20 years Male 26 10 8 12 6
Female 11 3 4 5 1
Total 37 13 12 17 7
21-24 years Male 39 29 28 28 21
Female 6 9 2 7 7
Total 46 38 30 35 28
Total 18-24 years Male 65 39 36 40 27
Female 17 12 6 12 8
Total 83 51 42 52 35
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
22
Table 6. Outcome Results: Trend in Rate of MVCs with Drinking Drivers Aged 18-24
Driver’s Age Sex
Annualized Rate
MVCs/10,000
2009-2010
Rate MVCs/10,000
2011
Rate MVCs/10,000
2012
Rate MVCs/10,000
2013*
18-20 years Male 50.89 20.84 28.26 9.42
Female 18.21 10.73 8.91 1.78
Total 33.88 15.86 17.24 5.07
21-24 years Male 119.01 109.25 117.85 42.09
Female 29.27 5.94 38.55 5.51
Total 77.51 50.60 83.49 26.24
Total 18-24 years Male 81.33 56.24 60.40 21.14
Female 22.64 8.46 16.15 2.69
Total 52.35 31.12 37.01 11.39
*Population data for 2013 were not yet available, so the rates were calculated using 2012 population data.
Albemarle County Year End Report 2013
23
Driver’s Age Sex
Annualized Rate
MVCs/10,000
2009-2011
Rate MVCs/10,000
2012
Rate MVCs/10,000
2013*
18-20 years Male 40.32 28.26 9.42
Female 15.91 8.91 1.78
Total 27.77 17.24 5.07
21-24 years Male 115.98 117.85 42.09
Female 20.02 38.55 5.51
Total 67.99 83.49 26.24
Total 18-24 years Male 72.96 60.40 21.14
Female 17.58 16.15 2.69
Total 37.86 37.01 11.39
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2015 Legislative Priorities
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consideration and Approval of the 2015 Legislative
Priorities
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis and Blount
PRESENTER (S):
Larry Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Each year the Board considers and approves its legislative priorities and coordinates its priorities with the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) and the Virginia Municipal
League (VML). On August 6, 2014 the Board reviewed the Board’s 2014 Legislative Priorities and the Board reviewed and
approved its initial 2015 Legislative priorities. On October 1, 2014, the Board approved the TJPDC Legislative Priorities.
Generally, the TJPDC’s legislative program incorporates many of the County’s legislative priorities. The Board attended a
regional forum with area legislators organized by the TJPDC on October 29, 2014 to discuss further possible legislative
initiatives relating to taxation authority. Other initiatives are sometimes added prior to the final adoption of the Board’s
Legislative Priorities to address issues arising since August.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community priorities
DISCUSSION:
Following approval by the Board of the preliminary 2015 Legislative Priorities, several new or expanded priorities have
been identified and are set out below for the Board’s consideration:
Local Government Administration and Finance
Virginia Retirement System
The County supports restoration of funds to the Virginia Retirement System to maintain the long-term solvency of the
plan without further devolving the funding responsibility to localities. The addition of this priority is in alignment with the
School Board priorities.
Full Funding of State Mandates
The County requests the state provide full funding for its mandates in all areas of local government including the
Standards of Quality and other mandates imposed on local school divisions, positions approved by the Compensation
Board, costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services positions. The addition of the
underlined provision aligns this priority with the School Board priorities.
Stormwater Utility Fee Waiver
Request the General Assembly to amend Virginia Code § 15.2-2114 to provide that a public entity is eligible for a
waiver under Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(C) from the imposition of stormwater utility charges where the public entity’s
real property is covered by a municipal separate storm sewer system permit (“MS4”), even though the public entity is
not the MS4 permit holder. Background information regarding this item is provided in Attachment A.
School Bus Video-Monitoring Systems
Request the General Assembly to amend Virginia Code Section § 46.2-844 to allow for service of summonses by mail
for violations of passing stopped school buses recorded by school bus video monitoring systems similar to the
authority in Virginia Code Section § 15.2-968.1, for the service of summonses for running red lights recorded by a
traffic signal enforcement system . Background information regarding this item is provided in Attachment B.
AGENDA TITLE: 2015 Legislative Priorities
November 5, 2014
Page 2
Business Personal Property Tax
The Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce is asking the General Assembly to enable a $500 minimum value
reporting requirement for business personal property tax. County staff does not oppose such legislation, so long as it
is not a mandate on localities and local officers administering local taxes. If an amendment is supported by the Board,
County staff would suggest an amendment to Virginia Code Section § 58.1-3518 by adding the underlined additional
authority regarding personal property taxes that would allow that “the commissioner of the revenue [or Finance
Director] may elect not to require such a return from any taxpayer who owns such property which does not have
sufficient value to generate a tax assessment and may also elect not to require the reporting on such a return of
property with an original cost of less than two hundred fifty dollars.” The $250 threshold would be consistent with a
prior reporting practice of the Finance Department that was determined not to be enabled. Existing Virginia Code
§ 58.1-3518 is attached (Attachment C).
Bottle and Can Deposit
A request has been suggested that the Board consider supporting legislation to require a deposit on returnable
beverage containers. With the exception of a study resolution introduced during the 2008 session, it has been about
14 years since the General Assembly has considered such legislation, including introduction of HB 659 (which
subsequently died in committee) by Senator Deeds as a member of the House of Delegates in 2000. This request has
not been included as a proposed legislative priority.
Taxation Initiative
The final position of the County related to County taxing authority may be influenced by the outcome of the October 29,
2014 regional legislative forum.
The County supports the TJPDC’s top priority and legislative request urging the governor and legislature to equalize
the revenue-raising authority of counties with that of cities (Attachment D).
If general taxing authority equal to cities and towns is deemed not attainable, the County could request specific
legislative authority for targeted additional taxing authority related to the food and beverage tax, the transient
occupancy tax, a cigarette tax, or a local option sales and use tax.
After the Board’s review, input and approval of the proposed Final 2015 Legislative Priorities, staff will submit the
Board’s 2015 Legislative Priorities to the TJPDC, VACo and VML for their information and to the legislators
representing the County.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s legislative priorities seek to ensure that the state adequately funds its mandated responsibilities and
does not jeopardize the County’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement the policies and programs that it deems
necessary. New taxing authority could provide alternative revenue sources to reduce the County’s dependence on
real estate taxes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed Final 2015 Legislative Priorities (Attachment E), with any
deletions and additions it deems appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Stormwater Utility Fee Waiver Legislative Request
B – School Bus Video-Monitoring Systems Legislative Request
C – Virginia Code § 58.1-3518
D – TJPDC Top Priority and Legislative Request
E – Draft 2015 Legislative Priorities
Return to agenda
Stormwater Utilities
Albemarle County’s 2015 Legislative Priorities include the following priority regarding the Stormwater
Utility law (Virginia Code § 15.2-2114):
Request the General Assembly to amend Virginia Code § 15.2-2114 to provide that a
public entity is eligible for a waiver under Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(C) from the
imposition of stormwater utility charges where the public entity’s real property is covered
by a municipal separate storm sewer system permit (“MS4”), even though the public
entity is not the MS4 permit holder.
Summary of the Current Law
Localities may establish a stormwater utility under Virginia Code § 15.2-2114 and impose charges to
fund the locality’s stormwater management program. Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(A). The charges are
assessed against property owners or occupants. Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(B). A locality must provide a
full waiver of charges to a “local government, or public entity, that holds a permit to discharge
stormwater from a municipal separate storm sewer system; except that the waiver of charges shall apply
only to property covered by any such permit.” Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(C)(1).
Why an Amendment is Appropriate
The intent of the waiver provision in Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(C)(1) was to exempt public property
from a locality’s stormwater utility charges if the public property was covered by an MS4 permit. Public
property that is covered by an MS4 permit is subject to the permit holders stormwater management
program under the permit.
In Albemarle County, the Albemarle County School Board owns two County schools located within the
City of Charlottesville – Burley Middle School and Murray High School. Although the County is an MS4
permit holder and all County schools, including those located within the City, are covered by the
County’s MS4 permit, under a strict reading of Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(C)(1), and applied by the City
of Charlottesville, the County School properties in the City are subject to the City’s utility charges
because the County School Board is not an MS4 permit holder.
Therefore, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests the General Assembly to amend Virginia
Code § 15.2-2114(C)(1) to extend the waiver to real property owned by a public entity that is covered by
an MS4 permit, even if the public entity is not the MS4 permit holder.
Bus Camera Video-Monitoring Systems
Albemarle County’s 2015 Legislative Priorities include the following priority regarding Passing Stopped
School Buses (Virginia Code § 46.2-844):
Request the General Assembly to amend Virginia Code Section § 46.2-844 to allow for service
of summons by mail for violations of passing stopped school buses as recorded on bus camera
video-monitoring systems similar to the authority in Virginia Code Section § 15.2-968.1, for the
service of summonses for running red lights recorded by a traffic signal enforcement program.
Summary of the Current Law
In 2011, the Virginia General Assembly enabled localities to pass ordinances permitting the installation of
video-monitoring systems on school buses to record individuals illegally passing stopped school buses.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors passed such an ordinance in July of 2014, found at
Albemarle County Code Section 9-800, et seq.
Why an Amendment is Appropriate
Video-monitoring systems record individuals illegally passing stopped school buses. These violations are
then verified by the Albemarle County Police Department’s review of the videotape. A notice of the
violation is then sent to the alleged violator. If the violator does not pay the $250.00 civil penalty, the
Albemarle County Police Department is required to personally serve a traffic summons on the alleged
violator to pursue enforcement of the fine in General District Court. The personal service of a traffic
summons results in significant labor costs to the Albemarle County Police Department. Additionally, it
is impractical to serve out-of-state violators.
The enabling legislation for photo-monitoring systems for the enforcement of red light violations
specifically provides for service of process to be made by first class United States mail delivery. This
same enabling authority is requested to serve summons for violations of passing stopped school buses
recorded on bus camera video-monitoring systems.
Permitting the Albemarle County Police Department to serve summonses for passing stopped school bus
violations recorded by bus camera video-monitoring systems by first class United States mail delivery
would significantly decrease fiscal burdens and provide a more practical means of service for out-of-state
violators.
Therefore, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests the General Assembly to amend Virginia
Code § 46.2-844 to allow for first class United States mail service of summonses to individuals illegally
passing stopped school buses as recorded on bus camera video-monitoring systems.
Albemarle County’s Draft 2015 Legislative Priorities
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
Stormwater Utility Waiver - request the General Assembly to amend Virginia Code § 15.2-2114
to provide that a public entity is eligible for a waiver under Virginia Code § 15.2-2114(C) from
the imposition of stormwater utility charges where the public entity’s real property is covered by
a municipal separate storm sewer system permit (“MS4”), even though the public entity is not
the MS4 permit holder.
Transportation Funding - Support legislation to 1) establish a new dedicated funding source for
a Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority; 2) establish stable and consistent state
revenues for Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 3) direct funding efforts to
expand transportation choices and engage in multimodal transportation planning; and 4) fund
maintenance of rural road systems. The County also strongly opposes any legislation or
regulations that would require the transfer of responsibility to counties for construction,
maintenance or operation of new and existing secondary roads.
Biosolids - Support legislation enabling localities, as part of their zoning ordinances, to designate
and/or reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the locality
based on criteria related to the public safety and welfare of its citizens and the environment. In
addition, support legislation regarding land application of biosolids that protect the environment,
public health and safety.
Local Authority - Support legislation to strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to
utilize adequate public facilities ordinances, and encourage the General Assembly to refrain from
passing legislation that preempts or circumvents existing local authority to regulate land use.
Impact Fee Authority - Support impact fee legislation that allows for 1) effective
implementation through simple locally-based formulae and reasonable administrative
requirements; 2) does not cap or limit localities’ impact fee updates; and 3) does not diminish the
existing proffer system.
Conservation Easements - Support legislation that augments local efforts in natural resource
protection through 1) continued funding of the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLCF)
for locally established and funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE Program
in Albemarle County); 2) continued provision of matching funds to localities for their Purchase
of Development Rights programs through the Office of Farmland Preservation; 3) retaining
provisions in transient occupancy tax legislation so that funds can continue to be used to protect
open-space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value that attract tourism;
and 4) increased incentives for citizens to create conservation easements.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement - Support enabling legislation for Albemarle
County to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. Such
legislation would provide a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic
areas when the County or state make land use decisions in designated areas.
Health and Human Services
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request that the legislature assist localities’
implementation of CSA in a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) fully funding the state
pool for CSA with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local
expenditures for serving a child through CSA, and 2) encouraging the state to be proactive in
making service providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of
cost sharing among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
Child Care for Low Income Working Families - Request the legislature provide additional
funds to local governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. Funding
helps working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts for
families to become self-sufficient.
Local Department of Social Services (LDSS) - Request the legislature increase funds for LDSS
to match all available federal dollars to assist LDSS staffing needs in order to meet state
mandated services and workloads.
Local Government Administration and Finance
Taxation - Support legislation granting counties taxing powers equal to those granted cities and
towns, without decreasing, limiting or changing city and town taxing authority.
