HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-03Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
December 3, 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. 2014 Virginia Association of Counties/Virginia Municipal League (VACO/VML) Go Green
Virginia Challenge Award.
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. FY 14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). (David Hughes, CPA, Audit
Manager from Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates (RFCA).
11. Report on the Economic Viability of Using the Ivy Materials Utilization Center as a Transfer
Station and Consideration of Near Term Solid Waste Service Options. (Doug Walker, Deputy
County Executive)
12. Consideration to Support Legislation - DNA Database Expansion.
3:30 p.m. - Presentations:
13. VDOT Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report. (Joel DeNunzio)
14. Route 29 Solutions Project.
a. Project Update. (Mark Graham, Director of Community Development)
b. Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program. (Lee Catlin, Assistant County
Executive)
Recess
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/1203/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/6/2020 7:14:22 PM]
Tentative
Public Hearing:
20. SP-2014-00013. Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Scottsville. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07700-00-00-040J0, 07700-00-00-04-K0, 07700-00-00-04-L0.
LOCATION: 1740 Broadway Street. PROPOSAL: Establishment of an indoor soccer training facility
within an existing building. PETITION: Request for an indoor athletic facility [Section 22.2.1(b)(24)]
permitted via Section 26.2 as a "general commercial use." No dwelling units proposed. ZONING: LI-
Light Industry - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses; no residential use.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 4 of the Development Area. (Claudette Grant, Senior Planner)
Presentations:
21. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Quarterly Report. (Gary O’Connell, Executive
Director)
22. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Quarterly Report. (Tom Frederick, Executive
Director)
Discussion Items:
23. Board Rules of Procedures. (Jane Dittmar)
a. Policy on Presentations and Reports to Board from Organizations/Boards and
Committees.
b. Draft Policy on Proclamations and Recognitions.
24. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
25. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
26. Adjourn to December 4, 2014, 12:00 noon, Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL (by recorded vote):
8.1 Approval of Minutes: November 13, 2013.
8.2 SDP-2014-00063. Bojangles at Rivanna Ridge – Special Exception. (Ellie Ray)
8.3 Schedule public hearing to consider adoption of Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter
12, Article I, False Alarms. (Steve Sellers)
8.4 Proposed Revision to Personnel Policy §P-25, (Lorna Gerome)
8.5 SDP-2014-00054. Glenmore Ground Storage Water Tank, Pump Station, and Water Mains
- Special Exception. (Chris Perez)
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1203/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/6/2020 7:14:22 PM]
Tentative
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR INFORMATION (no vote necessary):
9.1 County Grant Application/Award Report. (Lori Allshouse)
9.2 Board-to-Board, December 2014, A monthly report from the Albemarle County School
Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
9.3 FY 15 General Fund Q1 Report; Revised FY 15 Revenue Projections Report; and Quarterly
Economic Indicators Report. (Jacob Sumner and Steve Allshouse)
9.4 Short-Term Pre-School Interim Report. (Kathy Ralston)
9.5 Copy of letter dated October 28, 2014, from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to
Lindsay H. Kidd, re: LOD2014-00010 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD
& DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 115, Parcel 27A (Property of Elsie K. Londeree, Estate)
– Scottsville Magisterial District.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/1203/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/6/2020 7:14:22 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP201400063 Bojangles at Rivanna Ridge
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of a Resolution approving a special exception
for waiver of minimum width requirement for one -way
access aisle
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish,
Ray
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant proposes to construct a 3,808 square fast food restaurant with associated parking and access aisles at
Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center on Pantops (Attachment A). This fast food restaurant includes a drive-through window,
which was approved under SP201400004. County Code §18-4.12.17(c)(2) requires that one-way access aisles be 12 feet in
width. The applicant proposes an 11-foot-wide drive-through lane and has requested a waiver from the 12-foot width
requirement for the one-way drive-through lane.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development areas
by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevel opment and private investment while protecting the
quality of neighborhoods.
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenues that support community goals.
DISCUSSION:
County Code § 18-4.12.2(c)(2) allows the design requirements of County Code § 18-4.12.17 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 fo r the waiver request includes: the proposed layout has the 11-foot-wide drive
through lanes adjacent to and running in the same direction as 16-foot-wide one-way parking aisles on each side of the
building, which eliminates the hazard of having the drive-through aisle adjacent to opposing traffic; 9-foot-wide parallel
parking spaces would be allowed by the County Code adjacent to the 16-foot-wide parking aisles; Bojangles’ new store
construction guidelines allow for 10.5-foot-wide drive-through aisles. The ARB expressed support for a travelway width
of as little as 10.5 feet during the Special Permit process (Attachment B). According to the applicant, this proposed
layout is safer than a standard 12-foot-wide drive-through aisle adjacent to a 24-foot-wide two-way parking aisle.
The County engineer has reviewed the plan and the request for the special exception and has no objection to the
waiver. Staff opinion is that the design of the drive-through aisle would equally or better serve the public health, safety,
and welfare.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) approving the special exception to allow an
11-foot-wide one-way access aisle for the drive-through window.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Major Site Plan Amendment Layout
B. Waiver request from applicant
C. Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
October 13, 2014
Ms. Ellie Ray
Senior Planner
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Regarding: SDP2014000063 Bojangles at Rivanna Ridge
Request for Waiver of Section 4.12.17-c-2
Minimum travel-way width for one-way access aisles
Dear Ms. Ray,
Section 4.12.17-c-2 requires a twelve (12) foot minimum travelway width for one-way access aisles for all
uses with the exception of bypass traffic and bank teller and ATM canopies and lanes. In accordance with
Section 4.12.2-c-2, the Applicant is hereby requesting a waiver to reduce the one-way drive-through aisle for
the Bojangles SDP 2014-000063 from twelve (12) feet to eleven (11) feet. The particular language in this
paragraph allows that:
“The zoning administrator may modify or waive a design requirement in sections 4.12.15, 4.12.16, 4.12.17,
4.12.18 and 4.12.19 only after consultation with the county engineer, who shall advise the zoning
administrator whether the proposed waiver or modification would equally or better serve the public health,
safety or welfare.”
In reviewing this request, please consider the following:
1) One-way traffic circulation is proposed on the site. This eliminates the hazard of having a
northbound traffic lane adjacent to the southbound drive-thru (order) lane and eliminates the hazard
of having a southbound traffic lane adjacent to the northbound drive-thru (pick-up) lane. This is safer
in two ways than a traditional 12’ drive-thru lane adjacent to a 24’ (two-direction) travelway: first by
eliminating the possibility that a driver in the center aisle will have opposing traffic on both sides of his
or her vehicle, and second by allowing the drive-thru lane traffic to enter the bypass lane without
crossing opposing traffic lanes.
2) Section 4.12.16 allows a 9’ parallel parking lane adjacent to a 16’ one-way travel aisle (serving
angled parking) without any requirement for a waiver. This type of layout would require backing
movements in the 16’ travel aisle to enter the 9’ parking spaces, creating a more dangerous condition
than the proposed 11’ drive-thru lane which will have slow moving traffic (perhaps 5-10 feet per
second) but would require no backing movements.
3) Civil Guidelines provided for Bojangles Restaurants new store construction permit a minimum drive-
thru lane width of 10’-6” and further stipulate that “by-pass lane shall be wider than 12 feet if part of
drive aisle for parking spaces.”
4) And finally, please consider that in the advisory review of the Special Use Permit Application for the
Drive-thru use, the Architectural Review Board provided the following comment:
“The ARB has no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit (SP) based on the
design of the drive-thru window and lane as illustrated in the February 17 and February
20, 2014 architectural elevations and the February 20, 2014 conceptual site layout. The
ARB also expresses support for the waiver request for the travelway width, maintaining a
10.5’ width.”
As always if you have any questions or concerns about these revisions please feel free to call me at (434)
207-8086 and we can discuss in further detail.
Best Regards,
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Rivanna Ridge Charlottesville, LLC is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number
07800-00-00-073A2 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 18-4.12.17(c)(2) requires that one-way access aisles be 12
feet in width; and
WHEREAS, Wilgo Bo Pantops, LLC filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with
SDP 2014-00063, Bojangles at Rivanna Ridge, to allow an 11-foot-wide one-way access aisle for the drive-
through window 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, the supporting analysis included in the executive
summary, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code §18-4.12.2(c)(2),
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to allow an 11-foot-wide
one-way access aisle for the drive-through window.
* * *
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:
Proposed Ordinance to amend the County Code False
Alarms Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Schedule a public hearing to consider the adoption of an
ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 12, Article I,
False Alarms
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Blair, Sellers
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On August 3, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted the current False Alarms Ordinance. After nearly three years of
administering this ordinance, the Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD) is recommending amendments to the
Ordinance as set forth below.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment A) to amend County Code Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises,
Article I, False alarms. The proposed ordinance would:
Amend the definition of “False alarm” in § 12-101. Currently the definition of “false alarm” states that “False
alarms shall not include any alarms determined…to have been triggered by…activity unauthorized by the
alarm system user or activity outside the control of the alarm system user.” The ACPD receives a number of
appeals from homeowners who cite weather or high winds as “activity unauthorized by the alarm system user
or activity outside the control of the alarm system user.” The ACPD recommends amending the definition of
“false alarm” by deleting the language “activity unauthorized by the alarm system user or activity outside the
control of the alarm system user” from the list of alarms that do not constitute a false alarm due to the
ambiguity of the terms. However, the ACPD recommends amending the definition to provide that weather-
related events triggering an alarm do not constitute a false alarm. A weather-related event is defined as “an
event caused by weather conditions that results in either a) a disruption of electrical service to the building for
four (4) consecutive hours or longer; or (b) damage to the building that would activate the alarm. The four-hour
threshold is based on the typical time that a back-up battery provides electricity, preventing a false alarm from
being triggered.
Amend § 12-102 to require that written notices issued by the ACPD to unregistered alarm system users be
mailed to the physical address of the alarm system. This would establish a notice procedure for incidents in
which the alarm system user is not present to receive the notice at the site of the call.
Amend § 12-102 to eliminate the $300.00 service fee for third and subsequent responses to an unregistered
alarm system. Over the past three years, the ACPD has not found the higher fee for third and subsequent
responses to be a deterrent. Because the false alarms ordinance is meant to be an enforcement tool rather
than a revenue enhancement mechanism, the ACPD recommends charging a $150.00 service fee for second
and subsequent responses.
Amend § 12-104 to increase the amount of time that an individual has to pay a false alarm service fee from
thirty to ninety days. The ACPD often responds to false alarms in which the alarm system owner is out of town
for an extended period of time. Allowing the alarm system user more time to pay the service fee would make
AGENDA TITLE: Proposed Ordinance to amend the County Code False Alarms Ordinance
December 3, 2014
Page 2
the process more efficient. It would result in more alarm system users making their payments timely,
eliminating the need for staff to follow up with those system users.
Amend § 12-104 to eliminate the assessment of a delinquent payment fee equal to the original fee of a false
alarm when a service fee is not paid on time. The ACPD has found that the delinquent payment fee has not
been a deterrent to subsequent false alarms.
Amend § 12-108 to eliminate the requirement that an appeal of a false alarm notice be on a form provided by
the ACPD The ACPD receives a number of appeals in writing that are not contained on a ACPD form, and
those appeals have been processed as a courtesy to the citizens. This would clarify the current process of the
ACPD and provide a simpler process for citizens to note appeals.
Amend § 12-108 to increase the amount of time an alarm system user has to submit an appeal to the chief of
police, the fire and rescue chief and the county executive from ten days to thirty days. This would provide
more time for citizens to decide whether to file an appeal.
The Department of Fire Rescue (FR) rarely responds to false fire alarms and has never issued a notice. FR staff have
reviewed this Executive Summary and the draft ordinance and agree with the recommendation.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Please see the chart below for the budget impact if the Board adopts the attached ordinance based on FY14 false
alarm fees collected:
Fees Collected County’s Revenue (78.5% of fees collected)
3rd,
subse-
quent
non-reg
fees
Delin-
quent
fees
Total of
both
fees
Total of
all fees
3rd,
subse-
quent
non-reg
fees
Delinquent
fees
Total of
both fees
Total of
all fees
FY14 $8,100 $38,705 $46,805 $177,007 $6,358.50 $30,383.43 $36,741.93 $138,950
FY14 w/
changes $4,050 -0- $ 4,050 $134,252 $3,179.25 -0- $ 3,179.25 $105,387
$ Reduction $4,050 $38,705 $42,755 $ 42,755 $3,179.25 $30,383.43 $33,562.68 $ 33,563
% Reduction 50% 100% 24.15% 50% 100% 24.15%
The County retains a private vendor to collect false alarm fees and pays the vendor 21.5% of the fees collected by it.
If the Board adopts the attached ordinance, based on the FY14 false alarm fees collected, there would be a
$33,563.00 reduction in overall County revenues generated by false alarm fees per year, or a 24.15% reduction.
However, staff believes these changes will significantly improve the process and reduce staff time spent enforcing the
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) for a public hearing on January
7, 2015.
ATTACHMENTS:
A—Draft ordinance
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Draft: November 10, 2014
1
ORDINANCE NO. 14-12(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 12, REGULATED ENTERPRISES, ARTICLE I, FALSE
ALARMS, 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 12,
Regulated Enterprises, Article I, False Alarms, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 12-101 Definitions
Sec. 12-102 Registration of alarm systems designed to seek a police response
Sec. 12-104 False alarms prohibited; service fees
Sec. 12-108 Appeals
CHAPTER 12. REGULATED ENTERPRISES
ARTICLE I. FALSE ALARMS
Sec. 12-100 Purpose.
The board hereby finds that malfunctioning alarm systems, and the false alarms associated with
them, constitute a hazard to public safety personnel and to the public in general. The regulation of alarm
systems and false alarms is necessary to promote the health, safety and welfare of county citizens. False
alerts of intrusions or robberies increase the county’s public safety costs, divert public safety resources
from other critical areas of work, and burden the Charlottesville-U.Va.-Albemarle Emergency
Communications Center. In order to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the c ounty’s police and fire
and rescue emergency services, those who utilize automatic alarm systems must be required to maintain
those systems in good working order and to promptly repair any defects which may cause those systems
to trigger false alarms.
Sec. 12-101 Definitions.
For the purposes of this article and, unless otherwise required by the context, the following words
and terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Alarm system means an assembly of equipment and devices arranged to signal the presence of a
hazard requiring urgent attention and to which a police or fire and rescue response is expected.
Alarm system user means: (1) any person or entity owning or leasing an alarm system; or (2) any
person or entity owning or leasing the premises on which such alarm system is maintained. An “alarm
system user” shall not include the United States, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or their respective
agencies or political subdivisions.
Automatic dialing device means any device, system or equipment that automatically transmits
over telephone lines, by direct connection or otherwise, a prerecorded voice message or coded signal
indicating the existence of an emergency situation to which a police, fire, or emergency medical services
response is expected.
Emergency communications center means the regional 911 center known as the Charlottesville-
U.Va.-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center.
False alarm means an alarm that causes a police or fire and rescue response when there is no
actual or threatened criminal activity, fire, or other emergency requiring an immediate police or fire and
rescue response. False alarms shall include, but not be limited to: negligently or accidentally activated
signals; signals which are the result of faulty, malfunctioning or improperly installed or maintained
equipment; signals which are purposefully activated to summon a police or fire and rescue response in
nonemergency situations; and alarms for which the actual cause is not determined. False alarms shall not
include any alarms caused by failure of the equipment at the emergency communications center, or any
Draft: November 10, 2014
2
alarms determined by the responding police or fire and rescue officer to have been triggered by criminal
activity, activity unauthorized by the alarm system user, or activity outside the control of the alarm system
user or any alarms caused by a weather-related event. “Weather-related event” shall mean an event
caused by weather conditions that results in either a) a disruption of electrical service to the building for
four (4) consecutive hours or longer; or b) damage to the building that would activate the alarm.
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; § 12-100)
State law reference--Va. Code §15.2-911
Sec. 12-102 Registration of alarm systems designed to seek a police response.
A. General Requirements. Prior to installing, using or maintaining on any premises within
the county an alarm system which is designed to seek a police response, an alarm system user shall
register such alarm system by providing the following information, using forms provided by the county,
to the chief of police or his designee:
1. The street address of the premises at which the alarm system is to be installed or
used (the “premises”); the name, mailing address and telephone number of the owner and lessee, if any, of
such premises; and the name and mailing address of an individual (alarm user or designee of the alarm
user) to whom notices regarding the alarm system may be sent; and
2. The names, street addresses and telephone numbers of at least two (2) individuals
who will have day-to-day responsibility for the premises and alarm system, who will be immediately
available to be contacted in the event an alarm is activated, and who are authorized and able to deactivate
the alarm system; and
3. A description of the specific type of alarm system, manufacturer’s name, and the
name and telephone number of the alarm company monitoring, responding to or maintaining the alarm
system; and
4. If registering an alarm system that has been disconnected or disabled following a
notice to disconnect or disabled issued pursuant to §12-103, documentation that the alarm system has
been repaired or passed inspection by an individual or entity qualified to repair or inspect alarm systems.
B. Changes in Alarm System Registration Information. Whenever any registration
information provided by an alarm system user pursuant to subsection A changes, the alarm system user
shall provide correct, updated information to the chief of police or his designee within ten (10) business
days of the change. When an individual or entity takes possession of premises equipped with an activated
alarm system, the individual or entity must provide updated registration information within ten (10)
business days of taking possession as required by subsection A.
C. Failure to Register Alarm System. Upon the first police response to an unregistered
alarm system in response to a signal issued by the alarm system, the chief of police or his designee shall
issue a written notice to the alarm system user that the alarm system must be registered. This notice shall
be mailed to the physical address of the alarm system, and the alarm system user shall be assessed a
service fee in the amount of $150.00. The fee for the first offense may be waived if the alarm system user
files an appeal pursuant to section 12-108, and presents satisfactory evidence that the alarm system has
been registered. Upon the second or subsequent police response caused by an unregistered alarm system,
the alarm system user shall be assessed a service fee in the amount of $150. On the third or subsequent
such response, the alarm system user shall be assessed a service fee in the amount of $300.
D. Registration of an alarm system shall not create a contract, duty or obligation, either
express or implied, for police to respond. Any and all liability and consequential damage resulting from
the failure to respond to a notification from an alarm system is hereby disclaimed. By registering an
alarm system, the alarm system user acknowledges that police responses may be based on factors such as
Draft: November 10, 2014
3
the availability of responding units, staffing levels, priority of pending requests for services, weather
conditions, traffic conditions and other emergency conditions.
Sec. 12-103 Maintenance of alarm systems required; disconnection of alarm systems.
A. Maintenance of alarm systems. Alarm system users shall maintain their alarm systems in
good working order. Because alarm systems that generate multiple false alarms within a short period of
time may be malfunctioning, the chief of police or his designee and the fire and rescue chief or his
designee shall have the discretion to suspend responses to an alarm system after the second false alarm
generated within a twenty-four (24) hour period; such suspension shall last for the remainder of the
twenty-four hour period.
B. Disconnection of alarm systems. An alarm system user shall disconnect or disable any
alarm system upon a written determination and notice by the chief of police or his designee or by the fire
and rescue chief or his designee that the installation, use, operation and/or maintenance of the alarm
system would constitute an unreasonable burden on police or fire and rescue resources. Any alarm
system which generates eight (8) or more false alarms within any four (4) day period shall be deemed an
unreasonable burden on police or fire and rescue resources. An alarm system user required to disconnect
or disable an alarm system shall be entitled to register a new or repaired alarm system at any time in
accordance with §12-102.
Sec. 12-104 False alarms prohibited; service fees.
A. Prohibition. No alarm system user or other person shall send or activate a false alarm that
causes a police or fire-and rescue response where there is no actual or threatened crime, fire, or other
emergency requiring an immediate police or fire and rescue response. Violations of this section shall
result in the assessment of service fees as provided below.
B. Service fee amounts. Alarm system users shall pay a service fee for false alarms within
thirty (30) ninety (90) days of billing. The service fee shall be assessed for each false alarm during any
twelve (12) month period as follows:
1. First false alarm: No charge
2. Second false alarm: No charge
3. Third false alarm: $100
4. Fourth false alarm: $150
5. Fifth false alarm: $200
6. Sixth and subsequent false alarms: $300
C. Service fee assessments. The county shall cause alarm system users to be billed for false
alarms in accordance with the above schedule of service fees. All fees shall be paid within thirty (30)
ninety (90) days of billing. Failure to pay a service fee within thirty (30) ninety (90) days of billing shall
result in the assessment of a delinquent payment fee in an amount equal to the original f ee and the
initiation of civil action, as necessary, for the recovery of the unpaid fee.
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 12-101)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-911.
Sec. 12-105 Deliberate false alarms a criminal offense.
It shall be a class 1 misdemeanor for any person to knowingly and without just cause to activate
an alarm system to summon a police or fire and rescue response where there is no actual or threatened
criminal activity, fire, or other emergency that required an immediate police or fire and rescue response.
Draft: November 10, 2014
4
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 12-102)
State law reference--Va. Code § 27-97; false alarms,§18.2-212, 18.2-461
Sec. 12-106 Automatic dialing devices prohibited; penalty.
No person or entity shall install, use, or maintain on any premises within the county any
automatic dialing device which delivers, or causes to be delivered, any prerecorded voice message or
coded signal to the emergency communications center or any department of the county. Violations of this
section shall constitute a class 4 misdemeanor.
Sec. 12-107 Administration.
The chief of police, the fire and rescue chief, in coordination with the director of finance, shall
have joint responsibility for administering this article under the supervision of the county executive.
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-5; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 12-104)
Sec. 12-108 Appeals.
A. Appeals for Alarms Requiring a Police Response. Any fee imposed by the police
department pursuant to this article or notice to disconnect or disable an alarm system may be appealed in
writing to the chief of police, using forms provided by the police department, within ten (10) thirty (30)
days of the date of notice of such fee or decision. Upon receipt of such appeal, the chief of police or his
designee may grant relief from the fee or notice or affirm the fee or notice. Should the fee or notice be
affirmed, the alarm system user may appeal the decision of the chief of police or his designee to the
county executive by filing a written appeal within ten (10) thirty (30) days of the date of the decision.
Upon receipt of such appeal, the county executive or his designee may grant relief fro m the fee or notice,
or affirm the fee or notice. The decision of the county executive or his designee is final.
B. Appeals for Alarms Requiring a Fire and Rescue Response. Any fee imposed by the
county department of fire and rescue pursuant to this article may be appealed in writing to the fire and
rescue chief, using forms provided by the department, within ten (10) thirty (30) days of the date of notice
of such fee. Upon receipt of such appeal, the chief or his designee may grant relief from the fee, or affirm
the fee. Should the fee be affirmed, the alarm system user may appeal the decision of the chief or his
designee to the county executive by filing a written appeal within ten (10) thirty (30) days of the date of
the decision. Upon receipt of such appeal, the county executive or his designee may grant relief from the
fee or affirm the fee. The decision of the county executive or his designee is final.
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-6; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 12-105)
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:
Proposed Revision to Personnel Policy §P-25
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of a Resolution to amend Personnel Policy
§P-25, Standards of Conduct
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Blair, Gerome
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The General Assembly enacted Virginia Code § 15.2-1505.2 effective July 1, 2014 (Attachment A). This Code section
requires localities to establish a personnel policy covering the use of certain public property by the locality’s officers and
employees for personal use that interferes with the employees’ productivity or work performance or for political activities.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities
DISCUSSION:
Staff proposes to amend Personnel Policy §P-25, Standards of Conduct, to meet this new requirement. The attached
Resolution (Attachment C) includes the proposed policy amendment, which clarifies that the unauthorized use of
County property includes, but is not limited to, the use of telephones, computers, and related devices and peripheral
equipment that are the property of the County if such personal use interferes with an employee’s productivity or work
performance, or if the use of County property is for the purpose of engaging in political activities.
Political activities is a defined term in Virginia Code § 15.2-1512.2(C) (Attachment B) and includes, but is not limited to,
participating in the activities of, or contributing to, a political party, candidate or campaign or an organization that
supports a political candidate or campaign; soliciting votes or endorsements on behalf of a political candidate or
campaign; or expressing opinions on political subjects and candidates.
Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1505.2, this Standard of Conduct shall apply to the Board of Supervisors as
well as all other officers and employees of the County who utilize County property.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact related to this personnel policy amendment.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to amend Personnel Policy §P-25,
Standards of Conduct.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Virginia Code § 15.2-1505.2
B – Virginia Code § 15.2-1512.2
C – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
§ 15.2-1505.2. Personnel policies related to the use of public property.
Every locality, with the exception of towns having a population of less than 3,500 that do not have a personnel
policy, shall establish personnel policies covering the use of public property by officers and employees of the
locality. Such policies shall address the use of telephones, computers, and related devices and peripheral equipment
that are the property of the locality for (i) personal use, to the extent that such use interferes with the employees'
productivity or work performance, or (ii) political activities. As used in this section, "political activities" shall have
the same meaning as provided in § 15.2-1512.2.
(2014, c. 405.)
prev | next | new search | table of contents | home
prev | next
Page 1 of 1LIS > Code of Virginia > 15.2-1505.2
11/18/2014mhtml:https://ia.albemarle.org/BoardReports/ESAttachments/Va%20Code%20Sec%2015...
§ 15.2-1512.2. Political activities of employees of localities, firefighters, emergency medical technicians and law-
enforcement officers and certain other officers and employees.
A. For the purposes of this section:
"Emergency medical technician" means any person who is employed within the fire department or public safety
department of a locality whose primary responsibility is the provision of emergency medical care to the sick or
injured, using either basic or advanced techniques. Emergency medical technicians may also provide fire protection
services and assist in the enforcement of the fire prevention code.
"Firefighter" means any person who is employed within the fire department or public safety department of a locality
whose primary responsibility is the prevention or extinguishment of fires, the protection of life and property, or the
enforcement of local or state fire prevention codes or laws pertaining to the prevention or control of fires.
"Law-enforcement officer" means any person who is employed within the police department, bureau or force of any
locality, including the sheriff's department of any city or county, and who is authorized by law to make arrests.
"Locality" means counties, cities, towns, authorities or special districts.
"Political campaign" means activities engaged in for the purpose of promoting a political issue, for influencing the
outcome of an election for local or state office, or for influencing the outcome of a referendum or special election.
"Political candidate" means any person who has made known his or her intention to seek, or campaign for, local or
state office in a general, primary or special election.
"Political party" means any party, organization or group having as its purpose the promotion of political candidates
or political campaigns.
B. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, general or special, no locality shall prohibit an employee of the
locality, including firefighters, emergency medical technicians or law-enforcement officers within its employment,
or deputies, appointees and employees of local constitutional officers as defined in § 15.2-1600, from participating in
political activities while these employees are off duty, out of uniform and not on the premises of their employment
with the locality.
C. For purposes of this section, the term "political activities" includes, but is not limited to: voting; registering to
vote; soliciting votes or endorsements on behalf of a political candidate or political campaign; expressing opinions,
privately or publicly, on political subjects and candidates; displaying a political picture, sign, sticker, badge or
button; participating in the activities of, or contributing financially to, a political party, candidate or campaign or an
organization that supports a political candidate or campaign; attending or participating in a political convention,
caucus, rally, or other political gathering; initiating, circulating or signing a political petition; engaging in fund-
raising activities for any political party, candidate or campaign; acting as a recorder, watcher, challenger or similar
officer at the polls on behalf of a political party, candidate or campaign; or becoming a political candidate.
D. Employees of a locality, including firefighters, emergency medical technicians, law-enforcement officers, and
other employees specified in subsection B are prohibited from using their official authority to coerce or attempt to
coerce a subordinate employee to pay, lend or contribute anything of value to a political party, candidate or
campaign, or to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of that person's political
affiliations or political activities, except as such affiliation or activity may be established by law as disqualification
for employment.
E. Employees of a locality, including firefighters, emergency medical technicians, law-enforcement officers, and
other employees specified in subsection B are prohibited from discriminating in the provision of public services,
including but not limited to fire fighting, emergency medical, or law-enforcement services, or responding to requests
for such services, on the basis of the political affiliations or political activities of the person or organization for
prev | next
Page 1 of 2LIS > Code of Virginia > 15.2-1512.2
11/18/2014mhtml:https://ia.albemarle.org/BoardReports/ESAttachments/Va%20Code%20Sec%2015...
which such services are provided or requested.
