HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-2-02Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
FEBRUARY 2, 2011
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:30 a.m. – Public Hearings:
8. To consider an ordinance to amend section 4-100, Definitions, of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the County
Code.
9. To consider an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Article III, Dealers in
Precious Metals.
10. 10:30 a.m. – Rural Health Initiative Program, Gary Pond, Lead Health Educator.
10:45 a.m. – Action Items
11. FY 2009-2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
12. ARB-2010-126. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Update.
13. CPA-2005-010. Places29 Master Plan.
14. Closed Meeting.
15. Certify Closed Meeting.
16. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. - Presentations
17. Economic Vitality Action Plan, Quarterly Update.
18. Bright Stars Annual Report, Charity Haines.
2:00 p.m. - Work Sessions
19. Community Development Work Program.
20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110202/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 1:09:15 PM]
Tentative
21. Adjourn to February 9, 2011, 9:00 a.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Cancel February 9, 2011, Regular Night Meeting.
7.2 Resolution to Accept Innovation Drive in UVA Research Park at North Fork into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
7.3 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
7.4 Resolution supporting the temporary closure of Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) during construction of
improvements.
7.5 Resolution to Designate Byrom Park Entrance as Open-Space Land and a Public Park.
7.6 Memorandum of Understanding Between Foothills Child Advocacy Center, Inc., Charlottesville/Albemarle
Commission on Children and Families and the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
7.7 ACE; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services grant for easement acquisition.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.8 Report on the Jefferson Madison Regional Library System (JMRL).
7.9 FY 2011 2nd Quarterly Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report.
7.10 Memorandum from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary to Planning Commission, re: Planning Commission Annual
Reports for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.
7.11 Copy of letter dated January 27, 2011 from David Benish, Chief of Planning, to Marcia Joseph, re: CPA-2010-
00001 Redfields.
7.12 Albemarle County Monthly VDoT Report, February 2011.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of
Supervisors Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110202/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 1:09:15 PM]
Tentative
Return to County Home
Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110202/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 1:09:15 PM]
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
2nd day of February 2011, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in University Research Park at North Fork, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 2, 2011, fully incorporated herein by reference,
is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of Coun ty Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in University Research
Park at North Fork, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 2,
2011, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuan t to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Innovation Drive (Route 1654) from Route 649 (Airport Road) to 0.45 miles north
to end of state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3415, pages 455-462, with a 100-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.45 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.45
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2011049, #2011060, #2011061, #2011063 and
#2011064 for various local government programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
With the exception of appropriation #2011064 which moves funding within the FY 2011 budget, the total of the
requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below is $953,807.29. A budget amendment public hearing is not required
because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of five (5) FY 2011 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011049) totaling $60,577.00 for a Program Coordinator with the Foothills Child
Advocacy Center; these costs will be 100% reimbursed by Foothills;
One (1) appropriation (#2011060) totaling $5,000.00 for a contribution to the Sheriff’s department;
One (1) appropriation (#2011061) totaling $712,500.00 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding for the installation of a sanitary sewer system in the Oak Hill neighborhood;
One (1) appropriation (#2011063) totaling $175,730.29 in received proffers and CDBG funds for affordable
housing programs; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011064) totaling $3,000.00 from the Board’s contingency reserve to the Board of
Supervisors for legislative services provided by the Virginia Association of Counties during the 2011 General
Assembly session. (This appropriation will not increase the total County budget.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $953,807.29 and the approval of Appropriation
#2011049, #2011060, #2011061, #2011063 and #2011064.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriations Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011049 $60,577.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 60,577.00
This appropriation request provides funding for a Program Coordinator for the Foothills Child Advocacy Center
(“Foothills”) pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with Foothills and the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Commission on Children and Families, which is being presented to the Board for approval on its February 2, 2011
consent agenda under a separate executive summary. The Memorandum recognizes the Program Coordinator as
an employee of Albemarle County and establishes the roles and responsibilities of the parties regarding the funding
and employment of the Foothills Program Coordinator, including that Foothills will reimburse the County for 100% of
the Program Coordinator’s salary and benefits and that the County will submit invoices on at least a quarterly basis
to Foothills for the reimbursement of these costs.
Appropriation #2011060 $5,000.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 5,000.00
This request is for an appropriation of a contribution that the Albemarle County Sheriff's Office received from Royce
Publications, Inc. in the amount of $5,000.00. These monies will assist in the funding of programs such as Search
and Rescue, Project Lifesaver, and Se nior Triad. The Sheriff's Reserves handle these programs.
Appropriation #2011061 $712,500.00
Revenue Source: CDBG Revenue $ 712,500.00
This request is for the appropriation of a Community Development Block Grant received by the County to support
the installation of a sanitary sewer system in the Oak Hill neighborhood serving 58 residential units. The County has
completed all pre-grant requirements and executed an agreement with the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development dated December 14, 2010.
Appropriation #2011063 $ 175,730.29
Revenue Source: Proffer Fund Revenues $ 111,385.21
CDBG Revenues $ 64,345.08
This request allocates the Belvedere, North Point and Poplar Glen proffers dedicated to affordable housing and
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds totaling $ 175,730.29 to the Office of Housing’s Community
Development Loan Fund for affordable housing programs. On January 12, 2011, the Board approved contributions to
the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), Jordan Development/Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), and
Habitat for Humanity contingent upon the Office of Housing negotiating and executing agreements with each agency
for the use of the funds.
Appropriation #2011064 $ 0.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency Reserve $ 3,000.00
This appropriation provides $3,000 from the Board of Supervisors’ Contingency Reserve to the Board of
Supervisors for legislative services provided by the Virginia Association of Counties during the 2011 General
Assembly session to help protect the current standard of proof in real estate and property assessment. This
appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Jarmans Gap Road Construction Project
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of Resolution supporting the temporary closure
of Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) during construction of
improvements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The scope of work for the Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) project includes improvements to the horizontal and vertical
alignment of the road section and storm drainage system as well as construction of bike lanes and a sidewalk. The
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has advertised this project for bids and anticipates that results will be
available in February 2011. Based on this schedule, construction of these improvements could commence in late
spring 2011.
DISCUSSION:
VDOT is recommending a complete closure of Jarmans Gap Road to traffic for approximately sixty (60) days during
the construction project to allow for the installation of a precast box culvert at Powell’s Creek. The road closure would
be coordinated with the summertime public school closing. VDOT advises that during the school year, Jarmans Gap
Road will be reduced to one lane of traffic, as necessary. Complete closure of the road would expedite the installation
of the culvert and shorten the overall length of the project.
If the project proceeds with a partial road closure, a cast-in-place box culvert would have to be used. The installation
of a cast-in-place box culvert would require a significant lengthening of the construction period for the project.
Moreover, additional right of way would have to be acquired to provide sufficient area to maintain traffic flow during the
construction of the culvert, resulting in more environmental and construction impacts and costs than if the road were
closed to traffic.
Reasonable alternative routes are available to serve as detours around the closed portion of the projects, including Old
Trail Drive, Half Mile Branch Road, Lanetown Road, Railroad Avenue, and Crozet Avenue (see Attachment A).
Staff concurs with VDOT’s recommendation to close the road to traffic in order to install the box culvert at Powell
Creek and recommends that the Board support the closure of Jarmans Gap Road for this purpose.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Adoption of the attached Resolution would not directly impact the County’s budget. VDOT will avoid additional
project costs if Jarmans Gap Road can be completely closed for the installation of the box culvert.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) supporting the closure of Jarmans
Gap Road (Route 691) for approximately sixty (60) days for box culvert installation during the months of June 2011
through August 2011 so as only to close the road for school bus access on Jarmans Gap Road during the summer
session of the Albemarle County School year.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Map of Alternate Routes for Traffic
B - Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
...\11129\11129Atl.Rtes1.dgn 8/5/2010 11:19:33 AM
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S INTENT TO
TEMPORARILY CLOSE JARMANS GAP ROAD (ROUTE 691)
DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors concurs with the Virginia
Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) intent to reconstruct Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691)
in Crozet, Virginia as presented at the public hearing on March 30, 2006 at Western
Albemarle High School; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County agrees to the closure of Jarmans Gap Road (Route
691) for approximately sixty (60) days for box culvert installation during the months of June,
2011 through August, 2011 consistent with VDOT’s plan to close the road for school bus
access on Jarmans Gap Road only during the summer session of the Albemarle County
School year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, for purposes of public
necessity, convenience and general welfare, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby supports VDOT’s intent to reconstruct Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691), including the
closure of Jarman’s Gap Road for approximately sixty (60) days for box culvert installation
during the months of June, 2011 through August, 2011, which will close the road for school
bus access on Jarmans Gap Road during the summer session of the Albemarle County School
year but will provide at least one open lane on Jarmans Gap Road for school buses during the
spring, 2011 and fall, 2011 sessions of the Albemarle County School year.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution to Designate Byrom Park Entrance as Open-
Space Land and a Public Park
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Designation of Byrom Park Entrance as Open-Space Land
under Open-Space Land Act and as a Public Park
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Crickenberger,
Clark, and Goodall
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Byrom Park consists of 213.923 acres of land located in the northwest region of the County. It was made possible
through the donation of 198.53 acres of land made by Robert M. and Patricia A. Byrom to the County in 2004 subject to
an existing ACE conservation easement. The remaining 15.393 acres (Tract Z or the Byrom Park Entrance) that
comprise the Park were sold to the County by James Kevin and Xiao Yin Byrom in December 2008. This tract was
acquired by the County to provide appropriate public access to Byrom Park from Blackwells Hollow Road. Although
limited, park-related improvements are planned for Tract Z, it is not currently subject to the existing ACE conservation
easement for the original acreage and has not been formally designated by the Board as a County park for public
recreational use. By Resolution dated July 2, 2008, the Board formally designated the original acreage as a public park.
DISCUSSION:
Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, of the Albemarle County Code establishes and authorizes the enforcement of
rules and regulations necessary to properly manage public park property. Section 11 -100 defines “Park” as land owned
or controlled by the County which is used or designated to be used by the public for recreational purposes. Moreover, t he
Open-Space Land Act authorizes the Board to designate property acquired by the County as open -space land. The
significance of this designation is that after such designation the property cannot be converted or diverted from open -
space land use unless:
1. The Board determines the conversion or diversion is:
a. Essential to the orderly growth of the County; and
b. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. There is substituted other real property which is:
a. Of at least equal fair market value; and
b. Of greater value as permanent open-space land; and
c. Of as nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and location for use as permanent open - space land.
The responsibility for assuring such substitution is upon the Board at the time of conversion or diversion of the
property. The Board can designate the Byrom Park Entrance as open-space land to assure that the entire combined
Byrom Park property will function as a park consistent with its open space designation and that the property will be in
complete conformance with the ACE conservation easement on the original park acreage. The proposed Resolution
(Attachment A) to designate the Byrom Park Entrance as open-space land would subject it to substantially equivalent
conditions as the park’s original acreage.
The Parks and Recreation Department is currently responsible for the management of Byrom Park. In order to clarify
the authority for management of the Byrom Park Entrance property prior to it being open for public use, the Parks and
Recreation Director is requesting that the Board formally designate th e Byrom Park Entrance property (Tract Z) as a
“Park” for public recreational use consistent with the balance of the Byrom Park property.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is anticipated.