Personal Property Tax - Support legislation to amend Virginia Code § 58.1-3518 to provide that
the commissioner of the revenue or Finance Director may elect not to require the reporting of
property with an original cost of less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) on a business personal
property tax return.
Virginia Retirement System - The County supports restoration of funds to the Virginia
Retirement System to maintain the long-term solvency of the plan without further devolving the
funding responsibility to localities.
School Bus Video-Monitoring Systems - Request the General Assembly to amend Virginia Code
Section § 45.2-844 to allow for service of summonses by mail for violations of passing stopped
school buses recorded by school bus video monitoring systems similar to the authority in
Virginia Code Section § 15.2-968.1, for the service of summonses for running red lights
recorded by a traffic signal enforcement program.
Composite Index - Support legislation to amend the Composite Index Funding Formula by re-
defining the local true value of real property component of the formula to include the land use
taxation value of real property rather than the fair market assessed value for those properties that
have qualified and are being taxed under a land use value taxation program
Community College Capital Costs - Request the state to fund 100% of public funding required
for community college costs. Currently, localities are required to fund a portion of operating and
capital costs.
Public Defender funding - Request the state to adequately fund compensation for public
defenders in Commonwealth jurisdictions.
Full Funding of State Mandates - Request full funding for state mandates in all areas of local
government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs) and other mandates imposed on local
school divisions, positions approved by the Compensation Board, costs related to jails and
juvenile detention centers and human services positions.
Voting Precincts - Eliminate split Virginia Senate precincts to the extent possible. The Virginia
Senate redistricting plan has created split precincts in the Jack Jouett, Rio and Rivanna
Magisterial Districts. The Jack Jouett precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts
in two places. The Woodbrook precinct is split between the 17th and the 25th Senate Districts and
the Stony Point precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts.
Drug Court Funding - Request full funding for the Drug Court Program, which provides
effective treatment and intensive supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit Courts of
several Virginia localities.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Transportation Planner Position
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of a transportation planner position to the
Community Development Department
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On June 10, 2014, the Board held its annual retreat to consider and clarify its top priorities to ensure that staff’s work is
aligned with Board priorities. At its August 6th meeting, the Board formally endorsed the draft aspirations discussed at the
retreat, as well as the draft Year One priorities recommended by staff. On October 1, 2014, the Board approved a FY 15-
17 Strategic Plan (Attachment A), which included the following priority for addressing Operational Capacity:
B. By January 2015, identify and propose staffing resources needed to meet the Board’s transportation
priorities.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Clarify needs and expectations for additional staffing.
Evaluate and identify organizational alternatives to address transportation needs.
Evaluate staffing and funding alternatives to address identified needs.
Resource Consideration(s):
Possible mid-year addition of 1.0 FTE.
This executive summary is provided for the Board’s consideration in addressing this priority.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment B is a Memorandum from the Director of the Community Development Department to the County Executives
outlining CDD staff’s understanding of this priority and the factors it considers to be important to assure that the County’s
transportation program is successful. In summary, staff understands the following to be important factors for considering
the level of experience and expertise needed for this position:
1. Evolving nature of the transportation program. Staff sees this position as the first step in an ongoing evolution
towards a more comprehensive transportation program for the County. For example, it is noted that the City of
Charlottesville’s Neighborhood Services Department has transportation engineers and planners providing a broad
array of transportation services, from supervising the construction of improvements to neighborhood sidewalk
priorities and traffic calming. While staff believes the County has not yet reached that level of need, continued
growth in the Development Areas will result in the County evolving to that point. It is expected that this position, if
approved, will provide important leadership as the County transitions to a higher, more comprehensive level of
service in the transportation arena.
2. Program urgency. A mid-year addition indicates the Board considers this initiative a high priority that cannot wait for
the normal budget cycle and that the Board has an expectation that this program should begin producing results very
quickly. Understanding this priority, staff believes a senior level position with meaningful relevant experience is
required to meet this interest in achieving immediate positive results.
AGENDA TITLE: Transportation Planner Position
November 5, 2014
Page 2
3. Current management capacity. The Community Development Department is limited in its capacity to provide
effective leadership and management for a new program that requires extensive daily oversight and supervision.
Accordingly, the opportunity to attract and hire a skilled, seasoned transportation planning professional will alleviate
much of the need for day-to-day supervision and will continue to enable current CDD management staff to provide
broader leadership support to the overall transportation function in conjunction with the new professional
transportation planner.
When staff considered all of these factors together, it determined the need to hire a professional who is already
experienced in working with VDOT, MPOs, elected officials, and neighborhoods. It is also believed that the individual
needs to be skilled at budgeting and grant writing, and be able to identify possible funding sources for projects and to
actively seek that funding. Therefore, staff recommends that the program be started with a Principal Planner position. A
Principal Planner position is a Grade 18 on the County’s scale. As set forth in the Memorandum (Attachment B), staff has
outlined the primary functions as being planning, implementation, and community relations, with a lesser role in
development review. The role in development review is seen as being limited to what may be associated with multi-modal
issues and transportation impacts in existing neighborhoods.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff estimates that the cost of a Transportation Planner (Principal Planner), including salary and benefits, for one-half year
will be approximately $53,894 and that the ongoing annual cost is expected to be $103,000 in FY16. If the Board approves
the position, staff will present a FY15 appropriation request to the Board on December 3, 2014. The ongoing annual costs
will be included in the annual budget process beginning in FY16.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide feedback regarding the proposed position and, if satisfied, approve the position
to be filled in FY15. If approved, staff will begin the recruitment process immediately.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - October 1, 2014 FY 15-17 Strategic Plan
Attachment B – October 20, 2014 Staff Memo to County Executive
Return to agenda
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FY15-17 Strategic Plan
1. Citizen Engagement:
A. By June 2015, increase opportunities for meaningful citizen engagement.
2. Critical Infrastructure:
A. By June 2015, establish and implement a 3-5 year plan for the use of the Ivy Material Utilization Center as a
waste handling and recycling facility.
B. By October 2015, establish a long-term solid waste plan, with an emphasis on reducing, reusing, and
recycling.
C. By June 2015, establish direction and begin the design process to meet the long-term needs of the Circuit and
General District Court operations.
3. Development Areas:
A. By June 2015, complete Comprehensive Plan Review and adoption.
4. Economic Prosperity:
A. By June 2015, establish an Economic Development Office to achieve the County’s economic development
mission and goals.
5. Educational Opportunities:
A. By June 2015, in partnership with the school system, identify potential improvements in funding strategies for
K-12.
B. By June 2015, a collaborative work group, which includes members of the School Division, Local
Government and community members, will identify possible short- and long-term solutions to maintain, and
possibly increase, the current availability of quality pre-school opportunities.
6. Natural Resources:
A. By October 2015, establish direction and funding for a program to improve water quality.
7. Operational Capacity:
A. By December 2014, complete review of staffing needs through consideration of the Five Year Financial Plan.
B. By January 2015, identify and propose staffing resources needed to meet the Board’s transportation priorities.
8. Rural Areas:
A. By June 2015, complete Comprehensive Plan Review and adoption.
1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Tom Foley, County Executive
Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive
Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive
From: Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
Date: 20 October 2014
Subject: Transportation Planner
Per your direction, CDD staff has considered the possible benefits and best structure for a transportation planner, should the
Board be interested in creating this position at this time. In doing so, we have developed a recommendation that considers:
1) the evolving role of transportation management for the County; 2) organizational arrangements based on the extent of
services being provided; and 3) an outline of possible services to be provided if the County creates a single transportation
planner position at this time.
Changing role of transportation
Like many counties evolving from a rural level of service to an urban one, Albemarle is seeing a changing role for
managing transportation issues. We believe that in considering the addition of new transportation services, it is important
we understand where this is likely to evolve. To assist in that understanding, we are providing the following chronologic
milestones for perspective and where we believe things are headed based on the current trends and experience of other
localities. I caution that the future is simply staff’s perspective based on the trends we’ve observed in Albemarle and what
we’ve found in looking at more urban counties in Virginia.
Factor 1985 (- 30 years) 2015 (Current) 2020 (+ 5 years ) 2040(+ 25 years)
Population Split
Rural % / Urban %
65% / 35%
Rural
45% / 55%
Urbanizing
42% / 58%
Urbanizing
35% / 65%
Urban
VDOT support of
Secondary Streets
VDOT manages,
providing $4-5
Million / year for
secondary road
improvements, no
efforts towards
pedestrians/ bikes.
VDOT manages,
providing $400
Thousand / Year for
improvements,
minimal support for
pedestrian / bicycles.
VDOT provides
minimal
maintenance, local
governments fund
all improvements
Devolution
complete, Local
governments
responsible for all
aspects of secondary
streets
Satisfaction with
vehicular LOS
Acceptable Acceptable to
marginal
Acceptable to
marginal
Marginal to low
Neighborhood
issues with streets
(e.g sidewalks, cut-
thru, bike to work)
Low Low to Moderate Moderate Moderate to High
Mass Transit
Demand
Similar to rural
counties
Greater than rural
counties
Similar to other
urbanizing counties
Similar to urban
counties
Bicycle / Pedestrian
Demand
Limited Similar to urbanizing
counties
Similar to
urbanizing counties
Similar to urban
counties / cities
Necessary funding None to Low
Similar to rural
Low to Median
Similar to urbanizing
Median to High
Similar to high
growth counties
High
Similar to cities /
urban counties
From the above, staff sees this as a rapidly developing function as the County continues its transition from a rural county to
an urban one. Additionally, staff believes that devolution of the secondary streets is inevitable and a question of “when”
rather than “if” the State will force this responsibility on county governments. At that point, transportation services in
Albemarle will function similar to a city and will require funding similar to what cities provide. Staff also believes that is
the point at which the County will need to consider a full service public works department. In considering current duties
and management for this position, we believe it is important to plan on this likely evolution.
Organizational Arrangement
Staff has considered this by starting with what is considered to be the eventual role for transportation management and then
working backwards to the current status. The steps going backwards from 2040 to today would include the following:
Public Works – Complete public works agency that includes transportation functions. This include a capacity to
plan, design, manage construction, and maintain transportation improvements. This would be very similar to
what we currently see in cities, such as Charlottesville, or urban counties that manage secondary streets, such as
Henrico or Arlington. This would be a standalone department that provides a broad range of services. Typically,
this is one of the larger departments in a city or urban county.
Office of Transportation – This would be an agency that is staffed to plan, design, and manage construction of
transportation improvements that greatly supplement or replace VDOT in providing services. This would be very
similar to what we currently see in more urban counties such as Prince William or Chesterfield. This typically
functions as either a separate office or a small department.
Division of Transportation – The next rung down on this ladder is a transportation division capable of planning and
designing transportation projects that work closely to supplement services provided by VDOT. This would be
similar to what is seen in urbanizing localities such as Stafford. This step occurs when we evolve from simple
small projects into managing more complex projects over a broader range. This functions as either a separate
office or a small department.
Transportation Services - This is the first step in the local government recognizing VDOT does not have the
resources to provide an acceptable level of service and/or services are desired that are outside of VDOT’s mission
(e.g. mass transit). This is typically done by either broadening the mission of the Planning/ Community
Development department or the Public Works department for those counties that have already established this
function. We believe a logical first step in this effort would be to restore past functions provided by the
Community Development Department, with some modification as needed to meet the current Board’s expectations.
As the county becomes increasingly urbanized and the demand for services grows, this service can become a
separate division in the Community Development Department that reports to the director, then eventually become a
separate office or department that reports to the County Executive, as the County more closely functions as an
urban county.
(Continued on next page)
Services restored with Transportation Planner positions
The functions that can be supported by the single position includes the following:
Planning Development Review Implementation Community Relations
MPO/RTAC Support
- Includes network
modeling
Traffic studies / TIAs
associated with
legislative projects
Make CIP requests based on
County priorities
Includes project specs and
cost estimates
Contact for neighborhood
traffic issues
Comprehensive Plan/
Transportation Priorities
Multi-modal reviews
for readiness
County liaison with VDOT on
state construction projects
(location and design phase)
Contact for bike / pedestrian
/ other interest groups
Transit Planning – Coordinate
w/ CAT and JAUNT
Identify Funding sources
(grants, revenue sharing, etc)
SSYP, SYIP
Neighborhood traffic
programs (e.g. traffic calming,
cut-thru, enhanced fines)
Core Function
Secondary Function
Other Functions not included:
Lead on network modeling
Lead on traffic studies/TIAs
Lead on project specs and cost estimates/PE
County liaison with VDOT on state construction projects (construction phase)
Lead on grant writing
Neighborhood traffic programs – enhanced fines policing
Road plans review
Road bonds
Road inspections
Staff does not envision this position to have the time or capacity to deal with issues such as traffic modeling and impact
analysis associated with rezonings, road inspections, road bonds, or other development related issues. Additionally, this
assumes preliminary engineering and cost estimating will remain with OFD for now. If / when this program expands to a
need for additional services, it is likely it would include an engineer capable of providing these services in CDD. To assure
this position does not impact ongoing programs in Community Development, we believe it is necessary for this position to
be filled with someone who will not require extensive supervision and training. The successful candidates must have:
- a solid understanding of VDOT processes and MPO roles and responsibilities,
- strong technical writing skills and proven community engagement skills,
- technical skills to quickly and accurately review transportation network models,
- technical skills to review plans and specifications for accurate project delivery,
- technical skills to quickly and accurately evaluate available options to solve problems,
- proven track record of delivering projects on time and within budget, and
- must be a self-starter who only requires minimal training and guidance on County processes.