F. Employees of a locality, including firefighters, emergency medical technicians, law-enforcement officers, and
other employees specified in subsection B are prohibited from suggesting or implying that a locality has officially
endorsed a political party, candidate or campaign.
(2000, c. 791; 2002, c. 886; 2009, c. 306.)
prev | next | new search | table of contents | home
Page 2 of 2LIS > Code of Virginia > 15.2-1512.2
11/18/2014mhtml:https://ia.albemarle.org/BoardReports/ESAttachments/Va%20Code%20Sec%2015...
1
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy has been adopted by the
Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the definition of the unauthorized use of
County property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends Section P-25, Standards of Conduct, of the
County of Albemarle Personnel Policy, as follows:
Section P-25 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
The Board requires that all of its employees will conduct themselves in a manner which
reflects favorably upon them as a representative of local government. To this end, the Board
will establish and maintain certain standards of conduct designed to:
1. Establish a fair and objective process for correcting and treating unacceptable conduct;
2. Distinguish between less serious and more serious misconduct and provide timely
corrective action.
The standards of conduct are intended to be illustrative but not all inclusive of the type of
conduct expected of local employees.
At a minimum, the following standards are expected of all employees:
1. Timely and regular attendance;
2. dependable application of time – employees are expected to apply themselves to their
assigned duties during the full schedule for which they are compensated except for
reasonable time provided for such things as personal hygiene;
3. Satisfactory work performance;
4. Appropriate attire;
5. Courteous and professional behavior toward the public and fellow employees.
The following are examples of unacceptable conduct:
1. Unsatisfactory attendance, performance, or excessive tardiness;
2. Abuse of County time such as unauthorized time away from the work area;
3. Obscene or abusive language;
4. Conviction of a moving violation or failure to notify supervisor of an accident while using a
County vehicle;
5. Failure to follow a supervisor’s instructions, perform assigned work or comply with
established County policy;
6. Leaving the work site without permission during work hours;
7. Failure to report to work without proper notification;
2
8. Unauthorized use or misuse of County property or records. Unauthorized use of County
property includes, but is not limited to, personal use of telephones, computers, and
related devices and peripheral equipment that are the property of the County to the
extent that such personal use interferes with an employee’s productivity or work
performance, or the use of such property to engage in political activities. Political
activities shall be those activities as defined in Virginia Code § 15.2-1512.2(C) and shall
include, but shall not be limited to, participating in the activities of, or contributing to, a
political party, candidate or campaign or an organization that supports a political
candidate or campaign; soliciting votes or endorsements on behalf of a political candidate
or campaign; or expressing opinions on political subjects and candidates. Pursuant to
Virginia Code Section 15.2-1505.2, this Standard of Conduct shall apply to all officers
and employees of the County who utilize County property;
9. Violation of safety rules to include negligent driving of a County vehicle;
10. Falsifying any records such as, but not limited to, vouchers, reports, insurance, time
records, leave records or other official records;
11. Willfully or negligently damaging or defacing records, County property, or other employee
property;
12. Theft or unauthorized removal of County records or property;
13. Gambling on County property or during work hours;
14. Threatening or coercing employees;
15. Indebtedness to the County;
16. Use of an employee’s work time or work environment to promote a political candidate;
17. Inadequate or unsatisfactory job performance; *
18. Acts of physical violence or fighting on the job; *
19. Reporting to work or any work or school related activity after any consumption of alcohol
or unlawful use of controlled substance(s); *
20. Possession or use of alcohol or controlled substance(s), unauthorized firearms,
dangerous weapons, or explosives on the job; *
21. Criminal convictions for acts of conduct occurring on or off the job which are plainly
related to job performance or of such a nature that to continue the employee in the
assigned position could constitute negligence in regard to the County’s duty to the public
or its employees. *
May result in immediate dismissal.
Individual departments may have additional standards of conduct as defined by the
department head. These standards should be written in writing, and should be approved by
the County Executive and shared with the department’s employees.
Amended: August 4, 1993, February 1, 2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP201400054 Glenmore Ground Storage Water Tank,
Pump Station, and Water Mains
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of a Resolution approving a special
exception to allow reduced setbacks
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Benish and Perez
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) proposes to install a 600,000 gallon ground storage water tank, pump
station, and associated water mains adjacent to the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company on property owned by
Albemarle County and the Fire Company within the proposed Rivanna Village at Glenmore project. In order to construct
these improvements as proposed, a special exception to modify the required setbacks to the side and rear property lines
for the structure is necessary (Attachment A). County Code §18-4.10.3.1 requires water tanks to have a 1 to 1 setback of
their height to all property lines. The proposed ground storage water tank is 35 feet tall, thus requiring a 35 foot setback to
all property lines. Due to physical constraints of the property that limit the options for locating the water tank (see
Attachment B), ACSA requests that the side property line setback be reduced to 32 feet and the rear property line setback
be reduced to 20 feet.
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.
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:
Staff analysis of this special exception is provided in Attachment C. County Code §§ 18-4.10.3.1 and 18-33.5
authorize the Board to approve a special exception to modify or waive the requirements of County Code § 18-4.10.3.1
if it determines that the public health, safety, or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver.
The water tank will provide a back-up water supply to the Village of Rivanna in the event of a water main break along
the supply water main. It will also provide ACSA additional time to respond to emergency repairs to the water supply
system, serve the needs of the community, and promote public health and safety. With these pubic benefits, the noted
limited options for locating this water tank, and the landscaping and screening measures proposed, staff recommends
approval of this special exception.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact will result from authorizing this special exception.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving this special exception to
allow a 32 foot side setback and a 20 foot rear setback subject to the following conditions:
1. The Albemarle County Service Authority (the “Authority”) shall obtain a landscaping easement (the
“Landscaping Easement”) on Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A1-00-00-00400 in the location shown
for the “Prop. 20’ Landscaping Easement” on the Site Plan – Grading Plan and Landscaping Plan (the
“Plan”), last revised November 4, 2014, attached hereto, subject to the following:
A. Any tree shown on the Plan whose trunk is located within the Landscaping Easement shall be
preserved and maintained by the Authority;
B. If any tree within the Landscaping Easement dies, is removed, or is otherwise cut so as to no
longer provide the screening intended by this condition as determined by the Director of
Community Development, the Authority shall promptly submit a landscape plan that complies
AGENDA TITLE: SDP201400054 Glenmore Ground Storage Water Tank, Pump Station, and Water Mains
December 3, 2014
Page 2
with Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9 and which will provide screening as provided by
Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.7;
C. After the landscape plan is approved by the County, the Authority shall install and thereafter
maintain any landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan;
D. The Zoning Administrator may allow minor variations in the location of the Landscaping
Easement provided that the screening purpose of the Landscaping Easement is satisfied; and
E. The deed of easement and easement plat for the Landscaping Easement shall be subject to
review and approval by the County before they are recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia.
2. If the Authority does not obtain the Landscaping Easement as provided in Condition 1, it shall:
A. Submit a landscape plat that complies with Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9 and which will
provide screening as provided by Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.7 to the equivalent
extent practicable that would have been provided under Condition 1, as determined by the
Director of Community Development; and
B. After the landscape plan is approved by the County, the Authority shall install and thereafter
maintain any landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Special Exception Request
B – Site plan sheet depicting proposed development and location of offsite landscape easement
C – Staff Analysis of the Request
D – Resolution w/conditions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment C
Staff Analysis of the Request
The proposed water tank will provide a much needed back-up water supply in the event of a water main
break along the supply water main. It will serve the proposed uses in the Village center , as well as the
existing residents in the Village, including Glenmore. It will also provide ACSA additional time to respond
to emergency repairs. In addition, due to the limitations of the sewage treatment plant currently serving
Glenmore, monitoring of all new development is essential to ensure that adequate capacity exists to
serve existing and new homes, the Glenmore Country Club, and the additional businesses expected in
the Village. Monitoring water availability is always necessary in the County. Although the current water
storage capacity is adequate at present, additional water storage may be necessary to serve the Village
in coming years.
Staff Analysis of the Visual Impacts of the Water Tank
In order to facilitate the proposed location of the water tank , the applicant has requested a Special
Exception from the Board to modify two setbacks. The two areas requested for setback modifications are
the side lot line and the rear lot line. There have been at least three meetings with the Village of Rivanna
Advisory Council since January, 2012, and a community meeting was held on August 21, 2014, which
four people attended. There have been no complaints regarding this proposal and residents have been
supportive in general.
Side Lot Line Setback
When the Rivanna Village at Glenmore project is built out, Steamer Drive will be extended across the
frontage of the Fire Station parcel. The water tank will be located on this frontage. Staff’s main concern
with the tank’s proposed location is that the massing of the tank will overwhelm any pedestrian. The 35
foot height of the proposed tank is similar to a 3 story building; however, it is 62 feet wide. The Zoning
Ordinance requires that the water tank be set back at least 35 feet from the property line, which helps to
put distance between the tank and the pedestrian. The applicant has requested a special exception to
reduce the setback from 35 to 32 feet.
The applicant has explained to staff that the tank will actually be set back 42 feet from the street and
about 35 feet from the sidewalk. Street trees will be provided along Steamer Drive to help visually break
up the massing for drivers. Additional landscaping of 20 feet will be placed between the sidewalk and the
tank as depicted on the site plan for the site currently under review (Attachment B). This landscaping will
not eliminate visibility; however, it will help to buffer the appearance of the large structure.
Rear Lot Line Setback
The site for the tank will also abut an area planned for townhouses. The applicant has requested a
reduction of the 35 foot setback from those future property lines to 20 feet. Staff is concerned about the
location of the tank next to future townhouses due to the large size of the tank. The massing and scale of
the tank could be visually problematic from the rear of these townhouse lots. To help mitigate visual
impacts, the applicant has agreed to obtain a 20 foot easement from the adjoining property owner in
which to maintain the mature trees within the area as screening. The majority of the trees in the e asement
are currently 60 to 80 feet tall. The additional 20 foot easement will create a minimum distance of 40 feet
between the townhouses and the tank. In the event the mature trees die, the applicant will provide
landscaping and screening trees in this area that meet the requirements of County Code § 18-32.7.9. The
adjoining property owner is willing to provide the 20 foot easement provided that adequate landscaped
screening is provided.
Staff Comments: Although having a water tank in the location proposed by the applicant is not ideal due
to its proximity to the street and adjoining lots, adequate locations in the Village for the tank are limited.
With the provision of landscaping and screening trees, the appearance of the tank will be softened so as
not to negatively impact those using the Village’s streets and sidewalks or create a structure out of scale
for pedestrians and neighboring properties.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle (the “County”) and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Company, Inc. (“ERVFC) are the owners of Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A1-00-00-00200 (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”) filed a request for a special
exception in conjunction with SDP 2014-00054, Glenmore Ground Storage Water Tank, Pump Station and
Water Mains, to allow a 35-foot tall water tank to encroach the 35-foot structure setback along the side and
rear lot lines 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 included as Attachment C
thereto, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code § 18-4.10.3.1, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to reduce the side setback
from 35 feet to 32 feet and to reduce the rear setback from 35 feet to 20 feet along the respective property
lines abutting Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A1-00-00-00400, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
* * *
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 ____ ____
SDP 2014-00054 Glenmore Ground Storate Water Tank,
Pump Station, and Water Mains Special Exception Condition
1. The Albemarle County Service Authority (the “Authority”) shall obtain a landscaping easement (the
“Landscaping Easement”) on Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A1-00-00-00400 in the location
shown for the “Prop. 20’ Landscaping Easement” on the Site Plan – Grading Plan and Landscaping
Plan (the “Plan”), last revised November 4, 2014, attached hereto, subject to the following:
A. Any tree shown on the Plan whose trunk is located within the Landscaping Easement shall be
preserved and maintained by the Authority;
B. If any tree within the Landscaping Easement dies, is removed, or is otherwise cut so as to no
longer provide the screening intended by th is condition as determined by the Director of
Community Development, the Authority shall promptly submit a landscape plan that complies
with Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9 and which will provide screening as provided by
Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.7;
C. After the landscape plan is approved by the County, the Authority shall install and thereafter
maintain any landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan;
D. The Zoning Administrator m ay allow minor variations in the location of the Landscaping
Easement provided that the screening purpose of the Landscaping Easement is satisfied; and
E. The deed of easement and easement plat for the Landscaping Easement shall be subject to
review and approval by the County before they are recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia.
2. If the Authority does not obtain the Landscaping Easement as provided in Condition 1, it shall:
A. Submit a landscape plan that complies with Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9 and which will
provide screening as provided by Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.7 to the equivalent extent
practicable that would have been provided under Condition 1, as determined by the Director of
Community Developm ent; and
B. After the landscape plan is approved by the County, the Authority shall install and thereafter
maintain any landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan.
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 October 18, 2014 through November 14, 2014.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Allshouse, L., and
Shifflett, K.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 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 County’s Strategic Plan, 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 information on grant activity between October 18 and November 14, 2014.
During this time period, one grant award was received.
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 – October 17, 2014 through November 14, 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
Virginia
Department of
Emergency
Management
FY14 State
Homeland
Security Program
Grant
Federal $42,910.00 0 None Police This grant will be used to provide funds for
the replacement and/or repair of previously
grant-funded purchased equipment, as well
as the purchase of additional property, such
as protective gear, bulletproof vests,
thermal imager and digital video
enhancement system.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 15 General Fund Q1 Report; Revised FY 15 Revenue
Projections Report; and Quarterly Economic Indicators
Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
FY 15 Q1 Financial Report July through September
2014; Revised Revenue and Expenditure Projections
Report for FY 15; and Quarterly Economic Indicators
Report
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Burrell, Sumner, and Allshouse, S.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The attached Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) (Attachment A) provides information regarding the County’s FY 15 General
Fund and School Fund performance as of September 30, 2014. The General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report
(Attachments B and C) includes projected General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 15. The Quarterly Economic
Indicator Report (Attachments D and E) provides an overview of recent general economic conditions in the County.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenues that support community goals.
DISCUSSION:
Quarterly Financial Report
The Quarterly Financial Report reflects year-to-date (YTD) data through September 30, 2014, the end of the first
quarter of FY 15. The data in the attached QFR is organized in a way that is consistent with Exhibit 12 of the County’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Most line item titles in the QFR match the line item titles in the
CAFR. Highlights from the QFR include:
Revenues – YTD Actual. YTD total revenues in Q1 FY 15 are $14,951,434, compared to $14,755,234 in Q1 FY 14. In
percentage terms, FY 15 YTD actual revenues as a percentage of FY 15 Revised Budget revenues was 6.18%,
compared to 6.32% in FY 14. This result means that the rate of revenue collection was essentially consistent between
the two years.
Individual revenue streams performed fairly consistently in Q1 FY 15 when compared to Q1 FY 14. Only revenue from
the Federal Government experienced significant year-to-year variance. For additional information about this revenue
variance, please see the analysis on page 2 of the QFR.
Expenditures – YTD Actual. YTD total expenditures in Q1 FY 15 are $61,199,925, compared to $60,626,328 in Q1 FY
14. In percentage terms, FY 15 YTD actual expenditures as a percentage of FY15 Revised Budget expenditures was
25.31%, compared to 25.98% in FY 14. This result means that expenditures essentially were consistent between the
two years.
Individual expenditure streams performed fairly consistently in Q1 FY 15 when compared to Q1 FY 14. Six
expenditure streams did experience significant year-to-year variance. These expenditure streams include Public
Safety: Police; Public Safety: Fire/Rescue; Public Safety: Volunteer Fire; Human Development: Contributions to
Agencies & Tax Relief; Parks, Recreation & Culture: Libraries; and Community Development: Contributions-
Community Development. For additional information about these expenditure variances, please see the analysis on
pages 2 and 3 of the QFR.
AGENDA TITLE: FY 15 General Fund Q1 Report; Revised FY 15 Revenue Projections Report; and Quarterly
Economic Indicators Report
December 3, 2014
Page 2
ACPS Quarterly Financial Report. The Albemarle County Public Schools Quarterly Financial Report as of September
30, 2014 is included as a table on page 9 of the QFR.
Administratively-Approved Budget Transfers. In addition to the attached financial reports, the Board has directed staff
to provide a quarterly update of any budget transfers administratively approved by the County Executive. As of
September 30, 2014, the County Executive administratively approved the following budget transfers:
$6,840,963.37 reduction in the Capital Improvement budget for the following funds: School Division Capital
Fund, General Government Capital Fund, Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Fund, and Stormwater
Capital Fund. As authorized in Appropriation #2015001 (capital project carry forward), the aforementioned
capital budgets were reduced to reflect the actual available project balances at the end of FY14.
General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report
The General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (GFRFPR) provides a streamlined summary of forecasted
revenues and expenditures. The GFRFPR indicates that by June 30, 2015, revenues are forecasted to exceed
appropriated revenues by $1.230 million. Expenditures are projected to be $0.932 million below appropriated
expenditures. The difference between appropriated expenditures and forecasted expenditures is due primarily to
savings associated with salary lapse and insurance. Excess revenues and expenditures savings are projected to
result in a net of $2.162 million additional fund balance by the end of FY 15. Please note that this projected $2.162
million in additional fund balance equals only 0.89% of the forecasted $ 241.414 million FY 15 expenditures and
transfers; this small percentage “buffer” reflects an extremely tight budgetary environment.
Quarterly Economic Indicators Report
The Quarterly Economic Indicators Report (QEIR) shows the state of the County’s economy. The QEIR contains data
taken from the most recently available quarter and compares this data with data from the same quarter of previous
fiscal years. General economic activity, as measured by six select revenue streams, collectively grew between Q1 FY
14 and Q1 FY 15, although revenue in certain streams fell while revenue in other streams increased. The
unemployment rate in Albemarle declined slightly between Q1 FY 14 and Q1 FY 15, dropping from 4.70% to 4.67%.
This year-over-year decline, however, was the smallest in the Q1 FY 12 to Q1 FY 15 period. Note that the County’s
jobs base apparently contracted between Q3 FY 13 and Q3 FY 14, the most recent quarter for which information is
available; this was the only year-over-year contraction in the jobs base during the Q1 FY 12 to Q1 FY 15 time frame.
The unemployment rate and jobs data suggests that the County might have entered an economic slowdown, despite
an improving U.S. economy.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Revenues and expenditure data contained in the QFR reflects the state of the County’s FY 15 budget-to-actual
financial performance as of September 30, 2014. Year end projections contained in the GFRFPR are subject to
change, based on the result of actual collections and expenditures through June 30, 2015. Data shown in the
QEIR reflects economic variables that impact the County’s current and future revenues and expenditures.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
These reports are for information only. Staff welcomes the Board’s feedback regarding the content and presentation
of these reports.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Quarterly Financial Report
B – General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report
C – General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report Table
D – Quarterly Economic Indicators Report
E – Quarterly Economic Indicators Report Table I
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Quarterly Financial Report
Quarter Ended September 30, 2014
Page 1 of 9
Introduction
The Albemarle County Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) for the quarter ended September 30,
2014 displays general fund revenue and expenditure data using many of the same line item
titles that are found in Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR).
The Quarterly Financial Report document consists of three parts:
Analysis pages of YTD FY 14/15 revenues and expenditures that changed by more than 2%
and that also experienced dollar changes of more than $200,000 between Q1 of FY 13/14
and Q1 of FY 14/15.
A detailed table that shows (1) YTD actual dollar amounts of revenues and expenditures for
FY 14/15 and FY 13/14; (2) budgeted dollar amounts of revenues and expenditures for FY
14/15 and FY 13/14; and (3) YTD actual revenues and expenditures as percentages of
budgeted revenues and expenditures for FY 14/15 and FY 13/14.
An examination of the percentages for both fiscal years reveals the rate at which
YTD actual revenues and expenditures in the current fiscal year are approaching
budgeted amounts, compared with the rate at which YTD actual revenues and
expenditures in the prior fiscal year approached budgeted amounts.
As an example of this comparison, the figure contained in Column D, Line No. 6
reveals that, in the first quarter of FY 14/15, the revenue that the County
collected in Charges for Services was 18.45% of the budgeted amount while, as
shown in Column H, Line No. 6, the revenue that Albemarle collected from this
revenue source in the first quarter of FY 13/14 stood at 21.61% of the budgeted
amount.
Pie charts that show (1) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various revenue
streams for FY 14/15; and (2) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various
expenditures for FY 14/15.
Page 2 of 9
Albemarle County
Analysis of Significant Variances in General Fund
Quarter Ended September 30, 2014
Revenues Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances
Revenues – Intergovernmental: Revenue
from Federal Government.
In FY 14/15, actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY 14/15
budget amount, equaled 12.21% vs. 21.93% in FY 13/14. Actual
YTD revenue came to $583,711 vs. $969,865 in FY 13/14. This
variance is due to a timing difference in receiving the monthly
Federal Categorical Aid for the Department of Social Services.
Two reimbursements were received by Sept. 30 in FY 13/14
versus only one reimbursement received by Sept. 30 in FY 14/15.
Expenditures Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances
Public Safety: Police. In FY 14/15, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 14/15
budgeted amount came to 29.29% vs. 25.02% in FY 13/14. Actual
YTD expenditures equaled $4,706,961 vs. $3,841,322 in FY 13/14.
This variance reflects increased personnel and vehicle/equipment
maintenance/repair costs in FY 14/15 (approx. $250K). In
addition, new in FY 14/15, the annual departmental Vehicle
Replacement Fund contribution was charged at the beginning of
the fiscal year instead of being allocated monthly.
Public Safety: Fire/Rescue. In FY 14/15, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 14/15
budgeted amount came to 26.34% vs. 24.00% in FY 13/14. Actual
YTD expenditures equaled $2,852,468 vs. $2,311,656 in FY 13/14.
This variance reflects approx. $115K more in personnel costs for
the 1st quarter of FY 14/15 versus FY 13/14. In addition, $300K of
fuel, Line of Duty Act, insurance, health services, turnout gear and
other operating expenditures (including budget appropriations)
were transferred from the Volunteer Fire departments to the Fire
Rescue Department (F/R) as part of appropriation #2015020.
Consolidating the budgeting, accounting and processing of these
support expenditures within the F/R category will more clearly
reflect total F/R system costs and will provide administrative
efficiencies by streamlining the processing of these expenditures.
See the corresponding variance explanation in the Volunteer Fire
category.
Public Safety: Volunteer Fire. In FY 14/15, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 14/15
budgeted amount came to 26.45% vs. 58.79% in FY 13/14. Actual
YTD expenditures equaled $262,880 vs. $1,080,232 in FY 13/14.
This variance reflects the 1st and 2nd quarter contributions to the
Volunteer Fire departments in FY 13/14 as opposed to only the 1st
quarter in FY 14/15 (approx. $257K). FY 13/14 also contained a
one-time expenditure of $240K to fund Seminole Trail Volunteer
Fire Department’s temporary relocation during station
renovations. In FY 14/15, approx. $300K of fuel, Line of Duty Act,
insurance, health services, turnout gear and other operating
Page 3 of 9
expenditures (including budget appropriations) were transferred
from the Volunteer Fire departments to the Fire Rescue
Department (F/R). F/R manages these types of expenditures for
the Volunteer Fire departments.
Human Development: Contributions to
Agencies & Tax Relief.
In FY 14/15, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 14/15
budgeted amount came to 21.33% vs. 36.29% in FY 13/14. Actual
YTD expenditures equaled $986,018 vs. $1,636,427 in FY 13/14.
This variance is the result of timing differences; the 1st and 2nd
quarter contributions were made in the 1st quarter of FY 13/14 to
multiple human services agencies (including Sexual Assault
Resource Agency, Jefferson Area Board for Aging, JAUNT,
Jefferson Area CHIP, United Way, Children Youth and Family
Services, etc) as opposed to only the 1st quarter contributions
being made by September 30 in FY 14/15.
Parks, Recreation, & Culture: Libraries. In FY 14/15, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 14/15
budgeted amount came to 25.00% vs. 50.00% in FY 13/14 and is
the result of timing differences. Actual YTD expenditures equaled
$956,222 vs. $1,724,466 in FY 13/14. This variance reflects the 1st
and 2nd quarter contributions to the Jefferson Madison Regional
Library in FY 13/14 as opposed to only the 1st quarter contribution
in FY 14/15.
Community Development:
Contributions-Community Development.
In FY 14/15, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 14/15
budgeted amount came to 27.72% vs. 50.68% in FY 13/14 and is
the result of timing differences. Actual YTD expenditures equaled
$424,064 vs. $761,146 in FY 13/14. The variance reflects the 1st
and 2nd quarter contributions in FY 13/14 for Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program, Piedmont Housing Alliance, Monticello
Area Community Action Agency, and the Charlottesville Area
Transit. FY 14/15 only contains the 1st quarter contributions.
Note: Significant variances are defined as differences of more than two percentage points and $200,000.