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution to Designate Byrom Park Entrance as Open-Space Land and a Public Park
February 2, 2011
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to designate the Byrom Park Entrance (Tract Z) as
open space land pursuant to the Open Space Land Act and to designate this parcel as a public park.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Proposed Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE BYROM PARK ENTRANCE
PROPERTY AS OPEN-SPACE LANDAND AS A PUBLIC PARK
WHEREAS, the Open Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) provides for the
preservation of land for park and recreational purposes; and
WHEREAS, by Deed of Easement dated July 24, 2003 and recorded in Albemarle County
Deed Book 2531, pages 341-351, the County and the Albemarle County Public Recreational
Facilities Authority (the “PRFA”) acquired a conservation easement over approximately 600 acres,
then designated as Tax Map Parcels 6-16, 6-28D, and 6-29 (the “Byrom Park”); and
WHEREAS, by Deed of Gift dated November 1, 2004 and recorded in Albemarle County
Deed Book 2897, pages 283-289, the County acquired fee simple title over the same approximately
600 acres, designated as Tax Map Parcels 6-16, 6-28D, and 6-29, subject to the existing conservation
easement; and
WHEREAS, by Deed of Bargain and Sale dated November 21, 2008 and recorded in
Albemarle County Deed Book 3671, pages 155-160, the County acquired fee simple title over an
additional 15.393 acres (the “Byrom Park Entrance”), previously from Tax Map Parcel 6-28B,
necessary to provide public access to the remainder of Byrom Park; and
WHEREAS, because the Byrom Park Entrance property came from a separate parcel, it had
not been subject to the same conservation easement as the remainder of Byrom Park ; and
WHEREAS, the Byrom Park Entrance property is a unique and valuable park and
recreational resource within the County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to designate the Byrom Park Entrance
property as open-space land and to preserve and protect this valuable resource by making it subject to
a substantially equivalent conservation easement as the remainder of Byrom Park ; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors further desires to establish a public park on the
Byrom Park Entrance property; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, of the Albemarle County Code
establishes and authorizes the enforcement of rules and regulations necessary to properly manage
public park property; and
WHEREAS, in order to manage properties under Chapter 11 of the County Code, the Byrom
Park Entrance property must be used or designated to be used by the public for recreational purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors pursuant to the Open-Space Land Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) hereby
designates the Byrom Park Entrance property as open-space land. The Byrom Park Entrance
property, referred to herein, shall include the following more particularly described property:
All that certain tract or parcel of land situated in the White Hall District of Albemarle
County, Virginia, containing 15.393 acres, more or less, being more particularly described as
Tract “Z” on a plat by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., dated June 23, 2008 (the
“Plat”) and recorded with that certain Deed from James Kevin Byrom and Xiao Yin Byrom,
2
husband and wife, to the County of Albemarle, Virginia, dated November 21, 2008, in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3671, Page 155.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Byrom Park Entrance property shall be subject to
all the applicable terms and conditions contained in that certain Deed of Easement dated July 24,
2003 and recorded in Albemarle County Deed Book 2531, pages 341-351, except as follows:
In lieu of Section 2(B)(2) of said Deed of Easement, unless a structure or
improvement is on the Byrom Park Entrance Property as of the date of this
Resolution, no other permanent or temporary building or structure shall be built or
maintained on said property other than buildings and/or structures customarily
incidental to public park use.
In lieu of Section 2(B)(4) of said Deed of Easement, the following may be
constructed, installed, located or placed on the Byrom Park Entrance property,
provided they are otherwise consistent with said Easement: (a) driveways and other
improvements and facilities customary and related to the use of a public park; and (b)
improvements and facilities related to a public park, including, but not limited to,
public roads, and drainage and other utility facilities required by the County.
In lieu of Section 2(D) of said Deed of Easement, the provisions of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code) shall govern
the size and placement of signs on the Byrom Park Entrance property.
In lieu of Section 2(E) of said Deed of Easement, grading, blasting and/or earth
removal shall be allowed on the Byrom Park Entrance property for public park
structures and associated improvements, and during the construction of such
permitted structures or associated improvements, provided that such activities employ
applicable Best Management Practices.
Any restriction contained in said Deed of Easement or herein on the Byrom Park
Entrance property shall be subject to all easements currently of record including, but
not limited to, that certain Shared Driveway Easement and Family Use Trail
Easement shown in the Plat of record.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
designates said Byrom Park Entrance property as park property to be used by the public for
recreational purposes.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Memorandum of Understanding Between Foothills Child
Advocacy Center, Inc., Charlottesville/Albemarle
Commission on Children and Families and the County of
Albemarle, Virginia
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the County Executive to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the Program Coordinator for
Foothill Child Advocacy Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis; and Ms. Kim, Ms. L.
Allshouse, Ms. Gerome, and Ms. Ellis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Foothills Child Advocacy Center (“Foothills”) works in partnership with the Albemarle County Police Department,
the Department of Social Services, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, and the Victim/Witness Office, along with other
organizations to provide forensic interviews and multidisciplinary case management for children who are victims of
sexual abuse/assault or serious physical abuse or neglect. The Children’s Advocacy Center model is a national best
practice that is proven to decrease trauma for children and improve prosecution of perpetrators.
Foothills was started as a grant-funded pilot project of the Family Violence Work Group of the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Commission on Children and Families. As such, the initial staff were hired as County employees. In 2007,
Foothills became a stand-alone non-profit organization in order to be able to solicit individual donations and certain
grant funding not available to local governments. At that time, the Program Coordinator continued as a County
employee and provides core services including forensic interviewing and case coordination for child victims.
DISCUSSION:
A Memorandum of Understanding was prepared by the County’s Attorney’s Office and approved by the Foothills Child
Advocacy Center Board on January 18, 2011. The Memorandum formally recognizes the Program Coordinator as an
employee of Albemarle County under the supervision of Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on
Children and Families. Under the Memorandum, Foothills will continue to reimburse the County for 100% of the
Program Coordinator’s salary and benefits. Currently, Foothills has sufficient sustainable resources to meet this
obligation on a quarterly basis. The Memorandum will terminate at any time that Foothills is unable to meet this
obligation or upon the termination of the current Program Coordinator. This Agreement does not create any County
commitment to maintain the employment of a Program Coordinator or to hire a replacement for the current employee
upon termination, or to fund any future employment of a Foothills Program Coordinator. The County will appropriate
funding for the position through its regular appropriation process and will submit invoices on at least a quarterly basis
to Foothills for the reimbursement of costs.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact to the County. 100% of the costs associated with the Program Coordinator position will
be reimbursed by the Foothills Child Advocacy Center.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Foothills Child Advocacy Center Board of Directors and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and
Families, that establishes the roles and responsibilities of the parties regarding the funding and employment of the
Foothills Program Coordinator.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ACE; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services grant for easement acquisition
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the County Executive to execute an Inter-
governmental Agreement with Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg, and
Goodall
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ (“VDACS”), Office of Farmland Preservation, has
awarded a grant in the amount of $12,500 to the County under a program established by the 2007 General Assembly to
provide funds for the preservation of working farms and forest lands.
The County was awarded similar grants of $93,932.19 in 2010, $49,900.00 in 2009 and $403,219.75 in 2008. The 2010
General Assembly reduced the total pool of funding for this grant program for FY11 to $100,000 statewide and Albemarle
County is only one of eight localities to receive such a grant this year.
DISCUSSION:
VDACS has requested that the County enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the “Agreement”) as a condition for
receiving this grant. While the County has yet to identify the specific easement(s) to which it would apply these funds, it
intends to apply them toward the acquisition of the next qualifying easement. This grant will remain available to (partially)
reimburse any qualifying purchase for up to two years from the date of the Agreement. The key provisions of the
Agreement are summarized below.
The Agreement would obligate VDACS to set aside the grant amount in a restricted account and reimburse the County for
its eligible costs for the purchase of conservation easement(s). The County’s funds would be restricted exclusively for the
County’s qualifying costs for a period of up to two years.
The Agreement also would restrict conversion or diversion of a subject property from open-space use, unless the
conversion or diversion satisfied the requirements of the Open Space Land Act. Conversion or diversion of land is
permitted under the Open-Space Land Act in limited circumstances upon the concurrence of the County and the Public
Recreational Facilities Authority and upon the placement of substitute land of equal or greater value and quality under an
open-space easement. The Agreement would entitle VDACS to reimbursement of its pro rata share of the market value
of the easement if conversion or diversion ever occurred.
In exchange for the state’s grant commitment, the Agreement would obligate the County:
to appropriate matching funds equal to the grant amount for the purchase of a subject easement,
to apply the grant funds to the purchase of the easement,
to provide VDACS with annual progress reports (while the grant Agreement is in force) describing the
County’s efforts to obtain easements on other working farms, and its programs for public outreach,
stewardship and monitoring, and measuring the effectiveness of the County’s efforts to bring working
farms under easement.
to maintain sufficient title insurance for the subject easement(s), which is already a standard County
practice,
to allow VDACS the opportunity to review easement instruments and the title insurance policy prior to
closing,
to receive copies of the recorded easement instrument after closing,
AGENDA TITLE: ACE; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services grant for easement acquisition
February 2, 2011
Page 2
to provide notice to VDACS if the County receives an application to convert or divert a subject easement
from its permitted easement uses, and
to enforce the terms and conditions of the deed of easement.
Staff has reviewed the terms of this year’s proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between VDACS and the County, and
finds its terms acceptable.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement would allow the County to receive $12,500 in state funding to
apply to the ACE program. In order for the County to receive these funds, it must appropriate matching funds of $12,500.
That local match is available through funds previously appropriated for ACE by the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement on behalf of the County,
provided that it is first approved as to form and content by the County Attorney.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Report on the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
System (JMRL)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Present to the Board the Requested Analysis of JMRL
Per its 2010 Strategic Planning Retreat
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott and Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On June 30, 2010 the Board conducted a strategic planning session which resulted in the development of a succinct
two-year action plan that focuses staff and Board efforts on the County’s most immediate and critical needs. On
August 4, 2010 the Board formally approved this action plan and associated five (5) goals including the following
related to library services:
Goal 4: By June 30, 2012, The County will explore options and identify the most desirable library system
structure for the future.
At the Board’s October 6, 2010 meeting, staff presented the scope of work for this analysis for the Board’s review and
information. Staff confirmed that the desired outcomes for the work were to provide the Board with detailed
information on the current JMRL agreement as well as identify and evaluate alternative service delivery model(s) for
the Board to consider in determining the most desirable library system structure for the County in the future. Specific
elements of this study were to include:
Background information on the current JMRL agreement,
Contractual obligations of the County and level of service afforded by JMRL to County citizens.
A review of federal, state and local mandates/requirements regarding library ser vice specifically related to the
receipt of state financial assistance
Comparison of the current JMRL contract and operating model with models employed by peer communities
An overview of potential CIP and operating budget impacts of library projects
Options for Board consideration
Staff indicated at that time that a work session would be scheduled with the Board in the 1 st quarter of 2011 to review
the findings and recommendation of this analysis.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment A of this Executive Summary presents this analysis reflective of the above scope of work and the desires
of the Board. It is organized around eight (8) discussion areas including the historical overview of JMRL, its
organizational structure, identification of peer communities utilized in the study, data on both operating characteristics
and service levels by JMRL/these peers, identification of budget reductions achieved by peer communities, the
distribution methodology for State Aid to Localities for Library Services and Capital Needs. The report presents a total
of nine recommendations for the Board’s consideration. This analysis, along with its recommendations , will be the
subject of a Board work session on February 9, 2011.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s adopted FY2010-11 Operating Budget includes an appropriation totaling $3,173,138 for JMRL. It is
anticipated that the FY2012 funding request for JMRL will be evaluated consistent with the terms and
AGENDA TITLE: Report on the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library System (JMRL)
February 2, 2011
Page 2
conditions of the existing operating agreement and/or availability of County funds. It is expected that the results of this
analysis will be utilized by the Board to consider future funding requests.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only. A February 9, 2011 work session is scheduled for the Board to formally consider
the findings of this analysis. Albemarle representatives of the JMRL Board, along with its Director, have been invited
to attend this work session.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Library Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
County of Albemarle
Report on the
Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library
Prepared for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Author: Roxanne W. White
12/23/2010
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 1 January, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
I. Study Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
II. Background and Timeline……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
III. Library Authority and Organizational Structure……………………………….………………….. 3
IV. JMRL Regional Agreement………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
V. Organizational and Funding Structure for Comparison – Seven Counties………… 9
VI. JMRL Services and Programs………………………………………….…………………………………………..12
VII. Library System Efficiency….……………………………………………………………….………………………19
VIII. JMRL Library Expenditures……………………………………………..……………….…………………………21
IX. State Aid to Libraries…………………...…………………………………………..…….…….…………………….31
X. State Library Board Standards …………………………………………………….……….…….……………34
XI. Major Study Findings………………………………………………………………………………..…….…………….41
XII. Recommendations……………………………………………………..……………………………..…….……………….46
XIII. Appendix
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 2 January, 2011
Report on the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
Study Overview
Following the FY11 Budget work sessions and discussions with the JMRL Library Board, the Board of
Supervisors charged its staff to prepare a report that would help Board members better understand
the County‘s position in the regional library system, as well as determine if a regional system was more
effective and efficient than a library system implemented and maintained solely by the County. The
Board asked that the report provide the following: an understanding of the current cost structure and
service levels, federal state and local mandates, existing contractual obligations, CIP impacts and a
comparison of peer community libraries for services and costs.