When we consider all of this, we believe the proper classification for this positions is either a Principal Planner or Senior
Engineer (both are Grade 18). We do not believe it matters whether the person was educated as a planner or as an
engineer, as long as they demonstrate the above skills. We recommend this be advertised as a Principal Planner with a
listing of the above skills being required.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee
– Public Engagement Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions
Advisory Committee’s public engagement plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Walker, Catlin, Graham, Reges
PRESENTER (S):
Leo Mallek, Committee Chair
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On April 2, 2014 the Board established the Albemarle County Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee.
The Committee’s charge included submitting for the Board’s consideration a public engagement plan to accompany its
work.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Citizen Engagement: Successfully engage citizens so that local government reflects their values and aspirations .
DISCUSSION:
The Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee has prepared a draft public engagement plan for the
Board’s consideration. This plan will guide all public involvement, engagement and interaction in support of the
Committee’s work.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No specific budget impact related to the public engagement plan has been identified. Work will be performed by
Committee members and County staff. A separate but related initiative to retain technical expertise to support the
work of the Committee will be forthcoming in the near future. That initiative, if approved by the Board, will have a
specific budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee’s public
engagement plan as presented or as modified by the Board.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Draft Public Engagement Plan
Return to agenda
1
Public Engagement Plan
Albemarle County Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee
Approved by the Committee October 21, 2014
STEP 1: Project Description:
The Albemarle County Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee is an advisory
committee formed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to study solid waste
management as a public policy issue and to identify best practices for the management of solid
waste in the County and how solid waste will be handled in the future including the possibility
of regional cooperation. The committee will recommend a thoughtful, deliberate, and
comprehensive process for developing solid waste policy for the County based on consensus,
cooperation, and economic analysis. This policy will include public engagement in determining
goals and strategies based on the best currently available data.
This public engagement plan is focused on ensuring an effective method for involving the
community in the development of a sustainable materials management policy. Once a policy is
adopted, a second phase of public engagement will involve education about implementing the
identified strategies.
Critical Issues:
The information available to the public contains certain contradictions and inconsistent
terminology which make clear dialogue and engagement more difficult.
Currently there is a lack of accurate information concerning the effectiveness of different
recycling and diversion methods. This has led many to believe that our area landfill diversion
rate is higher than it actually is.
Solid waste management is complex and often confusing from a resident’s point of view,
even without the complicated local waste and recycling history.
Consolidation of the waste industry here and around the country is reducing competition
and leaves fewer options for both waste hauling and disposal.
Currently there is a lack of choices among convenient locations for do-it-yourself trash
disposal and recycling. Facilities are hard to locate near neighborhoods.
Given the large amount of current confusion about what is actually recycled or diverted,
County staff and the advisory committee need a fresh approach to inform the public in a
deliberate, consistent, and effective manner without being divisive. This process will require
a strong spirit of transparency and engagement.
County staff and the advisory committee should address the perceived need as referenced in
the GBB report from 2008 for the community to achieve higher rates of recycling and
diversion.
STEP 2: Assess Level of Public Concern and Interest
Low – Level 2 on a scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high)
The level of public concern and interest could rise before the advisory committee completes its
charge. This public engagement plan will be adaptable and scalable to respond to a changing
level of concern and interest.
2
STEP 3: Identify Public Participation Goals
County staff and the advisory committee seek to involve multiple stakeholders and residents in
this process. The level of public participation may be considered to range on a spectrum. A level
three involvement, appears appropriate for this issue.
Inform Consult/Input Involve Collaborate Empower
1 2 3 4 5
a. County staff and advisory committee members seek to work directly with the public
throughout the process to ensure that issues, aspirations and concerns are consistently
understood and considered. This process should include elements of public
information, but also solicit two-way communication.
b. All stakeholders should be included in the process to ensure that their concerns,
aspirations, and issues are directly considered in the alternatives developed and that
they are allowed to provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.
c. This process will not be the last word in public participation related to sustainable
materials management in the County. To the extent that the committee will deliver not
a final policy but rather “recommend a thoughtful, deliberate, and comprehensive
process for developing solid waste policy,” further public participation will occur in that
process. Specific action items will also have public participation components. This plan,
then, is focused on understanding the values of diverse stakeholders.
Part 1 (pre-implementation of solutions/practices)
Survey the public to inform ongoing engagement activities
Provide the public with accurate information about current practices vs best practices in
solid waste management
Engage the public in the process of long range planning
Provide transparency in making solid waste management decisions
Gather and disseminate community input to ultimate decision-makers (Board of
Supervisors) for their consideration
Keep public and stakeholders informed about any changes throughout the process
Part 2 (post-implementation of solutions/practices)
Provide timely and accurate information to residents about changes to solid waste
management.
Engage residents in raising awareness about the importance (the why) but also the
practical logistics (the how) of getting household waste to the proper processing facility
and where their waste ends up
STEP 4: Identify Stakeholders
Albemarle County HOAs
Albemarle County residents in urban ring
Albemarle County residents in the rural area
Regional entities like: RSWA, TJPDC, City of Charlottesville, and UVA
Private Haulers and Transfer Stations
Environmental Groups
Local industry
Large- and small-scale employers
3
Local Chamber of Commerce
Others to be determined
STEP 5: Select Tools:
Open House
Stakeholder Roundtables
Stakeholder Focus Groups
Social Media forums and quick polls (MindMixer, Facebook)
Tools/ Activities (Public Activities will include)
Information on website. The Long-Range Solid Waste site should be enhanced in style.
There is no additional cost for this. The site should have a map and photos of facilities,
an FAQ page, a calendar, and links to partners.
Glossary of terms for use online and at public events.
Notice when public meetings are occurring, through County website
Public hearing at relevant Planning Commission meetings
Roundtable discussions with stakeholders, facilitated by staff and advisory committee
members. These can replace certain regular committee meetings or be held in addition
to them, perhaps during evening hours at locations out in the community.
Survey of HOA contract managers.
Additional focus groups with smaller numbers of stakeholders, facilitated by staff and
advisory committee members. These can provide a more detailed understanding of
values and perspectives.
Press releases to local media
Advisory committee attendance and presentations at community events such as
neighborhood meetings, HOA meetings, festivals, and others to be determined.
Use of a “branding” program for identifying the new focus on “Sustainable Materials
Management”. This may include the use of a new logo or adoption of a pre -existing
program from some other jurisdiction.
Social media outreach
o Twitter engagement from County and from committee members
o Facebook engagement from County and from committee members
o Cville Tomorrow edits and information from County and from committee
members, on wikis related to the committee’s topics
o “Engage Albemarle” discussion topics on the County website
Our overall goal is to strengthen public trust, to involve citizens and stakeholders in a
meaningful dialogue, and to benefit the entire community through development of a successful
long term sustainable materials management policy.
STEP 6: Create a Schedule
October 2014: publicity of topic
October 23, 2014: pilot community meeting at Yancey
October 14: Planning Commission discussion for public hearing in December
November 5: Deliver Public Engagement Plan to Board of Supervisors
November: preliminary public information using web and social media tools
4
December: 1st Stakeholder Roundtable meeting
December: Open House held
December: Planning Commission public hearing
January: 2nd Stakeholder Roundtable meeting
Q1 2015: focus groups and increased social media outreach
Q2 2015: finalize recommendations, public comment period for draft
July-August: Deliver complete report to Board of Supervisor s (final public comment)
STEP 7: Roles and Responsibilities
Staff: Staff will work with the advisory committee and the community to prepare a
recommended policy approach to present to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration,
ensure the effectiveness of the public participation process, provide review and
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors in accordance with established county policies
and plans, and keep community informed about progress of the plan through the legal review
process.
Committee: The Advisory Committee will work directly with County staff and the
community to ident ify, research and evaluate options, provide leadership for the public
engagement process and develop recommendation s a comprehensive solid waste
management policy based on sustainable materials management for consideration by the
Board of Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors has the final decision making authority for
approving the long term solid waste and sustainable materials management policy direction.
STEP 8: Gather and Disseminate Input and Results (Feedback loop)
Dissemination of public input to decision-makers and back to public
A-Mail topic as email list. Staff sends, advisory committee can help with content.
A website kept up-to-date by staff
Collect all comments and make available on public website and to committee and
decision-makers
Public meeting/roundtables posted
Press releases and other materials will be sent out as appropriate to keep the
community informed about the progress
STEP 9: Evaluate Effectiveness
End goal: The charge of the advisory committee is successfully completed, with the community
aware of process, feeling heard and valued, given multiple opportunities for engagement, part
of a feedback loop. The process helped Albemarle County to develop an improved and durable
solid waste policy based on Sustainable Materials Management .
Formal and informal feedback from stakeholders.
Survey of citizens participating. Email should be logged as much as possible through the
participation process. A simple SurveyMonkey poll can be sent at the end of the process.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation of funds received from VDOT for the
condemnation of a portion of CATEC Property used for
the Meadowcreek Parkway
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of appropriation of funds received from VDOT
for CATEC Property Condemnation
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Allshouse, L
PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) and Charlottesville City Public Schools (CCPS) have each received a check
in the amount of $144,700.00 from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) as part of the compensation for
the condemnation of 2.75 acres of the 15 acre Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) property.
The 2.75 acres was required for the Meadowcreek Parkway. The CATEC property is jointly owned by the County and
the City School Boards. These funds are required to be placed in the localities’ General Funds and the County funds
can be appropriated at the Board’s discretion. This payment represents the balance due from the total settlement of
$621,250 paid by VDOT for the condemnation. ACPS and CCPS had each received $167,312.71 in October, 2010,
while the matter was pending in the Circuit Court. The Board previously appropriated those County funds to the School
Board to be used for CATEC site projects outside of the CIP priority process.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This agenda item supports the Board’s goal to promote lifelong learning opportunities for all our citizens. This funding
could also potentially support the Board’s goal to prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to
past and future changes to improve the capacity to serve community needs.
DISCUSSION:
The funds received by ACPS are General Revenue funds. If the Board supports using these funds for CATEC
purposes, the funds could be provided to CATEC for its needs as determined by the CATEC Board. Alternatively, the
funds could be held in a County special reserve account in the Capital Improvements Fund for future use by CATEC.
Both ACPS and CCPS have agreed to recommend to their Board and Council the appropriation of these
condemnation funds to CATEC in support of their needs as determined by the CATEC Board.
Given the source and the one-time nature of these funds, prudent fiscal practices would suggest that these funds be
allocated and used for a capital project or capital maintenance that would not require ongoing funding for which there
is no indentified funding source. Use of one-time funds for one-time purposes is consistent with the County’s
published financial policies and goals.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no impact on the current County budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on previous Board discussion, staff recommends that the Board approve Appropriation #2015057 (Attachment
A) to appropriate the $144,700.00 received from VDOT as compensation for the taking of a portion of the CATEC
property to a County special reserve account in the CIP for a future CATEC capital request. Specifically, the Board
has previously discussed the possible use of these funds to support a joint CATEC/PVCC project.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Appropriation
Return to agenda
1
Appropriation #2015057 $144,700.00
Source: Sale of Land $ 144,700.00
This request is to appropriate $144,700.00 received from VDOT as compensation for the taking of a portion of the
CATEC property to a special reserve account in the CIP for a one-time CATEC capital or capital maintenance project
as determined by the joint CATEC Board.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Broadband November Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Worksession regarding Internet Broadband Access for
underserved areas of Albemarle County
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Catlin, Fritz and Culp
PRESENTER(S): Bill Letteri, Mike Culp, Vincent
Scheivert
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the Board’s most recent work session on broadband coverage held on September 3, 2014, the Board reviewed the
final report of the Broadband Task Force and discussed continued efforts to improve broadband coverage in the County.
As a result of that discussion, the Board directed staff to provide details of the known unserved areas, present updates
on funding options, provide an update on the Albemarle County Public Schools (“ACPS”) networking projects, and
provide recommendations for Board consideration.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and
improves the capacity to serve community needs.
Educational Opportunities: Provide lifelong learning opportunities for all our citizens.
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
DISCUSSION:
Since September, staff has continued to explore possible solutions and funding sources to advance the Board’s
objective to expand broadband in Albemarle County. To date, work has included the Broadband Task Force efforts;
engagement with the Center for Innovative Technologies (CIT), the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(TJPDC), UVA, and potential regional partners; research on various grant and funding opportunities; mapping studies to
determine the extent of existing coverage; and an assessment of vertical assets and County-owned real estate that may
be employed. In separate, but related efforts, staff has been developing proposed changes to the wireless
telecommunications regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and ACPS staff is working on two networking projects for
connecting schools and students.