Page 4 of 9
A B C D E F G H
FY 14/15 FY 14/15 FY 13/14 FY 13/14
FY 14/15 FY 14/15 Actual Actual as %FY 13/14 FY 13/14 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget FY Q1 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q1 (Col G/Col F)
REVENUES
Revenues - Local
1 Property Tax 152,508,988 152,508,988 3,378,845 2.22%143,703,479 143,703,479 3,174,549 2.21%
2 Other Local Taxes 49,442,366 49,442,366 4,495,622 9.09%46,818,062 46,818,062 3,790,792 8.10%
3 Permits, Priv. Fees, Licenses 2,211,625 2,211,625 450,025 20.35%1,723,949 1,723,949 467,581 27.12%
4 Fines and Forfeitures 879,969 879,969 150,390 17.09%990,260 990,260 137,119 13.85%
5 Use of Money and Property 886,195 886,195 129,916 14.66%428,522 438,522 78,380 17.87%
6 Charges for Services 3,336,267 3,336,267 615,674 18.45%3,123,596 3,123,596 674,895 21.61%
7 Miscellaneous 152,278 152,278 1,259 0.83%152,278 152,278 16,730 10.99%
8 Recovered Costs 330,741 330,741 75,060 22.69%260,370 260,370 12,238 4.70%
9 Subtotal - Local Revenues $209,748,429 $209,748,429 $9,296,792 4.43%$197,200,516 $197,210,516 $8,352,283 4.24%
Revenues - Intergovernmental
10 Contribution from School Bd.180,000 180,000 - 0.00%368,338 368,338 47,085 12.78%
11 Contribution from Other Ent.3,502,962 3,763,475 576,388 15.32%3,519,977 8,078,673 533,537 6.60%
12 Revenue from Commonwealth 23,294,394 23,294,394 4,494,542 19.29%23,163,795 23,290,858 4,852,464 20.83%
13 Revenue from Fed. Govt.4,753,665 4,781,860 583,711 12.21%4,243,141 4,422,411 969,865 21.93%
14 Subtotal - Intergovernmental Revs.$31,731,021 $32,019,729 $5,654,642 17.66%$31,295,251 $36,160,280 $6,402,950 17.71%
15 TOTAL REVENUES $241,479,450 $241,768,158 $14,951,434 6.18%$228,495,767 $233,370,796 $14,755,234 6.32%
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Administration
16 Board of Supervisors 645,873 645,873 149,588 23.16%599,994 612,676 150,343 24.54%
17 County Executive 1,143,506 1,148,506 277,069 24.12%1,189,801 1,202,318 279,946 23.28%
18 Human Resources 638,297 653,549 152,048 23.27%655,864 652,833 153,924 23.58%
19 County Attorney 1,032,166 1,032,166 253,896 24.60%1,016,955 1,042,888 265,573 25.47%
20 Finance 4,970,735 4,985,735 1,195,627 23.98%4,658,755 4,887,736 1,156,397 23.66%
21 Management & Budget 351,043 485,009 118,840 24.50%342,516 479,827 90,079 18.77%
22 Information Technology 2,770,869 2,771,604 735,229 26.53%2,516,804 2,572,514 706,031 27.45%
24 Registrar 577,014 577,014 96,206 16.67%565,954 594,122 94,926 15.98%
25 Total Administration 12,129,503 12,299,456 2,978,503 24.22%11,546,643 12,044,914 2,897,218 24.05%
Albemarle County Quarterly Financial Report Comparison -General Fund
Quarter Ended September 30, 2014 vs. Quarter Ended September 30, 2013
Page 5 of 9
A B C D E F G H
FY 14/15 FY 14/15 FY 13/14 FY 13/14
FY 14/15 FY 14/15 Actual Actual as %FY 13/14 FY 13/14 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget FY Q1 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q1 (Col G/Col F)
Judicial
26 Circuit Court 174,713 174,713 37,975 21.74%99,312 99,864 26,520 26.56%
27 General District Court 40,501 40,501 10,761 26.57%37,285 37,285 5,808 15.58%
28 Magistrate 4,550 4,550 4,170 91.65%4,350 4,350 4,022 92.45%
29 Juvenile Court 117,359 117,359 - 0.00%113,381 113,381 - 0.00%
30 Clerk of Court 835,915 835,915 230,451 27.57%780,096 790,327 233,491 29.54%
31 Sheriff 2,256,532 2,296,727 673,622 29.33%2,196,868 2,272,814 602,648 26.52%
32 Commonwealth Attorney 1,061,028 1,061,028 275,363 25.95%1,042,113 1,057,925 272,595 25.77%
33 Total Judicial 4,490,598 4,530,793 1,232,343 27.20%4,273,405 4,375,946 1,145,083 26.17%
Public Safety
34 Police 16,063,943 16,068,943 4,706,961 29.29%15,151,349 15,352,516 3,841,322 25.02%
35 Fire/Rescue 10,070,966 10,830,359 2,852,468 26.34%9,554,146 9,630,748 2,311,656 24.00%
36 Volunteer Fire 1,652,556 993,744 262,880 26.45%1,545,219 1,837,583 1,080,232 58.79%
37 Volunteer Rescue 559,888 532,258 127,523 23.96%494,380 494,380 247,636 50.09%
38 Fire/Rescue Forest Fire Ext.23,929 23,929 23,929 100.00%23,929 23,929 23,929 100.00%
39 City Fire Contract 186,715 186,715 - 0.00%150,000 991,711 - 0.00%
40 Regional Jail 3,216,696 3,216,696 323,495 10.06%3,415,945 3,627,879 271,038 7.47%
41 Inspections 1,303,995 1,303,995 345,891 26.53%1,108,821 1,108,821 289,886 26.14%
42 ECC - General Fund 1000 2,167,176 2,167,176 541,794 25.00%2,191,183 2,191,183 547,796 25.00%
43 Contributions - Public Safety 1,759,469 1,759,469 407,127 23.14%1,737,466 1,615,796 460,663 28.51%
44 Total Public Safety 37,005,333 37,083,284 9,592,069 25.87%35,372,438 36,874,547 9,074,157 24.61%
Public Works
45 Solid Waste, Recycling 575,557 685,083 128,745 18.79%420,523 558,629 115,288 20.64%
46 Facilities Development 198,465 198,465 47,133 23.75%193,425 203,702 58,800 28.87%
47 General Services 3,713,317 3,713,317 796,782 21.46%3,417,101 3,419,546 707,871 20.70%
48 Total Public Works 4,487,339 4,596,865 972,660 21.16%4,031,049 4,181,876 881,959 21.09%
Human Development
49 Social Services 15,109,383 15,109,383 3,626,367 24.00%13,998,895 14,346,669 3,421,910 23.85%
50 Contr. to Agencies & Tx. Relief 4,622,044 4,622,044 986,018 21.33%4,509,822 4,509,822 1,636,427 36.29%
51 Total Human Development 19,731,427 19,731,427 4,612,385 23.38%18,508,717 18,856,491 5,058,337 26.83%
Education
52 Piedmont Va. Community College 24,024 24,024 6,006 25.00%24,962 24,962 12,481 50.00%
53 Transfer to Schools CIP 109,807,126 109,807,126 27,451,782 25.00%103,332,028 103,332,028 25,833,007 25.00%
54 Transfer to Schools Debt Service 1,569,199 1,583,627 395,907 25.00%1,152,877 3,901,101 288,219 7.39%
55 Transfer to Schools Fund 12,553,845 12,539,417 9,798,294 78.14%12,428,551 11,762,044 9,988,929 84.93%
56 Total Education 123,954,194 123,954,194 37,651,989 30.38%116,938,418 119,020,135 36,122,636 30.35%
Page 6 of 9
A B C D E F G H
FY 14/15 FY 14/15 FY 13/14 FY 13/14
FY 14/15 FY 14/15 Actual Actual as %FY 13/14 FY 13/14 Actual Actual as %
Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised
No.Item Budget Budget FY Q1 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q1 (Col G/Col F)
Parks, Recreation, and Culture
57 Towe Park 155,374 155,374 - 0.00%181,200 214,844 - 0.00%
58 Parks & Recreation 2,371,740 2,381,740 789,881 33.16%2,262,540 2,331,264 735,348 31.54%
59 Libraries 3,824,889 3,824,889 956,222 25.00%3,448,931 3,448,931 1,724,466 50.00%
60 Contributions - Parks 791,885 791,885 229,096 28.93%723,982 723,982 371,741 51.35%
61 Total Parks, Rec. and Culture 7,143,888 7,153,888 1,975,199 27.61%6,616,653 6,719,022 2,831,555 42.14%
Community Development
62 Community Development 4,273,714 4,273,714 1,034,920 24.22%4,027,609 4,133,158 1,035,252 25.05%
63 Housing 478,536 483,936 123,611 25.54%482,674 507,769 122,923 24.21%
64 Soil & Water Conservation 103,910 103,910 25,900 24.93%115,646 115,646 38,618 33.39%
65 Extension Programs 183,346 183,346 12,254 6.68%181,901 183,245 9,040 4.93%
66 Contributions - Comm. Dev.1,529,742 1,529,742 424,064 27.72%1,501,911 1,501,911 761,146 50.68%
67 Economic Development 262,089 262,089 17,875 6.82%- - - N/A
68 City/County Rev. Sharing 16,466,981 16,466,981 - 0.00%16,931,333 16,931,333 - 0.00%
69 Total Community Develop.23,298,318 23,303,718 1,638,624 7.03%23,241,074 23,373,061 1,966,978 8.42%
Transfers, Contingencies, and Refunds
70 Transfer Accounts 7,159,265 7,193,706 301,223 4.19%5,634,980 6,351,533 420,412 6.62%
71 Contingency Accounts 1,916,085 1,757,327 162,712 9.26%2,168,890 1,409,770 165,444 11.74%
72 Refunds 163,500 163,500 82,219 50.29%163,500 163,500 62,549 38.26%
73 Total Transf, Cont, and Refs.9,238,850 9,114,533 546,154 5.99%7,967,370 7,924,802 648,405 8.18%
74 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 241,479,450 241,768,158 61,199,925 25.31%228,495,767 233,370,796 60,626,328 25.98%
Excess/(Deficiency) of
75 Revenues over Expends.- - (46,248,492)- - (45,871,094)
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, November 10, 2014.
Page 7 of 9
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, November 10, 2014.
Page 8 of 9
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, November 10, 2014.
Page 9 of 9
ORIGINAL CURRENT ACTUAL ACTUAL
APPROPRIATED APPROPRIATED REVENUES AS % OF
BUDGET BUDGET EXPENDITURES CURRENT
REVENUES
Use of Money 447,348 447,348 54,996 12.29%
Charges for Services 833,000 833,000 2,350 0.28%
Miscellaneous 230,722 230,722 293,094 127.03%
Recovered Costs 599,037 599,037 123,842 20.67%
Transfers 110,893,363 110,893,363 27,451,782 24.76%
Revenue from Commonwealth 44,429,342 44,429,342 6,258,590 14.09%
Revenue from the Federal Government 3,004,498 3,004,498 - 0.00%
Total Revenues 160,437,310 160,437,310 34,184,654 21.31%
EXPENSES
Instruction 122,370,231 122,346,171 17,223,284 14.08%
Admin, Attendance and Health 7,060,728 7,060,828 2,060,135 29.18%
Pupil Transportation Services 9,638,750 9,662,710 1,126,852 11.66%
Operation and Maintenance Services 15,194,598 15,194,598 3,459,495 22.77%
Building Services 160,000 160,000 37,257 23.29%
Technology 2,700,160 2,700,160 634,052 23.48%
Transfers 3,312,843 3,312,843 385,849 11.65%
Total Expenses 160,437,310 160,437,310 24,926,925 15.54%
September 30, 2014
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Albemarle County Public Schools
Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, November 10, 2014.
General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report
As of November 10, 2014
Introduction
The Albemarle County General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (GFRFPR) reflects staff
estimates, as of November 10, 2014, for the County’s FY 2014/15 revenues and expenditures
through June 30, 2015. The revenue projections contained in this report represent recent work
performed by the County’s Revenue Team. This group consists of the following members:
Lori S. Allshouse, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Betty J. Burrell, Director, Department of Finance
Mark Graham, Director, Department of Community Development
Steven A. Allshouse, Manager of Economic Analysis and Forecasting, Department of Finance
L. Rocio Lamb, Division Manager of Revenue and Taxation, Department of Finance
Bob Willingham, County Assessor, Department of Finance
Laura F. Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst, Office of Management and Budget
The expenditure projections contained in this report were developed by the County’s Office of
Management and Budget.
Background
The County’s revenue and expenditure situation in FY 2014/15 continues to reflect only a
modest pace of economic growth. This situation suggests that the Charlottesville region has
not taken part in the apparent recent improvement in overall U.S. macroeconomic conditions.1
One theory about the difference in the relative economic performance of the region, on the
one hand, and the rest of the U.S., on the other hand, involves the ongoing impact of
sequestration. According to this theory, the dependence of Virginia’s economy on federal
spending has magnified the impact of sequestration to the point that the performance of the
state’s economy now lags the economic performance of the rest of the country. For additional
information regarding the County’s economy, please see the Albemarle County Quarterly
Economic Indicators report.
Discussion
A. General Fund Revenue Projections
Within the context of a growing but somewhat challenging environment, revenues, excluding
Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, at the end of FY 2014/15 are estimated to total
$239.065 million, or roughly $1.230 million (0.52%) higher than Budget. Combined with the use
of $2.554 million in transfers from other funds and $1.957 million in fund balance, Revenues,
Transfers, and Use of Fund Balances are expected to total $242.345 million, or $1.230 million
(0.51%) more than Budget.
The following points provide a brief revenue analysis for FY 2014/15 through June 30, 2015:
Property Tax Revenue is expected to exceed Budget by $1.882 million (1.19%). Note that
property tax revenue includes, among other revenues, Real Property Tax, Personal Property
Tax, and Delinquent Tax Collections.
o Real Property Tax Revenue is forecasted to end the year at $123.362 million,
roughly $1.266 million above Budget. Note: This estimated surplus reflects a
$0.799 real property tax rate.
o Personal Property Tax revenue is expected to equal $23.079 million, or roughly
$0.485 million (2.1%) above Budget.
o Delinquency Collections are expected to come to roughly $2.689 million, or
roughly in line with Budget.
Other Local Tax Revenue overall is forecasted to be $49.072 million, or below Budget by
approximately $0.370 million (0.75%). Major categories of interest within this broad
revenue stream include Sales Tax, Business License Tax, Consumer Utility Tax, and Food &
Beverage Tax.
o Sales Tax revenue is forecasted to be $14.298 million, $0.461 million (or 3.1%)
below Budget.
o Business License Tax is estimated to come to $10.645 million, $0.770 million (or
within 6.7%) below Budget.
o Consumer Utility Tax is forecasted to equal $8.778 million, roughly $0.624 million
(7.7%) above Budget.
o Food & Beverage Tax revenue is estimated to end the year at $6.454 million.
This amount is $0.273 million (4.1%) below Budget.
State Revenues, net of an estimated payment of $349,416 to the Commonwealth, are
forecasted to equal $22.945 million, or roughly 1.5% below Budget.
Other Local Revenues (a broad category which includes Permits, Fines & Forfeitures, Use of
Money and Property, Charges for Services, Miscellaneous Revenues, and Recovered Costs)
is expected to come to $7.963 million. This amount is above budget by roughly $0.166
million (or 2.1%).
Federal Revenues are expected to come to $4.754 million. This amount is roughly $0.037
million (or 0.66%) below Budget.
Transfers from other funds are forecast to be $2.554 million, equal to budget.
Budgeted use of fund balance is $1.957 million. This amount represents primarily transfer
to capital and is expected to be fully utilized. The County is expected, however, to
experience cost savings which will result in new fund balance by the end of the fiscal year.
B. General Fund Expenditure Projections
General Fund expenditures, including transfers, are forecast to total $241.414 million at the
end of the fiscal year. This amount is $0.932 million (or 0.38%) less than budget.
Departmental expenditures are expected to be $91.871 million, roughly $0.899 million (or
0.97%) less than budget.
Non-Departmental expenditures consist of the County’s revenue sharing payment to the Cit y of
Charlottesville, reserves, and refunds. Collectively, these items are forecast to total $18.414
million, or $0.032 million (0.17%) less than budget.
Transfers are expected to equal $131.129 million at the end of the fiscal year. This amount
includes Transfers to the School Division ($123.930 million) and Transfer to Capital, Debt, and
Other Funds ($7.199 million). These transfer amounts are equal to budget.
C. Budget Impact
The Q1 FY 2014/15 General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report indicates that forecasted
revenues, including transfers, will be $243.575 million, an excess of $1.230 million over
appropriated revenues and transfers. Expenditures, including tr ansfers, are forecast to be
$241.414 million, $0.932 million less than appropriated expenditures and transfers. The net
result is that, at June 30, 2015, projected revenues and transfers will be $2.162 million (or
0.89%) above expected expenditures and transfers.
_______________
1. In Q1 FY 15 the U.S. economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.5%, after increasing at an
annualized rate of 4.6% in Q4 FY 14 . Please see the Bloomberg article, “U.S. Economy Up 3.5%
in 3rd Quarter, Capping Best Six Months in Over a Decade”:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-30/economy-in-u-s-grew-3-5-in-third-quarter-
more-than-forecast.html.
The decent economic performance at the national level is encouraging, but comes with the
caveat that the annualized 4.6% rise in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Q4 FY 14 came after a n
outright 2.1% annualized rate of contraction in GDP in Q3 FY 14. The average annualized rate of
growth in GDP during these three quart ers, 3.0%, suggests nonetheless that the pace of growth
in the U.S. economy might be fairly solid in the near term.
FY 15 FY 15 Revised Proj. Rev.
07/01/14 9/30/2014 % Total Revenue Variance as a % of
Revenues Adopted Appropriations Appropriations Projections Proj. - Approp.Approp. Amt.
Property Taxes $152.509 $152.509 62.9%$154.331 $1.822 101.19%
Other Local Taxes 49.442 49.442 20.4%49.072 -0.370 99.25%
Permits, Priv. Fees, Licenses 2.212 2.212 0.9%2.300 0.089 104.02%
Fines and Forfeitures 0.880 0.880 0.4%0.700 -0.180 79.55%
Use of Money and Property 0.886 0.886 0.4%1.108 0.221 124.98%
Charges for Services 3.336 3.336 1.4%3.347 0.011 100.33%
Miscellaneous 0.152 0.152 0.1%0.162 0.010 106.31%
Recovered Costs 0.331 0.331 0.1%0.346 0.015 104.50%
State Revenue 23.294 23.296 9.6%22.945 -0.351 98.50%
Federal Revenue 4.754 4.791 2.0%4.754 -0.037 99.23%
Subtotal - Revenues 237.796 237.835 98.1%239.065 $1.230 100.52%
Transfers
Use of Other Funds 2.486 2.554 1.1%2.554 0.000 100.00%
Use of Fund Balance 1.197 1.957 0.8%1.957 0.000 100.00%
Subtotal - Transfers $3.683 $4.511 1.9%$4.511 $0.000 100.00%
Total - Revenues & Transfers $241.479 $242.345 100.0%$243.575 $1.230 100.51%
FY 15 FY 15 Revised Proj. Exp.
07/01/14 9/30/2014 % Total Expenditure Variance as a % of
Expenditures Adopted Appropriations Appropriations Projections Proj. - Approp.Approp. Amt.
Administration $12.130 $12.385 5.1%$12.270 -$0.116 99.07%
Judicial 4.491 4.552 1.9%4.496 -0.056 98.78%
Public Safety 37.005 37.415 15.4%36.937 -0.478 98.72%
Public Works 4.487 4.597 1.9%4.482 -0.115 97.50%
Human Development 19.755 19.799 8.2%19.768 -0.031 99.84%
Parks, Rec. & Culture 7.144 7.181 3.0%7.130 -0.051 99.29%
Community Development 6.831 6.841 2.8%6.788 -0.053 99.22%
Subtotal - Operations $91.843 $92.771 38.3%$91.871 -$0.899 99.03%
Non-Dept. (Rev. share; reserves; refunds)$18.547 $18.446 7.6%$18.414 -$0.032 99.83%
Transfers
Transfer to School Division 123.930 123.930 51.1%123.930 0.000 100.00%
Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 7.159 7.199 3.0%7.199 0.000 100.00%
Subtotal - Transfers $131.089 $131.129 54.1%$131.129 $0.000 100.00%
Total - Expenditures & Transfers $241.479 $242.345 100.0%$241.414 -$0.932 99.62%
Projected FY 14/15 Revenue in Excess of Expenditures $2.162
County of Albemarle
General Fund FY 2014/15 Projection Report
as of November 10, 2014
(in $ Millions)
Notes: Property Tax Revenue assumes a $0.799 real property tax. The revised projected FY 15 State revenue is net of an estimated $349,416 payment to the
Commonwealth.
Sources: July 1st adopted amounts are taken from the "Annual Resolution of Appropriations of the County of Albemarle" document from the June 4, 2014 Board of
Supervisors meeting. September 30th appropriated amounts are taken from the Albemarle County ER system, via AADR, November 10, 2014. Projected Revenues come
from the Albemarle County Dept. of Finance. Projected Expenditures and Projected Transfer amounts are supplied by the Albemarle County Office of Management and
Budget.
Quarterly Economic Indicators Report
As of the Quarter Ended September 30, 2014
Introduction
The attached Table I provides a general indication of the state of Albemarle County’s economy
in the quarter for which the most recent data is available. For comparative purposes, each line
in the attached Table I reveals data for Q1 FY 15 or Q3 of FY 14, as well as corresponding
historical figures from FY 10, FY 11, FY 12, and FY 13.
The data in Table I consists of three broad categories. The first category pertains to general
economic activity in the County, as reveled by the following local tax revenue streams: Sales
Tax, Consumer Utility Tax, Food and Beverage Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Inspection Fees,
and Other Development Fees. Staff has determined that these revenue streams collectively
reflect the overall health of the County’s economy since they relate directly to a number of
important industries including retail, tourism, and construction; these revenue streams, also,
collectively have shadowed movements in the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area’s
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the course of the past ten years. This set of data pertains
to Q1 FY 15 and Q1 of previous fiscal years.
The second group of data reveals the County’s unemployment rate. Corresponding information
is presented for the state and U.S. unemployment rates. These figures also pertain to Q1 FY 15
and Q1 of the previous fiscal years. The third data group in Table I includes information about
the total number of jobs in the County. Note that this data covers Q3 FY 14, and Q3 of each
previous fiscal year, due to the Virginia Employment Commission’s (VEC’s) ongoing two quarter
reporting lag. In addition to total jobs data, Table I breaks down the information by private
sector vs. public sector jobs; federal government, state government, and local government jobs;
and jobs by two digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Table I
presents the quarterly data in such a way that changes over time in the employment numbers
in the various job sectors become readily apparent.
Results
General Economic Activity – One Year
Between Q1 FY 14 and Q1 FY 15, certain tax revenue streams shown in Table I exhibited
moderate-to-strong growth, while other revenue streams seem to have dropped slightly, or
even precipitously. It is important to keep in mind that the Q1 FY 15 numbers shown on Table I
are preliminary, i.e., unaudited, and that, unlike annual data, which tends to be relatively
smooth, quarterly data from one fiscal year can swing widely from corresponding quarterly
figures in other fiscal years. This phenomenon can come about as the result of differences in
the timing of the receipt of revenues, as well as unusual differences in economic conditions that
might exist between any two particular corresponding quarters. An example of this latter
situation would be the impact of harsh weather conditions on, say, sales tax revenue.
With this caveat in mind, a comparison of Q1 FY 14 a nd Q1 FY 15 Sales Tax revenue reveals
growth of slightly less than 9%. This increase likely resulted, at least in part, from the ongoing
addition of retail space along the 29 North corridor. Similarly, Table I indicates that Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue jumped by about 28% between these two points in time. On
another note, however, Food & Beverage tax revenue apparently declined, by 7.6%, during this
period. These apparently contradictory results highlight the need to exercise caution in
interpreting the performance of individual revenue streams between quarters .
Between Q1 FY 14 and Q1 FY 15 the County’s Inspection Fees, which reflect current
development, increased modestly, by 3.76%. Other Development Fees, a measure related
more to future development than to current development, dropped substantially, by 18.47%. It
is not clear whether this drop represents a statistical fluke or whether the decline might
indicate the start of a longer-term trend.
During this period, the County’s Consumer Utility Tax revenue, a stream that historically has
correlated well with general economic activity, dipped modestly, by about 1%. This drop could
reflect a slowdown in the local economy but, more fundamentally, could reflect a shift away
from landline telephones to cell phone usage and internet-based communication services such
as Skype and FaceTime. These latter forms of communication are not subject to taxation and,
consequently, growth in the use of these alternate methods of communication has potentially
negative long-term implications for the County’s Telecommunications Tax revenue, which is a
substantial portion (roughly 52%) of Albemarle’s overall Consumer Utility Tax revenue.
General Economic Activity – Multiyear
Between Q1 FY 11 and Q1 FY 15, Sales Tax revenue grew by about 13% while TOT revenue
jumped by roughly 50%. These increases came about, at least partially, from the construction
and opening of a major shopping center and hotel along the 29 North corridor. Food &
Beverage tax revenue also rose, but apparently not by as much as the other two streams,
increasing by about 5% during this time period. This latter result is somewhat surprising, given
that a number of high volume restaurants have opened in the County in recent year s.
During this time period, Inspections Fees grew by over 25%, while Other Development Fees fell
by about 4%. The growth in Inspections Fees revenues likely reflects building activity on parcels
of land that had been rezoned during the real estate “boom” of the last decade, whereas the
decline in Other Development Fees might have resulted from a drop-off in interest in new
rezoning in the post-Great Recession era.
As was the case during the one-year period discussed previously, Consumer Utility Tax revenue
declined slightly between Q1 FY 11 and Q1 FY 15. The drop of just over 2%, in this multiyear
time frame, again could reflect a consumer transition away from traditional landline phones to
other modes of telecommunication.
Unemployment – One Year
Albemarle’s average monthly unemployment rate fell only slightly, from 4.70% Q1 FY 14 to
4.67% in Q1 FY 15. This decline of 0.03 percentage points (pp) was the smallest inter-year
decline on Table I, and was not much different from the 0.17 pp drop at the state level, but was
well below the 1.10 pp decline at the national level. The County’s 4.67% unemployment rate is
below what many economists would consider to be the “frictional” or “full employment” rate
of unemployment. Staff thinks, however, that based on the past twenty years of
unemployment rate data, Albemarle’s frictional employment rate likely is in the vicinity of 3%.
The County’s unemployment rate has diminished slowly in the past several years since the end
of the “Great Recession” but still has a way to go to achieve this 3% rate. Note that the
unemployment rate applies only to people who are in the labor force; the number does not
capture people who might have become discouraged looking for employment and who have
dropped out of the labor force.
Unemployment – Multiyear
Between Q1 FY 11 and Q1 FY 15, Albemarle’s unemployment rate fell from 5.70% to 4.67%, or
by 1.03 pp. The decline in the County’s rate was not quite as large as the corresponding drop in
the Virginia unemployment rate (1.57 pp) or the U.S. rate (3.30 pp) but, again, as shown in
Table I, the County’s rate historically has been well below those of the U.S. and Virginia.
Employment – One Year
Note that the jobs numbers for Albemarle come from the Virginia Employment Commission’s
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) report; are given by place of employment;
and include both part-time and full-time positions, as well as both temporary and permanent
positions. The nature of this data is such that the numbers can swing substantially from quarter
to quarter during any particular year and, additionally, can vary widely between the same
quarter of different years. Changes in the numbers sometimes can be misleading if, for
example, employers in the County replace many part-time jobs with full-time positions. The
VEC’s jobs numbers, nonetheless, are used as the gauge of the number of positions in the
County since no other comprehensive set of jobs data for Albemarle is readily available.
As shown on Table I, the average monthly total number of jobs in the County appears to have
declined modestly from 42,029 in Q3 FY 13 to 48,910 in Q3 FY 14, or by 119 positions (-0.24%).
It is important to keep in mind that these numbers could mask growth in full -time, permanent
employment if firms decided to replace part -time and temporary labor with full-time
permanent labor but, without additional information, staff does not know if that is the case.
The Q3 FY 14 results shown in Table I might change if the VEC publishes any revisions to the
data in coming months. The apparent drop in jobs, in other words, might turn out to be
illusory. The fact that the County’s jobs base grew in each Q3 of FY 11, FY 12, and FY 13 over
the previous year, but remained essentially flat between Q3 FY 13 and Q3 FY 14, however, is
notable. Staff will continue to monitor the jobs base data in coming months.
Table I reveals that the private sector lost 73 positions between Q3 FY 13 and Q3 FY 14, but that
the private sector’s share of the total number of jobs in the County remained essentially
unchanged, at 67.02% of the jobs base, compared with 67.01% in Q3 FY 13. During this time
frame, the public sector experienced a net loss of 46 jobs. It is important to keep in mind that
the figures presented in Table I reflect monthly averages for the three months of the quarter,
and do not necessarily reveal changes in full-time, permanent positions.
Employment sectors that experienced the largest increases in numbers between Q3 FY 13 and
Q3 FY 14 include Administration and Support (+387 jobs); Retail Trade (+97 jobs); and
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (+91 jobs). Sectors that endured the greatest
losses, again in terms of numbers, include Health Care and Social Assistance (-272 jobs);
Construction (-158 jobs); and Other Services, except Public Administration, (-152 jobs).
Employment – Multiyear
During the course of the Q3 FY 10 to Q3 FY 14 time period, the total number of jobs grew by
1,905 positions, or 4.05%. The private sector accounted for 1,387 of these jobs, or about 73%
of the total growth. Note that the private sector’s share of the jobs base grew very slightly,
from 66.79% in Q3 FY 10 to 67.02% in Q3 FY 14. With regard to the public sector, growth in
jobs during this time period was relatively small. The number of public sector positions in
Albemarle increased by 519 between these quarters.
The NAICS sectors that experienced the largest increase in jobs between Q3 FY 10 and Q3 FY 14
included Health Care and Social Assistance (+1,273 positions); Administration and Support
(+669 jobs); and Retail Trade (+277 jobs). The sectors that experienced the sharpest declines
employment numbers included Manufacturing (-308 jobs); Construction (-243 jobs); and Other
Services, except Public Administration (-222 positions).
Conclusions
The data presented on Table I indicates that the County’s economy, as represented by the
collective performance of selected revenue streams, grew between Q1 FY 11 and Q1 FY 15.
This growth appears to have continued between Q1 FY 14 and Q1 FY 15, although the one -year
performance of certain revenue streams, i.e., Consumer Utility Tax, Food & Beverage Tax, and
Other Development Fees was negative during this time period. Whether or not the apparent
drop in these revenue categories represents a statistical fluke, or signals the beginning of a
slowdown remains unknown. The fact that, collectively, the six revenue streams listed on Table
I increased between Q1 CY 14 and Q1 CY 15, seems to indicate that the County’s economy did
in fact manage to grow during the course of the past year.
The 1.03 pp decline in Albemarle’s unemployment rate between Q1 FY 11 and Q1 FY 15 implies
that the County’s economy has been recovering only slowly from the “Great Recession” during
the course of the past several years but has not fully recovered, since Albemarle’s Q1 FY 15
average monthly unemployment rate of 4.67% is still above the 3.0% rate that staff thinks
would represent “frictional unemployment.”
A slight decline in Albemarle’s jobs base between Q3 FY 13 and Q3 FY 14 (-119 positions, or -
0.24%) would seem to suggest that economic conditions were not as robust in FY 14 as had
been the case in previous years. Notably, the drop in the jobs base between these quarters
represents the only time that the jobs base contracted between the first quarters of any of the
fiscal years listed on Table I. This piece of information, along with the recent slowdown in the
decline in the County’s unemployment rate, stands in contrast with the somewhat positive
collective revenue stream data. The jobs base and unemployment rate information,
nonetheless, suggests that Albemarle entered an economic slowdown in the past year.