This report attempts to address these areas of interest by presenting detailed information on the
current regional system, both services and costs, as well as comparative information from seven other
library systems, three of which are regional similar to JMRL and four of which are single county
libraries. The comparisons cover 6 counties that are often compared to Albemarle, i.e. Roanoke,
Stafford, Spotsylvania, Fauquier, Hanover and James City County. An additional two, Chesterfield and
Henrico Counties, were added to show additional single county entities, which often are either much
larger than Albemarle or much smaller. In addition to comparative data from other localities, the report
looks at state aid requirements and how it is calculated, as well as the state Library Board‘s standards
for public libraries. Lastly, the report looks at Albemarle‘s library space needs and its impact on the
County‘s Capital Improvement Program.
Report methodology focused on collecting data from local, state and national library archives and
interviewing local library staff, as well as executive staff from comparison localities and libraries. A
Source Bibliography and an Appendix are included at the end of the report.
Background and Timeline
The first public library service, the Albemarle Library Society, was established in 1823 and was located
on Court Square in Charlottesville. The library was incorporated by an act of the Virginia General
Assembly as the Albemarle Library. In 1919, the local philanthropist, Paul Goodloe McIntire, offered the
community a library, which included land, design, building construction, furnishings and the collection of
books. Opening to the public in 1921, the McIntire, or the Charlottesville Public Library, became the
community‘s first public municipal library.
With the development of bookmobile service to Albemarle County in 1947, the name of the library was
changed to the ―Charlottesville-Albemarle Public Library‖. In 1958, six years after the death of Mr.
McIntire, the main library building and the system itself became known as the ―McIntire Library.‖
In 1972 with the addition of branches in Scottsville, Crozet, Gordon Avenue, Louisa and Nelson, the
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library was created following General Assembly formation of regional public
library systems. The Commonwealth provided the establishment of grants and financial incentives for
larger, more cost effective units of public library service. Greene County joined the system in 1974.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 3 January, 2011
In the late 1970‘s, Albemarle County and the City purchased the former Post Office and Federal
Building on Market Street and renovated the building extensively for regional library headquarters and
expanded services, moving the collection from the McIntire Library next door. During this same time
period, Scottsville Branch suffered a fire and their current library was opened in 1981. In 1979, Louisa
County moved into a former Girl Scout building. Crozet Branch moved into a renovated train station in
1984. Nelson County built a new branch - a memorial to the victims of Hurricane Camille - in 1988. The
Northside Branch, in Albemarle Square, was opened in 1991 as a county/city library.
In 1999, Louisa County Library moved into a new library building of 15,000 square feet, located between
Louisa and Mineral. In 2003, Greene County Library moved into a new librar y building of 8,000 square
feet in Stanardsville. In 1987, the library implemented an automated circulation system and on-line
public access catalog and, in 1995, it opened the Monticello Avenue public access computer lab for
internet access and a community information service. In 2002, the library upgraded the catalog and
circulation system.
Today, Jefferson-Madison Regional Library serves a population of 202,121 residents, with nine locations
consisting of 1 central library, 7 branch libraries and the Albemarle Historical Collection. The
Bookmobile provide services to rural Albemarle County, institutions and, at certain hours each month, in
Charlottesville and Louisa. With combined holdings of over 500,000 items, the library circulates over
1,600,000 items annually.
Library Authority and Organizational Structure
The current regional library system is organized under the Code of Virginia 42.1-37, ―Two or more
political subdivisions, (counties or cities), by action of their governing bodies, may join in establishing and
maintaining a regional free library system under the terms of a contract between such political
subdivisions; provided, that in the case of established county or city free library systems, the library
boards shall agree to such action.‖ (1970).
42.1-39 Library Board Authority
Also according to state code ―The management and control of a free public library system shall be
vested in a board of not less than five members or trustees. They shall be appointed by the governing
body, chosen from the citizens at large with reference to their fitness for such office. Code language
further states that ―If the board of the regional library……is composed of two or more members from
each county, city and town that is a part hereof, then each governing body represented on the board
may appoint a member or an employee of the governing body to the board.‖
The code includes language on the length of terms (4 years), filling vacancies, compensation (none) and
removal of a board member for misconduct or neglect of duty. The code gives the Board authority to
―adopt such bylaws, rules and regulations for their own guidance and for the government of the free
public library system as may be expedient. They shall have control of the expenditures of all moneys
credited to the library fund. The board shall have the right to accept donations and bequests of money,
personal property, or real estate for the establishment and maintenance of such free public library
systems or endowments for same.‖
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 4 January, 2011
The code further stipulates that ―The formation, creation or continued existence of boards shall in
nowise be considered or construed in any manner as mandatory upon any city or town with a manager, or
upon any county with a county manager, county executive, urban county manager or urban county
executive form of government or the Counties of Chesterfield and Shenandoah, by virtue of this
chapter.‖ (1970, c. 606; 1978, c. 6; 2002, c. 111.)
§ 42.1-41. Funds and expenses of the regional library system.
―The expenses of the regional library system shall be apportioned among the participating political
subdivisions on such basis as shall be agreed upon in the contract. The treasurer of the regional library
board shall have the custody of the funds of the regional free library system; and the treasurers or
other financial officers of the participating jurisdictions shall transfer quarterly to him all moneys
collected or appropriated for this purpose in their respective jurisdictions. Such funds shall be
expended only for the library service for which the county or city contracted and for no other purpose.
The regional library board shall furnish a detailed report of receipts and disbursements of all funds at
the regular meeting of the governing body of every participating jurisdiction after the close of the
state's fiscal year. It shall make a similar report to The Library of Virginia. ― (1970, c. 606; 1994, c. 64.)
42.1-42. Withdrawal from regional library system.
―No county or city participating in a regional library system shall withdraw therefrom without two years'
notice to the other participating counties and cities without the consent of such other participating
political subdivisions‖.
(1970, c. 606.)
JMRL Regional Agreement
The current regional library operates under a 1991 amended agreement, the original of which was first
established in 1972 and amended in 1974 and 1982. According to the 1991 agreement Charlottesville and
Albemarle have 3 appointed board members (the 1972 agreement had 4 each for Albemarle and
Charlottesville), however when Louisa and Nelson joined, the trustees for Charlottesville and Albemarle
were reduced to 3 members. Greene, Louisa and Nelson Counties each have one trustee on the Board.
Each board member serves a 4 year term.
There are several critical areas in the current agreement: (full agreement in Appendix A)
Management and control of the Regional Library is vested in the Board
The library board shall provide library services on an equitable basis consistent with wishes of
the governing bodies of the jurisdictions
A cost allocation formula for allocating costs for regional, Charlottesville/Albemarle costs and
local costs of branch libraries
One locality will be the fiscal agent with a 2% administrative fee for accounting and disbursement
of funds, purchasing, payroll and HR functions (the City provides these functions)
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 5 January, 2011
Regional Administration and Technical Services
Total Cost
FY07/08 FY08/09 Average Cost Share
Albemarle 58.37%58.13%58.25%1,454,475 847,232
Charlottesville 19.36%19.47%19.42%1,454,475 282,386
Greene 8.87%8.74%8.81%1,454,475 128,067
Louisa 8.12%7.96%8.04%1,454,475 116,940
Nelson 5.28%5.70%5.49%1,454,475 79,851
Reference Services Survey Total Cost
Result Cost Share
Albemarle 34.43%432,441 148,889
Charlottesville 61.01%432,441 263,832
Greene 1.35%432,441 5,838
Louisa 1.35%432,441 5,838
Nelson 1.86%432,441 8,043
Personnel shall be on a salary scale determined by the library board (the 1972 agreement
required all library employees to be paid equal to city employees, as well as retirement insurance
and other benefits)
The library must submit a budget by January 15th (1972 agreement had submittal by 12/31 and a
joint library committee appointed by the jurisdictions met by Jan 15th and then made a
recommendation to the jurisdictions)
Termination of agreement – allocation of assets determined by a joint committee
Understanding the Current Funding Formula in the 1991 agreement
There are three major parts to the cost allocation plan:
1. Regional Costs include the costs of providing reference services, financial management, branch
coordination and the fair rental value of space required in the Central Library. These regional
costs are determined by the Library Board with each jurisdiction paying a percentage of the
regional costs equal to its percentage of the Library system‘s total circulation. The percentages
are based on the average of the previous two years. The Reference Costs are determined by
actual usage (currently a sample of usage is taken for a month two times a year).
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 6 January, 2011
2. Charlottesville/Albemarle Costs include all costs of providing both the facilities and the
staff that serve the local collections at the Central Library, Gordon Avenue and Northside
Branches that serve the citizens of both jurisdictions. The cost of providing this local
collection is determined by the Library Board and the costs are allocated between
Charlottesville and Albemarle based on their respective shares of the total circulation at
Central, Gordon and Northside Branches. The percentage for the next Fiscal Year Budget is
determined by taking the average circulation for the prior two years, i.e., the FY11
percentage of costs is projected using the average of the circulation from FY08 and FY09.
3. Local Costs are all the costs of housing the book collections in all branches of the library
other than Central, Gordon Avenue and Northside branches, as well as the personnel costs
associated with these branch operations.
Albemarle/Charlottesville Shared Costs
Total Cost
Central FY07/08 FY08/09 Average Cost Share
Albemarle 61.27%60.28%60.78%886,609 538,837
Charlottesville 38.73%39.72%39.23%886,609 347,772
Gordon Library
Albemarle 54.86%54.95%54.91%337,937 185,544
Charlottesville 45.14%45.05%45.10%337,937 152,393
Northside
Albemarle 85.66%85.35%85.51%1,025,166 876,568
Charlottesville 14.34%14.65%14.50%1,025,166 148,598
Total Albemarle Share by 1991 Agreement 2,984,572
Local Only Branch Libraries
Scottsville 159,382
Crozet 228,120
Louisa 204,934
Nelson 158,754
Greene 163,756
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 7 January, 2011
Bookmobile, Books-By-Mail and other extension services are contracted separately by each
jurisdiction with terms and conditions that the ―Board and the contracting jurisdiction find
mutually agreeable.‖ These are costs that are not part of the 1991 cost sharing agreement.
The Bookmobile costs are shared by the City and the County based on bookmobile circulation.
The McIntire Historical Library and Mont-AVV are shared 50/50 by mutual agreement,
although no formal agreement is in place for those shared costs.
Percent Total Cost
Other Program Costs Share Cost Share
Bookmobile
Albemarle 72.86%88,791 64,694
Charlottesville 19.37%88,791 17,197
Louisa 7.77%88,791 6,900
McIntire Historical
Albemarle 50.00%75,474 37,737
Charlottesville 50.00%75,474 37,737
Mont-AVV
Albemarle 50.00%172,289 86,145
Charlottesville 50.00%172,289 86,145
Albemarle Costs for Other Programs 188,576
Total Albemarle Costs for Regional, Shared City/County, Local Branches and Other Programs 3,173,148$
Allocation of Circulation Costs to JMRL Localities
The 1991 Agreement‘s cost sharing formula is based on total circulation for each locality. However, in
practice the formula has been applied unequally causing Albemarle to bear a larger share of circulation
costs than the other localities. The major flaw has been how out-of-area circulation has been figured
into the calculations. Rather than discounting out-of-area circulation in the allocation formula, the
current methodology attributes all the out-of-area circulation to Albemarle County. This practice,
according to library staff, has been in place as long as anyone can remember (although the Library
Director was unaware of this flaw). At some point, there was an agreement that all out-of-area college
students, including UVA, would be credited to Charlottesville and other out-of-area use would be
credited to Albemarle. This arrangement may have seemed fair at the time, but UVA students are no
longer counted as a separate category and out-of-area circulation now accounts for 10% of the annual
circulation. Since the current policy of allocating out-of-area circulation to Albemarle clearly forces
Albemarle to pay a greater share at Central and Northside, as well as in the regional distribution of
costs, this policy must be changed, particularly when out-of-area users have grown at a rate of 51% since
FY08.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 8 January, 2011
Chart 1 below shows how this impacted Albemarle‘s FY09 percentage shares.
Chart 1
Albemarle‘s actual circulation in FY09 was 861,487 or 56.23% of total circulation among all the
jurisdictions. However, when out-of-area circulation of 87,283 is added, Albemarle‘s share increases to
58.14%, while the other jurisdiction‘s shares go down. These revised percentages are then used to
calculate how future budget costs are allocated.
In Chart 2 below, the top line shows Albemarle‘s actual circulation (without out-of-area) for FY08 and
FY09. The average of these two or 56.28% is then used to calculate Albemarle‘s FY11 share of the
regional costs or $818,560. The bottom line shows the impact of adding the out-of-area, which
increases Albemarle‘s percentage share of the FY11 costs to 58.25% or $847,275, a difference of
$28,715.