The provision of “broadband” in the context of Albemarle County is multifaceted, multimodel, and requires a set of
solutions rather than a single approach. Broadband is available in Albemarle County through several means: Wireless
through fixed wireless technology and mobile wireless technology (4G/4G LTE) and wireline through fiber optic cable,
coaxial cable, and copper cable (DSL).
Broadband deployment to rural areas is complex because of the County’s large geographic area and low population
densities in some areas. These factors create unique physical challenges and economic barriers for service providers.
Staff has acquired updated information on coverage areas. Strategies to further deploy fiber, DSL, mobile wireless and
fixed wireless may include the use of existing assets and regional partnerships, possible collaboration with schools to
leverage opportunities related to their investment in the fiber network, and leveraging grant funds. Staff will provide an
overview of coverage and “blind spots” throughout the County, as well as a series of possible solutions to help address
some of these underserved areas at the November 5th meeting for the Board’s consideration. Representatives of
Albemarle County Public Schools will also present objectives and opportunities associated with their fiber network
project, including extension of fixed wireless networks and opportunities to collaborate with public safety. Attachment A
outlines the agenda for staff’s November 5th presentation to the Board, Attachment B summarizes the options to be
presented and their related budget impacts, Attachment C is a coverage map, and Attachment D is an overview of the
ACPS Network initiative.
AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Broadband November Update
November 5, 2014
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budgetary impact will depend upon the nature and extent of County involvement based on Board direction.
Immediate steps involving regional/provider discussions and the pursuit of grant opportunities can be accomplished with
the use of existing staff time. The “planning grant” through DHCD, if successful, would require a $25,000 County match.
Consultant costs to develop a “Broadband Deployment and Funding Strategy”, based on estimates provided by DHCD,
are estimated at $50,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to proceed with recommendations outlined in Attachment B, to include:
1) Continuation of previously discussed efforts (review of regulatory barriers, grant opportunties, regional
discussions that involve the TJPDC and CIT, partnerships with public safety and schools);
2) Provide funding for the completion of a grant application for the Community Connectivity Planning Grant through
the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development;
3) Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals to develop a “Broadband Deployment and Funding Strategy”.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – November 5th Presentation Agenda
B – Summary of Recommendations
C – FCC Percent Coverage Map
D – ACPS Network Overview
Return to agenda
Broadband Update
November 5, 2014
Agenda
•Introduction
•Maps
–FCC Census Block Updates
•Analysis of Regional Efforts around the State and Country
–Regional Workshops
•CSPDC
•TJPDC
•Exploration of Partnership Opportunities
–Grant Funding Discussion (DHCD, FCC CAF 2 (Broadband Experiments))
–School Projects Updates
•Ethernet (fiber) project
•Student Wireless
•Recommendations Discussion
Discussion of Recommendations
•Understanding the Issue
–Is Broadband an essential service for all
Albemarle County Residents
•Focus Future Efforts
–Identifying Number of Citizens to Serve
•Rural Residents (Y/N)
•Rural Business (Y/N)
•All of the above
•All County
–Identifying Speed of Service to Provide
•FCC Standard (Y/N)
•Something Faster (Y/N)
•How much Faster?
–Identifying Investment for Service
•County Funding (Y/N)
–Federal and State Grants require match
•Public Private Funding (Y/N)
•Private Sector (Y/N)
•All of the Above
Summary of Recommendations
•Continuation of ongoing efforts
•Grant Funding for the Community
Connectivity Planning Grant through the
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development
•Request for Proposals to develop a
“Broadband Deployment and Funding
Strategy.”
Broadband Task Force Report Nov. 5, 2014
Attachment B – Summary of Decision Points and Recommendations
Staff will present Broadband findings and recommendations during the Nov. 5, 2014 Board meeting.
This document outlines strategic recommendations for the Board’s consideration and approval.
1. Staff recommends continuation of the County’s efforts to facilitate Broadband deployment, to
include the following action items:
a. Removing regulatory barriers where possible and appropriate
b. Working with all available grant and funding opportunities
c. Pursuing private/public partnerships
d. Assisting citizens in acquiring service where possible and appropriate
e. Working with public safety and schools to pursue partnerships
f. Working with TJPDC, other communities, and state agencies on a regional approach
g. Participating in broadband educational opportunities such as the upcoming broadband
roundtable hosted by TJPDC.
These recommendations do not incur costs other than staff time.
2. Staff recommends funding the completion of a grant application for the Community Connectivity
Planning Grant through the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD).
a. First, staff recommends the submittal of the “planning grant” application by the County.
DHCD recommends that applicants provide a $25,000 match for a $25,000 grant. The
purpose of the planning grant is to assist funding the procurement of a consultant to
develop an approved Community Connectivity Plan. DHCD accepts and processes
applications until the funding for the planning grants is exhausted. Staff will research the
benefit of applying, the method of applying, and present a strategy and request for
appropriation at a future meeting.
b. Because DHCD accepts grants from localities and regions, staff also recommends
continuing work with TJPDC to determine a strategy to participate in a regional submittal
for planning grant funds.
3. Staff recommends that a Broadband Deployment and Funding Strategy Plan be developed. This
effort will further document the unserved and underserved areas through a survey of individual
residences, a detailed review of cell coverage areas through a professional service, and other
technical activities. Further, the effort will include a set of solutions to serve unserved and
underserved areas including costs (one-time and ongoing). The plan will provide a variety of
solutions with recommendations based on past experience and future needs. The plan will also
assess whether a Wireless/Broadband Service Authority and Public-Private Partnerships should
be pursued. It will further document the steps and up-front costs necessary to form an authority
and/or create one or more public-private partnerships focused on addressing the unmet
Broadband needs, as well as plan for the future. The study will include all potential costs, the
likelihood of return on investment, a comparison of creating an authority versus building public
private partnerships, recommendations, and steps to take to go in one or both directions.
Developing such a plan will require obtaining the services of a consultant. The cost of the plan
will be determined and staff will prepare a request for appropriation to be presented at a future
meeting.
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(}ÿ53
I RISHRD
IVY RD
SCOTTSVILLERDMONACANTRAIL RDSTONYPOINTRDRICHMONDRD GORDONSVILLERDROCKFI SH G A P T P K E
¡810
}ÿ20
}ÿ6 }ÿ22
}ÿ20
£¤29
£¤29
§¨¦64
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ServicesMap created by Elise Hackett, September 2014.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic r epresentations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
0 2 41Miles
±
Charlottesville
Portions of the County Eligible for Funding
City of
Self-Reported:No or Poor Coverage
RoadsAddresses!(
Portions of the County Eligible for Funding
High Level ACPS Networking Overview
GOAL: The school division’s goal from the beginning is to reduce the overall operational costs associated
with network connectivity while continuing to meet the ever-growing demand for network bandwidth.
A network is any place where two or more computers are connected either through a wired or wireless
connection. The largest network today is the internet, which allows nearly all connected computers to
share and exchange information. This type of network connectivity occurs by three primary means.
1. Hardwire (Local Area Network and/or Wide Area Network)
2. Wi-Fi (Wireless Local Area Network)
3. Cellular (Wireless Wide Area Network) Albemarle County Internet Connectivity
Today, connection to the internet is similar to the rural electrification initiative in the 1930s. Access to
electricity became a need for all homes and businesses in America, and a project was launched to build
out the infrastructure. In order to obtain needed goods and services and to access real-time
information, every home and business in America needs to be connected to the internet. There are
gaps in coverage in Albemarle County due to its size, lack of population density, and geography.
The Albemarle County Public Schools’ fiber hardwire network to each of its schools provides an
infrastructure that could be utilized if cellular service vendors can locate towers on or immediately
proximate to schools. It is possible that school sites are in locations that could contribute to filling in
service area gaps in Albemarle County. Hardwire (LAN and WAN)
Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) uses hardwire to connect between its various locations and
schools. The current hardwire capacity is insufficient to meet the needs of the school system as the
number of supported systems, the volume of information transferred, and the types of information
being transferred (i.e. video, audio, data) are all exceeding the capacity of the hardwired system. The
major internal business systems being supported by the network include:
• Student Information System
• Transportation Information System
• Various Work Order System
• Financial/Budgetary System
• Email System
• Internet Access
• File Sharing
• Video Streaming Services
• Learning Management System
• Assessment Management System
• Online State Assessments
While supporting the business functions are important, the primary goal of the network is to foster a
learning environment capable of supporting access to digital resources and learning opportunities for
students and staff. Over the past three years, the number of devices on the network has grown from
roughly 3,000 computers to more than 10,000 computers.
Past trends have shown that as the division has grown in population and use, we have seen demand of
network resources increase. The growth in demands on the network occurs in regular intervals. In
anticipation of the next growth increment, ACPS approached the provider of the hardwired system to
determine the cost of upgrading. The 2011 estimate provided was that our annual charges would
increase from about $200,000 to $1.2 million.
Based on this estimate, ACPS began exploring a more financially stable model for increasing network
capacity. It was quickly determined that a high capacity fiber optic network could be built over a multi-
year time period for slightly more than $4.2 million and that this network, once completed, would have
NO recurring costs. This cost comparison was compelling and indicated ACPS should build its own
network, as the payback on the investment was less than 4 years.
This upgraded, high-capacity network will ensure that ACPS is able to support its own internal business
and instructional systems for the next 30 to 50 years without incurring additional expenses to support
the growth. Wi-Fi (Wireless Local Area Network)
The wireless local Area network (Wi-Fi) provides the capability of connecting users (students, staff, and
administrators) inside our schools to the hardwired system without requiring that devices be physically
connected. This allows staff and students to continue to be able to access all network-based resources
as they move within the school(s) and all other ACPS locations.
Wi-Fi has a limited range, so it does not provide the capacity to allow staff to connect when they are not
inside or immediately proximate to ACPS buildings. Fiber Project Progress to Date
Current School Sites connected:
1. Western Albemarle HS, Henley MS, and Brownsville ES are connected via fiber into a single
campus. Fiber has also been installed from BES to Miller School Road and conduit has been
placed beneath the Crozet Cityscape project.
2. Monticello HS and Cale ES are fiber connected.
3. Albemarle HS, Jouett MS, Greer ES, Agnor-Hurt ES, Woodbrook ES, Building Service Building, and
the Transportation building are fiber connected. Fiber also has been run nearly the entire
distance up 29N to Forest Lake. Sutherland MS and Hollymead ES are fiber connected. The
connection to Baker Butler is on hold until the 29 widening project is resolved.
Blue - completed, Green - 2015, Red - be scheduled, Pink – Alternates, Yellow – local Gov.
only LTE Cellular (Wireless Wide Area Network)
The division is in the early stages of building out a private cellular network utilizing wireless spectrum
provided by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This project is being conducted in a public-
to-public partnership between the school division and Public Safety. The school division’s primary
objective is to provide a continuous digital learning environment for our students and eliminate the
current opportunity gaps due to the digital divide in the county. The division currently only utilizes
commercial cellular networks (AT&T and Verizon) to allow telephone and data capabilities for
administrators.
Commercial or private cellular service requires the creation of a system to provide coverage for
geographic areas. Placing antennae on towers or other structures provides a means to broadcast
cellular signals to surrounding areas. The size of the covered area depends on the strength of the signal
being transmitted, the topography, and man-made features proximate to each tower. Tall buildings and
mountains obviously block the signal and create signal shadows. Cellular Antennae and base stations
must be connected to the network infrastructure. Typically, this connection is hardwired, but for
remotely located cellular installation, it is possible to connect through a line-of-sight transmission.
The school division is utilizing a series of Macro and Micro cell sites to provide coverage. In the spring of
2015, we will conduct a large-scale pilot, deploying both fixed and mobile solutions utilizing various
macro and micro cell technologies. The results of the pilot will be used to finalize deployment needs to
provide coverage for the entire county.
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: October 23, 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
October 23, 2014.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Architectural Review Board, Fire Prevention Board of
Appeals, Local Building Code Appeals Boards, Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee and Water
Resources Funding Advisory Committee.