Q1 FY 15 FY 14 to 15 FY 14 to 15 FY 11 to 15 FY 11 to 15
General Economic Activity Q1 FY 11 Q1 FY 12 Q1 FY 13 Q1 FY 14 Prelim.$ Diff.% Diff.$ Diff.% Diff.
Sales Tax ($)3,180,411 3,020,313 3,148,225 3,303,510 3,599,924 296,414 8.97%419,513 13.19%
Consumer Utility Tax ($)2,191,168 2,108,025 2,139,400 2,161,020 2,137,809 -23,211 -1.07%-53,359 -2.44%
Food & Beverage Tax ($)1,398,671 1,422,732 1,541,041 1,589,107 1,468,264 -120,843 -7.60%69,593 4.98%
Transient Occupancy Tax ($) (1)577,987 649,110 682,130 679,324 867,192 187,868 27.66%289,205 50.04%
Inspection Fees ($)212,009 218,828 234,652 256,466 266,114 9,648 3.76%54,105 25.52%
Other Development Fees ($)139,834 109,734 160,112 164,408 134,034 -30,374 -18.47%-5,800 -4.15%
FY 14 to 15 FY 14 to 15 FY 11 to 15 FY 11 to 15
Unemployment (2)Q1 FY 11 Q1 FY 12 Q1 FY 13 Q1 FY 14 Q1 FY 15 PP. Diff.% Diff.PP. Diff.% Diff.
Unemployment Rate - U.S. (%)9.50 9.10 8.10 7.30 6.20 -1.10 -15.07%-3.30 -34.74%
Unemployment Rate - Virginia (%)7.00 6.60 5.97 5.60 5.43 -0.17 -3.04%-1.57 -22.43%
Unemployment Rate - Albemarle (%)5.70 5.57 5.03 4.70 4.67 -0.03 -0.64%-1.03 -18.07%
FY 13 to 14 FY 13 to 14 FY 10 to 14 FY 10 to 14
Employment (3)Q3 FY 10 Q3 FY 11 Q3 FY 12 Q3 FY 13 Q3 FY 14 # Diff.% Diff.# Diff.% Diff.
Total No. of Jobs in Albemarle 47,005 47,961 48,343 49,029 48,910 -119 -0.24%1,905 4.05%
Private Sector Jobs in Albemarle 31,394 31,925 32,283 32,854 32,781 -73 -0.22%1,387 4.42%
Private Sector as % of Total Jobs 66.79%66.56%66.78%67.01%67.02%N/A 0.02%N/A 0.35%
Public Sector Jobs in Albemarle 15,610 16,037 16,059 16,175 16,129 -46 -0.28%519 3.32%
Federal Govt.777 836 847 877 856 -21 -2.39%79 10.17%
State Govt.10,717 10,876 10,869 11,184 11,128 -56 -0.50%411 3.84%
Local Govt.4,116 4,325 4,343 4,114 4,145 31 0.75%29 0.70%
Accommodation and Food Services 3,077 3,174 3,109 3,241 3,265 24 0.74%188 6.11%
Admin. and Support 1,483 1,752 2,219 1,765 2,152 387 21.93%669 45.11%
Ag., Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 364 356 435 471 504 33 7.01%140 38.46%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,206 1,297 1,333 929 995 66 7.10%-211 -17.50%
Construction 2,411 2,170 2,234 2,326 2,168 -158 -6.79%-243 -10.08%
Educational Services 14,310 14,471 14,528 14,560 14,493 -67 -0.46%183 1.28%
Finance and Insurance 947 913 883 905 897 -8 -0.88%-50 -5.28%
Health Care and Social Assistance 4,940 5,431 5,504 6,485 6,213 -272 -4.19%1,273 25.77%
Information 611 614 626 597 557 -40 -6.70%-54 -8.84%
Management of Companies 1,551 1,495 1,500 1,515 1,398 -117 -7.72%-153 -9.86%
Manufacturing 2,400 2,257 2,223 2,124 2,092 -32 -1.51%-308 -12.83%
Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Extr.36 43 43 55 53 -2 -3.64%17 47.22%
Other Svcs. (Except Public Adm.)1,916 1,922 1,878 1,846 1,694 -152 -8.23%-222 -11.59%
Prof., Scientific, and Technical Svcs.3,177 3,226 3,075 3,355 3,446 91 2.71%269 8.47%
Public Administration 1,612 1,660 1,669 1,524 1,538 14 0.92%-74 -4.59%
Real Estate and Rental/Leasing 707 734 766 786 741 -45 -5.73%34 4.81%
Retail Trade 5,049 5,256 5,039 5,229 5,326 97 1.86%277 5.49%
Transportation & Warehousing 616 588 572 582 584 2 0.34%-32 -5.19%
Utilities 6 6 10 23 23 0 0.00%17 283.33%
Wholesale Trade 586 597 697 711 772 61 8.58%186 31.74%
Table I
Albemarle County Quarterly Economic Indicators
(As of November 10, 2014)
Table I (Cont.)
Notes:
(1) Transient Occupancy Tax includes the Transfer to Tourism amount.
(2) Unemployment rates are by place of residence and are not seasonally-adjusted. The figures shown on this sheet represent the average monthly
unemployment rate during the three month period of the quarter.
(3) Job numbers include part-time and full-time positions, as well as permament and temporary positions. Jobs are by place of employment. The
numbers shown on this sheet represent the average monthly number of jobs in Albemarle County during the quarter. Job totals might not add up exactly
due to rounding errors in sub-category calcuations.
Sources:
Albemarle revenue amounts are taken from the County's Account Activity Detail Report (AADR) system, accessed November 10, 2014.
Virginia and Albemarle unemployment rates are derived from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) LAUS webpage
(https://data.virginialmi.com/vosnet/analyzer/results.aspx?session=labforce), accessed November 3, 2014.
U.S. unemployment rate data is derived from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "Databases, Tables, and Calculators by Subject" webpage
(http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment), accessed November 3, 2014.
Albemarle County jobs data is derived from the VEC's Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) webpage
(https://data.virginialmi.com/vosnet/analyzer/), accessed November 10, 2014.
Table I (Cont.)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Short-Term Pre-School Interim Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Pre-School Interim Report
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Ralston
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
There are four known separate local work groups engaged in pre-school discussions in varying stages of development
and with varying charges: 1) A School Board and Board of Supervisors work group that has a focus on funding outside
K-12 including funding for pre-school; 2) A Community Summit on pre-school that is planned for the spring of 2015 to be
hosted by Charlottesville Tomorrow; 3) A community-wide work group with a City-County focus that is in the planning
stages; and 4) A work group focused on short-term solutions for Albemarle County public pre-school established by the
County Executive. The short-term work group will include recommendations for leadership, management and process
improvements for the County’s pre-school services over the next one to two years. Today’s interim report is on the
activities of the short-term work group to date.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Educational Opportunities: Providing lifelong learning opportunities for all our citizens.
DISCUSSION:
The report is attached.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The executive summary is for information only and no action is required by the Board.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Pre-School Interim Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Pre-School Short Term Work Group
Interim Report
December 3, 2014
This work group has met three times and has adopted the following primary objectives that will result in a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in time for the FY 16 budget discussions :
1. Determine best approach to maintain funding for existing pre-school classrooms and services at the eight
elementary schools currently funded by the Virginia Pre-School Initiative (VPI) also known as Bright Stars in
Albemarle County, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title One), the Social Service Block
Grant (SSBG), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Special Education pre -school) and local
government funds.
2. Determine best approach to maintain in-kind support from Albemarle County Schools and Department of Social
Services.
3. Review Bright Stars program for improvements to ensure design based on evidence-informed or evidence-based
practice.
4. Determine best approach for overall leadership and management of pre-school services for Albemarle County
including VPI, Special Education and Title One.
Participants in the short-term work group:
Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) staff - Dean Tistadt, Debora Collins, Robyn Bolling
County staff - Doug Walker, John Freeman, Ann McAndrew, Lori Allshouse, Kathy Ralston
Community representation - Roxanne White
Bright Stars is a collaborative program operated jointly by Albemarle County Department of Social Services (ACDSS) and
Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) with ACDSS providing overall management 1 as well as direct supervision of
the family workers that support each Bright Stars classroom. This program is funded by a State Department of Education
Virginia Pre-School Initiative (VPI) Grant and the Virginia Department of Social Servic es, both of which are matched with
funding from the local government. Additionally, it is estimated that ACPS provides in-kind support of approximately
$3,172 per student and ACDSS provides in-kind support of approximately $953 per student. The program supports a total
of 18.7 positions. ACPS hire and supervise the 14.5 Teachers and Teaching Assistants which are school employees.
ACDSS hires and supervises the 4.2 Bright Stars Family Workers. Total cost of the program, excluding in-kind support is
$1,210,787 for FY 15.
There are ten Bright Stars preschool classrooms in eight elementary schools at this time. There are 66 eligible children
on the waiting list within the schools that have Bright Stars classrooms and an estimated additional 82 children that would
qualify but live in non-Bright Stars school communities. The waiting list is fluid and those numbers will fluctuate during the
year. The VPI program has been highlighted as a highly successful program in the state of Virginia and Albemarle
County’s program has had strong outcomes in the nineteen years it has been in existence, preparing at risk children and
their families for success.
The Virginia Pre-school Initiative (VPI) grant currently allocates 175 “slots” for Albemarle County which is an increase over
previous years. The VPI grant provides $3000 per student that is matched by $3000 per student in local government
funding to support 137 students in pre-school classrooms. Local government provides an additional $2838 per student to
meet the needs of the full program bringing local government support to $5,838 per student. In order to utilize all 175
slots an additional $221,844 in funds would be needed ($5,838 x 38 additional students) as well as additional in-kind
support from both ACPS and ACDSS including classroom space.
1 Overall management entails grant application, monitoring and reporting, managing private pre-school placements, oversee
customer application process, coordinating assessments, developing the annual report, data collection & analysis, program
development activities and coordination with community partners, school personnel at various levels, local government and ACDSS
staff.
In FY 2009, ACPS and ACDSS established the Pre-School Network Leadership Team to work collaboratively to provide
leadership in “braiding” pre-school funding streams from Special Education, Title One and VPI in order to serve the
maximum number of children. Public funding for pre-school services for Albemarle County residents has been braided
and managed to provide services as outlined in the table below.
Public and Private funding for pre-school services in the community
Program Current
Enrollment
Eligibility Factors Lead Agency Funding
Bright Stars (VPI) –
including teachers,
teaching assistants
and family workers
137 Low income and
other risk factors
such as domestic
violence, one-parent
family, parent never
finished high school
and others
ACDSS State, local
government, DSS
(financial and in-
kind), schools (in-
kind)
Head Start 76 (in county
schools only)
90% must be low
income
Monticello Area
Community
Action Agency
(MACAA)
Federal, local
government, in-kind
support from ACPS
and small
percentage of private
fundraising.
Early Childhood
Special Education
11 in inclusion
classrooms; 46
in SPED
classrooms
Special Education
designation
ACPS Federal, state
Title One 15 Low income,
students most at risk
of failing to meet
academic standards
ACPS Federal, state
Private Pre-School
(there are 38 child
care programs
offering pre-school
services registered
with Children,
Youth and Family
Services)
unknown Varies – universal
(Private pay),
scholarship based
on quality rating
(United Way
scholarships) and
subsidy based on
low income
(ACDSS)
Licensed by
Virginia
Department of
Social Services
Public (federal Child
Care Block Grant
subsidies
(administered by
ACDSS) and Private
(private pay, United
Way scholarships)
Funding: While the recent national elections could result in federal funding reductions, it is not anticipated that
funding from the Virginia Pre-School Initiative, the Social Service Block Grant, the Child Care Block Grant
(supports private pre-schools) or Early Childhood Special Education are at risk at this time. However, the Title
One funding category has experienced sequestration reductions in FY 14 and FY 15 and it is anticipated that
there will be further reductions in FY 16. The impact of these reductions are taken into consideration and
included in the ACDSS funding requests for FY 16 and include replacement of Title One funds with local
government funding.
In-Kind Support: Critical to the current pre-school network structure is the in-kind support from ACPS and
ACDSS. Aside from the significant costs of classroom space and transportation, ACPS also provides special
classroom support with music, art, physical education, libraries, guidance, nursing and some operational
expenses for pre-school classes. It is estimated that the total in-kind support from ACPS for all pre-school
programming in the schools is approximately $3171 per student. ACPS does not anticipate any changes with this
support in FY 15 but could realize losses starting in FY 16 due to space needs and increased enrollment for K-12.
ACDSS provides in-kind support for overall management of the program2 including hiring and supervision of the
family support workers. It is estimated that the total in-kind support from ACDSS for VPI is $953 per student.
Alternative Program Models: The work group has discussed other options to the existing models currently used
in the schools. These include half-day classes, increased use of private pre-schools, stricter screening criteria,
other locations within the public school arena (CATEC, middle schools) and public library space. Thus far none of
these options are seen as enhancements to the current models being used based on curriculum, transportation,
inclusion, teacher credentials, family support and outcomes. However more study is needed over a longer period
of time to fully flesh out possible changes to the program that could result in better outcomes for children and
families.
Alternative Management Models: The work group has begun discussion regarding options for management of
the Bright Stars program since it is the largest pre-school program3 not fully managed by the ACPS. The work
group believes the collaborative model currently in place is a best practice that ensures a focus on the whole ch ild
and family. However, there is room for improvement through more clearly defining roles, responsibilities and lines
of authority. However, any change in management will not result in an ability to serve more children. The next
phase for this work group is to more clearly define ownership of the tasks for an efficient and effective pre -school
program that is more clearly aligned with organizational missions.
As mentioned in the Executive Summary there is also in development a community work group that would have a longer
term focus which would include:
Actions that can be taken to enhance services to residents of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville
through the existing pre-school network of services including VPI/Bright Stars, Title I, Head Start and SPED
including cost estimates;
Actions that can be taken to support creative approaches to funding such as with Social Impact Bonds (a contract
with the public sector in which a commitment is made to pay for improved social outcomes that result in public
sector savings), a more robust blending of funding streams and additional private funding streams.
Development of a phased approach to bring programs and services to scale (expansion, to new areas or
populations or deepening a program within an already served area)
Identification of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) or Evidence Informed Practice (EIP) models, determining
whether they should be incorporated into programs and if so developing a preliminary plan to accomplish it.
Develop a long range plan to ensure universal access to EBP or EIP pre-school services for residents inclusive of
cost estimates.
Confirm the source and amount of ongoing in-kind and other financial resources as well as community and
partner resources to support pre-school programming.
Determine the best approach for management and oversight of programs.
Establish an evaluation model, including costs for startup and replication, which will ensure measurement of
program outcomes consistent with EIP or EBP models.
Members of the short-term work group will continue to meet over the next month and plan to bring a final report with
recommendations to the board in the near future.
2 Includes budget development, oversight and reporting, personnel management, planning, supervision of the Bright Stars Program
Manager, data analysis support, IT and operations, Pre-school Leadership Team participation, and advocacy on local, state and
federal levels.
3 Head Start is currently managed by the Monticello Area Community Action Agency under federal contract and private pre -schools
are private businesses.
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
LOD2014-00010 Londeree
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources September 29, 2014
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
300 ft
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Acceptance of the FY 4 CAFR
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Burrell
PRESENTER (S):
Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Every year the Board of Supervisors is presented a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for its review and
acceptance.
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:
Attached for the Board’s review is the recently completed FY 14 CAFR. As in previous years, the Report contains a
detailed accounting of the County’s financial operations for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Highlights of the Report include:
The Transmittal Letter to the Board of Supervisors and the Citizens of Albemarle County (pages vii – xiii) that
provides a summary of the County’s geographic, demographic, economic, and financial features. It also
includes a discussion of current and future County initiatives.
The Independent Auditor’s Report (pages 1 – 2) that notes that the financial statements are “in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America”.
The Management’s Discussion and Analysis (pages 3 – 14) that provides a summary of the County’s financial
activity for the fiscal year, including tables and graphs that accompany the summaries.
The remainder of the Report includes detailed information about the County’s financial activity for the fiscal year,
statistical tables providing historical economic and demographic information, and the outside auditor’s Compliance
Report.
The Report was presented to the County’s Audit Committee at its meeting on November 21, 2014 by the County’s
external auditing firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact related to the presentation and acceptance of this Report.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the FY 14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
FY 14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (on file in Clerk’s Office)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Report on the Economic Viability of Using the Ivy
Materials Utilization Center as a Transfer Station and
Consideration of Near-Term Solid Waste Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of near-term solid waste service at Ivy MUC
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Reges
PRESENTER (S): Doug Walker
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) is operated by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) under a permit
issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). The facility is currently out of compliance with
regulations governing transfer stations, and VDEQ has directed the RSWA to either cease its operation as a transfer
station by July 1, 2015, bring the facility into compliance by July 1, 2015, or submit to VDEQ for review and approval a
written plan detailing how the RSWA, in conjunction with the County, intends to achieve compliance with respect to all
relevant solid waste regulations. Such plan must be submitted to VDEQ no later than April 1, 2015.
In April, 2014, the Board created a Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee and established its Charge.
While the Charge is broad, it expressly excludes the Committee’s consideration of current disposal practices at the Ivy
MUC. Nevertheless, the work of the Committee to develop alternative implementation strategies for solid waste services
for the future may be informed by the near-term disposition of the Ivy MUC.
At its meeting on August 6, 2014, the Board considered three possible scenarios regarding the near-term (3 to 5 year)
continued use of the Ivy MUC for waste disposal (see Attachment A). One of those scenarios, requiring the transfer of
property control from the RSWA to the County, was removed from further consideration by the Board at that time. The
remaining two scenarios left open the question of whether the Ivy MUC would continue to be operated as a transfer station
or would instead be converted to a convenience center.
At its meeting on October 8, 2015 the Board approved retaining Draper Aden Associates (DAA) and Gershman Brickner
and Bratton (GBB) to address two specific questions: 1) Is the Ivy MUC location an economical place for an upgraded
transfer station; and 2) What are the primary factors influencing the determination of economic viability for this location?
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:
Following the Board’s approval, DAA and GBB met with members of the Long Range Solid Waste Advisory Committee
to better frame the intended specific evaluation of Ivy MUC in the context of the long-term charge of the Committee.
Subsequent to that meeting, the consultant team began its work and has provided its analysis in the attached Ivy
Transfer Station Economic Viability Evaluation Final Report (Attachment B).
The two firms intentionally approached the questions regarding the viability of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station from
different perspectives. For their part, DAA evaluated the viability of the facility and site from a technical point of view;
focusing primarily on the current facility, infrastructure and site characteristics, and then on specific site alternatives for
using the Ivy MUC location for a transfer station and possible additional materials recovery facility (MRF). The
conclusions identified in the Final Report include capital cost estimates ranging from approximately $1 Million to $2
Million, and likely advantages and disadvantages of each specific site/facility approach.
In complimentary contrast, GBB evaluated the economic viability of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station from a more
analytical perspective, focusing primarily on the general suitability of the location, cost/benefit assumptions based on
AGENDA TITLE: Report on the Economic Viability of Using the Ivy Materials Utilization Center as a Transfer Station
and Consideration of Near-Term Solid Waste Service Options
December 3, 2014
Page 2
tonnage and fee revenue/tax subsidy, and marketability. Summary conclusions offered by GBB include their opinion
that the location of the Ivy MUC is not ideal for serving the entire waste management needs in the County and that
under current operating conditions it should be assumed that the facility cannot be supported solely with tipping fees –
meaning that the County will need to continue to subsidize the use of the facility by self-haulers and small commercial
haulers.
It is very important to note that in the course of this most recent work, the County learned that VDEQ would allow Ivy
MUC to continue to operate as a permitted transfer station if fully covered by a roof structure to eliminate leachate
from stormwater. Under this scenario, DAA estimates the total capital cost at approximately $130,000. Staff notes the
significant difference between this capital investment and the alternative amount of approximately $600,000 provided
to the Board in August for a fully enclosed building. To the extent the planning timeframe for any interim solution at
Ivy MUC is three to five years, it may be reasonable to consider a smaller capital investment of about $130,000 to
maintain all current services at Ivy while the Long Term Solid Waste Advisory Committee completes its work and the
Board then considers solid waste management policy over a much longer planning timeframe.
BUDGET IMPACT:
It is presumed that the County’s obligation to pay RSWA for operating cost gaps will be similar regardless of
whether Ivy is operated as a transfer station or a convenience center in the three to five year “near-term”
timeframe. Estimated capital costs for work at Ivy range from near $0 for simply converting the current site to a
convenience center to approximately $2 Million for establishing a new facility on an adjacent RSWA site.
Currently, $857,949.45 is available in the Ivy Landfill Remediation project in the County’s Capital Program Fund.
This funding exceeds what is necessary to meet the County’s current obligation to the RSWA and has
accumulated over the past ten years as a result of less than anticipated remediation expenses at the Ivy landfill. It
had been anticipated that some of this balance would eventually be applied to whatever solution the County
pursued to meet its solid waste management needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
If the Board prefers to maintain existing services at the Ivy MUC while the Long Range Solid Waste Advisory
Committee continues its work, staff recommends that the Board commit to funding the construction of a roof
structure on the existing facility for approximately $130,000, thus allowing RSWA to notify DEQ by April 1,
2015 of its intent to continue operating the facility as a permitted transfer station. Maintaining current services
would include use of the facility by commercial haulers.
If the Board prefers not to make further capital investments into the transfer station function of the Ivy MUC
facility while the Long Range Solid Waste Advisory Committee continues its work, staff recommends that the
Board request RSWA to take steps necessary to convert the facility to a convenience center by July 1, 2015.
This action would preclude the use of the facility by commercial haulers.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – August 6, 2014 Executive Summary with Attachments
Attachment B – Final Report – Ivy Transfer Station Economic Viability Evaluation
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) Solid Waste
Service Options
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of near-term solid waste services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Shadman, Reges
PRESENTER(S): Walker
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 6 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On April 2, 2014, the Board considered solid waste options and provided three directions :
Consensus that staff prepare and provide at a future meeting additional information and options regarding
costs for construction and operation at Ivy, as well as services to be provided, to assist the Board in
determining which approach is the most desirable.
Consensus that staff bring back to the Board for further consideration viable alternatives for providing
increased recycling opportunities for County residents in the near term, to include cooperation with public,
private and regional entities.
APPOINTED, by a vote of 5:0:1(Boyd-abstained), the County appointees to the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority Citizens Committee to a separate advisory committee to the Board to do initial work on long-term
solutions for solid waste.
This executive summary is presented to address the first two directions.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
DISCUSSION:
Solid Waste Services at Ivy MUC
Staff has focused on providing near-term solid waste options that assure a continuation of important solid waste
services while enhancing current recycling efforts. The expectation is that the Board will adopt more permanent solid
waste solutions following recommendations from the Albemarle Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory
Committee. Staff estimates that the near-term services will be needed for a period of three to five years, beginning on
July 1, 2015, which is the anticipated closure date of the Materials Utilization Center’s (MUC) transfer station. Staff
has focused on continuing to use the MUC site as directed by the Board, recognizing time.
Staff has determined that two levels of service can be provided at the MUC site through the following operations: 1) a
transfer station, which would largely continue current services; or 2) a convenience center, which would reduce the
current service level primarily to commercial haulers, but would provide as much service as possible without triggering
the need for a DEQ transfer station permit. The distinction between these two operations is key and is described in
detail as part of a report from Draper Aden Associates (DAA) in Attachment A. It is important to note that as part of
this report, DEQ addressed the distinction between a transfer station and a convenience center specifically in the
context of the Ivy MUC site. This DAA report further provides three options regarding the utilization of the site as a
convenience center including advantages and disadvantages with each option. This report provides for better
evaluation overall of the service opportunities and challenges related to the Ivy site. In addition, staff has identified
two possible management structures for the operation of the facility: 1) RSWA operation or 2) County operation by
overseeing the management itself or by contract with a third party. Note that the County operation of the existing
transfer station is deemed non-viable at this time, due in-part to the fact that the DEQ permit is currently held by the
RSWA and any material change would require DEQ permit modification, modification of internal agreements, and
additional environmental liability.
AGENDA TITLE: Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) Solid Waste Service Options
August 6, 2014
Page 2
Consequently, staff has identified three scenarios for consideration to determine a preference for the continued
operation of a transfer station or the conversion of the transfer station to a convenience center to be operate d by
either the RSWA or the County in Attachment B, which provides a comparison of these three scenarios, including
assumed favorable and unfavorable factors, cost comparisons and qualitative aspects of each.
Enhanced Recycling
Staff has identified some specific areas in which the County’s overall recycling efforts may be enhanced in the near
term. First and foremost, with any of the three scenarios above, additional or enhanced recycling services can be
incorporated. Second, the County’s current program with the RSWA, in which the County pays for the collection of
paper at three different locations in the County, can be modified in order to implement a pilot project intended to
expand materials collected at a reduced cost. However, the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee
has requested more time and opportunity to consider and evaluate “enhanced” recycling options, including any pilot
programs, so that any proposed changes can best inform their work in advising the Board next Spring/Summer.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Budget impacts depend on the selection of a preferred option as described in Attachment A and Attachment B.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to pursue the conversion of the existing Ivy transfer station to a
convenience center operated by the RSWA as summarized in Scenario 2 above for the following primary reasons:
1) Maximizes levels of service for residences and businesses with an emphasis on re -use and recycling without
the need for a transfer station permit (note that under this scenario the transfer station permit is terminated).
2) Maintains operational efficiency associated with the compaction of bulky material using the existing
hopper/conveyor/compactor system , thereby reducing cost. Alternatives for any required replacement
equipment for this type of convenience center would be less expensive due to the type of equipment needed
to handle such a small amount of municipal solid waste (MSW ).
3) Reduces up-front capital investment and specifically eliminates the need to upgrade the current transfer
station to meet DEQ requirements while taking advantage of existing leachate/stormwater facilities on site.
4) Avoids additional liability/risk tied to control (ownership/lease) of a portion of the former Ivy landfill pro perty.
5) Continues high quality service with a proven partner in the RSWA.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Draper Aden Associates Letter Report dated July 30, 2014 (with 7 attachments)
Attachment B – Summary Comparison of Ivy MUC Solid Waste Scenarios
Return to exec summary
Ivy MUC Solid Waste Scenarios
Summary
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 is a transfer station operated by RSWA. This scenario assumes an upgrade to the current facility
such that it meets DEQ permit requirements. In doing so, significant capital investment in the facility would be
necessary which may not be reasonable in a near term planning horizon. However, this would enable the RSWA
to retain its transfer station permit and would enable continued use of the facility by commercial haulers and
others bringing in waste from more than one property. This scenario would require the RSWA to maintain a
contract for hauling and disposal. Other valuable re-use and recycling services such as the disposal of clean fill
and large load vegetative waste and mulching would continue. It is assumed that fees would be charged for the
use of the facility in a manner similar to current practice.
Factors assumed favorable:
With approval of amended DEQ permit, retains ability to operate a transfer station in the County at this
specific location
Continues to allow waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Factors assumed unfavorable:
Transfer station permit amendment required by DEQ
Estimated cost of capital investment needed is between $580,000 and $615,000
Estimated annual operating cost to County is estimated at $394,947
Commercially hauled waste is declining as a percentage of total MSW
Timing of Next Steps
A decision to continue use of Ivy MUC as a Transfer Station to be operated by RSWA would require:
Formal request by County to RSWA in December, 2014 to extend Operating Agreement for a transfer
station for a specific time period
Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement by April 1, 2015 by RSWA and County
Design of facility improvements and procurement for one-time capital by RSWA
Consideration of budget amendment/appropriation for capital investment by RSWA and County
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 is a convenience center operated by RSWA. This scenario assumes the facility is converted from a
transfer station such that a DEQ permit is not required for operation. In doing so, the facility would not accept
any waste from commercial haulers, others hauling in waste from multiple properties, or d ead animals. Many
of the current re-use and recycling services would be continued including the disposal of clean fill material and
large load vegetative waste. It is also understood that residential waste and commercial waste from a single
property would be accepted at such a facility. It is assumed that fees would be charged for the use of the
facility in a manner similar to current practice except that fees would not be charge for any source-separated
household recycling. This scenario would require the RSWA to maintain a contract for hauling and disposal.