Chart 2
This same methodology is also being used to calculate Albemarle‘s share of Central, Gordon and
Northside, which increases Albemarle‘s share by $25,091, $6,674 and $11,226 respectively for a total
increased cost of $71,706. Even if this methodology seemed reasonable in the past, the fact that
Albemarle is being charged for the out-of-area users shared by Albemarle and Charlottesville libraries
is clearly not a fair method and it should be changed prior to the next budget allocation to reflect
Albemarle‘s true circulation costs.
Out-of-Area users have increased dramatically, particularly at Scottsville and Northside. There needs
to be a fair way to address this issue without making it difficult for Virginians from other counties to
access library services, particularly in the rural areas when the closest library may be in another
FY09 Albemarle Circulation and Revised with Out-of-Area
FY09 Percent of Out-of Area Revised Revised Percent
Circulation Circulation*Circulation Circulation of Circulation
Albemarle 861,487 56.23%87,283 948,770 58.14%
Charlottesville 317,749 20.74%0 317,749 19.47%
Louisa 125,528 8.19%4,297 129,825 7.96%
Nelson 89,945 5.87%3,075 93,020 5.70%
Greene 137,439 8.97%5,183 142,622 8.74%
Total 1,532,148 100.00%99,838 1,631,986 100.00%
*Albemarle includes out-of-area at Central, Northside, Gordon, Scottsville, Crozet and Bookmobile
Budget Implication of Revised Circulation on Regional Share
FY11 Region Albemarle
FY08 FY09 Avg Costs Share
Albemarle Circulation 56.33%56.23%56.28%1,454,475 818,560
Albemarle with out-of-area 58.37%58.14%58.25%1,454,475 847,275
Funding Difference $28,715
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 9 January, 2011
jurisdiction. This is not just a one-way problem, since JMRL residents also use out-of-area libraries
without a charge.
A 2006 study showed that there were 4,450 out-of-area users who registered at JMRL, the highest
number being from Fluvanna County. However in the same year, 4,510 JMRL residents registered at
other libraries outside the region, the highest number being Nelson County residents, who went to
Waynesboro or Amherst Counties. Results of the 2006 study can be found in Appendix B.
Organizational and Funding Structure for Comparison Seven Localities
Of the seven localities being compared throughout this report, four are separate County libraries, i.e.
Fauquier, Roanoke, Henrico and Chesterfield and three are part of a larger regional library system, i.e.
Spotsylvania and Stafford are part of the Central Rappahannock Regional Library, Hanover County is
part of Pamunkey Regional Library and James City County is part of the Williamsburg Regional Library.
Fauquier County
The Fauquier Library Board is a policy making or decision making board, not an advisory board and is
composed of five members, one appointed from each magisterial district. They develop the library
budget and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The County has reciprocal agreements
with the following counties/cities, which allows anyone from those jurisdictions to apply for a Fauquier
County library card: Alexandria, Arlington, Central Rappahannock Regional Library, Culpeper, Fairfax,
Handley Regional Library (Winchester, Frederick, and Clarke Counties) Loudoun, Prince William, Falls
Church and Rappahannock County. If someone who lives outside one of these jurisdictions applies for a
card, they must pay a fee. The county considers this arrangement to be beneficial, because many of
their citizens use the Northern Virginia libraries. Fauquier has one central library and three branch
libraries for a population of 64,612.
Roanoke
The Roanoke Library has an advisory only board with the County having sole authority to make policy and
budgetary decisions and to treat their library system like a county department. Roanoke County,
although they maintain their own separate library system, jointly funds the technology infrastructure
and software for a consortium that provides an on-line Inter Library System (ILS) for the County, the
City of Roanoke, Botetourt County and the City of Salem. The automated ILS system allows anyone in
those localities to reserve books on-line and then pick up and drop off at any library in the system. Each
locality pays for this service based on a cost sharing formula based on five factors: circulation, number
of items, population, FTE staff and number of branches. Roanoke County‘s share was 41% last year with
an annual cost of $95,000. The City of Roanoke proposed several years ago to set up a regional system,
but a contracted study showed no advantages to regionalization, so Roanoke County decided to maintain a
separate library system, but to work together with the other localities. Roanoke County has one
central library and 5 branch libraries for a population of 90,135.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 10 January, 2011
Henrico
Henrico has a seven-member advisory board composed of five citizens appointed from each magisterial
district, the library director and a county representative. Both the library director and staff
representative are non-voting members. As with Roanoke, Fauquier and Chesterfield, the library
functions as a department of local government, not as a separate entity. The advisory board is not
involved in budget discussions.
Henrico has a reciprocal agreement with Chesterfield and Richmond where anyone in those jurisdictions
can obtain a Henrico county library card and vice versa. They also have a non-written agreement with
Pamunkey Regional Library, which allows their residents with a library card and in good standing to obtain
an annual Henrico library card. New Kent County is a big user of the Henrico Library, so Henrico
charges a $15 annual fee for each out-of-area user.
Chesterfield
Chesterfield has its own library system, which functions organizationally as a department of local
government. There is no advisory board. Library cards are issued to all Chesterfield residents without
charge upon proof of residency. Agreements with many neighboring localities make it possible for
Chesterfield citizens to use other area libraries and for neighbors to use Chesterfield libraries at no
charge. Chesterfield has an agreement with Richmond for one of their branch libraries that is heavily
used by Richmond residents. Richmond helps pay for expansion costs and for services provided to its
residents. The County is currently looking at the possibility of incorporating Amelia County into its
system due to its small size. The County of Chesterfield provides a range of administrative and
operating support to the libraries, i.e. HR, payroll, accounting, legal, purchasing, maintenance, custodial
and technology infrastructure.
Stafford/Spotsylvania
Both Stafford and Spotsylvania Counties are part of the Central Rappahannock Regional Library, which
also serves the City of Fredericksburg and Westmorland County. Central Rappahannock has a twelve
member governing board based on their most recent 2002 amended agreement. In that agreement,
board membership was increased from seven to 12 members, i.e. Stafford increased from 2 members to
4, Spotsylvania from 2–4, Westmorland from 1-2 and Fredericksburg remained at 2 members. Their
agreement allows a member of the governing body or employees of the governing body to be on the
board. The funding formula for the localities is based on circulation from the prior year. There are 8
libraries and a bookmobile with regional coordination from the Fredericksburg Library. Stafford County
has 2 branch libraries and Spotsylvania has 1.
Hanover
Hanover is part of the Pamunkey Regional Library along with the Counties of Goochland, King and Queen
and King William. The library is governed by a ten member Library Board, four trustees from Hanover,
two from Goochland, two from King and Queen and two from King William. Appropriations are made to
the library in proportion to the population of each County, not on circulation. The agreement also
stipulates that the ―Board of Trustees shall………apportion services between the four (4) Counties in
proportion to the appropriations made by each County for annual operating expenses.‖
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 11 January, 2011
For 2012, the Deputy County Administrator indicated that they are analyzing local contributions versus
the cost of services, since the per capita costs for Hanover are high. Some localities are paying less,
but are able to pay more.
The Pamunkey Regional Library has one main regional library, a bookmobile and 9 branches. The main
library and 6 branch libraries are in Hanover.
James City County
James City County is part of the Williamsburg Regional Library (WRL), which consists of the County and
the City of Williamsburg. They have a nine – member governing board represented by five trustees from
James City County and four from Williamsburg. The Williamsburg Regional Library operates under a
contract first signed by the City of Williamsburg and James City County in 1977 which has been
amended in 1993, 1999, 2001, and 2006. Under the contract, they agree to contribute to the mutual
costs of operating the library based on circulation by residency
As a legally established regional library, WRL provides free services to residents of its contractual
service area, Williamsburg and James City County, although the Board also extends free library service
to all residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The regional library has a MOU with upper York
County, negotiated with them to address the higher participation rate for their residents than City of
Williamsburg residents. WRL is not certain that York County is going to honor the MOU when it comes
up again and they are unsure how they will react or how they are going to restrict usage if York County
does pull out. In October, the Williamsburg library circulated 12,285 items to York County residents
and 15,000 to Williamsburg residents.
The regional library has an agreement with the City to be the fiscal agent and the County to do payroll
and follow County policies. The library provides their own maintenance. The system has two libraries –
one in Williamsburg and one in James City County
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 12 January, 2011
Albemarle’s Regional Library System
Due to its greater population, Albemarle comprises the major part of the regional JMRL system with the
largest share of circulation (53%), the highest percentage of users (40%) and the largest share of
operating costs (59%). Chart 3 below summarizes the library services provided to Albemarle County
residents at Albemarle‘s 5 library sites. A complete description of Albemarle‘s five library sites, as well
as the Bookmobile, the Albemarle Historical Collection and Mont-AVV, i.e. history, programs, staffing,
etc. is provided in the Appendix C.
Chart 3
JMRL Services and Programs
The first area to look at is the effectiveness of the current regional library system, i.e. does it deliver
the services the community wants and are the collection and the programs used by its citizens and young
people and children. Effectiveness can be measured by gathering community input and by comparing and
benchmarking data.
Community Input
Albemarle County has community input on libraries in its 2006 and 2008 Customer Surveys. In the 2006
survey, 75.3% of citizens ranked libraries as a Very Important Service. In the same question on the
2008 survey, 64.2% of citizens ranked libraries as Very Important, still a sizeable part of the population
but a drop of 10%. In the 2006 survey, 93.8% of citizens were satisfied with library services; in 2008
93.7% were similarly satisfied.
The 2008 survey also asked the importance of library services to the community. Of those surveyed,
64.2% said that resources should be devoted to libraries and 58.6% said they favored using tax dollars
for libraries. The survey also reported that people living in the rural areas gave more importance
(80.6%) to libraries than urban dwellers.
Albemarle's Libraries
Central Gordon Northside Crozet Scottsville Total
Total Branch Circulation 394,610 183,127 526,961 137,746 67,318 1,309,762
Albemarle Share of Circulation 49.0%42.0%68.0%87.0%63.0%60.0%
Circulation Increase (from FY04)-3.0%11.8%16.4%48.0%19.4%11.6%
Collection Size 143,382 67,253 102,634 32,960 19,096 365,325
Percent of Collection 39.2%18.4%28.1%9.0%5.2%100.0%
Square Feet 29,000 7,394 15,500 1,728 3,940 57,562
Service Hours 68 52 55 48 48 271
Number of Visits *373,093 115,749 317,124 71,050 57,649 934,665
Staff (FTE's)28.42 6.47 15.96 4.57 3.09 58.51
Computers 47 10 14 5 8 84
meeting rooms 3 3 1 1 1 9
Albemarle Annual Cost 538,792 185,527 876,619 228,120 159,382 1,988,440
Assessed Value 3,219,700 2,596,700 N/A 615,000 847,300 7,278,700
* includes all jurisdictions
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 13 January, 2011
JMRL and Comparison Libraries
The following section provides data for JMRL, as well as comparative data from the other library
systems to measure how JMRL is doing compared to its peers. Peer libraries include: Fauquier, Roanoke,
Henrico, Chesterfield, Central Rappahannock Library, Pamunkey Regional Library and Williamsburg
Regional Library. The comparative data is from the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which
collects and publishes data from public libraries across the country. Their most recent data is from
FY08.
Chart 4
Circulation
Circulation is one of the most
important measures of a library‘s
effectiveness, because it measures
usage of the collection. It is also
used to allocate costs for most
jurisdictions that have a regional
library.
Chart 4 shows circulation trends
by library which reflect increasing
circulation at Northside, a 16.3%
increase from FY04 and decreasing
circulation at Central, -3% from
FY04 to FY10. Gordon Ave. has remained fairly steady at a 10 – 11% increase; Crozet has increased by
48% and Greene has increased by 34%. The percentage of circulation for the other branches has stayed
relatively flat. The sharp decline in circulation from FY03 to FY04 reflects a change in the way items
were counted and has no significant impact.
Chart 5
Chart 5 shows the trend in
circulation for the 5 JMRL
jurisdictions from FY04 through
FY10. Albemarle‘s circulation is
the highest at 853,693 units in
FY10, increasing 14.4% since
FY04 or approximately 2.4% a
year. Only two areas exceed
Albemarle‘s growth: Greene
County increased circulation by
26.8% since FY04 or 4.5% a year;
Out-of-Area circulation
increased over 50% since FY04
at an average 8.5% a year, the
fastest growing segment of
circulation. Charlottesville by contrast has increased its circulation by only 1.1% since FY04.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 14 January, 2011
Chart 6
Chart 6 shows the circulation per capita
rates for each jurisdiction with Albemarle
at the highest of 8.96 items circulated per
capita.