Listed below are the names of individuals who wish to be appointed the respective committees:
Architectural Review Board: Reappointments
Charles Lebo
Marcia Joseph
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals: Reappointment
Doug Lowe
Local Board of Building Code Appeals: Reappointment
Doug Lowe
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee: Appointment
Mark Hahn
Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee: Appointment
Paul Haney
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
Architectural Review Board Charles Lebo 11/14/2014 11/14/2018 Yes
Architectural Review Board Marcia Joseph 11/14/2014 11/14/2018 Yes
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals/Local Board of Building Code AppealsDoug Lowe 11/21/2014 11/21/2019 Yes
Historic Preservation Committee Amy Durbin 6/4/2015 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
JAUNT Board Clifford Buys 9/30/2014 9/30/2017 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Joint Airport Commission Rit Venerus Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Joint Airport Commission Following application received:
Aaron Hark
Local Board of Building Code Appeals/Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Doug Lowe 11/21/2014 11/21/2019 Yes
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Adv Comm VACANT 11/30/2015 Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Following application received:
Mark Hahn
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No 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
Pantops Community Advisory Council Rita Krenz 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Amy Preddy 6/30/2014 Resigned
Places 29 Community Advisory Council George Larie 1/31/2016 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Following application received:
David Slutzky
Revised 10/23/2014
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Five Year Financial Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work Session on the Five Year Financial Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Beginning in 2008, the County has annually approved a balanced Five-Year Financial Plan for the County. This
process is not designed to be an approval of the next fiscal year’s operating budget, but both clarifies the most
important longer term priorities of the Board and helps create a framework within which the next fiscal year’s budget
development will take place. The first work session to discuss the County’s FY16 – FY20 Five-Year Financial Plan is
scheduled for November 5, 2014. A Board/School Board joint work session is scheduled for November 12, 2014 for
the School Board to present the School Division’s information related to the Five-Year Financial Plan. Additional Five-
Year Financial Plan Board work sessions are scheduled for December 3 and December 10, 2014. The purpose of
these work sessions is for the Board to provide direction on future funding priorities considering the financial
projections over the next five years.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
At the November 5th work session, staff will present information on revenues and expenditure assumptions and will
present scenarios for the Board’s review and discussion.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The five-year financial planning process provides guidance on future fiscal year planning and the priorities of the Board
and provides a framework for the annual budget process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide direction to staff during the work sessions regarding what changes, if any, it
determines should be made to the proposed Five-Year Financial Plan. Adoption of a final Plan will be requested at a
future work session.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed Deferred Compensation Ordinance Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance
to amend County Code § 2-1108, Establishment, execu-
tion and amendment of plan. The ordinance removes the
provision that designates the National Association of
County’s Deferred Compensation Program as the
County’s deferred compensation program.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Gerome, Burrell, Davis, and Herrick
PRESENTER (S): Bill Letteri
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
As a benefit to employees, the County offers a voluntary Deferred Compensation Program by which employees can
contribute portions of their earnings into 457(b) retirement savings account s. Unlike the mandatory Virginia Retirement
System (VRS) defined benefit program , to which both the County and the employee are required to contribute, the
Deferred Compensation Program is funded solely by employees’ voluntary pre-tax contributions. The 457(b) retirement
savings accounts held by County employees are similar to 401(k) accounts available to private sector employees.
The County first established a Deferred Compensation Program in 1983, and by ordinance, adopted the National
Association of Counties (NACo) Deferred Compensation Program. The 1983 ordinance also created a deferred
compensation committee appointed by the county executive. The ordinance granted the committee the power to do all
things by way of supervision, administration and implementation of a plan of deferred compensation.
DISCUSSION:
When the County’s Deferred Compensation program was first established in 1983, deferred compensation programs
were in their infancy. At that time, it made sense for the County to pool its resources with other localities in offering th is
benefit. However, over time, the County’s Deferred Compensation Program has grown to over $26 million in employee
retirement contributions and earnings. Many more options now exist to serve these growing savings, possibly with
lower fees and expenses. Very few Virginia localities of Albemarle’s size still use the NACo Deferred Compensation
Program. While many smaller localities still do, most larger localities have moved on to high quality programs with
lower expenses that allow employees to keep more of their retirement savings.
The County’s Deferred Compensation provider is specifically designated in County Code § 2-1108 as the NACo
Deferred Compensation Program and can be changed only by amending this 1983 ordinance. Regardless of whether
the County ultimately chooses to remain with NACo’s Program, the Deferred Compensation Committee believes that
opening the County’s Program to competition from other investment providers would have a positive effect on Program
costs, again allowing County employees to keep more of their retirement savings.
The proposed ordinance would re-adopt and re-establish the County’s plan of deferred compensation for its employees
and would remove the exclusive designation of the National Association of Counties Deferred Compensation Program
from County Code § 2-1108, and allow the County to consider other investment providers , either in addition to or
instead of the existing NACo program. The rest of the County Code provisions regarding deferred compensation
would remain the same.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Because the County’s Deferred Compensation Program is funded by voluntary employee contributions, no impact
is expected on the County’s budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinance (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Proposed Ordinance
Return to agenda
Draft: October 14, 2014
ORDINANCE NO. 14-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE XI,
PERSONNEL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2,
Administration, Article XI, Personnel, Division 3, Deferred Compensation, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-1108, Establishment,
Execution and Amendment of Plan, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE XI. PERSONNEL
DIVISION 3. DEFERRED COMPENSATION
Sec. 2-1108 Establishment, execution and amendment of plan.
Pursuant to the Government Employees Deferred Compensation Act (Virginia Code §§ 51-
111.67:14 et seq. §§ 51.1-600 et seq.), the county hereby re-adopts and re-establishes a plan of deferred
compensation for its employees and, to that end, hereby adopts the National Association of Counties
Deferred Compensation Program. The purpose of the plan shall be to provide for the deferral of
compensation to the participants. The plan shall exist in addition to all other retirement, pension or other
benefit systems available to the participants and shall not supersede, make inoperative or reduce any
benefits provided by any other retirement, pension or benefit program established by law. It is understood
that, other than the incidental expenses of collecting and disbursing of the employees' deferrals and other
minor administrative matters, there is to be no cost or contribution by the county to the program. On
behalf of the employer, the county executive is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the
plan to the plan administrator. He is further hereby authorized to execute for the county individual
participation agreements with each employee requesting the same, to act as the "administrator" of the plan
representing the county and to execute such agreements and contracts as are necessary to implement the
program. The plan shall contain such terms and amendments as the county executive may, from time to
time, approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by his execution thereof.
(9-14-83, art. I, § 1; 5-13-87; Ord. 1988, § 15-6; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
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:
Ordinance Re-adopting and Modifying U.S. Route 29
and Hydraulic Road Intersection Official Map
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on an ordinance to re-adopt and modify
the official map required as part of Proffer 10 for ZMA
2001-07 (Albemarle Place/Stonefield)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Benish
PRESENTER (S): Kamptner
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
An "official map" is a map showing the location of legally established and future or proposed streets, alleys, walkways,
waterways, and public areas. The official map identifies the limits of lands that a locality may acquire for these public
purposes and allows the locality time to acquire those lands when a building permit application is pending within the
limits of the lands shown on the map as a future or proposed right-of-way.
Proffer 10 of the Albemarle Place (now Stonefield) rezoning required the owner to reserve and ultimately dedicate
additional lands needed for the U.S. Route 29/Hydraulic Road intersection improvements. The proffer required the
owner to reserve the right-of-way area until an official map or transportation improvement plan was adopted by the
County that identified the specific land required for right-of-way for the intersection improvements. Thus, the official
map in this case serves to identify the specific land that the owner of Stonefield will dedicate to the County for right -of-
way for the U.S. Route 29/Hydraulic Road intersection improvements.
The official map for the U.S. Route 29/Hydraulic Road intersection was originally adopted by the Board on December
2, 2009. By statute, an official map must be re-adopted every 5 years. The Planning Commission considered the
official map’s re-adoption on October 14, 2014 and recommended that the official map be re-adopted. The proposed
ordinance and official map are included as Attachments A and B.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development
areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting
the quality of neighborhoods.
DISCUSSION:
Since the original official map was adopted by the Board on December 2, 2009, Stonefield has dedicated much of the
right-of-way shown on the original official map. In addition, the parcel configurations within Stonefield have changed.
The revised official map modifies the original map by removing the “future” rights -of-way already dedicated to public
use by the owner and identifies the new tax map and parcel numbers of the lands abutting and on the mapped rights-
of-way. The remaining future rights-of-way still to be dedicated are shown on the official map as two parcels – Parcel
1 (793 square feet) and Parcel 2 (1,095 square feet).
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact from the re-adoption of the official map and the ordinance. However, the dedication of land
resulting from this official map will be in lieu of expending funds to purchase the right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A), which by
reference re-adopts the official map as modified (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Ordinance, dated September 26, 2014
B – Official Map, last revised September 23, 2014
PC Minutes: October 14, and September 16, 2014
Return to agenda
Draft: 09/26/14
1
ORDINANCE NO. 14-A( )
AN ORDINANCE TO RE-ADOPT AND MODIFY AN OFFICIAL MAP PURSUANT TO
VIRGINIA CODE § 15.2-2233 ET SEQ. FOR A SEGMENT OF U.S. ROUTE 29 ABUTTING
COUNTY TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBERS 61W-03-19A and 61W-03-25, AND A
SEGMENT OF HYDRAULIC ROAD ABUTTING COUNTY TAX MAP AND PARCEL
NUMBERS 61W-03-19A and 61W-03-25
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that,
pursuant to the authority in Virginia Code § 15.2-2233 et seq., the attached map entitled “Plat
Showing Parcels One and Two Being Future Right of Way for a Single Point Urban Interchange
Across TMP 61W-03-19A and TMP 61W-03-25 as Shown Hereon, Jack Jouett Magisterial
District, Albemarle Co., Virginia,” last revised September 23, 2014, prepared by Kirk Hughes &
Associates, Land Surveyors & Planners, which depicts, within the vicinity of the northwest
quadrant of the U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road intersection, the respective locations,
centerlines, existing right-of-way widths, and future right-of-way widths of the legally
established segment of U.S. Route 29 abutting County Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 61W-03-
19A and 61W-03-25, and the legally established segment of Hydraulic Road abutting County
Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 61W-03-19A and 61W-03-25, originally adopted on December 2,
2009, is hereby re-adopted and modified as an official map. The existing and future right-of-way
widths would be the same as adopted on December 2, 2009, except as modified to remove as “future”
rights-of-way those lands dedicated to public use and improvements constructed since December 2, 2009,
and to identify the new tax map and parcel numbers of the parcels abutting and on the mapped
rights-of-way.
This ordinance shall be effective immediately.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 14, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001- Hydraulic Road Official Map
Submit to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 14, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
October 14, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair;
Thomas Loach, Bruce Dotson, and Tim Keller. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Mark Graham, Director of Community
Development and Andy Herrick, Senior Assistant Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Deferred Items
CPA-2014-00001 Route 29 – Hydraulic Road Official Map
Ordinance Re-Adopting and Modifying U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road Official Map – Ordinance to re-
adopt and modify an official map originally adopted December 2, 2009 under Virginia Code § 15.2 -2233
et seq., depicting, within the vicinity of the northwest quadrant of the U.S. Route 29 an d Hydraulic Road
intersection, the location, centerlines, and existing and future right -of-way widths of the legally established
segments of U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road abutting and on County Tax Map and Parcel Numbers
61W -03-19A and 61W -03-25. The ordinance and map would be amended to identify the current tax map
and parcel numbers, but the location, centerlines, and existing and future right -of-way widths would be
the same as adopted on December 2, 2009, except as modified to remove rights -of-way dedicated to
public use and improvements constructed since December 2, 2009. A copy of the full text of the proposed
ordinance and the official map are on file in the office of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and in the
Department of Community Developm ent, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. (Andy Herrick/Jack Kelsey) DEFERRED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Morris noted CPA-2014-00001 Route 29 – Hydraulic Road Official Map was deferred from the
September 16, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting.
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Andy Herrick, Senior Assistant Attorney said he was filling in for Greg Kamptner. He has been asked
to speak about this official map for the Stonefield intersection. As they have seen from looking through
the executive summary this case is driven out of the proffers for the Stonefield Development. The
purpose of the official map is basically to reserve proposed rights -of-way or future rights-of-way for
localities. In this case it was part of the proffers for Stonefield that was originally made in December,
2009. There have been a number of improvements made to the Route 29 Hydraulic intersection and
additional revisions made to the official map since this Commission and the B oard of Supervisors last
reviewed it in December, 2009. It is a statutory requirement that the official map be reviewed, revised
and readopted once every five years. They are now reaching the end of that five year window. Again, as
he had indicated some revisions have been made to the map to reflect the right-of-way that has already
been dedicated as well as some of the changed lot lines. Otherwise, the official map here is largely the
same as when it was last reviewed and approved in December of 2009. The process from this point is
the Commission would review and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors who would then
have the final ability to adopt it by ordinance. Therefore, staff suggests readoption of the official map as
amended and the Planning Commission recommend it for approval by the Board of Supervisors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 14, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001- Hydraulic Road Official Map
Submit to BOS
2
Mr. Morris invited questions staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it would be prudent now to rename it instead of Albemarle Place which is on the map.
Mr. Herrick replied that would be reflecting the owner of that parcel, Albemarle Place, EAAP LLC. This
plat is just reflecting, again, legal ownership rather than the name of the development.
Mr. Randolph asked how the change on the map would affect pedestrian safety in crossing over 29.
Mr. Herrick replied that he was not sure that is really addressed in here. He is told this does have the
capacity for the proposed interchange at Hydraulic or any sort of interchange that could be proposed at
Hydraulic. This was made with those designs in mind. He was not sure he could really address
pedestrian impacts specifically.