This scenario takes full advantage of the proven high-quality service delivery performed over time by the RSWA
and the positive relationships established with neighbors and customers. This scenario requires some up -front
capital investment and relies heavily on the ability to continue to use the hopper/conveyor/compactor system
to accommodate unloading and compacting of bulky material for efficient handling and transport. This
scenario was evaluated by Draper Aden Associates in Option 1 and Option 2
Factors assumed favorable:
Does not require a DEQ permit
Continues most current services including waste from individual residential and commercial properties,
clean fill, large load vegetative waste, mulching, white goods, tires
Estimated initial development cost, estimated between $209,000 and $386,000, is less than transfer
station scenario
Estimated annual operating cost of $328,000 is slightly less than transfer station
Maintains continuity of operation
Maximizes existing positive relations with customers and neighbors
Enables continued use of current stormwater/leachate collection system
Factors assumed unfavorable
Excludes all waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Terminates DEQ transfer station permit
Timing of next steps
A decision to convert Ivy MUC from Transfer Station to Convenience Center to be operated by RSWA can be
authorized immediately
County/RSWA would commence work on the following:
o Amendment of Operating Agreement for BoS and RSWA Board Action by December, 2014
o Identification of budget amendments/appropriations as necessary for capital and operations
o Design of facility improvements and procurement of one-time capital by the RSWA
o Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement prior to April 1, 2015
Scenario 3
Scenario 3 is a convenience center operated by the County. In this scenario, the County will assume control of a
small portion of property at the Ivy MUC facility to allow for optimal operation of a convenience center.
Services would be limited to what is more typically seen at a convenience centers including source-separated
household recycling, bagged trash and open-top bins for bulky waste. Such a facility could still allow waste
from residential and commercial individual properties but would not be ab le to take advantage of the grade-
separated hopper/conveyor/compactor system for convenience and operating efficiencies. This scenario
would exclude specifically the disposal of clean fill material, large load vegetative waste and mulching. This
scenario may allow for other types of recycling such as white goods and tires if space and resources are
available. Similar to Scenario 2, such a facility would exclude waste from commercial haulers, others bringing
in waste from multiple properties and dead anim als. This scenario assumes that the County would operate the
facility with its own forces or contract the operation to a third party. In either case, this scenario would require
County staff resources not currently available for management and oversight at minimum. This scenario would
require the County to maintain a contract for hauling and disposal. An important aspect of this scenario is that
any control of property at Ivy MUC by the County by any means would create additional liability/risk for the
County. This scenario was evaluated by Draper Aden Associates in Option 2 and Option 3.
Factors assumed favorable
Does not require a DEQ permit
May be less expensive to operate. Competitive procurement of contract services would be necessary
to determine costs.
Factors assumed unfavorable
Initial development costs estimated at $585,000
Excludes all waste from commercial haulers, multiple properties, dead animals
Terminates DEQ transfer station permit
May exclude other current services provided by the RSWA such as clean fill, large load vegetative
waste, mulching, pallets, white goods
Requires County control of property via lease or purchase
Creates additional liability/risk to County due to property control
Requires staffing or operations and/or management and supervision
Limits full utilization of facility as allowed by DEQ for a convenience center including the existing
hopper/conveyor/compactor system
Requires specific amendments to the RSWA Agreement related to property control and costs (i.e. lease
terms)
Timing of Next Steps:
A decision to convert Ivy MUC from Transfer Station to Convenience Center operated by County would require:
County would commence work on the following:
o Issuance of RFP for contract services by October, 2014 for Board consideration/action by
December, 2014
o Determination to proceed with County forces or contract operations
o Development of a contract for services to operate facility if needed\
o Recruitment/hiring of operational staff if/as needed
o Identification/filling of resources to provide County management and oversight as needed
o Negotiation/execution of Lease between RSWA/County and other amendments to the RSWA
Agreement
o Satisfaction of DEQ Letter of Agreement by April 1, 2015
Solid Waste Scenarios
Cost Comparisons (estimated)
RSWA Operated
Transfer Station
(Scenario 1)
RSWA Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 2)
County Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 3)
Estimated Development
Costs
$580,000 - $615,000(1) $209,000 - $386,000 (2) $585,000 (2)
Estimated Operating
Costs to County (net
expenses over revenues)
$394,947 (2) $328,000 (3) Undetermined (competitive
pricing and specific
modifications to RSWA
Agreement required)
Notes:
(1) Draper Aden Associates estimate - 2012
(2) Draper Aden Associates estimate – 2014
(3) RSWA Staff estimate – 2014
Solid Waste Scenarios
Other Decision Factors
RSWA Operated
Transfer Station
(Scenario 1)
RSWA Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 2)
County Operated
Convenience Center
(Scenario 3)
Other Factors
Location/Site Continue at current location
with major modifications
Continue at current location
with minor to moderate
modifications
Continue at current location
with moderate to major
modifications
Commercial
haulers/others
Allows continued use by
commercial haulers, waste
from multiple properties, dead
animals
Excludes commercial haulers,
waste from multiple properties,
dead animals
Excludes commercial haulers,
waste from multiple haulers,
dead animals
Other Services Continues current services
including household hazardous
waste days
Continues current services
including household hazardous
waste days. Excludes waste as
indicated above.
Eliminates current vegetative
waste/mulching and clean fill
services. May eliminate other
services depending on
contracted service arrangement
Recycling Services Continues current services.
May provide for enhanced
recycling
Continues current services.
May provide for enhanced
recycling
Provides for typical household
type recycling services. May
provide for enhanced recycling
such as tires, batteries,
oil/antifreeze, etc. depending
on contract services. Excludes
clean fill, pallets, large load
vegetative waste, mulching
Timing Detailed plan for continued
operation of transfer station
beyond July 1, 2015 submitted
to DEQ no later than April 1,
2015
County commitment needed by
December 2014
RFP issued no later than
October, 2014 for
consideration in November and
decision in December.
Coordination No issues, RSWA provides all
services
No issues, RSWA provides all
services
Significant issues, requires
coordination with RSWA.
Lease and county resources to
be put in place.
Intangibles RSWA has an excellent
reputation for quality service
with citizens and commercial
waste haulers, regularly
engages and works with the
neighborhood, is accountable
as a governmental entity and is
valued by the County as a
partner with County
representation on its Board.
RSWA has an excellent
reputation for quality service
with citizens, regularly engages
and works with the
neighborhood, is accountable
as a governmental entity and is
valued by the County as a
partner with County
representation on its Board.
County either elects to provide
services directly which would
require staffing, management
and internal support, or
contracts with a private third
party in which the relationship
is unproven. Supervision
required in either scenario.
Liability No additional liability with
continued RSWA operation.
No additional liability or risk,
continues current operation
Significant additional
liability/risk. Property control
via lease or purchase puts
County in ownership chain if
problems later found on facility
that predates regulations.
2206 South Main Street 8550 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 304
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(540) 552-0444 • Fax (540) 552-0291 (703) 573-5800 • Fax (703) 698-1306
www.daa.com www.gbbinc.com
November 17, 2014
Mr. Douglas Walker, Assistant County Executive
Albemarle County, Virginia
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Ivy Transfer Station Economic Viability Evaluation
Final Report
Draper Aden Associates Project No.: C11123R-07
Dear Mr. Walker:
Draper Aden Associates and Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) are pleased to
provide Albemarle County with the following report in accordance with our scope of services
dated October 7, 2014. As described in that scope, the purpose of this project is to support the
County’s further evaluation of the economic viability of the continued use of the Ivy Transfer
Station in the context of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)
requirements.
As you are aware, VDEQ has indicated to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA)
that the Ivy Transfer Station must either close, be actively engaged in upgrades through an
approved schedule by April 1, 2015 or revert to convenience center status by July 1, 2015.
Reversion to a convenience center would require rescinding the Ivy Transfer Station Permit and
commercial waste haulers could no longer use the facility.
As indicated, the County’s current discussions are focusing on the economic viability of
the continued use of the Ivy Transfer Station and the required expenditures to upgrade the
transfer station operations at Ivy to the regulatory standards. The County’s two immediate
questions of interest which must be answered for continued planning purposes were framed as
follows:
1. Is the Ivy Material Utilization Center location an economical place for an
upgraded transfer station; and
2. What are the primary factors influencing the determination of economic viability
for this location?
This letter report addresses these two questions by considering them from the technical
perspective (Draper Aden Associates’ work) and from the analytical/planning perspective
(GBB’s work).
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 20
I. CONTINUED OPERATION OF EXISTING SYSTEM
Key to the on-going discussion is the determination of the technical requirements for
maintaining the existing Ivy Transfer Station in operation beyond July 1, 2015. As indicated in
previous reports, the existing operation relies on mechanical equipment that is older, requiring
significant maintenance. The compactor system no longer is manufactured by Marathon and
Marathon’s equivalent compaction system is significantly larger and more expensive. Thus, any
modification to the existing system had to be considered in light of the future probability that the
equipment would cease to function and not be replaced.
VDEQ (Mr. Graham Simmerman and Mr. Justin Williams) were consulted on October
24, 2014 and agreed that if the existing operation (hopper, conveyor, compactor and lower
loading dock area were covered to reduce or eliminate exposure of the waste to stormwater, the
transfer station could remain in operation beyond the current specified closure date. Draper
Aden Associates worked with their architect, Reynolds Architects Incorporated, to develop a
conceptual layout for a canopy cover for the existing facility. The concept has been provided to
the RSWA and they consider the concept to be viable with some minor, recommended
modifications if the canopy were to be constructed.
Attachment 1 includes the proposed layout of the canopy and the preliminary cost
estimate. The design considered the necessary height of the canopy for roll off trucks unloading
into the hopper (hence the 28’-0” height of the structure) and is generall y centered over the wall.
The structure is not fully enclosed but has sufficient panels to protect the operation from typical
rain events. Key to the final cost of the structure will be the provision of information on the
subsurface conditions for the footer design. It is possible that some waste is present beneath the
asphalt and a thorough geotechnical evaluation would be needed prior to final design.
Site work for the installation of the canopy would be essentially limited to the footer
installation and an upgrade to the trench drain/leachate collection system on the lower loading
area may be needed.
Based on the preliminary cost estimate, the construction of the canopy would cost
approximately $100,000, to which an additional $30,000+ should be added for the site work for a
total of $130,000 (assuming significant issues with existing waste and footer design are not
encountered). An additional allowance for engineering design, engineering construction
management, legal and financing costs, and contingency should be added; for this small a
project, this may add an additional 30 to 50 percent to the above cost.
To the capital costs for the canopy and site work, additional survey and geotechnical
work would need to be added as well as the A/E costs for final design, preparation of the
construction documents and submittal of a minor permit modification to VDEQ.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 3 of 20
II. TECHNICAL EVALUATION – A NEW TRANSFER STATION
Draper Aden Associates previously considered the construction of a new transfer station
at the Ivy Material Utilization Center (MUC) in our report dated October 1, 2012. This report
outlined certain capital and operational costs associated with a modified transfer operation in the
context of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) operating such a facility and considered
the overlapping ancillary operations. The sizing of the concept facility in our 2012 study would
support the maximum allowable permitted tonnage under the existing Permit by Rule of 150 tons
per day.
Capital Costs for a New Transfer Station
During recent discussions with the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee interest
was expressed in consideration of a facility at Ivy that could handle additional tonnage whether
as waste for transfer or as recycling. To put a perspective on the relationship of tonnage to sizing
of transfer facilities and material recovery facility (MRF) space, the table provided below
summarizes information taken from the document entitled, “Managing Transfer Station Design
and Operations – A Training Course,” Publication # MSW-D2360, as prepared by the Solid
Waste Association of North America (SWANA), dated 1996:
TABLE 1
TRANSFER STATION/MRF
FLOOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS
OPEN TOP LOADING FACILITIES
(Table I-F SWANA)
TONNAGE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL
SPACE FOR MRF
50 2,400 3,600 1,200
100 3,600 6,400 1,200
200 6,400 8,000 1,600
300 8,000 12,000 3,200
400 12,000 16,800 4,000
500 15,000 20,400 4,000
750 18,000 24,000 4,000
1,000 26,400 33,600 7,200
The previous report completed by Draper Aden Associates in 2012 considered two
different layouts for the conceptual transfer stations at the Ivy location. One facility design was
based on the assumption that all tonnage entering the facility would be transferred to a single
disposal facility. The other design considered segregating the waste stream by major waste
stream type (MSW and CDD) and direction of the two waste streams to different
disposal/handling facilities. In general these facilities averaged 7,000+ sf in size.
The estimated concept cost per square foot of construction for the two facilities in the
2012 report ranged from $80 - $100/square foot exclusive of site work, A/E fees, and permitting.
With site work, both facility types were anticipated to cost approximately $1.0M dollars which
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 4 of 20
equates to a unit cost of $143/sf at the average of 7,000sf. The capital costs from the previous
report are still viable for the smaller facilities.
As background relative to a larger facility, Draper Aden Associates assisted Henrico
County with the design and construction of their new transfer station in 2012. This station was
designed to handle 400 – 500 tons per day and the size was set at 18,600 sf. The low bid for this
facility was $2,255,000 or $121/sf including the site work. The average of the 8 bids received
was $2,760,000 or $148/sf. Additional costs for A/E and permitting fees could add an additional
$250,000.00.
Location of a New Transfer Station
The RSWA property at Ivy consists of significant acreage most of which was used for
landfill disposal. The disposal areas are east of Axe Creek and north of Dick Woods Road as
illustrated on the attached vicinity map contained in Attachment 2. In addition, the RSWA is
also responsible for operating a significant monitoring and remediation system at the Ivy
disposal area per VDEQ requirements and also uses some acreage for their mulching operations
and clean fill storage. Thus, there are limited areas at the Ivy site for the construction of a new
open top load transfer station.
In the previous 2012 Draper Aden Associates’ report two locations were considered for
the smaller transfer station concepts with the assumption that a new transfer station should be
located near the existing infrastructure of the current operation and allow the existing facility to
operate during construction of a new facility. One location placed a new transfer station between
the Ivy Transfer Station offices and the existing Ivy Transfer Operations; the other location
considered placement of a facility to the west of the office and scale operations. The locations of
these facilities are further discussed below.
As background for the discussion, it should be noted that an open top loading transfer
station has the unique requirement that there be a 16’ drop between the tipping floor where the
garbage trucks off load the waste and the base where the haul trailers are placed to receive the
waste. This creates challenges in the site design for traffic flow and management of the larger
haul trailers. The grade break is typically created by a combination of cut and fill.
Figures for the following discussion are also contained in Attachment 2.
Original Eastern Transfer Station (Previously evaluated site)
The original concept for this location reduced the 16’ grade break to 14’ and required an
internal wall and lifting of waste into the haul trailer, not an ideal operation. While the original
eastern concept continues to be a potentially viable area for a smaller facility it would not be
suitable for a larger facility. The RSWA has also expressed some concern that there may be
older and unmapped waste units in this area although there has not been any investigation into
this that would directly support this concern. This site also poses some unusual requirements for
traffic flow of the haul trailers as illustrated in the 2012 report. In the context of this report, this
option is not considered in any further detail due to the site constraints.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 5 of 20
Site 1 – Western Transfer Station (Previously evaluated site)
The western area (termed Site 1 for the current discussion) seems most promising for
development as it is considered to be a greenfield site with limited potential for impact from
older waste units in the area. It also provides a natural grade break which could improve site
design and could support a larger structure. The previous 2012 report only addressed the
potential viability of placement of a transfer station in this area and did not include a detailed
analysis of traffic flow into the site. For the current economic viability analysis, Draper Aden
Associates revisited this site to consider traffic flow and the potential placement of a larger
facility whether for waste disposal or recycling.
The challenge to use of the western area is related to the traffic flow of the larger haul
trailers. Traffic exiting the existing scales into the site must clear the scales before beginning
their turn. Using topography provided by the RSWA and an AutoTurn program, traffic flow was
considered to the western facility. Figure 1 (see Attachment 2) illustrates the issues in trying to
exit the scales and immediately turn to the west to enter the facility. The turn would require a
significant road extension but this needed extension would be over a closed and capped waste
cell. Disturbance of the cover over the waste cell would be unacceptable to VDEQ and RSWA.
Figure 2 (see Attachment 2) considers an alternate route to the western facility which
would require the haul trailers to bypass the scales and to travel through the site to the east and
back around to the western facility. Outbound exit across the scales would be difficult requiring
potential road work on the landfill cell. Traffic could also be routed directly onto the entrance
road. Trailers would need to be pre-weighed and the full haul trailers would need to be weighed
at the transfer station. The installation of scales would add additional costs to the project
($50,000 - $75,000).
Based on this work, the limiting factor to the development of a western transfer station
becomes the use of the existing scales and the traffic flow of the trailers. While some
consideration could be given to the re-location of the existing scales, there is limited room to do
this given the slope of the incoming entrance and re-location would add significant cost to the
project. The sizing of the facility is not critical as expansion would occur in an east/west
direction and the facility could be sized to accommodate material recovery.
Site 2 – New Stand Alone Facility (New Concept)
Given the challenges of placement of a transfer facility near the existing infrastructure,
Draper Aden Associates also considered the location of a transfer station on RSWA property to
the east of Broad Axe Creek as illustrated on the vicinity map. This concept considered use of
an additional RSWA parcel (TP 73/30D).
After consideration, it was determined that for this evaluation a separate entrance off of
Dick Woods Road should be evaluated instead of routing traffic through the existing
infrastructure and RSWA operations. One advantage to this consideration is that should the
County wish to operate or privatize operation of this transfer station, the operation would be
segregated from the RSWA’s operation and a lease or purchase agreement for the property made
simpler as impact from previous waste disposal operations improbable.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 6 of 20
Figure 3 (see Attachment 2) illustrates a concept layout recognizing that there are many
factors that would determine the final site layout including VDOT entrance requirements,
consideration of sight distances along Dick Woods Road, County’s stream protection and buffer
requirements, and subsurface conditions to name a few. Review of this figure indicates that
there is significantly more site work required when compared to the other options and additional
costs associated with additional infrastructure including the construction of a new entrance
($100,000), scales ($85,000), scale house ($75,000), utility installation ($20,000), and an
allowance for A/E and permitting costs ($25,000). Costs are general and conceptual only and not
meant as an opinion of probable construction costs. The site appears to be viable although an
expensive alternative.
Summary of Capital and Site Work Costs
Table 2 below provides concept summary costs for the three options discussed above
including the original eastern transfer station, the “Site 1” western transfer station and the “Site
2” standalone operation. For the evaluation below all three options consider the “Option B”
building design from the 2012 report which consisted of one loading bay and a 7,800 sf building
including the loading area with an original estimated capital cost of $612,700. The costs
presented use a combination of information from the previous 2012 report (with costs inflated at
2 percent for 2 years) and provides some concept costs for newer design elements.
TABLE 2
CONCEPTUAL CAPITAL COSTS TRANSFER STATION ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE BUILDING
(15%
contingency)
INFRASTRUCTURE
(20% contingency)
SITE WORK
(15%
contingency)
TOTAL
Original eastern
facility
$733,000 Use existing $230,000 $963,000
Site 1 - Western
facility
$733,000 $102,000
(Loading scales)
$318,000 $1,153,000
Site 2 – stand-alone
facility
$733,000 $336,000 $900,000
$1,969,000
Table 3 provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantage of each of the options
discussed above.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 7 of 20
TABLE 3
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
TRANSFER STATION ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE
Original eastern facility Can use existing infrastructure
and limits site requirements.
Least expensive option.
Leaves other options available
as market matures and future
demands are better understood
Accommodates small transfer
facility only which could limit
future expansion or recycling
activities.
Potential for waste materials
underlying area which may
impact design and construction
costs.
Difficult to accommodate
traffic flow for trailers.
Site 1 - Western facility Can use existing infrastructure
but requires circuitous route for
the transfer trailers to access
facility.
Can accommodate a larger
facility.
Haul trailers must be routed
through the existing operational
area. For limited traffic this is
not problematic but for a larger
transfer facility this would be
difficult.
Significant site work required
but not as much as Site 2.
Potential neighborhood impacts
including increased visibility of
new facility from residences
and increased traffic.
Site 2 – stand-alone facility As a stand-alone facility, the
operations could be transferred
directly to the County if this
was desired by the County.
Can be designed to
accommodate any size waste
stream and recycling
operations.
Provides the best traffic flow
pattern.
Significant site work and
infrastructure construction
costs.
Potential issues with entrance
on Dick Woods Road that may
require improvements. VDOT
entrance permit required.
Does not take advantage of
overlapping operations of
RSWA.
Potential neighborhood impacts
including increased visibility of
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 8 of 20
ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE
new facility from residences
and increased traffic.
VDOT concerns with safety of
new commercial entrance on
Dick Woods Rd.
Summary of Capital and Operation Costs of Transfer Station
The costs associated with the operation of a new Ivy Transfer Station were also explored
in the 2012 Draper Aden Associates’ report. Review of the information in the report as related
specifically to a new transfer station and exclusive of the ancillary operations indicates that the
original assumptions are still generally valid and have not been modified in the discussion below
except to incorporate inflation at a rate of 2 percent per year for two years.
Under this scope of services, three tonnage rates were requested to be evaluated, 50 tpd
(15,000 tons per year), 100 tpd (30,000 tons per year), and 150 tpd (45,000 tons per year)
assuming an average of 25 days per month of operation. For this range of tonnage, the general
size of the structure and personnel costs are similar and hence variation between the specific
requirements for each tonnage not considered. Table 4 provides a summary of operation and
transfer and disposal costs using the assumptions identified.
Summary
In summary, the technical evaluation determined that the original assumptions in the 2012
Draper Aden Associates’ report remain generally valid. We have considered a third option (Site
2) that would move the facility away from the existing RSWA operations and create a standalone
operation with the advantages outlined above. This would facilitate the consideration of a
County owned and operated facility, unless the City of Charlottesville was to commit to
participate to make it a regional facility, although the capital investment is significant.
Ultimately, the economic viability of replacement of the existing Ivy Transfer Station with a new
state of the art facility is a function of available tonnage and the market place which is the
subject of the next sections of this report.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 9 of 20
TABLE 4
TRANSFER STATION OPERATIONS COST ASSUMPTIONS
BUDGET ITEM ESTIMATED
COST
COMMENTS
Personnel and operations $337,700 2012 report inflated - includes manager, scale
house operator and clerk, and 2 equipment
operators. Total 4.5 FTE.
Building Debt Service $68,900 Capital cost at $1.2M financed at 3% over 25
years.
Equipment Debt service $58,600 One loader assumed to cost $350,000 and financed
at 3% over 10 years. Added Bobcat at $150,000
financed over the same.
Allocation for RSWA $90,214 Administrative oversight – FY 2015 RSWA
budget.
TOTAL $555,414 Does not include costs for transport and disposal,
summarized below.
MSW Input Total, $/ton 25 days per month of operation
50 tpd $37.03/ton (15,000 tons per year)
100 tpd $18.51/ton (30,000 tons per year)
150 tpd $12.34/ton (45,000 tons per year)
Transport $26.31/ton RSWA FY 14-15 costs – Thompson Trucking -
$420.99/load at average 16 tons per load
Disposal Costs $18.35/ton RSWA FY 14-15 – Waste Management, Inc.
(WMI) renewal
TOTAL COSTS
50 tpd $81.69/ton
100 tpd $63.17/ton
150 tpd $57.00/ton
III. MARKETABILITY OF IVY TRANSFER STATION
Previous usage of Ivy MUC
The following section discusses the previous and current usage of Ivy Material
Utilization Center (MUC). The Ivy MUC was permitted in 1998 by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality to handle 150 TPD, or 45,000 tons annually, assuming 300 working days
per year.1 In FY 2011 the transfer station handled 42,301 total tons, operating at 95 percent of
capacity. In FY 2015, the Ivy MUC is projected to handle 16,768 tons of waste and operate at
only 37 percent of its capacity (see Figure 4).
1 RSWA considers this permit stipulation to be for all waste processed at the transfer station, including
C&D, and not just MSW. If modifications are to be made, this should be clarified with DEQ.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 10 of 20
FIGURE 4
TOTAL ANNUAL TONNAGES AT IVY MUC
Attachment 3 shows more detailed historical and projected tonnages at the Ivy MUC.
Tonnage is received by the Ivy MUC in three ways: self-haul “tag-a-bag,” self-haul
tipping, or commercial tipping.
1. The “tag-a-bag,” program allows citizens to self-haul garbage bags to the Ivy MUC.
RSWA sells stickers to citizens, who mark their loose garbage bags and self-haul them to
a designated 20 CY roll off. The citizens pay $24 for a roll of 12 stickers (Note: For
comparison, Charlottesville currently charges $2.10 for a 32 gallon bag sticker).
2. Regular self-haul allows businesses or citizens to self-haul waste with offload directly
into the hopper or transfer trailer (if in use) with the help of an attendant.
3. Commercial haulers that tip at Ivy MUC have included WMI, Republic Service, and
other private haulers. WMI had a contract with RSWA, which expired in 2013, to tip
waste collected in their service area at the Ivy MUC. This contract stipulated that WMI
will transfer the waste generated at Ivy MUC to the Amelia Landfill. After the contract
expired, WMI ceased using the transfer station on a routine basis, resulting in significant
reduction in tonnage processed.
Figure 5 shows the type of vehicles that made use of the Ivy MUC during FY 11-12
through FY 13-14. WMI also used the facility routinely during FY 11-12 and FY12-13, but did
not use the facility on a routine basis in FY 13-14 as explained above; for clarity of comparison,
WMI vehicles are not included.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015Tons Year
Total tons MSW only
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 11 of 20
FIGURE 5
VEHICLES USING IVY MUC
Source: RSWA, Communication with Lonnie Wood, RSWA, 11/3/14.
0
100
200
300
400
500
Rear
Loader
Roll Off Dump
Truck
Pickup
Truck
Car/Van Not
ClassifiedNo. Transactions Vehicle Type
FY 11-12 Weekly Transactions by Vehicle Type
0
100
200
300
400
500
Rear
Loader
Roll Off Dump
Truck
Pickup
Truck
Car/Van Not
ClassifiedNo. Transactions Vehicle Type
FY 12-13 Weekly Transactions by Vehicle Type
0
100
200
300
400
Rear
Loader
Roll Off Dump
Truck
Pickup
Truck
Car/Van Not
ClassifiedNo. Transactions Vehicle Type
FY 13-14 Weekly Transactions by Vehicle Type
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 12 of 20
The notable majority of transactions have been pickup truck drivers, who have
consistently delivered waste over 300 times per week for the past three years. Second to pickup
trucks are cars/van drivers, who have about 100 transactions at Ivy MUC per week. Third are
dump truck drivers, who have maintained 50 transactions per week. Based on this information it
is obvious that the large commercial haulers are no longer using this facility on a routine basis.
The Budget Summary by Program from the FY 2015 RSWA budget is included as
Attachment 4, excerpted from the RSWA Budget Fiscal Year 2014-2015, Adopted May 27,
2014. The table shows both the adopted budget for FY 2014 and the adopted budget for FY
2015.
The Ivy MUC is not currently financially self-sustaining because the significant reduction
of tonnage generates too little revenues at current tipping fees to spread across the significant
fixed costs as are necessary to properly operate the facility. Nevertheless, Albemarle County has
supported providing these services for the benefit of the small haulers and self-haulers. As such,
the County continues to contract with RSWA to keep the Ivy MUC open with the County
responsible for payment of deficits. For FY 2015 revenues for all services at the Ivy MUC were
projected at $855,780 with expenses projected at $1,058,778 resulting in an operating loss of
$202,998, before adjustment for administrative allocations. RSWA administrative services are
provided through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority with costs recovered by allocation to
all programs served. RSWA allocated administrative costs for FY 2015 for the transfer station
operations alone, revenues were projected at $517,200 and expenses at $778,452 with a deficit of
$351,466 when the administrative costs are allocated to the operations.
The RSWA tipping fees remained unchanged from FY 20142; charges for both MSW and
CDD tipping are set at $66.00 per ton. Total tonnage projected by the RSWA for all operations
for FY 2015 is 16,045 tons; tonnage for transfer operations only is projected to be 6,700 tons.