.
Chart 7
Another measure of the JMRL
library is the number of users
registered for each locality
which relates to circulation.
Chart 7 shows that the number
of Albemarle users has only
grown by .5% since FY04 while
Charlottesville users have
declined by - 8.5%. A large user
increase has been seen in
Greene and Louisa where both
experienced a 19% growth over
the 6-year period. The largest
increase has been in the out-of-
area users which has increased
84% since FY04 from 4,878
users to 8,976.
Four major indicators that the Commonwealth of Virginia uses to measure the effectiveness of libraries
across the state in addition to circulation are library visits, holdings (the collection of materials) and
turn-over.
Chart 8 on the next page shows comparative information on circulation per capita, as well as library
visits, holdings and turnover rate for JMRL and the seven comparative library systems.
Circulation per capita is a measure of the community's use of the library. It can be thought of as
representing the average number of items checked out in a year by each memb er of the community. A
high number on this measure indicates heavy use of the library's circulating materials. A low number may
indicate several things. For example: 1) the library's collection may not meet the community's needs or
8.96
7.80 8.00
3.70
5.60
Albemarle Charlottesville Greene Louisa Nelson
Per Capita Circulation
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 15 January, 2011
FY08 Comparative Data
Service Area Circulation Library Library Visits Holdings Holdings Turnover
Library Name Population Per Capita Visits Per Capita Per Capita Rate
Fauquier 64,612 7.15 278,842 4.32 232,611.00 3.60 1.99
Williamsburg Regional 72,513 17.11 635,938 8.77 343,125.00 4.73 3.62
Roanoke 90,135 12.66 834,770 9.26 399,832.00 4.44 2.85
Pamunkey Regional 137,980 9.2 665,402 4.82 321,181.00 2.33 3.95
Jefferson-Madison Regional 193,037 8.05 1,279,589 6.63 626,806.00 3.25 2.48
Central Rappahannock 276,640 26.31 2,366,266 8.55 639,681.00 2.31 11.38
Henrico 286,842 11.34 1,803,468 6.29 933,739.00 3.26 3.48
Chesterfield 292,491 13.45 1,736,740 5.94 747,941.00 2.56 5.26
Comarison Libraries Average 176,781 13.15875 1,200,127 6.82 530,614.50 3.31 4.38
Comparison Libraries Median 165,509 12.00 1,057,180 6.46 513,319.00 3.26 3.55
State Average 7.28 3.09
State Median 5.57 6.41 2.96 3.28
interest; 2) residents may be unaware of the library's resources; and/or 3) the library may have an
extensive collection of non-circulating materials.
Among the peer libraries, JMRL has the second lowest circulation per capita at 8.05 with only Fauquier
County lower at 7.15 per capita. Central Rappahannock, which includes Stafford and Spotsylvania
Counties, has the highest per capita circulation at 26.31. JMRL‘s per capita circulation is just above the
state average of 7.28 and well above the state median of 5.57.
Chart 8
Library Visits represents the average number of times during a year that each member of the
community uses the library. A high number of visits indicates heavy use. A low number of visits may
indicate several things. For example: 1) the hours the library is open do not fit the needs of the
community; 2) the library's collection and programming do not meet the interest or needs of the
community; 3) residents may be unaware of what the library has to offer; 4) the facility may be
uninviting; and/or 5) the location may be inconvenient.
Chart 8 also shows that Albemarle at 6.63 visits per capita is just slightly above the median for the
comparative counties and slightly above the state median as well.
Holdings Per Capita
Holdings per capita are one measure of the match between the size of the library‘s collection and the
community it serves. It assesses collection size, not quality. This measure should be interpreted in
connection with turnover rate and circulation per capita. Size alone is not an indicator of quality or
usefulness.
Chart 8 shows the holdings or collection of materials for each of the comparison libraries. JMRL‘s
collection has 626,806 holdings or materials at 3.25 items per capita, which reflects the median for the
comparison libraries. Only Fauquier, Williamsburg and Roanoke have higher per capita holdings than
JMRL. At 3.25, JMRL is above the state median of 2.96 per capita.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 16 January, 2011
Turnover Rate
Chart 8 shows the turnover rates for the comparative counties. Turnover measures the use of the
library's circulating collection. It indicates the number of times each item would have circulated during
the year if circulation had been spread evenly throughout the collection. A library that emphasizes the
circulation of popular reading materials should have a higher turnover rate than a library that
emphasizes the breadth of its collection and has an extensive non-circulating reference collection. JMRL
has a turnover rate of 2.48, which is the second lowest turnover rate for the comparative counties. The
median turnover rate for the comparative counties is 3.31 times while the state median is 2.96 or
slightly higher than JMRL‘s turnover rate.
Size of Library Collection – Chart 9
FY08 Comparative Data Print Print Subscriptions Electronic Video Audio
Service Area Materials per 1000 Subscriptions Materials Materials Electronic
Library Name Population per Capita population per 1000 per 1000 per 1000 Books
Fauquier 64,612 2.79 2.79 0.26 89.24 215.72 31,584
Williamsburg Regional 72,513 4.12 4.12 0.01 337.82 222.40 1,137
Roanoke 90,135 3.53 3.53 0.06 217.35 142.81 47,166
Pamunkey Regional 137,980 2.05 2.05 0.22 91.07 178.68 0
Jefferson-Madison Regional 193,037 2.52 2.52 0.01 52.34 93.32 8
Central Rappahannock 276,640 1.73 1.73 0.00 113.28 127.65 55,950
Henrico 286,842 2.94 2.94 0.74 137.22 105.03 17,059
Chesterfield 292,491 2.32 2.32 0.00 122.93 98.44 0
Comarison Libraries Average 176,781 2.75 2.75 0.16 145.16 148.01 19,113
Comparison Libraries Median 165,509 2.66 2.66 0.04 118.11 135.23 9,098.00
State Average
State Median
Chart 9 shows that JMRL is about average in printed materials and printed subscriptions per capita
compared to the other localities, but spends considerably less per 1000 population on video and audio
materials. From the chart, one can see that the Williamsburg Regional Library purchases a substantial
collection of materials with print materials at 4.12 per capita and the highest number of video and audio
materials per 1000 population. This may show that they are an effective library system in building a
large and diverse collection for their users, but that has to be looked at in conjunction with their
resources compared in Chart 15.
Some indicators do not necessarily measure the effectiveness of library services, but rather show
community preferences for certain types of materials. Availability of resources to purchase materials is
also a major factor. Most localities use state funding to purchase materials, but as state funding has
been reduced many localities have had to either supplement their materials budget with local funds or
reduce purchases.
JMRL is also comparatively low in the purchase of electronic books, although the chart reflects FY08
data and JMRL through a foundation grant has just purchased and implemented a downloadable book
program which will substantially increase this number. Anyone with a JMRL library card can access an
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 17 January, 2011
electronic book through the following website: http://swvapub.lib.overdrive.com/E099FF0F-27AE-
46D4-A0B9-D24A75FBF7A0/10/518/en/Help-QuickStartGuide.htm
Services Chart 10
FY08 Comparative Data Reference Interlibrary InterLibrary Users of Users of Users of Avg. Wkly
Service Area Transactions Loans Loans Public Computers Elec. Resources Public Hours
Library Name Population per Capita Received Provided Computers per Capita per Capita per Outlet
Fauquier 64,612 1.01 1,537 901 90,614 1.40 1.40 57
Williamsburg Regional 72,513 1.81 1,772 3,578 127,063 1.75 1.75 27
Roanoke 90,135 0.77 2,619 530 16,619 0.18 0.18 53
Pamunkey Regional 137,980 2.02 1,090 17 113,993 0.83 0.83 53
Jefferson-Madison Regional 193,037 0.47 5,492 7 147,455 0.76 0.76 43
Central Rappahannock 276,640 2.77 2,275 2,765 145,802 0.53 0.53 45
Henrico 286,842 1.65 2,762 2,514 138,642 0.48 0.48 53
Chesterfield 292,491 0.65 1,706 73 450,168 1.54 1.54 57
Comparison Libraries Average 176,781 1.39 2,407 1,298 153,795 0.93 0.93 49
Comparison Libraries Median 165,509 1.33 2,024 716 132,853 0.80 0.80 53
State Average
State Median
Chart 10 reflects services provided by regional and county libraries as measured by the Public Libraries
Survey. In reference transactions per capita, JMRL has the lowest number of transactions per capita,
significantly below both the mean and the median. The table also shows that JMRL is an importer of
material through the inter library loan process, rather than a provider of materials to other libraries.
JMRL has the highest number of loans received of any of the localities, as well as the lowest number of
library loans provided to others. Fauquier, Roanoke and Pamunkey also receive considerably more loans
than they provide. An interlibrary loan is based on a request to another library which is an autonomous
library outside their system.
On public computer users, JMRL has 147,455 users per year (FY08), but at .76 computer users per
capita JMRL is slightly below the comparative median at 0.80 users per capita. This can be a function of
the number of computers available, but also may be dependent on the geography of the locality and
citizens access to a library or it may relate to the populations technology savy. Availability of services
and computers may also be dependent on the number of service hours at each of the outlets. The
average weekly public service hours per outlet for JMRL is 43, which is below the median for the other
libraries at 53 hours per week.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 18 January, 2011
Services (continued)
Chart 11
FY08 Comparative Data Total Total Program Childrens Children's Materials
Service Area Library Programs Program Attandance Attendance Percent of Total
Library Name Population Programs Per 1000 pop Attendance Per Capita Per Capita Circulation
Fauquier 64,612 1,165 18.03 21,875 0.34 0.28 47.2%
Williamsburg Regional 72,513 1,910 26.34 141,606 1.95 1.42 29.4%
Roanoke 90,135 1,334 14.80 24,461 0.27 0.22 20.6%
Pamunkey Regional 137,980 1,625 11.78 37,034 0.27 0.20 N/A
Jefferson-Madison Regional 193,037 1,626 8.42 32,233 0.17 0.16 46.2%
Central Rappahannock 276,640 3,256 11.77 58,908 0.21 0.14 20.2%
Henrico 286,842 3,842 13.39 53,075 0.19 0.16 32.3%
Chesterfield 292,491 1,520 5.20 30,452 0.10 0.08 38.6%
Comparison Libraries Average 176,781 2,035 13.72 49,956 0.44 0.33 33.5%
Comparison Libraries Median 165,509 1,626 12.59 34,634 0.24 0.18 32.3%
State Average
State Median
An important service offered by public libraries are special programs, so measuring the number of
programs and their attendance is one of the measures of an effective library system. For total
programs offered, JMRL is at the median of 1,626 programs for the comparative counties, although
when measured by 1000 population, JMRL is the second lowest in programs per population except for
Chesterfield County and substantially below both the average and the median for the comparative
counties. On program attendance, which is possibly a more relevant measure for meeting customer
expectations than simply the number of programs offered, JMRL is just slightly below the median
number with 32,233 programs per year. JMRL is at .17 per capita in program attendance, which is the
second lowest with only Chesterfield being lower at .10 and slightly below the median of .24 per capita
program for the comparison group.
In measuring children‘s attendance, JMRL is tied for 2nd lowest along with Henrico, with Chesterfield
again being the lowest in children‘s attendance. JMRL is at .16 just below the median for the other
libraries at .18 per capita. A lower rate of attendance may be due to accessibility in a large geographic
area, as well as the program content or relevance to the children. One interesting note is that JMRL has
the second highest percent of circulation for children‘s material at 46.2% significantly higher than the
median 32.3% or the average 33.5% for the comparison libraries. Almost half of JMRL‘s circulating
materials are for children.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 19 January, 2011
Organizational Characteristics
The final area of library effectiveness relates to the structures and support in place in each of the
library systems.
Chart 12
FY08 Comparative Data Number of Number of Avg. Number Number of Number of Number of Staff
Service Area Internet Terminals Terminals Central Branch Libraries per Total Per 1000
Library Name Population Terminals per 1000 per Outlet Libraries Libraries 1000 pop Staff Population
Fauquier 64,612 52 0.80 17 1 2 0.05 34 0.53
Williamsburg Regional 72,513 124 1.71 62 0 2 0.03 89 1.23
Roanoke 90,135 101 1.12 17 1 5 0.07 47 0.52
Pamunkey Regional 137,980 100 0.72 10 0 10 0.07 87 0.63
Jefferson-Madison Regional 193,037 88 0.46 11 1 7 0.04 87 0.45
Central Rappahannock 276,640 130 0.47 19 1 6 0.03 142 0.51
Henrico 286,842 173 0.60 45 0 10 0.03 222 0.77
Chesterfield 292,491 445 1.52 17 1 9 0.03 140 0.48
Comparison Libraries Average 176,781 152 0.93 25 6 0.04 106 0.64
Comparison Libraries Median 165,509 113 0.76 17 7 0.04 88 0.52
State Average
State Median
Chart 12 shows the organizational assets that are in place to provide services to the library community.