Mr. Randolph asked with these changes also is there any impact in terms of storm water management on
site.
Mr. Herrick replied again, he thinks this is more dealing with public rights-of-way than storm water
management.
Mr. Cilimberg said when the official map was originally adopted there was a conceptual plan that our staff
with VDOT staff agreed could be built in the location covered by the official map as an interchang e. The
interchange itself is not part of the official map, but making sure the right -of-way existed for any
improvements including an interchange was the subject of the official map. Of course, now they know
with the 29 Solutions there will be a restudy of this intersection for the potential of an interchange that
may be like that proposed for Rio Road or something else. The official map is providing for the land area
necessary for the improvements such as that might follow in many years. They don’t expe ct that to be
imminent at this point because there is no funding for the actual construction. However, there is funding
for planning a work study of that for an interchange. Of course, with that study will be the discussion and
consideration of things like pedestrian crossing.
Mr. Dotson said he had no problem with the proposal, but it is its novelty. It appears in the time he has
been on the Commission he did not remember seeing an official map before. He was wondering if this is
a new procedure.
Mr. Herrick said he was glad he asked that question because it is not one that comes up very often.
However, before tonight’s meeting he went back and actually found the minutes and the agenda item and
so forth from when the Commission considered the last map in 2009. He was not sure of any
consideration that has occurred subsequently to that.
Mr. Dotson said it was not necessary to have an official map, which he assumes has a certain amount of
engineering study that goes into it before these fairly precis e lines are drawn. It is not necessary to have
an official map in order to receive dedications of right-of-way.
Mr. Herrick replied that is correct, it is not necessary. The main purpose of the official map is essentially
for a locality to reserve certain areas as public rights-of-way. For example, if a building permit were to
come up that proposed a new building within an area marked on the official map as a proposed right -of-
way, the locality would have basically the first opportunity to come in and ac quire the land. The main
purpose behind the official map is to set up what the current and future proposed rights -of-ways are and
to give a locality essentially a right-of-way first claim on those areas.
Mr. Dotson said just to think about it a little bit he guessed the example of the question that occurred to
him is in Crozet, which he would call the Eastern Avenue that connects 240 and 250. Do they have an
official map there and do they need one. Again, he was just trying to understand how official maps work.
Mr. Cilimberg replied they have the comprehensive plan designation of the general area. There would
need to be an actual completion of alignment studies to determine exact locations. They also have had
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 14, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001- Hydraulic Road Official Map
Submit to BOS
3
some reservations in a couple of projects f or part of that road to be built. Upon demand of the county
they can get the land to build, but they have not actually had through our Office of Facilities Development
an actual plan for the alignment of that road or some of the other roads that could bec ome an official map
if they went through an alignment study. The comparison here is that they did have an interchange study
at this location to determine the land needed.
Mr. Dotson said in the Crozet example they obviously don’t need to have an official map in order to
reserve lands as part of a rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out even in plats they have gotten some land that has been set aside for us.
Mr. Keller noted as a follow up to try to understand the bigger picture for the future he had a quest ion. If
in the wisdom of a prior Planning Commission there had been interest in having a parallel road to 29
North from 250 By Pass to the Rivanna River, and if that had been put in the comprehensive plan, could
there have been a reservation of a right-of-way for those parallel access roads to businesses on either
side before they developed.
Mr. Herrick replied there could be an official map along those lines. However, that would not automatically
guarantee the locality the right to acquire those properties. It would affect the processing of building
permits for any building that would come up within the space designated as proposed rights -of-way. That
would pretty much be the extent of the legal effect on that. It does not take away from the property ri ghts
of the owners there because the county would have to compensate the owners for any property acquired.
Mr. Keller said it could have been an encouragement for a further setback of the buildings that were built.
Mr. Herrick replied it would be one wa y for the county to acquire property, again, fairly compensating the
owners for their property.
Ms. Monteith asked who prepared this map and was it the county.
Mr. Herrick replied he did not believe so. Again, this was in conjunction with the proffers t hat were made
for Stonefield. So he was assuming it was the Stonefield surveyor.
Mr. Keller said as a relatively new person to the Planning Commission does that mean when they talk
about these various connectors such as the area anticipated on the south side of town that there is an
official map that is comparable to this.
Mr. Cilimberg replied no, not necessarily. The first step in determining where any potential roads or road
improvements would be located would be through the land use element of the comprehensive plan, which
for most of our development areas are master planned areas. So they would have general alignments or
locations identified in those plans as to where new roads or improvements to existing roads would occur.
The next step towards those roads being more precisely identified is to do alignment studies of those
roads. The county has not done too many of those, but have identified them in our master plans or in the
land use part of our comprehensive plan. However, that has not typical ly occurred in terms of actually
going through the engineering work to determine road alignments. That would be the next step towards
the potential of doing an official map.
Mr. Keller asked if the Fifth Street Connector that is spoken about quite often in planning discussions is
just a dream.
Mr. Cilimberg replied the Avon/Fifth Street Connection that will occur with the development of Fifth Street
Station was actually part of a rezoning approval. That road, which is actually going to be built completely
by a developer, was located as part of their zoning and ultimately will be shown on the site plans they do
for their development. The Fifth Street to Avon Connector that would utilize part of what is the Southern
Parkway has not gone through that same kind of alignment study that would determine a location. The
Commission’s recommendation and ultimately with what the Board has been seeing is that is not a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 14, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001- Hydraulic Road Official Map
Submit to BOS
4
project anticipated in the 20 years of the comp plan. So it is only being identified as a general r eservation
of an area that initially might be developed in some form as pedestrian/bicycle access.
Mr. Morris noted an example of what he thinks he is referring to is when they did the Pantops Master plan
there was a parallel road identified as one they would like to have on the north side of 250. Really the
only think it was is a line drawn on a map. However, as development started taking place that was kind of
a warning sign to take it easy on this area since they might like to have road. That road will be going in,
which is the road near Chick Fil A. Eventually it will happen, but actually as Mr. Cilimberg said it is a long,
long process. Up until very recently it was nothing more than a line on a map.
Mr. Cilimberg noted more typically they will get the lines on the comp plan map accomplished through
development with rezoning. The lines will be in locations that are determined during those processes to
be providing for the eventual extension of that particular road through other development that mig ht
occur.
Mr. Keller asked will they all ultimately end up with an official map.
Mr. Cilimberg replied not necessarily. Once it is committed to as part of the rezoning by the developer
they don’t need the official map for that particular road section, as an example.
Mr. Keller noted the point he was trying to get at was when they need or don’t need the official map.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the pub lic hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning
Commission.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of CPA -2014-00001,
Route 29 – Hydraulic Road Official Map.
The motion passed by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris noted the request will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a date to be determined.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out there is a tentative plan for the request to be heard on the Board of Supervisors
November 5th agenda.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 14, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001- Hydraulic Road Official Map
Submit to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 14, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
October 14, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair;
Thomas Loach, Bruce Dotson, and Tim Keller. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Mark Graham, Director of Community
Development and Andy Herrick, Senior Assistant Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Deferred Items
CPA-2014-00001 Route 29 – Hydraulic Road Official Map
Ordinance Re-Adopting and Modifying U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road Official Map – Ordinance to re-
adopt and modify an official map originally adopted December 2, 2009 under Virginia Code § 15.2 -2233
et seq., depicting, within the vicinity of the northwest quadrant of the U.S. Route 29 an d Hydraulic Road
intersection, the location, centerlines, and existing and future right -of-way widths of the legally established
segments of U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road abutting and on County Tax Map and Parcel Numbers
61W -03-19A and 61W -03-25. The ordinance and map would be amended to identify the current tax map
and parcel numbers, but the location, centerlines, and existing and future right -of-way widths would be
the same as adopted on December 2, 2009, except as modified to remove rights -of-way dedicated to
public use and improvements constructed since December 2, 2009. A copy of the full text of the proposed
ordinance and the official map are on file in the office of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and in the
Department of Community Developm ent, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. (Andy Herrick/Jack Kelsey) DEFERRED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Morris noted CPA-2014-00001 Route 29 – Hydraulic Road Official Map was deferred from the
September 16, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting.
Staff Presentation:
Mr. Andy Herrick, Senior Assistant Attorney said he was filling in for Greg Kamptner. He has been asked
to speak about this official map for the Stonefield intersection. As they have seen from looking through
the executive summary this case is driven out of the proffers for the Stonefield Development. The
purpose of the official map is basically to reserve proposed rights -of-way or future rights-of-way for
localities. In this case it was part of the proffers for Stonefield that was originally made in December,
2009. There have been a number of improvements made to the Route 29 Hydraulic intersection and
additional revisions made to the official map since this Commission and the B oard of Supervisors last
reviewed it in December, 2009. It is a statutory requirement that the official map be reviewed, revised
and readopted once every five years. They are now reaching the end of that five year window. Again, as
he had indicated some revisions have been made to the map to reflect the right-of-way that has already
been dedicated as well as some of the changed lot lines. Otherwise, the official map here is largely the
same as when it was last reviewed and approved in December of 2009. The process from this point is
the Commission would review and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors who would then
have the final ability to adopt it by ordinance. Therefore, staff suggests readoption of the official map as
amended and the Planning Commission recommend it for approval by the Board of Supervisors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 14, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001- Hydraulic Road Official Map
Submit to BOS
2
Mr. Morris invited questions staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it would be prudent now to rename it instead of Albemarle Place which is on the map.
Mr. Herrick replied that would be reflecting the owner of that parcel, Albemarle Place, EAAP LLC. This
plat is just reflecting, again, legal ownership rather than the name of the development.
Mr. Randolph asked how the change on the map would affect pedestrian safety in crossing over 29.
Mr. Herrick replied that he was not sure that is really addressed in here. He is told this does have the
capacity for the proposed interchange at Hydraulic or any sort of interchange that could be proposed at
Hydraulic. This was made with those designs in mind. He was not sure he could really address
pedestrian impacts specifically.
Mr. Randolph asked with these changes also is there any impact in terms of storm water management on
site.
Mr. Herrick replied again, he thinks this is more dealing with public rights-of-way than storm water
management.
Mr. Cilimberg said when the official map was originally adopted there was a conceptual plan that our staff
with VDOT staff agreed could be built in the location covered by the official map as an interchang e. The
interchange itself is not part of the official map, but making sure the right -of-way existed for any
improvements including an interchange was the subject of the official map. Of course, now they know
with the 29 Solutions there will be a restudy of this intersection for the potential of an interchange that
may be like that proposed for Rio Road or something else. The official map is providing for the land area
necessary for the improvements such as that might follow in many years. They don’t expe ct that to be
imminent at this point because there is no funding for the actual construction. However, there is funding
for planning a work study of that for an interchange. Of course, with that study will be the discussion and
consideration of things like pedestrian crossing.
Mr. Dotson said he had no problem with the proposal, but it is its novelty. It appears in the time he has
been on the Commission he did not remember seeing an official map before. He was wondering if this is
a new procedure.
Mr. Herrick said he was glad he asked that question because it is not one that comes up very often.
However, before tonight’s meeting he went back and actually found the minutes and the agenda item and
so forth from when the Commission considered the last map in 2009. He was not sure of any
consideration that has occurred subsequently to that.
Mr. Dotson said it was not necessary to have an official map, which he assumes has a certain amount of
engineering study that goes into it before these fairly precis e lines are drawn. It is not necessary to have
an official map in order to receive dedications of right-of-way.
Mr. Herrick replied that is correct, it is not necessary. The main purpose of the official map is essentially
for a locality to reserve certain areas as public rights-of-way. For example, if a building permit were to
come up that proposed a new building within an area marked on the official map as a proposed right -of-
way, the locality would have basically the first opportunity to come in and ac quire the land. The main
purpose behind the official map is to set up what the current and future proposed rights -of-ways are and
to give a locality essentially a right-of-way first claim on those areas.
Mr. Dotson said just to think about it a little bit he guessed the example of the question that occurred to
him is in Crozet, which he would call the Eastern Avenue that connects 240 and 250. Do they have an
official map there and do they need one. Again, he was just trying to understand how official maps work.
Mr. Cilimberg replied they have the comprehensive plan designation of the general area. There would
need to be an actual completion of alignment studies to determine exact locations. They also have had
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 14, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001- Hydraulic Road Official Map
Submit to BOS
3
some reservations in a couple of projects f or part of that road to be built. Upon demand of the county
they can get the land to build, but they have not actually had through our Office of Facilities Development
an actual plan for the alignment of that road or some of the other roads that could bec ome an official map
if they went through an alignment study. The comparison here is that they did have an interchange study
at this location to determine the land needed.
Mr. Dotson said in the Crozet example they obviously don’t need to have an official map in order to
reserve lands as part of a rezoning.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out even in plats they have gotten some land that has been set aside for us.
Mr. Keller noted as a follow up to try to understand the bigger picture for the future he had a quest ion. If
in the wisdom of a prior Planning Commission there had been interest in having a parallel road to 29
North from 250 By Pass to the Rivanna River, and if that had been put in the comprehensive plan, could
there have been a reservation of a right-of-way for those parallel access roads to businesses on either
side before they developed.