Thus, on a per ton basis, the transfer station at the Ivy MUC is projected to require a subsidy
equivalent to $52.46 per ton. The costs of running the entire Ivy MUC operations are
approximately $24.00 per ton with administrative costs included.
Future Usage of Ivy Transfer Station
The 2013 U.S. Census population estimate of Albemarle County (excluding the City of
Charlottesville) is 103,000, and the City of Charlottesville population is 44,349, for a total of
147,349. The U.S. EPA estimates waste generation to be 4.5 pounds per capita per day (pcd).
Several Virginia localities have calculated actual generation rates in excess of 6 pounds pcd.3
For this analysis, a per capita waste generation rate of 6 pounds pcd4 was used to estimate the
2 Under a Local Government Support Agreement between Albemarle County and RSWA, the County
requires RSWA to continue to operate the Ivy MUC on behalf of the County and the County agreeing to pay any
deficit of expenses over revenues. The contract includes a provision that the RSWA Board must strongly consider
any request by the County for adjustment of tipping fees; over the time that the contract has been in effect, no such
request has been made.
3 The 2004-24 Fairfax County Solid Waste Management Plan reports 6.30 pcd, and recent consulting work
by GBB for Prince William County calculated 6.06 pcd.
4 Virginia Performs, a state reporting and measuring effort, reports that in 2013 Virginia ranked 10 th
nationwide for per capita income, and that the Central Virginia region was just slightly below the state average. This
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 13 of 20
total tonnage within Albemarle County including the City (the Region). The combined
residential and commercial sectors were estimated to generate 155,977 tons per year. In 2005,
SCS estimated that the City of Charlottesville generates 39 percent of the Region’s waste, and
Albemarle County generates 61 percent of the waste.5 Based on 300 working days per year,
Charlottesville generates 202.8 TPD, and Albemarle County (excluding the City of
Charlottesville) generates 317.2 TPD. The Ivy MUC is only receiving an estimated 6,700 tons
per year or 6.2 percent of the County’s tonnage. See Table 5 below.
TABLE 5
ESTIMATED TONNAGES IN THE REGION
Total RSWA Population 147,349 people
Albemarle County 103,000 people
City of Charlottesville 44,349 people
Total Waste Generated (Calculated based on 6 pounds pcd) 161,347 TPY
Total Tons of Waste Generated Per Working Day in RSWA 537.8 TPD
Tons Per Day Generated by the City of Charlottesville 161.8 TPD
Tons Per Day Generated by Albemarle County 375.9 TPD
Source: 2013 U.S. Census Data and GBB analysis
For the Ivy MUC to reach its permitted tonnage of 150 TPD, almost 40 percent of the
waste generated in Albemarle County (excluding the City of Charlottesville) would have to be
received at the facility. The sources of MSW generated within Albemarle County are difficult to
identify, as neither the RSWA, the County, the Thomas Jefferson PDC nor the VDEQ capture
this data. However, as shown in Figure 6, the majority of the population of Albemarle County is
in the outskirts of the City of Charlottesville and along the corridors of Highway 29 and
Highway 250. It is probable that a significant portion of the waste generated in the County is
located in this area which is closer to the Ivy facility than alternative facilities discussed below.
indicates that Central Virginia residents, on average, have a per capita income much higher than the national
average. By the same reasoning, such residents likely generate more solid waste pcd than the national average.
5 RSWA Utility Fee Study – Task 2 Report, SCS Engineers, 2005.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 14 of 20
FIGURE 6
POPULATION DENSITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY – 2010 CENSUS
Currently, it appears that upwards of 90 percent of the tonnage generated in the County
and City of Charlottesville is being transported elsewhere outside of the County for final
disposal. Most of the public landfills accept residential MSW only from in-county residents and
businesses. Some sources indicate WMI may be using the Greene County Transfer Station for
waste previously delivered to Ivy MUC, although this has not been verified. It is also likely that
waste from Albemarle County is going to a privately operated transfer station. The two privately
operated transfer stations in the region are located in Fluvanna County at Zion Crossroads—van
der Linde and the Republic Transcycle facility. Table 6 shows the landfills and transfer stations
in the region and their most recently-reported MSW tonnages.
Figure 7 (next page) shows the location of landfills and transfer stations within a 50 mile
radius of Charlottesville. The radius of 50 miles helps illustrate the linear distance to each site.
Some sites will not accept any commercial haulers, and these are shown with a strikethrough of
their names on the map.
TABLE 6
TONNAGES ACCEPTED AT FACILITIES IN THE REGION
Location MSW Accepted (tons)
Madison County 4,738
Greene County 12,548
Orange County 13,345
Louisa County 12,924
Republic Transcycle 28,867
Augusta Regional 57,163
Rockingham County 69,921
Zion Crossroads - VDL 81,297
Source: DEQ Staff and correspondence of October 2014
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 15 of 20
FIGURE 7
MAP OF FACILITIES IN THE REGION
Source: GBB
Options to increase tons delivered to Ivy MUC
In order to increase the tonnage directed to the Ivy MUC and minimize or eliminate the
need for subsidization by the County, there are several approaches that could be considered:
1) Enact regulatory flow control of waste from one or more areas to the Ivy MUC. Such action
is allowed under Virginia law, and should not constitute displacing a provider of processing
or disposal. To stay within the permit limit, RSWA could close the gates when daily/weekly
capacity is reached and allow trucks to divert to the other facilities in the region.
Enforcement will be needed to reach the 150 TPD level.
Virginia law provides for localities to enact flow control in order to protect the public
interest. As stated in §15.2-931, a subsection of the Code of Virginia’s law regarding the
powers of Cities, Counties, and Towns:
It has been and is continuing to be the policy of the Commonwealth
to authorize each locality to displace or limit competition in the
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 16 of 20
area of garbage, trash or refuse collection services and garbage,
trash or refuse disposal services to provide for the health and
safety of its citizens, to control disease, to prevent blight and other
environmental degradation, to promote the generation of energy
and the recovery of useful resources from garbage, trash and
refuse, to protect limited natural resources for the benefit of its
citizens, to limit noxious odors and unsightly garbage, trash and
refuse and decay and to promote the general health and welfare by
providing for adequate garbage, trash and refuse collection
services and garbage, trash and refuse disposal services.
Accordingly, governing bodies are directed and authorized to
exercise all powers regarding garbage, trash and refuse collection
and garbage, trash and refuse disposal notwithstanding any anti-
competitive effect.
The stated regulatory function of §15.2-931 is to allow localities to enact ordinances
directing some or all of the garbage, trash, or refuse generated therein to specific disposal
publicly owned facilities, either within or outside the locality. Therefore, it is a power of
counties in Virginia to enact regulatory flow control. §15.2-931 does require a public hearing
and findings that there is a need for the regulation. The locality must find that the other
facilities are unavailable, inadequate, unreliable, or not economically feasible; and, that the
ordinance is needed to for provide adequate financing for the construction, expansion, or
closing of its own facilities. While GBB recommends that further legal analysis and opinions
on the matter at hand are needed, Virginia law does explicitly allow flow control for the
purposes of financial needs.
2) Enact a system benefit charge or utility service fee. This would be a set fee charged some or
all of the residents and businesses for having Ivy MUC available for their use. This
incentivizes haulers collecting from customers who paid the fee to bring the waste to Ivy,
because the disposal has been prepaid and they can tip for little or no additional cost. Ideally,
the haulers then reduce their prices for collection accordingly.
The facility would be open only to waste from fee payers. The charge/fee could be adjusted
annually to reflect actual costs. There is an opportunity to create a sliding scale that rewards
payers for recycling more and reducing waste, especially for businesses. To stay within the
permit limit, RSWA could close the gates when daily/weekly capacity is reached and allow
trucks to divert to the other facilities in the region.
An example of a system benefit charge in a Virginia county (Prince William) is provided in
Attachment 4.
3) Create a special collection district and direct waste collected within it to Ivy MUC. There are
two ways this could be accomplished:
a) The first option is to create a special service district and provide the collection. This
would likely be considered displacement of the local service provider(s) and activate
what is known in Virginia as the “Five Years’ Notice Rule.” The rule, provided for in
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 17 of 20
§15.2-934 of the Code of Virginia, states that a locality or combination of localities can
displace the current haulers operating in an area for the purpose of providing the service
with its own forces or via a contract with one or more private sector vendors.
The rule requires a series of public notices and hearings; written findings by the
locality(ies) that service provided by the private sector is lacking, harmful, or absent; and,
giving the private sector notice that in five years the locality(ies) will begin service,
displacing the private sector vendor. As an alternative to waiting five years, the
locality(ies) can pay the vendor an amount of money equal to the company’s preceding
12 months’ gross receipts as compensation for the taking.
The “Five Years’ Notice Rule” is generally considered to be quite onerous on the locality
that would enact the displacement. The locality must make a written finding of at least
one of four failings by the private sector, all of which are significantly objective.
b) The second option would be to focus on engaging residents to petition the County to
create one or more sanitary districts. This is an option whereby residents petition the
County to provide them a service such as trash and/or recycling collection. The County
would need to be prepared to provide service that would convince residents to switch,
either due to the offered service level, or the price, or both. Because the initiative arises
from the residents, it does not constitute a taking. It is specifically noted in §15.2-934 of
the Code of Virginia that creation of a sanitary district does not qualify as displacement,
and it does not activate the Five Years’ Notice Rule.
An example of sanitary districts in a Virginia county is provided in Attachment 5.
4) Manipulate the economics of tipping at Ivy MUC. In this tactic, RSWA would lower the fees
at Ivy MUC to be competitive in the marketplace. This could include spot pricing as needed.
The County would need to be prepared to provide funds to cover possible RSWA shortfalls
as necessary—to do so, monthly transfers could be necessary.
Making the Ivy MUC More Marketable
Economics of a waste customer
For an individual, business, or hauler to bring waste to any facility, one or more of the
following conditions must compel them to do so:
5) Costs: Use of the facility must cost less than other options such as paid collection service or
going to other facilities.
a) With Albemarle County ready to help cover shortfalls, Ivy MUC could manipulate
pricing to attract customers.
6) Service: The facility must offer more services, better services or an enhanced overall
experience. Residents and businesses prefer a “one-stop-shop” where they feel safe and can
complete their activity rapidly. Haulers will be focused primarily on ease of use and how
quickly they can tip and get going. Automated payment services and a variety of payment
options will appeal to all customers.
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 18 of 20
7) Location: The facility must have a location that is easy to find, easy to access, and easy to
exit. Residents and haulers will have slightly different attitudes toward distance, but both will
consider it a priority.
a) The existing Ivy MUC is not in an ideal location for access for all residents of the County
but the RSWA has made traffic flow as efficient as possible given the multiple uses and
existing infrastructure.
b) As indicated previously, however, a significant portion of the County’s population is
closer to the Ivy facility than any alternate facility.
Economic viability of Ivy MUC
For the Ivy MUC to be economically viable without subsidization from the Albemarle
County or additional utility fees, the customer fees must support its operations. As shown in
Table 4, the estimated cost to operate Ivy MUC as a PBR transfer station at 150 TPD is $57 per
ton, while private facilities in neighboring localities currently have lower fees. If the current data
on incoming waste is extrapolated to 150 TPD and the current rate schedule is paid, there would
remain a shortfall in adequate revenue to cover costs.
Additional analysis would be needed to project the system benefit charge and the number
of collection customers that would be required to support a financially sustainable operation at
Ivy.
Summary – Marketability of Ivy MUC as a Transfer Station
Over the past several years, the use of the Ivy MUC use has diminished significantly to
the point where today it is primarily a convenience center for pick-up trucks and residences in
vans and autos. There is also some use by smaller waste haulers serving residences in the
general vicinity of the Ivy MUC. Past deliveries of MSW and CDD by larger haulers has
essentially disappeared as they use other lower cost and convenient locations outside of
Albemarle County. During this time, subsidies by the Albemarle County have increased. At this
time, the VDEQ requires that the Ivy MUC either be upgraded with additional enclosure
infrastructure if it is to continue to provide transfer station services to haulers who collect waste
from several sources, i.e. now the smaller waste haulers.
The County plus the City of Charlottesville generate approximately 500 tons per day of
MSW. In FY 2015, the Ivy MUC is projected to receive approximately 56 tons per day for all
operations or 27 tons per day MSW through the transfer station. If the County/RSWA decides to
make the necessary improvements to the existing facility so that the transfer station permit can
be retained, the County will need to consider methods to increase tonnage to the facility. Several
methods for doing this have been outlined above. The effort may need to be significant as 150
TPD is the equivalent of 46 percent of waste in the County or 28 percent of the generated
tonnage when Charlottesville is included.
Alternative revenues or additional subsidies will be required for RSWA to receive these
added tons. Because of space constraints and the relatively small tonnages involved, doing more
than consolidating separated recyclables and transferring MSW and CDD is not possible, even
after the outlined modifications are made presented earlier. Having more waste materials
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 19 of 20
directed to the Ivy MUC will not provide for any significant increase in recycling, unless the
materials are transferred to other processing facilities located elsewhere. If transferred out,
higher costs can be expected as compared to the very low charges the RSWA has with it current
transfer and disposal contractors.
In our opinion, the location of the Ivy MUC is not ideal for serving the entire waste
management needs in the County. Its location on the west side of the center of population is
remote and far from the MRFs and landfills transferred to by other facilities or used by those
collecting in the County. The main facilities used are located just outside Albemarle County on
the east side. One of these facilities offers processing of both MSW and CDD materials for
recycling, which Ivy MUC does not.
Nonetheless, despite the above, the benefits Ivy MUC offers are:
It is a place where residents, businesses, and small haulers can bring their waste and tip
safely and, with some changes, easily.
RSWA can add or remove materials that are accepted in accordance with public demand; in
so doing, may require additional subsidy.
There is the potential to stage special collection events at the location as needed, and also to
have the facility as a resource in times of crisis or emergency, both natural and manmade.
The facility already has a “stake in the ground” to serve the community on the west side of
the County. Going back later to try and site a facility would be with great difficulty.
Our conclusion is that if the County wants to provide for a facility that small waste
haulers can continue to use, while providing convenience center services to self-haulers, the
County will need to be prepared to either provide additional subsidies and create economic flow
control for the significant amount of waste in the County to find its way to the Ivy
MUC. Additionally, if the County is interested to see more recycling occur with the waste
materials are received at the facility, it should provide additional processing. Processing would
increase the costs.
Sincerely,
DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES
Lynn P. Klappich
WRE – Program Manager
GERSHMAN, BRICKNER & BRATTON, INC.
Harvey W. Gershman
President
Mr. Douglas Walker
November 17, 2014
Page 20 of 20
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Canopy Design and Preliminary Cost Estimate
Attachment 2 – Vicinity Map and Transfer Station Location Options (Figures 1 – 4)
Attachment 3 – Historical and Projected Tonnages at Ivy MUC
Attachment 4 – RSWA Budget Summary FY 2015
Attachment 5 – Case study of a system benefit charge – Prince William County, VA
Attachment 6 – Case study of sanitary districts – Fairfax County, VA
cc: Mark Graham, Albemarle County
Tom Frederick, Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
506 SOUTH MAIN STREET, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24060
October 29, 2014
IVY TRANSFER STATION – ROOF CANOPY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Preliminary Cost Estimate
General Requirements ..................................................................................... $8,000
Demolition (concrete removal) ......................................................................... 2,500
Concrete Foundation........................................................................................ 2,400
Pre-engineered Metal Building Structure .......................................................... 33,500
Metal Roof Panels ............................................................................................ 19,832
Metal Siding Panels ......................................................................................... 13,120
Electrical (lighting only) .................................................................................... 10,500
________
Subtotal $89,852
10% Contingency 8,985
________
Total $98,837
- Does Not Include Equipment and Professional Services
• BLACKSBURG 540/552-7575 • ROANOKE 540/387-3374 • FAX 540/552-6310 •
FORMERLY ROGERS & REYNOLDS ARCHITECTS, INC.
KPEJ HV
+0(''6
)4#2*+%5%#.'
2 >%>>%4>%4Ä>%#&>%4ÄÄ&50>2TGNKOKPCT[4CFKK5VWF[Ä1RVKQPFYI1EVQDGT 2/5%#.'
241,'%6
&'5+)0'&
&4#90
%*'%-'&
'%4Ä
+8;.#0&(+..64#05('456#6+10
%*#4.166'58+..'8+4)+0+#
(+)74'Draper Aden Associates
Engineering Surveying Environmental Services
5QWVJ/CKP5VTGGV
$NCEMUDWTI8#
ÄÄ(CZ ÄÄ
4KEJOQPF8#
%JCTNQVVGUXKNNG8#
*CORVQP4QCFU8#
24'.+/+0#4;.#;176Ä126+10#,*
#,*
.2-
KPEJ HV
+0(''6
)4#2*+%5%#.'
2 >%>>%4>%4Ä>%#&>%4ÄÄ&50>2TGNKOKPCT[4CFKK5VWF[Ä1RVKQPFYI1EVQDGT 2/5%#.'
241,'%6
&'5+)0'&
&4#90
%*'%-'&
'%4Ä
+8;.#0&(+..64#05('456#6+10
%*#4.166'58+..'8+4)+0+#
(+)74'Draper Aden Associates
Engineering Surveying Environmental Services
5QWVJ/CKP5VTGGV
$NCEMUDWTI8#
ÄÄ(CZ ÄÄ
4KEJOQPF8#
%JCTNQVVGUXKNNG8#
*CORVQP4QCFU8#
24'.+/+0#4;.#;176Ä126+10#,*
#,*
.2-
KPEJ HV
+0(''6
)4#2*+%5%#.'
2 >%>>%4>%4Ä>%#&>%4ÄÄ&50>2TGNKOKPCT[4CFKK5VWF[Ä5GEQPFCT[.QECVKQPFYI1EVQDGT 2/5%#.'
241,'%6
&'5+)0'&
&4#90
%*'%-'&
'%4Ä
+8;.#0&(+..64#05('456#6+10
%*#4.166'58+..'8+4)+0+#
(+)74'Draper Aden Associates
Engineering Surveying Environmental Services
5QWVJ/CKP5VTGGV
$NCEMUDWTI8#
ÄÄ(CZ ÄÄ
4KEJOQPF8#
%JCTNQVVGUXKNNG8#
*CORVQP4QCFU8#
24'.+/+0#4;.#;176Ä126+10#,*
#,*
.2-
ATTACHMENT 3: IVY MUC HISTORICAL AND CURRENT TONNAGES
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
Material Analysis Report - Waste Tonnages - Fiscal Year 2011-2015
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015*
Ivy Waste Tonnage Categories
Clean Fill Material 10,763 6,648 10,489 9,087 5,916
Construction Demolition Material 0000 0
Grindable Vegetative Material 2,912 1,877 3,714 2,016 2,626
Pallets 89 88 81 71 55
Glass 413 357 0 0 0
Sludge 1,231 878 0 0 0
Tires, Split 0000 0
Tires, Whole 142 158 131 92 12
White Goods (non-Freon) 9864 0
Total Non-MSW 15,559 10,014 14,420 11,270 8,609
MSW Tonnages
Ivy MSW TS 8,933 8,066 7,437 6,864 8,159
Contract Loading-UVA 4,459 344 0 0 0
Contract Loading-County 13,350 13,108 10,686 0 0
Total MSW 26,742 21,519 18,124 6,864 8,159
Total 42,301 31,533 32,544 18,134 16,768
*FY2015 Q1 data used for annual projection
Source: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority FY 2014-2015 Budget
ATTACHMENT 4: RSWA BUDGET SUMMARY BY PROGRAM, FY 15
Draper Aden Associates – GBB Attachment 5 Draft 11/7/14
ATTACHMENT 5: EXAMPLE OF ECONOMIC FLOW CONTROL
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA
All residents 1 of Prince William County pay a system benefit charge called the Solid
Waste Fee, which “pre-pays” for disposal of their waste. The ability to use the County landfill
for “free” creates de facto flow control for waste generated and collected in Prince William
County. The intention of the Solid Waste Fee is to ensure the solid waste management system is
adequately funded without the need to import waste from other jurisdictions, thereby meeting the
disposal needs of the locality and preserving landfill space as a resource for Prince William
County.
The residential fees vary based on the type of home, as shown in the table below. The
charges are not arbitrary. As detailed in previous consulting work, they are calculated using a
complex formula that considers pounds of waste generated per square foot, an 80 percent “full”
rate on containers, home type, and average home size.2
ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE FEES, 2013
FEE CLASS FEE PER UNIT
Single Family Home $70
Town House $63
Mobile Home $56
Condominium / Apartment $47
Businesses also pay a Solid Waste Fee, but it is based on either facility square footage
and use or actual generation. All businesses are by default charged based on the facility square
footage and use (warehouse, retail, etc.). Businesses can appeal to have their fee based on their
projected actual waste generation. Both methods use a County-provided formula. Currently,
approximately 40% of businesses have appealed and overridden their solid waste fees to pay
based on actual generation.
All collection in Prince William County is done by the private sector. Many customers
who live with Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) receive service via a shared contract, while
other have direct subscriptions with a hauler. The haulers charge their customers for collection
service only since the disposal has been pre-paid by the customers via the Solid Waste Fee on
their annual property tax bills.
The County owns and operates a sanitary landfill, which is the primary disposal facility
for the County. The landfill is open daily for commercial disposal of in-county waste.
Commercial recycling processing is open Monday through Friday. On a daily basis, County
residents can self-haul trash and recycling at no cost. The County also owns and operates a
facility called Balls Ford Road. This facility is used primarily for the processing of yard waste
and also accepts trash and recycling from self-hauling residents and town and city residents on a
daily basis. In addition to the permanent facilities, recyclables collection trailers operate as drop
off centers at sixteen additional locations around the County.
1 Residents and businesses inside the towns and the cities do not pay a Solid Waste Fee, and waste
collected from these sources is charged a per-ton landfill tipping fee. Town and City residents who self-haul to the
County landfill can dispose of up to 200 pounds of waste for $5.00.
2 RSWA Utility Fee Study – Task 2 Report, SCS Engineers, 2005
Draper Aden Associates – GBB Attachment 6 Draft 11/7/14
ATTACHMENT 6: EXAMPLE OF REGULATORY FLOW CONTROL
SANITARY DISTRICTS IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA
Creation of a Solid Waste Collection Area, or Sanitary District, is a state provision which
requires a petition made by a resident and supported by at least 55 percent of the residents within
the proposed area. The area must consist of 50 homes or more.1 The petition chairperson must
contact the resident or owner of each home in the proposed area. Only the signature of the legal
homeowner is acceptable on the petition.2 Once the signed petitions are verified by the County,
the petition must go to a public hearing of the Board of Supervisors. The public hearing is the
opportunity for those who support or oppose the petition to be heard.
If the proposed area is approved as a Sanitary District by the Board of Supervisors, the residents
will be notified by mail, assigned a trash collection service day, and service will begin according
to a standard timetable—usually, the following January 1 or July 1. Participating households are
charged a user fee on their real estate tax assessment for the service.
In Fairfax County, there are three service levels for which residents can petition: Refuse
only, Leaf only, or Refuse and Leaf. “Refuse” service includes collection of recycling, seasonal
yard waste, and a certain amount of bulky items. Refuse service is charged at a flat per-customer
rate, evaluated during the annual budgetary process to be at or near a “break-even” price point.
“Leaf” service means curbside vacuum collection of loose leaves. Leaf service is charged on a
“mills” basis, a certain cost per $1,000 of assessed value.
Most residential and nearly all commercial customers in Fairfax County, which has
approximately 1,200,000 residents, have private service. The longstanding policy of the County
solid waste management program is to neither encourage nor discourage expansion of the
sanitary districts. Partly as a result, the sanitary districts are concentrated chiefly in the portions
of the county which were suburbanized earliest. This is generally attributed to two factors: when
the areas were first developed, there were no private sector providers available; and, these older
neighborhoods tend to have more mature trees and landscaping, making low-cost, practically
limitless collection of yard waste and the possibility of vacuum lead collection very attractive to
residents.
County forces provide the collection service in sanitary districts; however, the service
could be contracted to a private vendor, and the past this was the case with the recycling
collection. Either way, the County exercises functional flow control over the areas in the sanitary
districts by either being directly responsible for where the collected material goes or stipulating
its destination in a contract.
1 If the area is near to an existing sanitary district, only the homes necessary to enlarge the existing district
in a contiguous manner need to be canvassed—there don’t need to be 50 or more added.
2 Renters do not have the authority to sign petitions since they are not responsible for the real estate taxes
on which the future service charge would be placed.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion to review suggested strategies to assist
businesses in the Route 29 Solutions construction areas
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Graham, Catlin, Stimart
PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 3, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board has expressed a strong desire to consider strategies and develop a business assistance program for
businesses in the Route 29 construction areas. Staff has researched various communities in Virginia and across the
country to see what types of assistance programs were used in similar circumstances . In addition, the County has
provided a number of different opportunities to solicit feedback from businesses in the Route 29 corrid or regarding
strategies they think could be beneficial before, during and immediately after construction. A list of assistance ideas
generated from staff’s research and from stakeholders’ feedback will be presented to the Board at this meeting for its
initial reaction and discussion. Based on the Board’s direction, staff will conduct a more detailed assessment of the
potential strategies and will prepare recommendations for the Board’s consideration in March 2015.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenues that support community goals.
DISCUSSION:
The following opportunities were provided for stakeholders to provide feedback regarding their suggested strategies:
October 23, 2014 Open House – two mailings and door to door invitations issued; attended by over 100
business representatives
October 30, 2014 Stakeholders Meeting – individual invitations hand-delivered and emailed; attended by 17
businesses representing all four quadrants of the Route 29/Rio Road intersection
Drop-In Meetings – four on-site meetings held; attended by representatives from 14 businesses
Engage Albemarle – a question regarding business assistance strategies was online for two weeks
A list of strategies resulting from staff’s research and from stakeholders’ suggestions is attached (Attachment A),
broken down into the following categories:
Technical Support
Wayfinding and Signage
Marketing
Communications
Financial and Regulatory
Staff will provide a brief overview of the listed strategies, giving background where necessary on several of the
suggestions.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no immediate budget impact related to this agenda item . Budgetary impact analysis will be provided when
the recommendations are presented to the Board in March 2015.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide its initial reaction and feedback regarding business assistance strategies , as
well as direction to staff in its preparation to conduct a more detailed assessment of potential strategies .
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – List of Business Assistance Strategies
Return to agenda
Compiled List of Strategies
for Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program
Technical Support
Develop a Survival Toolkit to serve as an advance planning guide for businesses including a
“Construction Readiness” checklist
Provide business counseling and technical expertise on site before and during construction
Assist businesses in developing customer loyalty strategies - customer contact information
starting now so that businesses have an effective way to keep in touch during construction
Wayfinding & Signage
Signage – both for individual businesses and for broader navigation – permanent directional
signs at the local-express split, midtown exit signage
Make sure well-defined travel alternatives are in place
Provide accurate information about alternative routes
Descriptive signage that gives clear directions for business access during construction - “This
way to…”
Create effective temporary signage – visible and easy to read – branded and coordinated with
marketing efforts
Investigate usage of electronic wayfinding signage
Consider modifications to the county’s sign regulations
Marketing
Produce Public Service Announcements (PSAs) from community leaders encouraging loyalty to
businesses during construction
Plan a Buy local campaign – identify local businesses along the corridor to channel work to once
construction begins such as sign makers, restaurants, print shops, etc. - encourage lunch
promotions, etc. for construction workers, create reoccurring business
Identify a pool of marketing, advertising and design firms to provide discounted or pro bono
assistance, develop a focused marketing plan and media/social media campaign
Marketing campaign focused on “Get to Know Midtown” – feature different businesses
Develop a matching grant program that provides support for group advertising initiatives –
significant need for assistance with television advertising
Develop coupon books that can be used at targeted businesses
Coordinate events to draw people to the area during construction – concert series like Fridays
After Five, “Saturdays in the Square” at Albemarle Square, local bands, artisan venues, etc.