In providing access to computers, JMRL at .46 computers per capita ranks significantly below the
comparative libraries in both the average .93 and median .76. JMRL also has the second lowest number
of terminals per stationary outlet at 11 per outlet, while the comparative median is 17 per outlet.
Williamsburg Regional Library has the highest number of terminals at 62 per outlet, but only has two
library sites, one in Williamsburg and one in James City County. By contrast the lowest is Pamunkey
Regional with an average of 10 per site, but with 10 branch libraries across their region. Henrico with 45
per site also has 10 sites.
In total staff per 1000 population, JMRL has the lowest number of all the library systems and is below
both the average and the median.
Library System Efficiency
This next section attempts to show some measure of library efficiency by looking at how a library uses
its resources to provide the most service to the most people. JMRL revenue and expenditure trends are
shown here, as well as how JMRL compares with its use of resources with the other comparative library
systems. The last part of this section looks at the different ways the comparative communities have
reduced their budgets in the face of reduced revenues.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 20 January, 2011
Resources
Chart 13 shows the revenue trend from FY00 to FY11 for the JMRL library. Local revenues have
increased approximately $2.2 million (70%) while state revenues have decreased by approximately
$175,000, a 25% reduction over the ten year period. State revenues have gone from a high of
$844,000 in FY01 to $543,000 in FY11. Federal revenues have remained level and reflect only the e-
grant which comes directly to JMRL and has been used by the Library Board solely for technology.
Chart 13
JMRL uses State Aid dollars to
purchase materials, which is how
most other Virginia libraries use
their state dollars. The FY11
collections budget is $610,734,
most of which is state aid, but also
includes approximately $50,000
from anticipated fines and a
foundation grant of $20,000
which is being used to purchase
downloadable books.
Other local revenues have
remained fairly steady at
$250,000 a year and consist of grants, fines and contributions from the Friends of the Library. The
majority of fines collected (average $134,000 a year) are put into the equipment fund, which pays for
service contracts on computer equipment, data lines, and new and replacement equipment for all the
regional services, as well as the branch libraries. The equipment fund expenditures run about $500,000
per year, using fines and year-end-balances. Fines were recently increased from $10 to $25 cents a day
with anticipated new revenues of approximately $50,000 which will also go to the equipment fund.
Resources – Comparing Other Libraries
Chart 14
Public libraries receive funding from three primary
sources: Local spending comprises the majority of
library funding. State grants-in-aid now represent
about 10 percent of the funding to public libraries.
Recently, State support has also included separate
funding earmarked for technology initiatives.
Federal funds are less than one percent of library
funding. While most local funds are derived from
tax revenues (80 percent), they may also include
endowments, gifts, donations, and bequests.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 21 January, 2011
Chart 15 below looks at revenues from the comparative localities. In local revenue per capita, JMRL is
the second lowest at $26.65 per capita just above Chesterfield, but below both the average and the
median for our comparison localities. In state revenues, the high of $729,432 goes to the Central
Rappahannock Library with the next highest of $658,032 going to JMRL. Lowest on the state revenues
is Fauquier County at $190,824, although Roanoke is only slightly higher at $195,239. The huge
difference in state revenues is due to the state formula discussed later in this report that provides per
capita and square mile supplements to libraries that regionalize. Therefore, Central Rappahannock
receives $2.64 per capita although their service area is similar in size to those of Henrico and
Chesterfield, which receive substantially less state revenue per capita at $0.84 and $0.82. In state
revenues per capita, JMRL is at $3.41, the third highest below Williamsburg and Pamunkey Regional
Library. In total revenues per capita, JMRL is the second lowest again just above Chesterfield, but
below both the comparison average of $43.99 and the median of $35.50.
Chart 15
FY08 Comparative Data Local State Total
Service Area Local Revenue State Revenue Federal Other Revenue
Library Name Population Revenue Per Capita Revenue per Capita Revenue Revenue per Capita
Fauquier 64,612 1,991,218 30.82 190,824.00 2.95 0.00 61,899 34.73
Williamsburg Regional 72,513 5,324,640 73.43 370,510 5.11 0.00 819,074 89.84
Roanoke 90,135 2,911,529 32.30 195,239.00 2.17 0.00 162,696 36.27
Pamunkey Regional 137,980 3,811,563 27.62 489,607 3.55 1,250.00 178,435 32.47
Jefferson-Madison Regional 193,037 5,144,029 26.65 658,032.00 3.41 53,083.00 219,205 31.47
Central Rappahannock 276,640 11,188,409 40.44 729,432 2.64 0.00 318,728 44.23
Henrico 286,842 15,396,880 53.68 240,839.00 0.84 0.00 0 54.52
Chesterfield 292,491 7,334,681 25.08 239,945 0.82 21,254.00 698,443 28.36
Comparison Libraries Average 176,781 6,637,869 38.75 389,304 2.69 9,448 307,310 43.99
Comparison Libraries Median 165,509 5,234,335 31.56 305,675 2.80 0 198,820 35.50
State Average
State Median
JMRL Library Expenditures
JMRL FY11 expenditures, in Chart 16, are broken out by programs and branches. The JMRL total budget
of $5.4 million reflects only local operating revenues that go into the budget. Other expenditures for
books and equipment using state funds and other local monies are not reflected in the budget below.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 22 January, 2011
Chart 16
Chart 17
JMRL Budget by Categories
The JMRL operating budget has
increased over the past 7 years by
43% or 6.2% a year from $3.1 million in
FY04 to $4.4 million in FY11. Chart 17
shows the basic functional areas of
personnel, fringe and operations over
this same time period. As in many
service organizations, the personnel
costs, both salaries and benefits, have
increased the most. salaries have
increased by 33% or 4.7% a year,
benefits by 75% or 10.7% a year.
However, since FY09, salaries and
benefits have increased by only 0.6%
Although salary and benefits are administered by the City of Charlottesville, the library has its own
salary scale with salaries comparable to other library organizations. Their latest salary survey was
conducted by Carolyn Fowler in 2005. The large increase in benefits is partly due to the higher benefit
package associated with the City‘s plan, mostly the health plan for retirees. Although JMRL staff will
continue on the City‘s health insurance, the Library Board, in an effort to save money, proposed to the
City to offer their own Defined Contribution Retirement Plan without full medical benefits after
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 23 January, 2011
retirement. This request is awaiting approval by City Council and should be implemented for new
employees on July 1, 2011.
Chart 17 also shows that JMRL operating costs have been fairly level over the last 7 years going from
$853,000 thousand to approximately $1.1 million, a 27% increase or approximately 3.9% a year.
Branch Library Expenditure Growth Chart 18
One explanation for the
increased growth in costs has
been the expansion of costs
for the branch libraries.
Chart 18 shows the increase in
dollars spent on the branch
libraries since FY05. The two
highest dollar increases for
branches have been in Crozet
(65.4% increase due to an
additional librarian in FY07)
and Greene (60.3% with the
opening of the new library in
FY08). The next largest dollar
increase is at Gordon with
34% and Northside with a
32% increase. These have been the branches with the greatest jumps in circulation, Crozet 48%,
Greene, 34%, Scottsville 19% and Northside 16%.
Expenditures by Locality
Local expenditure trends mirror increased circulation trends. Albemarle‘s expenditures increased 41.4%
since FY05 or an annual increase of almost 6%. These increases reflect any/all baseline increases, as well
as the following expanded services:
FY2005 – Funds to enhance services including Crozet Branch support, Northside Circulation
support, and a Northside Reference Specialist.
FY2006 – New Central Library/Outreach Manager, part-time technical support specialist,
part-time assistant to help with outreach to nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
FY2007 – Half-year funding of an additional librarian at Crozet.
FY2008 – Expansion of Northside Library hours, additional half-time lab monitor, half-time
technical support position, additional hours for human resources benefits specialist, and full-
year funding of additional Crozet librarian added in FY2007.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 24 January, 2011
Chart 19
During that same time
period, Albemarle had a
large overall circulation
increase of 14.4%
compared to the City‘s
1.1%, Louisa‘s 6.4% and
Nelson at 1.9%. Only
Greene surpassed
Albemarle‘s circulation at
26.8%, although it is
difficult to see it on this
chart as it is blocked by
both Nelson and Louisa
County lines.
Chart 20
Per Capita Spending
Expenditures per capita reflect the
community's financial support for the
library in relation to its size. Operating
expenditures (personnel, collections, and
general operations) from other sources
such as state aid and grants are also
included. Capital expenditures that vary
dramatically from year to year are not
included.
One of the most important comparison
measures is the per capita cost of running
a library. Looking at the JMRL FY11
budget, Albemarle‘s total share of the
budget is comprised of various shares of
the budget based on circulation, i.e.
58.25% of the regional administration costs based on Albemarle‘s percentage of total circulation among
the 5 localities, 85.51% of Northside based on circulation, etc.
FY11 Budget Albemarle Share
Administration costs 864,799 58.25%503,745
Technical 589,676 58.25%343,486
Reference 432,441 34.43%148,889
Main 886,609 60.77%538,792
Gordon 337,937 54.90%185,527
Northside 1,025,166 85.51%876,619
Crozet 228,120 100.00%228,120
Scottsville 159,382 100.00%159,382
McIntire 75,474 50.00%37,737
Monticello AVV 172,289 50.00%86,145
Bookmobile 88,791 72.86%64,694
4,860,684 65.28%3,173,138
Albemarle FY09 population 95,247
Cost per capita $33.31
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 25 January, 2011
Chart 21
Adding up the various shares of branches
and programs, Albemarle‘s overall share
of the regional budget is $3,173,138 or
65.28% of the budget. When Albemarle‘s
total contribution to the library is divided
by the FY09 estimated population,
Albemarle‘s per capita cost is $33.31.
Chart 21 shows that Albemarle and Charlottesville are equal on the per capita costs, although the
smaller jurisdictions with only one small library per jurisdiction have significantly lower per capita cost.
The other jurisdictions also do not share in the costs of Mont-AVV, McIntire and the Bookmobile.
Note: Albemarle is paying $226,365 in annual leasing costs at Northside (85.51 % of the total rent of
$264,724). Since most localities, including the other localities in our system, do not pay rent for their
facilities, Albemarle pays a higher cost per capita than the other jurisdictions in this region, as well as
across the state. If rent of $264,724 is deducted from Albemarle‘s total costs, Albemarle‘s per capita
cost is reduced to $30.9.
JMRL Per User Cost
Per Capita FY 09 FY10
Locality Cost Population Cost
Albemarle 33.31$ 95,247 3,173,138
Charlottesville 33.62$ 40,317 1,355,385
Greene 15.95$ 18,112 288,909
Louisa 9.97$ 32,926 328,172
Nelson 15.70$ 15,519 243,648
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 26 January, 2011
Chart 22
Although Albemarle‘s cost is based on its
share of circulation, seen in the prior
section, another efficiency measure is
the per user cost. Albemarle also has the
highest number of users in the JMRL
system. Again if you deduct the high
cost of rent at Northside, Albemarle‘s
per user cost comes down to $65.82 per
user comparable to Charlottesville‘s per
user cost.
Expenditure Comparisons with Other Localities
Chart 23 shows how the comparison localities use their resources to build their collection and the
choices they make between printed vs. electronic materials. The dollars allocated to one area over
another may be the Library Board‘s decision, as well as a lack of resources. Although Williamsburg has
the highest per capita funding of any of the comparison localities, their per capita spending for
electronic materials is extremely small compared to others. Each library system decides independently
what is important to purchase for their particular users or they may decide to spend more on programs
or computer access.
In Chart 23, JMRL spends considerably less on their collection than other localities, i.e. at $3.70 per
capita, JMRL is the lowest compared to Henrico at $6.57 per capita. Although JMRL is just at the
median in electronic materials per 1000 population, JMRL uses a higher percentage of their collection
budget than most of the other counties with the exception of Henrico and Central Rappahannock.