Mr. Herrick replied there could be an official map along those lines. However, that would not automatically
guarantee the locality the right to acquire those properties. It would affect the processing of building
permits for any building that would come up within the space designated as proposed rights -of-way. That
would pretty much be the extent of the legal effect on that. It does not take away from the property ri ghts
of the owners there because the county would have to compensate the owners for any property acquired.
Mr. Keller said it could have been an encouragement for a further setback of the buildings that were built.
Mr. Herrick replied it would be one wa y for the county to acquire property, again, fairly compensating the
owners for their property.
Ms. Monteith asked who prepared this map and was it the county.
Mr. Herrick replied he did not believe so. Again, this was in conjunction with the proffers t hat were made
for Stonefield. So he was assuming it was the Stonefield surveyor.
Mr. Keller said as a relatively new person to the Planning Commission does that mean when they talk
about these various connectors such as the area anticipated on the south side of town that there is an
official map that is comparable to this.
Mr. Cilimberg replied no, not necessarily. The first step in determining where any potential roads or road
improvements would be located would be through the land use element of the comprehensive plan, which
for most of our development areas are master planned areas. So they would have general alignments or
locations identified in those plans as to where new roads or improvements to existing roads would occur.
The next step towards those roads being more precisely identified is to do alignment studies of those
roads. The county has not done too many of those, but have identified them in our master plans or in the
land use part of our comprehensive plan. However, that has not typical ly occurred in terms of actually
going through the engineering work to determine road alignments. That would be the next step towards
the potential of doing an official map.
Mr. Keller asked if the Fifth Street Connector that is spoken about quite often in planning discussions is
just a dream.
Mr. Cilimberg replied the Avon/Fifth Street Connection that will occur with the development of Fifth Street
Station was actually part of a rezoning approval. That road, which is actually going to be built completely
by a developer, was located as part of their zoning and ultimately will be shown on the site plans they do
for their development. The Fifth Street to Avon Connector that would utilize part of what is the Southern
Parkway has not gone through that same kind of alignment study that would determine a location. The
Commission’s recommendation and ultimately with what the Board has been seeing is that is not a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 14, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001- Hydraulic Road Official Map
Submit to BOS
4
project anticipated in the 20 years of the comp plan. So it is only being identified as a general r eservation
of an area that initially might be developed in some form as pedestrian/bicycle access.
Mr. Morris noted an example of what he thinks he is referring to is when they did the Pantops Master plan
there was a parallel road identified as one they would like to have on the north side of 250. Really the
only think it was is a line drawn on a map. However, as development started taking place that was kind of
a warning sign to take it easy on this area since they might like to have road. That road will be going in,
which is the road near Chick Fil A. Eventually it will happen, but actually as Mr. Cilimberg said it is a long,
long process. Up until very recently it was nothing more than a line on a map.
Mr. Cilimberg noted more typically they will get the lines on the comp plan map accomplished through
development with rezoning. The lines will be in locations that are determined during those processes to
be providing for the eventual extension of that particular road through other development that mig ht
occur.
Mr. Keller asked will they all ultimately end up with an official map.
Mr. Cilimberg replied not necessarily. Once it is committed to as part of the rezoning by the developer
they don’t need the official map for that particular road section, as an example.
Mr. Keller noted the point he was trying to get at was when they need or don’t need the official map.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the pub lic hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning
Commission.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of CPA -2014-00001,
Route 29 – Hydraulic Road Official Map.
The motion passed by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris noted the request will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for
approval at a date to be determined.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out there is a tentative plan for the request to be heard on the Board of Supervisors
November 5th agenda.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –September 16, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001 Route 29-Hydraulic Rd Official Map 1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 16, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
September 16, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium,
Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Karen
Firehock, Tim Keller, Bruce Dotson and Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Staff present was Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Jonathan Newberry, Senior Planner,
Rachael Falkenstein, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Claudette Grant,
Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning;
Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Item Requesting Deferral
a. CPA-2014-00001 Route 29-Hydraulic Road Official Map
Ordinance Re-Adopting U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road Official Map – Ordinance
to re-adopt an official map originally adopted December 2, 2009 under Virginia Code
§ 15.2-2233 et seq., depicting, within the vicinity of the nort hwest quadrant of the
U.S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road intersection, the location, centerline, existing
right-of-way width, and future right-of-way width of the legally established segment of
U.S. Route 29 abutting and on County Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 61W -3-19A,
61W -3-19A1, and 61W -3-25, and the legally established segment of Hydraulic Road
abutting and on County Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 61W -3-19A and 61W -3-25.
The ordinance and map would be amended to identify the current tax map and
parcel numbers, but the location, centerline, existing right-of-way, and future right-of-
way widths would be the same as adopted on December 2, 2009. A copy of the full
text of the proposed ordinance and the official map are on file in the office of the
clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and in the Department of Community
Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
(Greg Kamptner/Jack Kelsey)
DEFER TO THE OCTOBER 14, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Mr. Morris noted this is a request for deferral of CPA-2014-00001Route 29-Hydraulic
Road Official Map.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the deferral date has been changed to October 14. It will be
readvertised so the Commission does not have to open this for public hearing.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –September 16, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – CPA-2014-00001 Route 29-Hydraulic Rd Official Map 2
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Dotson seconded for deferral of CPA -2014-
00001 Route 29-Hydraulic Road Official Map to October 14, 2014.
The motion carried by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris said the CPA-2014-00001 Route 29-Hydraulic Road Official Map was
deferred to October 14, 2014.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 1
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 2
INTRODUCTION
The Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee develops and maintains information on local
biological resources, recommends policies and actions to protect county biological resources and
educates the public on the importance of our biological heritage. The committee is a standing,
citizen advisory committee supported by staff in the county Department of Community
Development.
PURPOSE OF THE NATURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
The Natural Heritage Committee was created by action of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors on July 6, 2005. The duties, function and tasks of the committee presented below
are excerpted from the supervisors’ motion that created the committee.
Duties/Function: The Natural Heritage Committee is an advisory committee that
maintains the County’s Biodiversity Assessment; advises the Board of Supervisors, the
Planning Commission, and County staff on applying biodiversity information to land-use
decision-making; and supports biodiversity education in the County.
TASKS:
A. Input on and oversight of the maintenance, expansion, updating, and evaluation of
the ongoing Biodiversity Assessment begun by the Biodiversity Work Group, and
development of a protocol for assessing changes in the state of biodiversity (with
reference to planning goals).
B. Assistance in staff development of an action plan that specifies detailed steps for
achieving protection of biodiversity as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Development of policy recommendations to the Board in response to biodiversity
issues and information gathered from the Biodiversity Assessment. The Committee
should be consulted on programs, regulations, and Comprehensive Plan changes that may
affect biodiversity protection.
D. Development of educational materials and programs on biodiversity.
E. Provision of periodic reports to the Board of Supervisors on the state of biodiversity in
the County.
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 3
ORIGINS AND HISTORY
In 1997 Citizens for Albemarle, a local environmental organization, proposed that Albemarle
County commit to identification and protection of its biological resources. Their proposal was
made during development of the then new Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. Citizens for Albemarle asked that the new chapter
include a call for conducting a biological inventory of the County and establishment of a
standing citizen Biological Resource Advisory Committee.
Albemarle County adopted the new Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter of the
comprehensive plan in 1999. The chapter included a section, “Biological Resources and
Biodiversity,” that calls for conduct of a biological resources inventory, development of a
biodiversity conservation action plan and creation of a continuing advisory citizen Biodiversity
Committee. With the adoption of this chapter into its comprehensive plan, Albemarle County
became a national leader in local government biodiversity conservation efforts.
In 2002 Community Development staff established an all-scientist Biodiversity Work Group.
This group was to develop a scientific foundation to efforts for subsequent County biodiversity
conservation efforts. In 2004, the Board of Supervisors accepted the report of the Biodiversity
Work Group . Their report included an assessment of the state and locations of important
biological resources, discussions of future threats and recommendations for conservation
strategies.
In 2005 the Board of Supervisors created the Natural Heritage Committee. The duties and tasks
of this committee are described in the “Purpose of the Natural Heritage Committee” section of
this report. The committee has worked continuously since its creation. In the past the committee
has:
1. Identified six initial high-priority biodiversity conservation areas of the County, totaling
over 20,000 acres.
2. Established a committee web site with public education materials.
3. Collaborated with local organizations to create a high-resolution GIS land cover data
layer.
4. Established a program of ongoing visits by committee members and knowledgeable
citizens to important or biologically important places in the County.
5. Partnered with the Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation to assist with
citizen outreach, biodiversity inventory and park conservation planning (e.g. Patricia Ann
Byrom Forest Preserve Park).
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 4
6. Assisted in state and regional planning efforts, including serving on the Biscuit Run State
Park planning team.
7. Supported local landowners and citizens by answering questions about local biodiversity
and land management concerns.
PROGRESS IN 2013-14
Highlights:
● Partnered with the Piedmont Native Plants “Go Native” campaign, which has helped
reach out to local nurseries, consumers and governmental agencies to increase the supply,
demand and use of native plants. Increasing use of native plants is an essential part of
increasing urban biodiversity and meeting goals to clean up local streams, rivers and the
Bay.
● Continued to engage Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation to integrate
biodiversity conservation into the department activities
● Engaged the Board of Supervisors about immediate conservation opportunities and
challenges, including William S.D. Woods Natural Heritage Area.
● Provided comments on draft chapters of new comprehensive plan to the Board of
Supervisors. For example, the committee helped emphasize the importance of
biodiversity to quality of life issues and its applicability to practical issues like storm
water management.
● Continued identification in the field of “Special Sites” deserving of special conservation
focus and support.
● Approved and finalized a permission form for site access so that we can document
landowner permission for the sites we’ve accessed.
● Established an outreach program to local naturalists to help support our inventory and
management of biologically important places in the County.
● Started a new initiative to invite members of the Board of Supervisors to participate on
site visits, particularly within their districts. Board members participated in several site
visits this year and added greatly to our outreach and inventory efforts.
● Recruited new members to the committee.
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 5
BIODIVERSITY INVENTORY SITE VISITS THIS YEAR
As part of a continuing effort to inventory biological resources in the county, the following
locations have been visited by
committee members in the past
year:
● Buzzard Rock1
Description: Piedmont
Mafic Barren, containing
many lithophytes (rock-
loving plants) and xeric
species (highly drought-
tolerant species)
Special Features:
Habitat is classified as a
G1, or globally rare
habitat with less than 20
known occurrences
worldwide.
Status: Under an open
space easement, but
without direct protection
of the habitats
themselves. Also while
there are few invasive
species right now, highly
invasive species are
located nearby and pose a
serious threat to the
habitat, particularly if there is additional disturbance of the surrounding forest.
1 Buzzard Rock, photo by Gary Fleming (DCR)
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 6
● Paper Birch / Bunchberry Dogwood site 2
Description: A relict boreal ecosystem
from the last Ice Age in a north facing cold
pocket on a talus quartzite slope.
Special Features: Includes many rare
boreal species, at least one of which is at
the furthest SE known occurrence of its
range in the United States
Status: Well protected from land use
changes due to being part of the
Shenandoah National Park. Fire
suppression and climate change pose the
most serious risks. The rarest plants were
no longer getting enough sunlight to bloom
or bear fruit, and may decline and
disappear without active management.
Many species at the site are also sensitive
to heat, and even a moderate increase in climate could wipe out this site.
● Old Mills Trail
Description: A river bluff over the Rivanna containing mafic outcrops and riparian
species.
Special Features: An amazingly diverse area containing numerous spring wildflowers
and also some unusual lithophytes more commonly found in shale barrens.
Status: Currently under the management of County Parks and Recreation. NHC is
working with park staff on education and protection for this valuable County resource.
Since a trail runs right through the site, it is in some danger of the impacts of foot travel
but contains some great educational opportunities as well.
● Fan Mountains
Description: The Fan Mountains make up a very large and relatively undisturbed
mountainous area of the County with near wilderness-like conditions. They contain a
large range of habitats, including rich mountain coves, mafic rock bluffs, seeps and
wetlands and pristine streams and waterfalls.
2 Cornus Canadensis, photo by Sharon Snyder
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 7
Special features: Rich mountain cove hardwood forests contain species normally
associated with the Blue Ridge Mountains. They also contain several species that are
rare in the County, including walking fern and rhododendron.
Status: Partially protected. The University of Virginia has a “dark skies” easement over
many (but not all) of the parcels across the area, but there are many opportunities to
pursue new easements and enhanced easements that are more protective of biological
resources.
Brush Mountain 3
Description: A Piedmont
Mafic Barren rock outcrop
community.
Special Features: Brush
Mountain is part of the larger
Fan Mountains (see above)
and is significant in that it is
another area very similar to
Buzzard Rock. It has the
benefit of being surrounded by
relatively mature timber. It
could also potentially qualify as a G1 (globally rare) habitat, although it does lack some
of the exceptional species diversity of Buzzard Rock.