Communications
Encourage the business community to engage its customers for support; build community up,
appeal to our common interest in a strong local economy
Enlist local media as active communications partners
Comprehensive communications effort well in advance of construction – posters, flyers, email
blasts, etc. - coordinated with businesses ahead of time to alert/prepare customers
Establish a clear and immediate line of communication between businesses and project team –
hot line
Create a Get – Around Guide/ Map that helps people navigate the area during construction, use
real time app to assure people that they can find their way around
Send Regular AMail announcements during construction regarding significant construction
situations
Include tax inserts with semi or annual updates
Business block captains that meet regularly with project staff on site – establish office/meeting
space in the new Northside Library
Communicate with neighborhood associations to build mutual support – “we are in this
together “- Sponsored breakfast meetings where businesses can communicate directly with
neighbors
Focus on “community assistance”, not just business assistance
Financial/Regulatory
Consider expediting development review/approval processes for businesses in the construction
areas
Conduct economic impact study
Determine the current baseline vacancy rate for Route 29
Procurement – within procurement guidelines, utilize impacted businesses for County services
Partner with impacted businesses in negotiating with landlords
Consider temporary tax relief – real estate taxes, BPOL, sales tax-free zone (conduct an analysis
to see what is enabled and what would be appropriate)
Designate “Enterprise Zones” to encourage development or redevelopment in the immediate
area, to include real estate and Business/Professional/Occupational Licenses (BPOL) tax
abatement, no application fees, no tap fees, and other benefits as appropriate (conduct an
analysis to see what is enabled and what would be appropriate)
Assist businesses in affected area to secure lines of credit - options include the Albemarle
County Economic Development Authority providing a Line of Credit that could then be used to
distribute funds to business owners or providing a tool kit for businesses approaching their
banks to secure a line of credit to help with cash flow during construction (toolkit could list
willing banks and bankers to contact and could list SBA loan information)
Page 1 of 4
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
December 2014
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection
Improvements at Route 729 Right of Way Advertisement December 2014
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way CN Start September 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy Creek Right of Way CN Start September 2014
Route 250, Bridge replacement over
Little Ivy Creek Preliminary Design Public Hearing January 2016
Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved
Road -- Construction State Force
Construction
Route 784 Doctors Crossing– Unpaved
Road Scoping State Force
Construction
Route 731 Keswick Road – Unpaved
Road Scoping State Force
Construction
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
Addendum 1
Proprietary
Meetings/
Addendum 2
February 2015
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to
Hollymeade Town Center Addendum 1
Proprietary
Meetings/
Addendum 2
February 2015
Berkmar Drive Construction
Addendum 1
Proprietary
Meetings/
Addendum 2
February 2015
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 Advertisement Receipt of Bids November 2014
Page 2 of 4
Construction Activities
Route 29 Solutions
o All six Route 29 Solutions projects are progressing on schedule. The Route 29/250 Ramp Improvement
Project (Best Buy Ramp) was advertised on November 10, 2014 and bids are due December 17, 2014.
o The Project Delivery Advisory Panel held meetings on Novem ber 6th and 20th. 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 early November.
o RFP addendum number 1 was released on November 5, 2014 for all three design-build projects.
o For the three design-build projects, VDOT provided responses to proprietary and non-proprietary questions as
well as final meeting minutes on November 5, 2014.
o VDOT scheduled a second proprietary meeting for the design-build projects to be held on November 19th and
20th.
o The adaptive signal project began phase I in early October with the first milestone completion being
November 21, 2014. The Phase I first milestone completion is on schedule.
o The adaptive signal project continues with Phase 1 construction. Loop work from Hydraulic to Rio will be
completed by November 26th, weather dependent. Fiber and signal work will continue in December from
Hydraulic to Rio. Fiber and signal work began in the north end of the project (near Airport Road) the week of
November 17th. Signal cabinet work near Fashion Square has been delayed until after the holidays.
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250
Next Major Milestone: Phase 2B
Contractor has completed placing concrete to construct the Ramp 2 Retaining Wall near the C.A.R.S. Facility with
the architectural treatment. Work on Ramp 2 continues with placement of stone and asphalt for shifting traffic to
the Phase 2B configuration. The new box culvert under Rte. 250, structure D603 is now complete, as it has been
backfilled for B604 Abutment B work to be performed, as Contractor has completed both the Abutment B footings
and wingwall. Fill construction for the Abutment B approach is ongoing. Deck forms have been installed and
installation of deck reinforcement will start soon. McIntire Road, from US 250 to Harris Street, has been
constructed to the intermediate asphalt elevation, as the curb, drainage an d concrete median are now complete.
Work is ongoing for remaining Water, Sewer and Gas Services which are nearing completion. Retaining and
Seat Walls for the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial have been constructed.
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
Route 29/US 250 Best Buy Ramp Widening
Scope: Construct retaining wall, sound wall, ramp widening, drainage and sidewalks.
Next Major Milestone: Bid Closing
Contract Completion: May 21, 2016
Page 3 of 4
Latex Modified Schedule (NFO)LM7B-967-F14,P401
Scope: I-64 Albemarle
Next Major Milestone: Completed. Last Routes completed I-64 on October 9, 2014.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2014
Plant Mix Schedule (NFO)PM7A-967-F14,P401
Scope: Albemarle, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Finish I-64 RPMs. Route 1720 Forest Lakes was completed on October 31, 2014. Route
302 Striping in Progress. Routes 1721 Forest Lakes and Rte 250 to be completed next year.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
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
ADAO-967-256,N501
Scope: Replace Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks
Next Major Milestone: Contract executed October 1, 2014. Processing work order for 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
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
None at this time
Under Review
Route 649, Proffit Road and Route 20
Intersection safety review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0020-20141104-007
Route 651, Wakefield Road
Operational Analysis; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0651-20141104-026
Other areas under review:
-James River Road and Hatton’s Ferry
Page 4 of 4
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 33 secondary routes
Mowing has been completed on 37 secondary routes
Drainage repairs on 5 secondary routes
Patching was performed on 1 primary route and 20 secondary routes
Culverts replaced on 4 secondary routes
Debris was removed from 5 primary routes and 7 secondary routes
Sweeping performed on 2 primary routes and within 7 subdivisions
Shoulders repaired along 8 secondary routes
Trimming performed on 3 secondary routes
Trash removal on 1 primary route and 4 secondary routes
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: November 20, 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
November 20, 2014.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Equalization Board, Joint Airport Commission, Public
Recreational Facilities Authority and Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee.
Listed below are the names of individuals who wish to be appointed the respective committees:
Equalization Board: Reappointments
Steve Janes (Rivanna District)
Tammie Moses (Jack Jouett District)
Judy Savage Jones (Rio District)
John Lowry (Samuel Miller District)
Joint Airport Commission: (Two vacancies)
Aaron Hark
Jonathan Boersma
Dean Johnson
Brian Campbell
Donald Long
Public Recreational Facilities Authority: Reappointment
Bruce Dotson
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
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Jean Lorber 12/31/2014 12/31/2015
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
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
Equalization Board Steve Janes 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 YES Rivanna District Appointment
Equalization Board Tammie Moses 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 YES Jack Jouett District Appointment
Equalization Board Nancy Fleischman 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 White Hall District Appointment
Equalization Board Kevin Quick 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 Scottsville District Appointment
Equalization Board Judy Savage Jones 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 YES Rio District Appointment
Equalization Board John C. Lowry 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 YES Samuel Miller District Appointment
JAUNT Board Clifford Buys 9/30/2014 9/30/2017 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Joint Airport Commission William Schrader 12/1/2014 12/1/2016 Advertised, 5 applications recv'd
Joint Airport Commission Rit Venerus 12/1/2014 12/1/2017
Joint Airport Commission Following applications received:
Aaron Hark
Jonathan Boersma
Dean Johnson
Brian Campbell
Donald Long
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, 2 applications recv'd
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Following applications received:
David Slutzky
Fred Hudson
Public Recreational Facilities Authority Bruce Dotson 12/31/2014 12/31/2017 YES
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Mike Gaffney 12/31/2014 12/31/2016 Joint City/County Appt
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Adv. Cmte William Hines 12/31/2014 12/31/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Mike Gaffney 12/31/2014 12/31/2016 Joint City/County Appt
Revised 11/20/2014
MEMORANDUM
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Gary O’Connell, Executive Director
Date: November 24, 2014
Re: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Quarterly Briefing
cc: ACSA Board of Directors; Mr. Tom Foley, County Executive
We appreciate the opportunity to again brief the Board of Supervisors.
The ACSA has a number of projects underway which this report will highlight.
Below are some updates for review:
1. 50th Anniversary – We complete the year-end of 2014 celebrating our
50th anniversary to the Albemarle, Crozet and Scottsville communities.
We currently have 18,300 customers serving nearly 70,000 Albemarle
residents with water and/or sewer service.
2. Budget and Rates – The FY 2016 budget and rates will be presented
to the ACSA Board of Directors at the April Board meeting, for July 1 st
adoption. We have recently begun the budget and rate development
process for next year. Our monthly rates are slightly less than the
statewide average for a residential customer.
3. GFOA Certificate of Excellence – We received in October the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate for
Excellence in financial reporting. This is the 32nd consecutive year we
have received this prestigious national award.
4. GAC Projects – The granular activated carbon (GAC) filtering projects
at all five water treatment plants are moving forward for bidding in
January by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). The final
design work is underway, including GAC design for Scottsville which
recently was under debate. The five water plants include Crozet,
Scottsville, Observatory, South Fork Rivanna and North Fork Rivanna,
all serving Albemarle water customers.
5. Debt Formula Agreement – A long standing issue that is needed to
be settled has been the debt formula that RWSA bills for monthly water
and wastewater use to the ACSA and to the City. The Four Party
Agreement (that established Rivanna and included the ACSA, RWSA,
County and City in establishing), currently provides that the monthly
billings be on a monthly flow basis. This does not create much of an
issue for water, but for wastewater the monthly flows can vary
dramatically due to wet weather rains (infiltration/inflow that gets into
the sewer lines) or drought. The proposed agreement would use an
annual monthly average for both water and sewer. This change would
be fair for all parties and help to stabilize the budgets. Discussion is
underway on the final agreement language.
6. Water Supply Plan – With the completion of the new Ragged
Mountain Dam and Reservoir, the first phase is complete. Our Board
recently had a discussion about the future next steps in the Water
Supply Plan, and it is briefly outlined here.
The second part of the agreement is the filling of the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir to full height (another 12 feet). The adopted agreement for
Ragged Mountain provided an automatic “trigger” that when the
average daily demand over a year reaches 85% of the safe yield,
RWSA is authorized, upon either ACSA or City request, to increase the
Ragged Mountain pool level by the additional 12 feet.
The final part of the Water Supply Plan was the construction of a new
pipeline (from South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir). It was estimated that this project would cost $60 million.
ACSA, by agreement, is responsible for 80% of the cost. Th e existing
RWSA Capital Improvements Program has in FY 2017 and FY 2018,
$2.295 million for the new pipeline corridor design and right -of-way
acquisition to begin.
7. ACSA Capital Projects Update:
Crozet Maintenance Building and Lot – The ACSA for a number
of years has owned a maintenance property in Crozet on Route
240 adjacent to the water treatment plant which is staffed 24 hours
a day. As part of the GAC water filtering project, the ACSA
property will be reconfigured. Also recently our long-term tenant
moved out. We are upgrading the buildings and will continue to
use the facility for equipment and project storage, such as pipe,
with no staff on-site.
Western Ridge – Foxchase (Crozet) Water Connection – The
project was to create a looped system, which now dead -ends. This
improves water quality and provides an emergency backup. All the
waterlines have been constructed, and are now in service.
Key West Water Main Replacement – This waterline project
replaces an existing waterline that was constructed for what was
once a large well system converted to a public water supplied
system. The waterlines are old and in need of replacement.
Additionally, fire hydrants will be added that will increase the level
of fire protection in Key West. A contractor has been selected, and
the project is ready to start.
Ashcroft Water Improvements – A new tank has been installed
and the pressure reducing stations have been upgraded. A pump
station that fills the tank is being replaced. Construction has begun.
Michie Tavern Water Main Replacement – A new waterline is
being designed that would connect near PVCC on Route 20. The
current waterline is over 70 years old and badly deteriorating. The
project is in the initial design stages
Crozet Water Main Replacement Phase 2 – A phased waterline
replacement program is underway to replace some of the older and
less reliable parts of the system. Work is complete on St. George
Avenue, Wayland Drive and McCauley Street. Waterline
replacements are underway in the High Street and Hilltop Drive
areas.
Berkeley Water Main Replacement – This 56 year old waterline is
deteriorating, with failures and leaks. We have completed f ield
surveying, and the project is under design.
Glenmore Water Tank Project – Glenmore has a single waterline
serving the Village of Rivanna area, and is in need of an
emergency backup which this project would provide. The water
tank is designed, and community meetings have been held. We
are awaiting final project approvals, including a site plan setback
approval from the Board of Supervisors (recommended by the
Planning Commission and staff). Final easement preparation is
underway.
Ivy Road-Flordon Water Connection – This is another of the
emergency redundancy projects in our system. This project is
located near Ivy Nursery, and would connect to the West Leigh
area for water system and fire protection improvements. This
project is at the permit stage.
Ednam Water Pump Station Upgrade – This project is also part of
our emergency redundancy plan, to provide an alternate source of
water to the West Leigh area. This work will upgrade the existing
Ednam Water Pump Station to increase the pumping capacity. We
are in the final design phase.
Orchard Acres Waterline Extension – This project continues the
ACSA efforts to systematically replace aging and , in some cases
like this, an undersized waterline in the Crozet system. This project
is in the preliminary design stage.
Sewer System Rehabilitations – Work is near completion in the
Ednam Drainage Basin. We will be working next in the PVCC
Sewer Drainage Basin, with work to begin this spring.
Oak Hill Sewer – The ACSA staff is working with the Albemarle
County Housing Office to develop a Virginia Department of Housing
Community Development (VDHCD) Grant for a “construction ready”
new sewer line project to serve 20 additional properties. The
design is nearly complete. As you will recall, we recently
completed a sewer line to replace deteriorating septic fields for over
50 households in the Oak Hill area. This project was supported by
funding through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), in
cooperation with Albemarle County
West Leigh Waterline Replacement – The existing waterlines in
this area are deteriorating and in need of replacement. Work is
nearly complete on Devonshire Road, and work is about to proceed
on Wendover Drive.
Let me know if you have any questions or would like additional information
on any ACSA service or projects.
GBO/dbh
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Larry W. Davis, County Attorney
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
DATE: November 20, 2014
RE: SP 2014-00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor)
The conditions recommended by the Planning Commission included a Condition 2 which stated:
All improvements needed per the letter from Jay Schlothauer, Building Official, dated
September 22, 2014 shall be completed prior to the release of the Certificate of Occupancy
(C/O) for 1740 Broadway Street; and
After reading Mr. Schlothauer’s September 22, 2014 letter to the tenant who would operate the indoor soccer
facility, the improvements referenced in the letter are requirements of the Uniform Statewide Building Code.
These improvements would have to be made regardless of the special use permit condition in order for the
Building Official to issue the certificate of occupancy for the proposed indoor athletic facility use.
As a practice for the past several years, staff has recommended that special use permit conditions not include
conditions pertaining to matters that are otherwise required by the laws of other agencies, such as the Virginia
Department of Health or the Virginia Department of Transportation, or that are required by the County in its own
regulations such as the Subdivision, Site Plan, and Water Protection Ordinances. Complying with the Building
Code falls into the latter category as well. This approach allows special use permit conditions to focus primarily
on addressing impacts, rather than also servicing as a tool to provide notice to the applicant of other possible
requirements. These other possible requirements are now identified in correspondence to applicants. Mr.
Schlothauer’s September 22, 2014 letter was addressed to the tenant who would operate the indoor soccer
facility, so he is aware of what he must do to satisfy the Building Code.
Therefore, we advise that Condition 2 recommended by the Planning Commission not be included as a condition
of approval.
Attachments:
Resolution with conditions
PC Actions
PC staff report with attachments
PC minutes
Return to agenda
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2014-13 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
WHEREAS, VAS of Virginia, Inc. (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers
07700-00-00-040K0, 07700-00-00-040J0, and 07700-00-00-040L0 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner filed an application for a special use permit to establish an indoor soccer
training facility within an existing building, and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014-
00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor) (“SP 2014-13”); and
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2014, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2014-13 with the conditions recommended by County
staff; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2014-13.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2014-13 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing,
and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18-33.8, the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2014-13, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
* * *
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 ____ ____
SP-2014-00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor) Special Use Permit Conditions
1. The indoor athletic facility shall be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the production area, as shown
on the Data Visible Corporation Landscaping Plan, prepared by Wiley & Wilson, and dated 4/7/87
(attached hereto). All parking for the facility shall be located in areas designated on the
landscaping plan, referenced above. Any additional buildings or other site changes related to the
indoor athletic facility use, except for those required by the conditions of this permit, require an
amendment to this Special Use Permit; and
2. SP-2014-00013 shall expire on December 3, 2018.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
November 19, 2014
Thomas S. Weber
1451 Smokehouse Court
Earlysville, Va. 22936
RE: SP201400013 Broadway Street Indoor Soccer
Dear Mr. Weber:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 11, 2014, recommended
approval, by a vote of 7:0 of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. The indoor athletic facility soccer facility is limited to fifty percent (50%) of the production area, as
shown on the Data Visible Corporation Landscaping Plan, prepared by Wiley & Wilson, and dated
4/7/87 (Attachment A Attachment B of staff report). All parking for the facility shall be located in
areas designated on the landscaping plan, referenced above. Any additional buildings or other site
changes related to the indoor athletic facility use, except for those required by the conditions of
this permit, require an amendment to this Special Use Permit;
2. All improvements needed per the letter from Jay Schlothauer, Building Official, dated September
22, 2014 (Attachment B) shall be completed prior to the release of the Certificate of Occupancy
(C/O) of 1740 Broadway Street; and
3. SP-2014-00013 shall expire on [three four (4) years from BOS approval date].
Note: Conditions 1 and 2 references to attachments a. and b. are mislabeled. Attachment A in condition 1 should be
what is attached attachment B to the staff report and the letter that is referenced in condition 2 is something else.
Staff can correct that so that it is an attachment to the Board’s staff report.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to Planning Commission recommendations
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Board of Supervisors public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
SP201400013 – Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor)
Planning Commission: November 11, 2014
Page 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Note: This report is updated to correct references to attachments.
Project Name: SP2014-00013, Broadway Street
Soccer (Indoor)
Staff: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 11, 2014
Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owner(s): VAS of Virginia, Inc. Applicant(s): Thomas S. Weber
Acreage: 1.36 acres Special Use Permit for: Indoor athletic facility
[Section 22.2.1(b)(24)] permitted via Section 26.2
as a “general commercial use” of Zoning Ordinance.
TMP: 07700-00-00-040K0, 07700-00-00-040J0,
and 07700-00-00-040L0
Location: 1740 Broadway Street
(See Attachment A)
By-right use: LI – Light Industry which allows
industrial, office, and limited commercial uses; no
residential use.
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions: Yes
Proposal: Request for a special use permit
to establish an indoor soccer training facility
within an existing building.
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A Comp. Plan Designation: Industrial Service which
allows warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research,
limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
Character of Property: The subject property has
an existing vacant building and parking area.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is
surrounded by industrial uses with the Buckingham
railroad line serving as the northern boundary.
Factors Favorable:
1. There are no anticipated detrimental
impacts on adjacent property resulting
from the proposed use.
2. Allows a vacant building to be occupied.
3. Allows the start up of a new business.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed use is not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed commercial use will result in
a potential loss of inventory in the
industrial district.
3. Potential loss of central location for
industrial uses.
Recommendation: Based on the findings described in this staff report and factors identified as
unfavorable, staff does not recommend approval of SP 2014-00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor).
SP201400013 – Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor)
Planning Commission: November 11, 2014
Page 2
STAFF CONTACT: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 11, 2014
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: SP201400013 Broadway Street Indoor Soccer
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07700-00-00-040J0, 07700-00-00-04-K0, 07700-00-00-04-L0
LOCATION: 1740 Broadway Street
PROPOSAL: Establishment of an indoor soccer training facility within an existing building.
PETITION: Request for an indoor athletic facility [Section 22.2.1(b)(24)] permitted via Section 26.2 as a
"general commercial use." No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: LI-Light Industry - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses; no residential use.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research,
office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial,
lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 4 of the
Development Area.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This site is developed with a warehouse building and associated parking and loading areas. In general,
the immediate surrounding area is tailored to industrial uses. Clear Communications and Champion
Brewing Company are located to the west of the subject property. Wimberly, Inc. is located to the east of
the subject site; to the north is the Buckingham Branch railroad line with the City/County boundary just
beyond the railroad. The Yves Delorme corporate office and warehouse and the Festive Fare party
rentals are located across Broadway Street, and to the south.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The property was zoned LI prior to 1980.The building was built in 1989.
SDP 90-98 was a site plan allowing gas tanks on the site for the Data Visible business.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to open a new business that allows for indoor soccer training. The applicant feels
the subject property provides access that serves the greater Charlottesville and Albemarle community
and the existing warehouse space allows a convenient retrofit space. The applicant wishes to remain in
the subject building for up to three years, allowing him time to pursue his long term plan of being able to
secure another facility that is zoned C-1 or building his own warehouse space. The training and all
activities will occur indoors and the applicant plans on renting approximately half of the 51,000 square
foot building. There are no anticipated exterior physical changes to the existing building or property.
There will be minor changes to the interior of the building in order to accommodate the proposed indoor
soccer use, however, the applicant anticipates that the changes can easily be taken out and the space
will readily revert back to its’ original light industrial use. The owner of the building is also working to
lease the other half of the building. The Concept Plan is attached. (See Attachment B)
The applicant describes the following challenges in finding a space that is appropriate for the indoor
soccer facility: difficulty locating space (warehouse space) that is large enough to fit this proposed use in
a commercial district; finding a location that is easily accessible; and finding something that is affordable
in the commercial district. This existing industrial building and location provides appropriate space for a
large indoor recreational facility and is in an accessible location important for the businesses to thrive.
SP201400013 – Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor)
Planning Commission: November 11, 2014
Page 3
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an
application for a special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed special use will not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots.
No substantial detriment is anticipated. The exterior of the existing building and property will remain
unchanged and the proposed special use for an indoor soccer facility is not anticipated to increase the
intensity of uses in this neighborhood of industrial uses. The activity generated by the proposed use is
primarily focused to the interior of the building and this use is not anticipated to be a large traffic
generator. The applicant describes a parking need of approximately 20 spaces.
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the
proposed special use.
The proposed indoor soccer facility is a commercial recreation establishment which is also permitted
by right or by special use permit in the Commercial (C-1), Commercial Office (CO) and Highway
Commercial (HC) districts. As such, the character of uses in this industrial district would be changed
by this proposal. As previously described in this staff report, the exterior of the building and property
will remain unchanged. The building is currently vacant and provides the space needed for three small
soccer fields (50’ x 100’). The proposed use would be located within an existing, vacant space and will
not change the physical character of the district (no significant change to the building or the site), but
will begin changing the mix of uses in the area by introducing a commercial use. Traffic to the site,
although not anticipated to be a significant number, will be primarily customer based. The customers
of the commercial use will be potentially mixing with industrial type traffic including employee traffic to
and from the existing sites.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter,
The LI zoning district is established to permit light industrial and supporting uses that are compatible
with, and do not detract from, surrounding districts. Commercial uses permitted by right or by special
use permit in the Commercial (C-1), Commercial Office (CO) and Highway Commercial (HC) districts
and not otherwise expressly authorized in this industrial district are permitted by special use permit
under Section 26.2(a) of Zoning Ordinance. The following provides staff analysis of additional factors
that are to be considered for such a special use permit per Section 26.3 of the Zoning Ordinance:
a. The purpose of the industrial district in which the use is proposed.
The industrial district in which the use is proposed is a vital district due to its proximity of access to
the Interstate, location to the central downtown district, and its relevance in providing future
employment opportunities.
b. The proposed use and its proposed size should be consistent with the intent of the applicable
industrial district.
The proposed use is generally not consistent with the intent of the LI district to provide for
industrial uses and uses that support industrial use. As the proposal will utilize 20,000 square feet
of the space provided in the existing 51,000 square foot building, there will still be the opportunity
for a by-right industrial use to use the balance of leftover space.
c. The use proposed should not be located on the lowest floor of any building having direct exterior
access to the ground surface in order to allow that floor to be used for industrial purposes.
SP201400013 – Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor)
Planning Commission: November 11, 2014
Page 4
As this is a one story building, the proposed use will be located on the lowest floor providing
exterior access.
d. The gross floor area of each establishment should not exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet.
The gross floor area for the proposed use (20,000 square feet) greatly exceeds three thousand
(3,000) square feet.
e. The aggregate gross floor area of the independent offices or general commercial uses, or both,
should not exceed twenty-four thousand (24,000) square feet and should not exceed twenty-five
(25) percent of the gross floor area of the building.
The aggregate gross floor area of the proposed use (20,000 square feet) does not exceed twenty-
four thousand (24,000) square feet, but does exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the 51,000 square
foot gross floor area of the building.
f. Whether the structure or structure expansion will be constructed to the standards required for
industrial structures, regardless of its intended use.
This is not applicable since there is no expansion plans associated with this proposal.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district
An indoor athletic facility at this site is expected to be in harmony with other by-right uses in the
district. This use will not prohibit or affect permitted uses of adjacent property.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable,
There are no supplemental regulations in section 5 applicable to this use.
…and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
There are no significant negative traffic impacts anticipated from this proposal. This use would
introduce general public/customer traffic to an area where industrial type traffic may be more
prevalent; however, this indoor athletic facility is typically a low traffic generator, so the potential traffic
conflicts should be minimal. Staff has identified no other aspects of this proposal which is contrary to
the general public health, safety, and welfare.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The land use designation for this property and the immediate area is Industrial Service which provides
for primarily warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale
research, limited production and marketing activities, with potential for supporting commercial, lodging
and conference facilities, and some residential (6.01-34 units/acre). This designation is particularly
intended for such uses to provide employment opportunities. The relatively close proximity of this
industrially designated area to Interstate 64 and to Downtown Charlottesville makes this a prime
location for those intended uses needing accessibility to the interstate and the central city.
While the existing warehouse space and its location meets the particular needs of the proposed
indoor soccer use, this proposal creates a loss of inventory for industrial uses that are by-right and
can provide employment opportunities through job creation and bring economic vitality to the area.
Furthermore, the proposal is not considered a supporting commercial use to the surrounding industrial
uses in the vicinity. The temporary nature of this use in this location could provide a viable alternative
use until an intended use would locate there. However, even if temporary the proposal is not
SP201400013 – Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor)
Planning Commission: November 11, 2014
Page 5
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Albemarle County Economic Development office has stated that the portion of the County where
this property is located is intended to provide employment opportunities and that the proposed
commercial use is relatively inconsistent with the trucks and activity in the area. Its location near
Interstate-64 and downtown Charlottesville is ideal for the types of light industrial uses the County
would like to see located in this area.
Neighborhood Model:
An analysis for consistency with the Neighborhood Model was not done for this project since the
proposal is for an existing building and there will be no physical changes to the exterior of the
building or the site.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the proposed
use.
2. Allows a vacant building to be occupied.
3. Allows the start up of a new business.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use will be a potential loss of inventory in the industrial district.
3. Potential loss of central location for industrial uses.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings described in this staff report and factors identified as unfavorable, staff does not
recommend approval of SP 2014-00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor).
Should there be a desire to approve this special use permit request, the following conditions are
recommended:
1. The indoor soccer facility shall be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the production area, as shown
on the Data Visible Corporation Landscaping Plan, prepared by Wiley & Wilson, and dated
4/7/87. All parking for the facility shall be located in areas designated on the landscaping plan,
referenced above. Any additional buildings or other site changes, except for those required by
the conditions of this permit, require an amendment to this Special Use Permit;
2. All improvements needed per the letter from Jay Schlothauer, Building Official, dated
September 22, 2014 shall be completed prior to the release of the Certificate of Occupancy
(C/O) for 1740 Broadway Street; and
3. SP-2014-00013 shall expire on [three years from BOS approval date].
Motions:
Special Use Permit
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
I move to recommend approval of SP 201400013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor) with the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
SP201400013 – Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor)
Planning Commission: November 11, 2014
Page 6
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201400013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor) based on
the findings of staff and factors identified as unfavorable.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Location Map
Attachment B – Concept Plan
Attachment C – Letter from Jay Schlothauer, dated September 22, 2014
Return to memo
BROADWAY STFRANKLIN STCAMI LNPrepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ResourcesMap created by Elise Hackett, October 2014.