Chart
23
FY08 Comparative Data Total Total Collection Expen.Print Materials Electronic Electronic Electronic
Service Area Collection Collection as % of Total Expenditures Materials Materials as % of Total
Library Name Population Expenditures per Capita Expenditures per Capita Expenditures per 1000 Collection Exp
Fauquier 64,612 276,333 $4.28 12.9%$2.42 43,116 $667.31 8.50%
Williamsburg Regional 72,513 560,127 $7.72 8.7%$5.51 4,558 $62.86 0.80%
Roanoke 90,135 487,720 $5.57 15.7%$3.77 32,446 $359.97 6.50%
Pamunkey Regional 137,980 749,843 $5.43 16.7%$3.63 55,479 $402.08 7.40%
Jefferson-Madison Regional 193,037 714,037 $3.70 11.9%$2.60 75,567 $391.46 10.60%
Central Rappahannock 276,640 1,194,002 $4.32 10.0%$3.01 276,746 $1,000.38 23.20%
Henrico 286,842 1,883,336 $6.57 13.5%$5.17 223,200 $778.13 11.90%
Chesterfield 292,491 1,166,354 $3.99 14.2%$2.49 99,289 $339.46 8.50%
Comparison Libraries Average 176,781 878,969 $5.20 13.0%$3.58 101,300 $500.21 9.68%
Comparison Libraries Median 165,509 731,940 $4.88 13.2%$3.32 65,523 $396.77 8.50%
State Average
State Median
Per User FY10 FY10
Locality Cost Cost Users
Albemarle 70.88$ 3,173,138 44,770
Charlottesville 64.28$ 1,355,385 21,085
Greene 32.46$ 288,909 8,901
Louisa 25.36$ 328,172 12,943
Nelson 41.86$ 243,648 5,820
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 27 January, 2011
Staff and Operating Expenses
Chart 24
FY08 Comparative Data Salaries and Employee Total Total Staff Exp Other Total Total Oper
Service Area Waes Benefits Staff as % of Total Operating Operating Expenditures
Library Name Population Expenditures ExpendituresExpenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures per Capita
Fauquier 64,612 1,255,121 398,347 1,653,468 76.9%219,415 2,149,216 33.26
Williamsburg Regional 72,513 3,546,834 1,046,392 4,593,226 71.6%1,264,406 6,417,759 88.50
Roanoke 90,135 1,558,287 487,720 2,046,007 64.0%649,833 3,197,910 35.48
Pamunkey Regional 137,980 2,129,128 459,136 2,588,264 57.6%1,154,875 4,492,982 32.56
Jefferson-Madison Regional 193,037 2,789,301 1,164,266 3,953,567 65.9%1,336,688 6,004,292 31.10
Central Rappahannock 276,640 6,365,410 1,945,009 8,310,419 69.6%2,430,266 11,934,687 43.14
Henrico 286,842 7,339,699 2,493,544 9,833,243 70.6%2,219,079 13,935,658 48.58
Chesterfield 292,491 4,744,604 1,206,271 5,950,875 72.5%1,096,231 8,213,460 28.08
Comparison Libraries Average 176,781 3,716,048 1,150,086 4,866,134 68.6%1,296,349 7,043,246 42.59
Comparison Libraries Median 165,509 3,168,068 1,105,329 4,273,397 70.1%1,209,641 6,211,026 34.37
State Average
State Median
Chart 24 compares staff and operating expenditures for the comparison counties. Looking at total staff
expenditures as a % of total expenditures, JMRL at 65.9% is below the median of 70.1% and the third
lowest after Pamunkey and Roanoke County. When looking at the total operating expenditures per
capita, JMRL is again well below the average and below the median as well. JMRL at $31.10 has the
lowest expenditures per capita than all the other localities except Chesterfield.
Chart 24 compares the FY08 per capita spending by the comparison libraries, but it does not measure
the per capita spending by the 8 comparison counties. Chart 25 below compares the dollars that each
of the localities allocated to their respective libraries in F Y11. This per capita expenditure does not
include any state funds or other funds, only local tax supported dollars, so the per capita numbers will
not be comparable with the FY08 per capita data seen in the previous chart.
Chart 25
Comparing Albemarle County with the other localities,
Albemarle‘s per capita costs at $33.31 are slightly above
the county median at $32.73.
Although the per capita costs represent the actual dollars
budgeted for libraries by each locality, one factor that
must be taken into consideration when comparing level of
effort is that some localities provide considerable in-kind
services to their libraries that are not accounted for in
these numbers. For example, Roanoke County provides
several services not in the budget, i.e. payroll and HR,
purchasing, accounting, legal services, custodial and
maintenance. Stafford pays for maintenance, custodial and
FY11 Per
Locality Capita Cost
Chesterfield 23.24
Hanover 27.60
Fauquier 28.39
Roanoke 32.04
Spotsylvania 32.73
Albemarle 33.31
Stafford 36.43
Henrico 52.73
James City County 64.41
Average 36.77
Median 32.73
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 28 January, 2011
grounds maintenance for their branch libraries, expenditures that are not accounted for in the per
capita library costs. Chesterfield pays for a wide number of services, i.e., payroll, accounting,
purchasing, maintenance, custodial, legal and technology infrastructure. In the single jurisdictions, the
libraries are treated like a county department and receive a number of county services without a
recorded cost.
To compare the true costs per capita, you would have to know the extent and the cost of those services
to get a comparable per capita cost. Therefore, to determine the true cost of a single entity library
system, Albemarle would need to determine the costs of those in-kind services and then decide if the
County was willing to absorb these costs that now are reflected in the regional library budget.
Chart 26
6
Budget Reductions by Comparison
Libraries/Localities
Chart 26 shows local government funding
for the comparison county libraries over
the past 3 years. The chart clearly
shows that most of the budgets were
either severely cut or level funded for
FY09, FY10 and FY11.
Locality Budget Reduction Strategies
Each locality interviewed made significant cuts to their library systems, as well as to other community
agencies as a result of declining tax dollars. In discussions with the administrators and/or librarians
from the comparable county libraries, many different strategies and solutions were implemented to
reduce the library allocation, some of which resulted in drastic reductions in dollars and services. The
following section summarizes how these localities responded to reduced funding:
Fauquier County
The library was told in the last part of FY09 to cut back, so closed on Sundays and limited their
outreach, supplies, and other soft costs. This decision based on staff recommendation was
approved and presented by Library Board. The community was unhappy, but adjusted by using the
libraries more on Fridays and Saturdays.
For FY11, the County said library had to make an additional 10% cut. Library couldn‘t cut across
the board without losing full-time positions, so Library Board put forward two options: one to
close a small branch library and the other to make deep cuts in hours, staff, etc. Board of
Supervisors chose to cut the small branch, but because of neighborhood objections the Board
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 29 January, 2011
imposed only a 4-5% reduction, told them to keep the small branch open but make cuts across the
board.
The library cut Friday hours (only open 9-1:00), did not fill the children‘s position and other part-
time positions and reduced some part-time positions to 19 hours without health insurance..
From FY08 to FY11, the allocation to the library went from $2.1 million to $1.9 million, a reduction
of $183,000 or 8.6%.
Hanover County (Pamunkey Regional Library)
County administrator met with the library ahead of budget and gave them a reduction goal: the
library board determined the reductions. The library now closes on certain days concentrated
around holidays, not reduction in hours each week.
The closures impacted only Hanover County, not the other localities in the Pamunkey Regional
Library system.
For 2012, the library staff is analyzing contributions versus the cost of services since the per
capita costs for Stafford are higher than the other jurisdictions. Some localities are paying less,
but are able to pay more.
May switch from leasing to purchasing while debt costs are low. They are now leasing some
facilities. Even if they purchase building, they may lease it back to the library system.
In FY09, Hanover‘s contribution to the library system increased from $2.493 million to $2.722
million, an increase of $0.229 thousand (9%). The budget has been level funded at $2.7 million
for FY10 and the FY11.
Hanover is projecting to fund $2.756 million in FY12, level funding again.
James City County
The Williamsburg Regional Library was very proactive in FY10 and FY11 and self imposed a 5% cut
in their budget request. They rearranged staff, but did not reduce hours.
Biggest impact was from reduced state funding, which cut back on their book and material
purchases.
Friends of the Library contributed $50,000 to their budget for materials.
New and expanded library facilities are no longer in the CIP, as they were several years ago.
From FY09 to FY11 the library budget was reduced by $0.390 thousand, 8.6% decrease
Roanoke County
To reduce the budget last year, the library cut back on books, technology and part-time staff.
They also closed Sunday afternoons and are now operating 6 days instead of 7 days a week.
The library also withdrew from the Botetourt agreement in which Roanoke contributed funds to
the Botetourt library. More Botetourt citizens were using the Roanoke library than Roanoke
citizens were using the Botetourt libraries.
New county library being built to be used as distribution center (old one is now used that way).
Also building another branch library – citizens came to board to ask for more libraries.
County provides several services not in the budget, i.e. payroll and HR, purchasing, accounting,
legal services and a custodial and maintenance budget.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 30 January, 2011
The Roanoke budget went from $2.664 in FY08 to $2.979 in FY11, an increase of $315,000, a 12%
increase over the 3-year period. However, administrative costs went down, while automation costs
rose.
Spotsylvania (Central Rappanhannock Regional Library)
Quote from their revised by-laws - ― in the event any participating locality chooses to
appropriate funds at a level lower than requested, the Board shall have the right to reduce or
freeze service levels, other than by imposing a book limit, within such jurisdiction proportionately
in accordance with the funding reduction. The governing body of such jurisdiction shall be
afforded the opportunity to make evaluation and indicate the particular areas of service it wishes
reduced, modified or frozen and such decisions by the governing body concerning service shall be
implemented by the Board.‖
Stafford County
Stafford County reports a great deal of friction around the library budget cuts.
Stafford began dialogue with community agencies, including the library, ahead of the FY09
budget cycle. All agencies told to look at their own operations and find efficiencies and
reductions, although library was slow to implement changes.
In FY11, the library proposed solutions, which included reducing a different day at each of the
branch libraries, so there was always a branch open on the day another library was closed.
Stafford is opening a new branch library. The county maintains the building and the grounds and
also provides the custodial work, interior painting, etc.
County administration now has budget discussions with the library, as well as the other
jurisdictions in the library system, starting in Oct and November. The library now submits their
budget much earlier in the process, so everyone knows what the library is asking for before
budget sessions begin.
Stafford‘s contribution to the library in FY08 was $4.666 million and $4.585 million in FY11, a
reduction of $81,000 thousand over the three fiscal years. However, the FY11 budget reflects
additional opening costs for the new Stafford branch, so funding for existing services actually
went down by 6% in FY11.
Henrico
The library is treated as a County department.
County manager set a target for the library budget with no reduction in service to the public.
Library reduced operations by eliminating half of their printing and postage costs by using e-mail
correspondence, revisited vendor agreements for better pricing and cut back on thei r material
purchases.
Reduced 10 vacant positions and rearranged staff to fit new responsibilities.
Upcoming budget will ask for another 2.5% cut in operations, not personnel. The County Manager
will make the decisions on personnel i.e., to fill or maintain more vacant positions on a case by case
basis.
Henrico has level funded the library at $15.6 million level for the past three fiscal years.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 31 January, 2011
Chesterfield
The county allocation to the library system is down $1.6 million with 10 reduced positions. The
Board did restore $200,000 back to library for materials on a one-time basis.
All libraries are now closed on Thursdays, except the main library which opens late on that day.
The eliminated positions were Library Associates – they eliminated by classification, rather than
seniority. Library Associates were not certified librarians.
There was more public reaction to the lack of funding for the materials than for closing for one
day.
The County expects to level fund the library next year.
From discussions with local administers and library directors, it is clear that these libraries have made
significant reductions in operations and some in services to the public despite 1991 State Library Board
regulations that stipulate that ―Local operating expenditures from taxation or endowment for any
library, or library system, shall not fall below that of the previous year‖ (full language for this section on
page 30). This state policy seems to have had no impact on the other counties ability to reduce their
library allocations.
State Aid to Libraries
The General Assembly first appropriated funds ($50,000) to the Library of Virginia in 1942 to primarily
develop new libraries, but they also included provisions to aid existing libraries, particularly regional
libraries. In 1936, although funding for state aid was not allocated, the General Assembly enacted the
first comprehensive general library law and declared, "It the policy of the Commonwealth, as a part of
its provision for public education, to promote the establishment and development of public library
service throughout its various political subdivisions." This very important language remains in the Code of
Virginia §42.1-46.