Status: Partially under a “Dark Skies” ordinance, which encumbers the property from
getting a more complete and protective easement.
● Red Hill Wetlands
Description: A high quality wetland containing an amazing diversity of species.
Underlain by clay soils which hold water close to the surface.
Special Features: A great example of several different types of wetlands from wet
meadow to swamp type habitats. Serves an important role in buffering runoff and
contamination of the Hardware River from Highway 29. Contains some species that are
confirmed in one or just a few other places. The exceptional management by the
landowner of this resource and willingness to share it with local naturalists has led to
some unique educational opportunities.
3 Chalk Rock, photo by Repp Glaettli
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 8
Status: Property is not under easement, but ostensibly protected by the County’s water
protection ordinance. Its close proximity to Rt. 29 makes it susceptible to hazardous spills
or other contamination. The landowner has been a good steward this wetland, leaving it
in exceptional condition.
● Polo Grounds Road
Description: A series of ephemeral pools and floodplain forest along the south fork of
the Rivanna River.
Special Features: In addition to being a vital buffer from economic activity for the
health of the Rivanna River, it was also one of the few known breeding locations for
spotted salamanders in the County.
Status: Sadly, increased traffic and development along Polo Grounds Road, along with
recent clear cutting, may have destroyed most of the ecological integrity of this
ecosystem and extirpated the population of salamanders there.
The Fan Mountains and Brush Mountain are located within the Southern Mountains, a large area
in southern Albemarle County. The Southern Mountains were identified in the Natural Heritage
Committee 2007 annual report as one of six highest near-term priorities for biological
conservation in the county. The Polo Grounds Road site was recognized in the 2004
Biodiversity Work Group report as one of 39 biologically important sites in the county.
GOALS FOR FY 2014-2015
During the recent recession, staff support for the committee was cut, leading to cessation of
progress on some important fronts. With the restoration of staff support for the current fiscal
year, some long-stalled initiatives have been re-started. These include:
a) Completion of a GIS layer showing locations of important small-scale county biological
resources. This layer will be consulted by staff conducting rezoning and special use
permit reviews. A version will also be made available to the public.
b) Development of a county-wide GIS biodiversity landscape analysis. The goal of this
analysis is to provide an integrated, county-wide picture of our biological resources along
with constrains on and opportunities for conservation. This analysis is the last
prerequisite to development of the biodiversity protection action plan called for in the
comprehensive plan.
c) Update and expand biologically important site information in the biological inventory.
2013-2014 Report of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee p. 9
FURTHER GOALS
The Natural Heritage Committee has tentatively identified goals for next year, FY 2015-2016.
These are:
1. Develop and propose a county biodiversity protection action plan. This is a key element
in the charge of the committee.
2. Establish a centralized database for different county biological resource data sets. This
data set would be of value to the Natural Heritage Committee and other departments of
the county government (e.g. Parks and Recreation)
3. Re-establish a public education subcommittee within the Natural Heritage Committee.
Increasing membership of the committee opens the door to this possibility.
4. Continue expanding and updating site information in the biological inventory
WEB LINKS:
Report of the Biodiversity Work Group, 2004
www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=3977
Report of the Natural Heritage Committee, 2007
www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of_Supervisors/Forms/A
genda/2007Files/20070606/NaturalHeritageAttachB.pdf
Question 1:
Tech Support
Question 2:
Travel Allowances
Question 3:
Office Space/Amenities
Question 4:
Admin Support
Question 5:
Franking/Email
Support
Albemarle Cell phones, iPads, Laptops,
Tech support, Training
Mileage,
Accommodations, Meals
Shared Board Chair office – first
come first serve.
Clerk and Deputy Clerk to
the Board.
Subscription Email for
Board meetings.
Arlington Cell phones, iPads, Land lines,
PC, Printer, Software, Tech
Team
$10,000/yr:
Registration, Hotel, Air,
Food, Parking,
Transportation
Chairmen: 30 by 40
Each board: 10 by 10
Each board member has
an aide. Clerk handles
mitigations.
Yes- software programs
and e-newsletters.
Charlottesville iPad, iPhone, Training,
Software, Tech support
$10,000/yr
Per diem guidelines
Council Chambers for regular
meetings. Meeting rooms first
come first serve.
Answer inquiries and
provide information.
City news and
information.
Fauquier Laptops, Desktop Computers,
Training, Installation
Mileage, Meals, Lodging,
Convention, and
Education
Two office spaces, Reception area,
County provides a computer,
Printer, Fax machine, and
Telephone for Board Members’
home offices.
Deputy Clerk. No.
Yes- board members
individually communicate
with constituents in their
district.
Deputy County
Administrator acts as
liason.
Hanover Phone, supplement, Training,
Software
VACo Conference,
Intercity Visit, IRS
allowance- meals,
Lodging- conference,
Mileage, Tolls, Parking
fees
One office for all. Mailbox. 2 PCs. Recording Secretary,
3 Executive Assistants
Email news subscription.
Annual newsletter.
Henrico Laptops, Tablets, iPhones, fax
machines, tech support
Mileage
Travel vouchers
Meals
One office and conference room for
all. Mail delivery with Police aide.
Health insurance. Personal
computers and fax machines in
their homes. Computer training.
County’s fitness program and
classes.
2 Executive Assistants Postcards for town
meetings.
James City Tablet, iPhone, Training, Tech
support
Mileage reimbursement,
Per diem- meals,
Lodging rate
Board Work Session Room, Board
Room, Conference Room, Secretary
of the Board
Secretary to the Board
No
Loudon iPad with paid plan, Mobile
phones by request, two
PCs/laptops (per Board
Office) with software, two
phone lines per office,
Xerox/Copiers, priority Tech
support, 24/7 IT service
Mileage/tolls, County
vehicle, Meals and
lodging reimbursement
as per request
General administrative
support. Constituents are
referred to the individual
Board member’s
office/staff, or to the
County’s Public Affairs
Manager who handles
We provide
communications support
for issues directed by the
corporate Board; not for
issues that are political in
nature.
engineer, County
Administration provides small
small tech support.
specific constituent issues
Roanoke Cell phone, Laptop, Printer,
iPad, Tech Support, Training
Mileage
Accommodations
Meals
Each member has their own office. Whatever is needed No
Stafford iPads, laptops, printers, fax
machines, iPhones
Federal Government per
diem rates for
reimbursements
Meeting space by request. Clerk
takes minutes. Meeting materials.
Snacks. Lunch.
Notary Public. DVDs of
board meetings. Copies of
Resolutions and
Ordinances.
Distribution lists, public
safety alerts
Question 6:
Social Media/Web
Support
Question 7:
Research Support
Services
Question 8:
Financial Support
Question 9:
Professional
development/Training
Question 10:
Annual BOS budget
Albemarle Deputy Clerk/
Communications Office
Clerk/County Executive’s
office
Chair salary-$16,931
BOS salary-$15,131
County benefit program
None-only conferences $612,676
Arlington Deputy Clerk and
Communications Office
Subject Matter Experts $55,000 per year. Healthcare,
retirement, dental, long term
disability. Chair makes 10% more.
Retired Board members have the same
benefits as retired staff.
None- only conferences. 1 million.
Charlottesville Clerk of Council None unless requested Council Salary: $14,000 annually.
Mayor: $16,000. Full health/dental
benefits. Health facility discount.
$5k annually
$226,874
Fauquier The Deputy Clerk.
Board members may
personally use Facebook
or Twitter but the Office
of the Board of
Supervisors does not use
routinely use social media
to communicate.
The Deputy Clerk. The
office also responds to
FOIA requests. Posts all
codified legislation
online via MuniCode, for
public research.
Chairman: $23,013
Vice Chairman: $21,337
Other Board Members: $19,664
Board members also receive insurance
benefits for health, life, dental, etc.
No stipends or benefits for retired
Board members.
$3,025.00 for annual convention
and education expenses.
$277,430
Hanover Public Information Officer
Web Information Line
County Administrators
Office
Chair Salary: $27,500
Board Salary: $25,500
Committee Stipends: $600-$3,000.
Communication Stipend: $1,000.
Health, dental, disability services.
Educational Training: $3,500.
Intercity Visit: $2,400.
$430,045
Henrico Departmental Staff
Assistant to the County
Manager for Board
Affairs/Clerk of the Board.
Departmental Staff and
the Assistant to the
County Manager for
Board Affairs.
Annual salary. Merit increases.
Commission stipend. Health, dental,
flexible spending, and deferred
compensation programs, and the
County's fitness facility.
None. $1 million
James City Communications
Department
Secretary of the Board
handles research
requests.
Chair Salary: $8,800. BOS Salary: 7,000.
County benefit plan.
$4500.00, for travel and training,
also includes Secretary to the
Board travel and training for CMC
designation
$196,129
Loudon Provides communications
support for issues
directed by the corporate
Board; not for issues that
are political in nature.
The Office of the County
Administrator
Chairman: $50,000
Vice-Chairman: $45,320
Board Member: $41,200
Board members’ salaries and benefits
(health, dental, vision, LTD, FSA, 457)
are provided from a “Corporate Board”
budget.
The district funds are: Chairman’s
Office: $161,040 (as of July 1, 2014)
Each District Office: $120,597
No compensation or other benefits
provided for retired supervisors.
$2,000 for training/education.
Board may utilize district funds
for any purpose within their
district office operations.
$2,066,000
Roanoke Public Information Office Whatever is needed Salary, health, dental deferred
compensation.
Chair and Vice Chair are paid more
than a regular Supervisor.
None. Not cleared to share.
Stafford IT Department Materials online or
hardcopy on file
BOS Chairman annual salary: $21,500.
BOS annual salary: 20,500. Medical and
dental coverage. Workout room.
Proclamation of retirement.
$1000 is budgeted for seminars
and conferences. Excludes VACo
conference.
$422,940
Question 11:
Gross Revenue
Question 12:
Regular Meeting Days
Question 13:
Meeting Frequency
Question 14:
Work Session Meeting Days
Question 15:
Length of Meetings
Albemarle $322,454,521 First and Second
Wednesday of each
month.
As need throughout month for work
sessions and special meetings.
As needed throughout month,
usually first and second
Wednesday
Regular day 8 hours;
Regular night 4 hours;
Work sessions 2-3
hours
Arlington Unknown One Saturday a month
and Tuesday following
the Saturday meeting.
As needed throughout the month for
work sessions or closed session.
Usually 3-4 more times.
As needed throughout the
month, usually 3-4 more times.
Scheduled whenever it fits into
everyone’s schedule. Try to hold
them on Tuesday’s from 3-5p.m.
Regular Saturday
meetings are normally
6 hours. Work
sessions and closed
sessions run 2 hours –
never more than 3
hours. Tuesday
meetings run about 6-
7 hours.
Charlottesville $148,167,862 1st and 3rd Monday of
each month at 7:00 p.m.
Twice a month. Separate work sessions; 1st
Thursdays of the month or as-
needed.
Regular meetings
usually last around 4
hours and work
sessions 2 hours.
Fauquier $277,744,266
Hanover FY14 $207.8 million 2nd Wednesday of the
month at 2:00p.m., and
4th Wednesday at 6:00
p.m.
Twice a month except for July, August,
and December (One meeting).
Work sessions are generally part
of the Board meeting.
Generally meet from
2-5pm reconvene at
7:00 and adjourn at
9:00p.m.,
Meetings that start at
6:00 p.m., go until
9:30p.m.
Henrico $750 million 2nd and 4th Tuesday of
the month at 7:00p.m.
Twice a month. Unknown Unknown
James City $171,500,000 2nd and 4th Tuesday at
7:00p.m. Except for
August and December –
the Board will meet on
the 2nd Tuesday only.
Twice a month. 4th Tuesday of each month at
4:00 p.m., prior to the regular
meeting except for December.
Unknown
Loudon Total General Fund
Revenue for Fiscal Year
2015 for Loudoun County
is $1,233,367,080.
1st and 3rd Wednesday at
4:00p.m., for business
meeting and 2nd
Wednesdays for public
hearings at 6:00p.m.
Three times a month. Separate dates for regular work
sessions and committee of the
whole work session.
From 4pm to around
9-10pm.
Business meetings and
public hearing vary
depending on length
of agenda and number
of speakers.
Roanoke Unknown
2nd Tuesday of the
month at 3:00p.m., and
4th Tuesday of the
month a 7:00p.m., for
public hearings.
Except for November
and December:
November 18, 3pm and
7pm and December 8,
3pm and 7pm.
Twice a month. Unknown Typically 1-3 hours.
Stafford Unknown 1st and 3rd Tuesday of
each month with an
afternoon session at
3:00p.m., and evening
session at 7:00p.m.
Twice a month unless a special
meeting is called.
Typically held during standing
committee meetings
(Infrastructure,
Finance/Audit/Budget,
Community & Economic
Development , and Public Safety).
Afternoon sessions
run until
approximately 5:30-
5:45 p.m. Evening
sessions run from 7:00
p.m. until
approximately 9:30-
10:00 p.m.