Note: The map elem ents depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Photos copyright 2013 Comm onwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2013
0 200 400100Feet
SP 2014-013Broadway Street Soccer ( Indoor )
Roads
Railroads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest
±77-40K77-40L77-40JCity ofCharlottesville
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 11, 2014
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
November 11, 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. Ms. Firehock arrived
at 6:09 p.m. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of
Virginia was present.
Staff present was Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning;
Trevor Henry, Director of Office of Facilities; Lindsay Harris, Budget Analyst with OFD;
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, Wa yne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning; David Benish, Chief of Zoning; 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 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Public Hearing Items
a. SP-2014-00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07700-00-00-040J0, 07700-00-00-04-K0, 07700-00-00-04-L0
LOCATION: 1740 Broadway Street
PROPOSAL: Establishment of an indoor soccer training facility within an existing
building.
PETITION: Request for an indoor athletic facility [Section 22.2.1(b)(24)] permitted
via Section 26.2 as a "general commercial use." No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: LI-Light Industry - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses; no
residential use.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 4 of the Development Area.
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation on SP-2014-00013 Broadway Street Soccer
(Indoor).
Proposal: The applicant requests a special use permit to establish an indoor soccer training
facility within an existing warehouse building on the property as described above.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
2
The applicant wishes to open a new business that would allow for an indoor soccer trainin g
facility. The training and all activities will occur indoors. The applicant plans to rent
approximately one-half of the 51,000 square foot building providing three (3) small soccer
fields, which would be 50’ X 100’ in size. There are no plans to change the exterior of the
existing building or the property. However, minor changes to the interior of the building will
need to be completed in order to accommodate the proposed indoor soccer use. The
applicant anticipates that any changes he does to the int erior of the building can readily be
reverted back to its original light industrial use. The applicant can speak in more detail about
this. However, the applicant wishes to remain in the building for up to three years, which
would allow him time to find a more appropriate commercial use space for his business. The
owner of the building is also working to lease the other half of the building.
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on the adjacent property resulting
from the proposed use.
2. Allows a vacant building to be occupied.
3. Allows the start up of a new business.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed commercial use will result in a potential loss of inventory in the
industrial district.
3. Potential loss of the central location for industrial uses.
Based on the findings described in this staff report and factors identified as unfavorable,
staff does not recommend approval of SP-2014-00013 Broadway Street Soccer
(Indoor).
Should there be a desire to approve this special use permit request, the following
conditions are recommended:
1. The indoor soccer facility is limited to fifty percent (50%) of the production area,
as shown on the Data Visible Corporation Landscaping Plan, prepared by Wiley
& Wilson, and dated 4/7/87 (Attachment A in the staff report). All parking for the
facility shall be located in areas designated on the landscaping plan, referenced
above. Any additional buildings or other site changes, except for those required
by the conditions of this permit, require an amendment to this Special Use
Permit;
2. All improvements needed per the letter from Jay Schlothauer, Building Official,
dated September 22, 2014 (Attachment B of the staff report) shall be completed
prior to the release of the Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) of 1740 Broadway
Street; and
3. SP-2014-00013 shall expire on [three years from BOS approval date].
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
3
Ms. Firehock asked if staff has any information on how long this space has been vacant.
Ms. Grant replied the building has been vacant for several months to a year.
Ms. Firehock noted part of the concern about using the site for this particular use, which was
not originally intended, is that it could be better used as industrial space. If the space is in
high demand or it was vacant she wondered if they were not to approve the request.
Mr. Lafferty noted as he understands it the actual building can be subdivided with a great deal
of the square footage available for one, two or three different firms to go in there.
Ms. Grant replied yes, that is correct.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the request is for no longer than three years and maybe shorter, and Ms.
Grant replied yes, that is correct.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it would revert back to light industrial.
Ms. Grant replied that would be the intent.
Mr. Benish pointed out special use permits run with the land unless there is a provision that
sets a time limit on it.
Mr. Kamptner noted the parcel will always be zoned Light Industry unless they change the
zoning. If a condition puts a life on the permit, then it just expires.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the Commission could do that, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Dotson noted the site plan indicates over 50 parking spaces. He asked if the available
parking is adequate both for this use and the uses that could go in the other half of the
warehouse.
Ms. Grant replied the parking is adequate although it depends on what the other use might
be. However, at the present time there is plenty of parking available.
Mr. Keller asked if there were any projections on the number of car trips per day that would
occur for this particular use.
Ms. Grant replied the applicant said he would use only about 20 parking spaces for his use.
She did not know if that is 20 parking spaces for the whole day over a period of time or if he is
thinking that is 20 parking spaces per individual folks that are coming to use the space each
time.
Mr. Benish suggested the applicant could best answer that question.
Mr. Loach said he had a question on staff’s suggested motion. In the staff report it says the
building is currently vacant and provides the space needed for three small soccer fields. He
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
4
thought staff said that the applicant may want to increase that. However, the recommended
action calls for a condition of 50 percent. He asked if 50 percent would allow him to expand
or if the 50 percent is predicated on the three soccer fields that are in there. It is a technical
question. He thought staff said the applicant was planning to expand.
Ms. Grant replied no, the applicant may expand to a different location, but not within this
building.
Mr. Randolph noted his observation of having frequented an auto body shop business
on this street where there is very low volume of traffic that comes onto this street.
Therefore, the addition of an indoor soccer facility is not going to create a burden at the
intersection affecting Broadway in any way. People will have to proceed at the double
stop signs if they are proceeding to the right because there is only a one way passage
underneath the railroad. He personally has not observed a traffic problem in this
section.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out they could come down Carlton Avenue and get to the same place
without going under the underpass.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing f or the
applicant and public comment. He invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Thomas Weber, six-year resident of Albemarle County, said they were trying to start a
unique business to fulfill a long standing need in this community. There are not many
facilities in which one can play indoor soccer. There is no commercially zoned
warehouse available anywhere in the county to have such a business. That is why they
have asked for a special use permit to start the business at least in a building zoned
Light Industry. Essentially, it is a temporary measure because he did not want to stay in
the building forever or change the zoning. He just wants to use the building to get his
business off the ground and help kids play soccer year round instead of being subject to
the rain and other elements. Eventually he hopes to build a warehouse or commercially
zoned facility that could help sustain the growth of the business.
Mr. Weber said he would provide answers to some of the questions. He has been l ooking for
a space for the last six months. There are now 13 other warehouses facilities in the county
that are available for rent or lease. This particular place has an appropriate distance between
the posts. A lot of these big warehouses have posts every 25’, which as one could imagine
would make it hard to play soccer. This warehouse has a 50’ expanse and he can go 120’ in
the length direction. The warehouse space is approximately 40,000 square feet and they
would just be renting one-half or 20,000 square feet. He did not plan to expand at all from
that. They would build a firewall per Jay Schlothauer’s request that would divide the building
in half and allow for two separate or more entities to exist. This warehouse has been for
lease since March or nine months with very few applicants besides himself. The business will
have a minimal impact on the building itself allowing it to easily revert back to its light
industrial use. He could roll up the turf fields, take down the nets and walk out. Then they
could start building rockets the next day. The business would employee 10 to 15 coaches, 10
to 15 referees and a cleaning staff, which will bring employment to the area. It will provide
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
5
immediate rent or tax support for the owners of the warehouse. Again, it has been sitting
empty as have many other warehouses in the community.
Mr. Weber projected the maximum need for parking is 20 parking spaces. The busiest times
would be 4:00 p.m. to 9 p.m. He would expect approximately 15 to 20 cars per hour.
Typically, these kids train for about an hour and then they go home. Because of its location
parents could drop the kids off and go to a local restaurant or grocery store. Currently, the
closest place is Richmond in Short Pump. There are a lot of kids from our community that
drive 80 miles regularly sometimes 4 nights a week to play soccer on turf fields in an indoor
facility because they have none of that here. He can’t afford retail space because some of the
other facilities are looking at $12 to $15 a square foot. That just does not make ends meet in
this kind of business. Again, because they have very little infrastructure to change they could
start in January. However, some of these other heavier or light industrial companies could
take 6 months to a year or 18 months to even begin production.
Mr. Weber reiterated one of the favorable factors was there are no detrimental changes to the
property. They won’t be producing any waste, but just sweat in allowing the start of a new
business. Regarding unfavorable factors he read through the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan draft from January, 2014. Section 2e specifically talks about the arts,
designs, sports and media being complimentary industry clusters identified in the target
industries study businesses and industries provided these facets to help provide jobs in
specialized sectors that use the skills of many of the residents of the area . County staff
should continue to provide information on ways these communities can successfully loca te
and operate in Albemarle County. Again, proposed commercial use will result with potential
loss. He feels there are 13 other very usable warehouses that would be available to do light
industry and the central location of at least two other warehouses that are centrally located off
Avon Street. Again, in objective 5, page 6.10 the County values its local businesses and
industries and recognizes that job growth occurs more often with existing firms and new firms
that might move to the county with small start of businesses with potential for expansion and
growth. For that reason the County’s efforts are aimed at helping local business and industry
and encouraging local start ups that bring strength and diversity to the economic landscape.
Essentially, they feel this is going to be very low impact on the available space for light
industry. There are no other retail facilities that he can use to do this type of building because
it would be way too small and certainly the rent too high. In this area of ind ustrial space the
proposed indoor soccer use will not impact the traffic flow in that region . It will provide a very
important piece for children’s recreation and a new business. He welcomed any questions.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant from the Commission.
Mr. Keller said he was a big supporter of football and watched football all levels all through the
week all over the world. He has had sons that have played football and continue as adults to
play football. They had an opportunity to play at an amazing facility outside in Johnston, Iowa
and in Richmond. As a planning commission he has real questions about the proposed
location about the number of parking spaces and the car trips. They are talking about parking
spaces, but he thinks they are still car trips. He asked if they are talking about 11 member
teams or smaller teams.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
6
Mr. Weber replied that is correct, but typically there are 4 to 5 children per side. However, the
main use of this facility is for individual and small group training. Therefore, it is not going to
be a giant complex where he tries to have tournaments from everybody from Richmond. That
won’t be the intent. The intent is to have specialized training. SOCA, MONU and
Charlottesville Soccer Academy all do a very good job with the big teams. The proposed use
is for kids that want to play more and maybe play in college. They come and work on their
individual skills in a facility that is open 365 days a year. As you may well know with SOCA
being in a flood plain many of the kid’s practices are cancelled. When it rains it gets wet and
they can’t play and members of this club that again want to play more on those rainy days
come over to our place. That is where those numbers would be low because they can’t have
30 kids in there at one time coaching. It is, again, m uch smaller groups. With the 3 fields
they would separate it so there might be 15 to 20 kids per hour. The kids will carpool and be
dropped off. So car traffic would be roughly in that15 to 20 cars per hours.
Mr. Keller said this is more like a small team size as opposed to the full size he was referring
to.
Mr. Weber agreed noting it would be much closer to the size of a basketball court than the
120 yard by 80 yard full size soccer field. Ba sically, they could fit 3 or 4 of his little fields in
one outdoor soccer field.
Mr. Keller noted therefore a 20 car count is more realistic than an 11 person team with 15
players with 30 cars.
Mr. Weber replied that was exactly right because the main purpose they want to do is to
provide for individual training. There may be some small leagues, but again these are going to
be very small sided teams such as 4 on 4 and 5 on 5 on these smaller fields.
Mr. Keller asked if he says it is the interior structure and the dangers provided in that interior
structure that creates the problems for a lot of the buildings that he has looked at that would
be in areas that were more readily accessible.
Mr. Weber replied that is correct because he has looked at the airport and all over. In the .pdf
floor plans he has gotten a lot of these warehouses with only a 25’ span. It is really hard to do
anything sports related within 25’ without running into one of the posts.
Mr. Dotson said as a follow up question he had mentioned 10 to 15 coaches and 10 to 15
referees and it is a training facility. He did not understand referees in a training facility.
Mr. Weber replied part of the idea would be to have some small leagues, and again not 10 to
15 people at once but needing a pool of people to choose from. Because there is no indoor
facility right now kids play indoor soccer on gym floors in the county in the public schools,
which quite frankly is incredibly unsafe. Last year his daughter ran into one of the posts that
had no padding on it. So they would look to have some small leagues that would have 4 kids
versus 4 kids and he would need referees for that in primarily the winter season. Again, its
main purpose is for individual training. To get started and get off the ground to be able to pay
these nice people rent he may need to have some small leagues. However, it would not be a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
7
regional tournament center where he was going to have people from all over the state come
to use parking spaces and clutter the area.
Mr. Lafferty asked do you plan to serve food f rom the café type thing that is there.
Mr. Weber replied they would consider that if it was at all permissible. However, it would
primarily be sports drinks and energy bars to start with. If it helped to bring in revenue and
was reasonable with the county conceivably they would have hot dogs and pizza slices
potentially, but no five star restaurants.
Ms. Firehock said they don’t know what the other potential tenants would be down the road
that would be sharing the building with him. She understands the use would primarily be from
4 p.m. to 9 p.m. However, there could be some overlap with other potential industrial clients.
She was thinking about the families and children arriving and whether or not there could be a
12 year old running across the parking lot at the same time the 18 -wheeler is going through.
She did not look at where loading docks were located here. However, she was just trying to
think about how he can segregate his young and boisterous group from potential industrial
users that may be compatible.
Mr. Weber said that was a great question. He pointed out essentially there are 110 parking
spaces altogether and 55 of them are in the front. He said his business would take up only
the parking spaces where the main entrance is located. The available parking for the other
half of the warehouse includes the entire back parking lot, which is another 55 parking
spaces. That traffic could go straight from the entrance back. The kids walking across the
parking area would be nowhere near that main traffic for the other half of the warehouse.
Ms. Firehock suggested if it became a problem they could put some kind of blockage there to
help.
Mr. Weber agreed they would need to have good signage to iden tify which direction for the
other people to go.
Mr. Randolph asked the time frame he intends to initiate the use and the end date if he
received approval from the Board of Supervisors by January 15.
Mr. Weber replied he would like to start early next year and at least 3 years would be ideal. It
would take 36 or 40 months to get it off the ground. What he would like to do is create
enough business that they then could go and build their own facility, which would serve the
community and county at large in a commercially zoned area where it would be approved.
Again, it would be a source for new business development in the area. They could go on and
on about regional tournaments at that point. There is a field hockey club in town that is very
excited about any potential indoor space. Similarly the lacrosse club would be the same
thing. So this could be a start of a large business development in time. He would prefer to
eventually have his own place to pay himself rent. It does get expensive to just keep paying
rent. Therefore, he would want approximately 3 years or 40 to 44 months.
Mr. Randolph said he had mentioned the series of different employees. He asked how many
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
8
of those people would be full time versus part time.
Mr. Weber replied probably 2 to 3 would be full time. They would need a manager of the
facility to register kids, work on their signing up for the training sessions and then probably 2
head coaches. Then they would like to employ part time coaches and referees to help fill in.
Mr. Keller said when he mentioned field hockey and lacrosse that again starts to imply more
numbers. Is this something that would happen after the use of this building in the grand plan
for a larger facility or is it something that would begin while using this facility.
Mr. Weber replied the idea is those types of other sports would be added in a new facility. If
the field hockey team called and said it was raining and they did not have anywhere to
practice in the county can we rent your space for an hour once a week, he certainly would see
that as a reasonable use of space. It would be a very small number of people. Again, they
were limited by space but it would not be 500 field hockey people every weekend . He would
again be looking for some sources of revenue as he grew, but it would not be in the case of
high traffic volumes.
Mr. Keller noted although in that case if they are talking about a full team of teenagers that are
driving in individual cars they could be talking about 20 cars just from th at one group.
Mr. Weber replied that was why he said 15 to 20 cars were fairly reasonable, but not 50 cars.
There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Scott Houlaitan, a resident of Albemarle County for two years, said he relocated from
northeastern Ohio. A facility such as what Mr. Weber is proposing would be a success
in northeastern Ohio because weather is less than ideal in the winter months for
practicing soccer. They had buildings that were racket club s at one time since there
was a booming racket club development in the 1970’s. When the racket clubs went
away they had a lot of big spaces that kind of sat empty, and it worked out perfect for
indoor soccer facilities. Soccer has become a much faster growing sport in
northeastern Ohio in the last 15 years. However, just because of the weather alone and
for the kids to do something in the winter months it was an excellent use of the space.
The other point was about safety. He had a 9 year old soccer player who has played
with indoor leagues inside gymnasiums and quite frankly it is not very safe. They have
walls with no padding, the bleachers are close by and the kids are falling on the floor.
The real winners here all total will be they have got the b uilding that is empty right now
that they are being able to do a new business development . But, more importantly the
kids that want to practice and work on their skills can do it in a safer environment that is
going to improve their physical well being as well as their skills and their interest in the
sport.
Craig Brannon, a soccer professional in town, said he had been coaching soccer for the last
20 years after graduating from the University of Virginia. He played soccer at the University of
Virginia and is here to give a perspective on what this facility could do for the soccer
community. In the winter months it is a time for lead athletes to focus on things that are going
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
9
to give them a competitive advantage during their seasons. A lot of time s the things they
would focus on in a small space indoors would not necessarily be playing games or trying to
do scrimmages. It would be more to try to develop the individual skills of that particular
athlete or group of athletes. A lot of times it would be s trength building or things they don’t
really work on during the season. That is something that would be great for the best athletes
here in town. He takes teams and players to Richmond right now to compete. This past year
he went to Score, which is in downtown Richmond. In this next year he is taking some teams
to Midlothian to compete in an indoor league. Down the road he could see a big use of teams
and soccer players in town wanting to play indoor soccer if such a facility existed because
there currently are a lot of people that are traveling to do so from our current community. He
was here just to give a perspective of the soccer community since he thinks it could really be
beneficial for our soccer players. There is a lot of passion in this community for soccer.
Alex Jensen, one of the owners of the building, said from the owner’s standpoint he
understands and agrees with the long term plans of the county. They have a small light
industry business in the building. If someone stepped up today wanting to go in the building
with a small business classified as light industry they would happily rent it to them. However,
they pay $32,000 a year in county taxes on that building and need to generate some income
to keep it going. He pointed out Tom Weber has a short term plan and the use can revert
back to the long term plan intermediately after Mr. Weber is through with the building. Since
the proposed use offered is a clean operation he did not think it is going to cause any trouble
for the county. However, it will provide some income so they can keep the building operating
and pay the taxes.
Kelly Strickland said he was in support of the application. He wanted to make a couple of
quick points about the comprehensive plan since it seems like that is the main argument
against recommending approval for the special use permit. He grabbed some stuff out of the
proposed draft version of the comp plan under review along with the master plan for the south
side area. For economic development there are some things that kind of jump out. He did
not see anything in the staff report that directly said this use was not in compliance with the
comprehensive plan. However, it sort of related to it. Therefore, he wanted to go through and
specifically look at what was in the comp plan ensuring that economic development efforts are
supported with the county’s growth management policy and consistent with the
comprehensive plan goals. That objective did not really tie in with this application. But, the
second one provides for the first economic opportunities that benefit county citizens and
existing businesses by basing policy decisions on efforts which support and enhance the
strength of the county. In section 2.e it says to provide assistance to target industries
providing jobs in the arts, designs, sports and media. He thought this was a direct tie in
providing assistance with the sports side of it. There are 2 or 3 other ones in there, but he
was going to jump over to the master plan part. He knew the Woolen Mills area of the master
plan has an existing mixture of industrial residential green space and community recreation
uses, and is right in the center of this site. Portions of the property are recommended for
Office R&D Flex and Light Industry use. Flex is a word that he wanted to kind of dive in on
there. He pointed out Tom Weber is a doctor and a surgeon over at Rockingham Memorial
Hospital. He did not mention that, but this is not his job running recreational facilities. It is
probably not the county’s job, too. There is not a whole lot of support in the county to promote
recreation. However, it is great to have people like Tom Weber that want to bring this forward
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
10
and get it going on the private sector. If the Commission can support it through the special
use permit process it is a huge benefit for our community.
Mr. Strickland pointed out regarding flex space that what Mr. Weber is proposing as a training
center is not a restaurant, a clothing store or a use one would see in a shopping center. If he
put this facility in a commercial shopping center it would look ridiculous. They would get
visitors, but it would not be like the uses that are there. The proposed use is much more
appropriate intensity wise to a light industrial park and a light industrial use. Therefore, the
use works here because what Mr. Weber needs is a warehouse space and it is in the staff
packet that he is looking for a warehouse.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to brin g
the matter before the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Benish pointed out if the Commission has questions that representatives from our
Business Development Office are present.
Mr. Lafferty said given the number of other square footage available elsewhere in the county
and this has been on the market for nine months, if they can set a time limit on the use and it
reverts back to light industry or stays light industry he sees it as basically supporting one of
the businesses here in Charlottesville. This is a huge building and it is going unused right
now. Therefore, he would support the effort.
Mr. Dotson said he had a question of staff. It was mentioned that on occasion perhaps due to
weather that a field hockey group might come in here and the wording in the draft motion
condition is soccer facility. He asked would it be appropriate to say soccer and similar sports
just to make sure that it is not so narrowly drawn.
Mr. Ron Higgins replied that it would be helpful.
Mr. Lafferty suggested it be plain sports.
Mr. Higgins replied that they were trying to split hair about what sports would be played.
Mr. Morris agreed it was a good point.
Mr. Randolph said he thinks it is important to be mindful that on this street these businesses
have not been thriving. Car Quest was located at the end of Broadway and closed a year ago.
To his knowledge no one else has m oved into that facility. So that business generated a fair
amount of traffic because they provided parts for many car repair shops in the area. It was
also a retail business and all of that traffic was off Broadway. Other businesses don’t draw a
lot of traffic. On weekdays Broadway is fairly dead in terms of the traffic volume and number
of vehicles on it. He sees a situation where they have an opportunity to use a light industrial
facility to become an incubator to help a business get established in Albemarle County, which
hopefully somewhere within the neighborhood he would like to have more certainty about the
time period because he did hear Mr. Weber say 36 months and then 40 and 44 months. He
thinks it is really important if they grant it that it be provisional and the temporary special use
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
11
permit be related to a very specific figure of an amount of time. However, given an adequ acy
of time he would have every confidence that Mr. Weber will be successful in establishing his
viable business in Albemarle County and thereby will be able to transfer the business
hopefully to a site also in the Scottsville District where they can see a full indoor soccer facility
locate. With the addition of that precise time frame he would be su pportive of the application
as Mr. Lafferty has also indicated support.
Mr. Morris said having served businesses that have been in that area for a long time through
Piedmont Virginia Community College he thinks it is an excellent building for exactly what he
wants. He was sorry they don’t have industry there. But, he had a question for Mr. Kamptner
because he hears an awful lot of support for this. He asked if this is recommended with
approval with a specific time limit that does not go with the building and it will come back to
light industry. Then they won’t lose it for the light industrial inventory.
Mr. Kamptner replied a special use permit does not affect the underlying zoning district. It just
allows this additional use in the district.
Mr. Keller pointed out this has brought up a number of interesting issues. The idea that it is
an incubator in an incubator space is really important and they might want to think about that
more in the future. He is really curious about what the traffic count is actually going to be.
Everyone that has driven that area knows what that underpass is like. It is an accident waiting
to happen. When he hears about teams practicing he thinks about young teenage drivers that
might not be paying attention in that area. He has reservations, but can support it with a
shorter timeframe.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out they don’t have to go under that railroad underpass.
Mr. Morris noted there are four ways in and four ways out of the site.
Mr. Randolph said before he makes a motion he would like to ask the applicant what is the
time period he feels comfortable with 36, 42 or 44 months.
Mr. Weber replied that he would love to be out there really quickly, but he just worries a little
bit about painting himself in a corner. If the Commission would accept 3 ½ years, that would
great. If it must be 3 years he would accept that also. He prefers a little h edge room just to
provide these guys a good lengthy contract. He did not think he needs 5 years. However, he
would like a little more than 3 years, but hopes to be out in 3 years.
Mr. Randolph asked if 4 years would be acceptable, and Mr. Weber agreed that would be
great.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out the Board of Supervisors would have to approve it.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Keller seconded to recommend approval of SP-2014-
00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor) with the conditions outlined in the staff report, as
amended, for a time period of four (4) years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 11, 2014
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2014-000013 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
Submit to BOS
12
Mr. Kamptner recommended some minor revisions to the conditions. In condition 1 indoor
athletic facility is the use classification in a commercial district, so athletic facility would be the
term. In the last sentence in condition 1 he would suggest that any additional buildings or
other site changes related to the athletic facility use be added because this building is only
partially used right now and the other half may need to make some site changes. This is just
to clarify that this condition is pertaining only to the athletic facility.
Mr. Kamptner noted in both conditions 1 and 2 there are references to attachments A and B
and those are mislabeled. He thinks attachment A in condition 1 should be what is
attachment B to the staff report and the letter that is referenced in condition 2 is something
else. Staff can correct that so that it is an attachment to the Board’s staff report.
Mr. Randolph and Mr. Keller agreed to add the modifications as suggested to the motion.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion. There being none, the roll was called.
The motion passed by a vote of (7:0).
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2014-00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor) would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval with the
conditions, as amended, on a date to be determined, as follows.
1. The indoor athletic facility soccer facility is limited to fifty percent (50%) of the
production area, as shown on the Data Visible Corporation Landscaping Plan,
prepared by Wiley & Wilson, and dated 4/7/87 (Attachment A Attachment B of staff
report). All parking for the facility shall be located in areas designated on the
landscaping plan, referenced above. Any additional buildings or other site change s
related to the indoor athletic facility use, except for those required by the
conditions of this permit, require an amendment to this Special Use Permit;
2. All improvements needed per the letter from Jay Schlothauer, Building Official, dated
September 22, 2014 (Attachment B) shall be completed prior to the release of the
Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) of 1740 Broadway Street; and
3. SP-2014-00013 shall expire on [three four (4) years from BOS approval date].
Note: Conditions 1 and 2 references to attachments a. and b. are mislabeled. Attachment A
in condition 1 should be what is attached attachment B to the staff report and the letter that is
referenced in condition 2 is something else. Staff can correct that so that it is an attachment
to the Board’s staff report.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission &
Planning Boards)
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-9016
434.977.2970 • 434.293.8858 Fax
www.rivanna.org
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE HONORABLE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SUPERVISORS
THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: THOMAS L. FREDERICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
SUBJECT: QUARTERLY UPDATE
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2014
I am preparing this as a quarterly report in advance of meetings of the Board of Supervisors and
City Council in December 2014. I am also happy to address questions or other topics, either at
scheduled briefings, or by e-mail or telephone:
1. Schenks Branch Interceptor Replacement: I am informed that negotiations remain
incomplete between the City and County regarding the terms of an easement to be granted
by the County to RWSA for this project. Time is of the essence to complete these
discussions and complete a document for execution and recording.
2. Water Treatment Plant Granular Activated Carbon Improvements: This project will be
advertised for bids in early January for all five RWSA Water Treatment Plants, with bids
expected to be received and opened by mid-February. We will be reviewing bids for the
Scottsville Water Plant with the ACSA Board on February 19 seeking their input on a
budget issue: comparing the cost of the construction of facilities for the granular form of
activated carbon versus the long-term use of powdered form. We anticipate construction to
begin by May 2015.
3. New Rivanna Pump Station: The project is under construction to build a new pump station
at the Moores Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP) site, linked by a new
tunnel from the existing pump station site adjacent the City’s Riverview Park. Excavation
of the entrance shaft for the tunnel boring machine is now taking place, with tunnel
construction expected to begin within the next three months. A groundbreaking was held at
the existing pump station site on November 12.
4. Wastewater Plant Odor Control: A master plan for odor control at the Moores Creek AWTP
in 2007 stated that a complete program for odor control could cost as much as $33 million.
Given the high cost, the Board chose at that time to construct only an initial phase, after
which results would be re-evaluated. On the basis of feedback following the
2
implementation of the initial phase, a re-evaluation is now being completed regarding “next
steps” and will be presented to our Board of Directors in December.
5. Ivy Materials Utilization Center: RSWA is continuing to assist the County as requested in
their planning for how to use the Ivy Materials Utilization Center following the expiration of
the current contract between RSWA and the County on June 30, 2015. A report from
Draper Aden and GBB is being presented to the Board of Supervisors in early December.
cc: RWSA Board of Directors
RSWA Board of Directors