In the original state-aid formula, city libraries were eligible for grants up to $5,000 while county and
regional libraries were eligible for grants up to $15,000. The state-aid program took its current form
after changes to the formula and library laws in 1970.
The State aid formula established by Section 42.1-48 of the Code of Virginia has three goals:
improve library services to the public,
bolster maintenance and development of standards, and
encourage economy through the formation of regional library budgets
State aid represents approximately 10 percent of total librar y funding across the state and funds may
be used for books and other library materials, salaries, equipment, supplies, and contractual services.
State aid may not be used for construction or capital expenditures. Currently, the majority of State aid
is used to purchase books and materials.
Chart 28 shows how state aid is used throughout the state. JMRL uses 100% of its state aid to purchase
materials for its collection.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 32 January, 2011
State aid requirements are set up to encourage local effort through the following provisions:
Chart 28
1. Local expenditures must be equal to or greater than the amount expended the prior year.*
2. Local operating expenditures
must be at least 50 percent of
the Statewide median. (FY09
median statewide library
expenditures were $1,058,533
x 50% = $529,267; JMRL was
$5.3 million.
3. Two thirds of funding must
come from taxation or
endowment. (JMRL in FY10 was
85%)
4. The State aid requirements
mandate that public libraries
must employ a certified
librarian as director. (JMRL –
yes)
The State Library requires ‖ Local
operating expenditures from taxation or endowment for any library, or library system, shall not
fall below that of the previous year. In cases where the budgets of all the departments of local
government are reduced below those of the previous year, the library‘s state grant-in-aid would
be reduced. The State Library may require that the amount of such reduction in the library‘s
total expenditures be subtracted from the library‘s eligibility and that the state grant be
reduced accordingly. If the library‘s budget is reduced and other agencies‘ budgets are not, then
the library would receive no state grant-in-aid and would be ineligible for one until local
expenditures shall have again reached or exceeded the local effort at the time of the last
previous grant‖.
―The library would be ineligible for any federal funds if local funds are reduced below that of the
previous year.‖
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/lib-edu/LDND/state-aid/
State Aid Formula
The current state aid formula is based on three components:
1. The local expenditures grant pays libraries 40 cents for every local dollar spent on operating
expenses, exclusive of State and federal aid. The grant to any city or county shall not exceed
$250,000. For regional libraries, the cap is applied to each participating locality.
2. Population - a per capita based on the population of the area served and the number of
participating counties or cities: Thirty cents per capita for the first 600,000 persons to a
library or system servicing one city or county and an additional ten cents per capita for the
first 600,000 persons for each additional city or county served
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 33 January, 2011
3. Square miles served; a grant of ten dollars per square mile of area served to every library or
library system, and an additional grant of twenty dollars per square mile of area served to
every library system serving more than one city or county
How Does the State Aid Formula Work for JMRL?
The state aid formula is based on three components, which favor regional libraries because of factor 2)
the additional 0.10 cents per capita for the additional jurisdictions and factor 3) the $20.00 per square
mile for a regional system. In calculating JMRL‘s state aid for FY11, the three components entitled
JMRL to a total of $1,030,697, although the 55% funding cap imposed by the 2010 legislature brought
the actual funding down to $572,564.
If Albemarle were operating as a single County library, state aid funding would be reduced due to the
formula that favors regionalization. Using the same formula calculations, the FY11 estimate for
Albemarle would be $328,645, a difference of $702,052 in eligibility for state funds. With the 55%
funding cap, Albemarle would receive $180,755 compared to $572,564 for its regional system or a
funding difference of $391,809. Full calculations for the regional and single county options are included
in the Appendix D.
While the local expenditure cap was increased in 1990 from $150,000 to $250,000, it has not been
adjusted for inflation since. The square mileage and per capita grants have not changed since 1970. Full
funding occurs when the General Assembly allocates sufficient funds to permit each system to claim all
monies due from the combination of local effort (40% or cap of $250,000), per capita, and square miles
served.
Chart 29
Chart 29 to the left shows the gap between fund
eligibility and actual funding from 1992 to 2002.
FY2001 was the only year that full funding was
achieved.
Since 2002 the gap has widened significantly. In
FY11, actual state funding was only 55% of
eligibility and the percentage for the FY12
budget is currently projected to be 54.6% or
lower. Estimates show that the gap between full
funding (code eligibility) and actual state funding
between FY2000 and FY2008 has cost local
libraries $32.3 million in lost revenues. In FY11,
libraries were eligible under the state formula to $26.3 million, but actual funding was only $16.3 million,
a $9.9 million dollar gap which is not expected to narrow.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 34 January, 2011
Chart 30
State Library Board Standards
To insure that Virginia libraries are up to a minimum standard in order to receive state aid, the State
Library Board has developed a set of standards that are used to measure every aspect or function of a
local library‘s programs and resources. There are 11 major categories of standards upon which a Virginia
library is judged with multiple criteria under each category: Governance and Administration, Funding and
Administration, Public Relations, Resources, which includes Staff Level, Staff Development and
Volunteers, Collections, Facilities, Technology, Services, which includes access and services, Information
Services, Programs, Services to Targeted Groups.
In order to receive state-aid, a library or a library system must provide the minimum standards at level
A. JMRL meets the minimum standards set at Level A and most standards set at Level AA. Their five
year plan includes many goals with the objective of reaching level AA in all categories.
With the number of standards, it is not possible within the confines of this study to show where JMRL
is on all them. More detailed information on the Standards can be found in the Appendix.
The following Chart 31 does shows how JMRL meets some of the major ones at the Level A, minimum
level standard or Level AA, strong level on all qualities .
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 35 January, 2011
Chart 31
Although state data lags behind by several years, the relative numbers still provide a sense of where
JMRL resides on the Level A or Level AA scale. From the chart, JMRL is below the Level A minimum
level standard on a number of the financial indicators shown in pink above, but at level A or above on
other local funds and state aid. JMRL is at Level A or slightly above in FTE‘s per capita, professional
staff per capita, items per capita and unduplicated service hours. JMRL meets the Level II Standard on
two items, public workstations per population and per capita program attendance.
JMRL Library Space/Capital Needs
State Standards also apply to per capita square footage minimum requirements for public library
facilities in Virginia. Level A or the minimum standard is .6 square feet per capita, while the Level II or
recommended level is .7 square feet per capita. Chart 32
State Standards for Facilities JMRL A AA AAA
population up to 25,000 .6 sq with .8 desired .9 sf 1.0 sf
population up to 25,001 - 100,000 .6 sf .8 sf 1.0 sf
population 100,101 - 500,000 .6 sf .7 sf 1.0 sf
STANDARDS FOR VIRGINIA PUBLIC LIBRARIES - Based on FY06 data
MEASURE OR STANDARD JMRL Level A Level AA Level AAA
Local Public Funds 77%88%
Other local funds 5%4%
state aid 12%7%
Federal funds 1%2%
Other grants 5%6%
Operating Exp per capita 0.28$ 0.32$
Local Operating exp per capita 0.26$ 0.30$
% expenditure for staff 63%66%
% Expenditure for Collections 13%14%
% Other 24%20%
FTE's per capita 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6
Professional staff per 25,000 pop 3.5 2.5 4.5 6.5
% of budget allocated to staff development 0.56%1.00%2.00%
Items per capita in collection for 100,000 to 750,000 pop 2.6 2.0 3 4
Percent of op budget to purchase collection materials 13%.15 - .20
1 public workstation per population number 1900 3000 2000 1000
Unduplicated service hours 43 40 with 3 68 (20 are 76 (7days/wk;
consecutive evenings and 4 evenings
evening hrs weekends
Percent of population registered for library card 50%25%40%60%
Average wait time (mnutes) for computer workstations 30 20 10
Program attendance per capita 0.2 0.15 0.2 no waiting lists
Below Minimum Standard Level A Minimum Standard Level AA Strong Standard
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 36 January, 2011
Currently, JMRL has 91,955 square feet of library space with a 2009 service population of 202,121.
This translates to .46 square feet per capita, which is less than the minimum state requirement of .6 sq.
ft.
Chart 33 below shows the State Standards Level A minimum square footage of .6 sq. ft. per capita,
which would require JMRL to add 29,278 sq. ft. of library space to meet the space needs for its service
area. Using the commonly accepted standard of .7 sq. ft. per capita or the Level AA State Standard
(used in both prior planning studies), JMRL would need 49,490 additional square feet.
Chart 33
Albemarle Library Space Needs
Albemarle County, assuming that it uses 50% of Central Library space and 50% at Gordon Avenue
Library, has a total of 39,427sq. feet of space in its libraries, i.e. Central, Gordon, Northside, Crozet
and Scottsville. With a 2009 population of 95,247, Albemarle has a current deficit of 17,711 sq. ft. of
space using the Level A minimum state requirement. Using the State Standard, Level AA, which is the
recommended standard used in prior studies, the County has a deficit of 27,236 square feet of library
space. See Chart 34 below.
Chart 34
Current Albemarle Square Feet Current Space Requirements
Central (50%)14,500 Level A Minium per capita Sq.ft.0.6
Gordon (50%)3,697 Minimum Square Feet 57,148
Northside 15,572 Deficit 17,711
Crozet 1,728
Scottsville 3,940
Total 39,437 Level AA Recommened Standard 0.7
Albemarle 2009 Population 95,247 Desired Square Feet 66,673
Current Sq.Ft Per Capita 0.41 Deficit 27,236
Current JMRL Library Square Feet Current Space Requirements
Central 29,000 Level A Minium per capita Sq.ft.0.6
Gordon 7,394 Minimum Square Feet 121,273
Northside 15,572 Deficit 29,278
Crozet 1,728
Scottsville 3,940
Greene 15,000 Level AA Recommended Standard 0.7
Louisa 15,000 Desired Square Feet 141,485
Nelson 4,361 Deficit 49,490
Total 91,995
JMRL 2009 Population 202,121
Current Sq. Ft. Per Capita 0.46
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 37 January, 2011
To address Albemarle‘s lack of adequate facility space, there are two important library studies that
were undertaken for Albemarle, which form the background or rationale for the proposed library
facilities in the county‘s long-range Capital Needs Assessment. The first study, the 1999 Building
Assessment Report, was completed by library staff and city and county planning staff. This study was
important because it looked not only at current library space, but it identified current and future library
facilities that would serve specific neighborhoods and rural areas in the comp plan.
The 1999 study used the library planning standard or target of a minimum of .7 square feet per capita
and a minimum of 4500 square feet for any branch library. The study also assumed a Level III minimum
collection requirement of 4 items per capita.
The 1999 study concluded that, to bring Albemarle up to full capacity (square footage at .7 and a
collection of .4 items per capita), library services should be expanded in the Route 29 corridor with
either one large facility or 2 small facilities. It also recommended that a new facility be built in Crozet
to replace the current train station and that another new branch was needed to address the population
growth south of the City, i.e. Mill Creek, Lakeside and Lake Reynovia. The study also recommended a
small expansion to Scottsville to bring it up to the minimum space requirement for a branch library of
4500 sq. feet.
Following this study, in 2001 Train and Partners prepared a Facility Planning Study that again looked at
the square footage needs and concluded that the County‘s population had outpaced the library‘s physical
facilities and there was a need to upgrade and increase the square footage of the branch libraries.
The Train study recommended the following in this order:
1. Build a 15,000 square foot library in Crozet
2. Build an additional Northern Facility of 25,000 square feet near Airport Road that would include
5,000 square feet for regional operations and the bookmobile (lease on current Northside would
be retained for 5 years)
3. Renovate the Central Library (with the City)
4. Build a 15,000 square foot Southside Library near Mill Creek
5. Replace current Northside lease with a new 20,000 square foot branch facility near Agnor-Hurt
on Berkmar Drive area.
6. Moderate expansion of Scottsville to come up to minimum square footage of 7,500 sq ft, an
additional 3,560 square feet.
The County‘s previous CIP‘s basically followed these recommendations, although for the Northern 29
library, the County determined that it was more cost effective to build one main branch at 40,000‘,
rather than two smaller libraries at 25,000‘ and 20,000‘. The Crozet Library is now 23,000 sq. ft., not
15,000 and Scottsville is 4540 sq. ft. not the 7500 recommended in the study. Due to the current fiscal
crisis, all library projects, except Crozet Library, are no longer in the CIP but have been pushed into
the out years until the County undertakes a new Capital Needs Assessment.
Chart35 below shows the impact of both the Crozet Library and the proposed Northern Library on the
square footage requirements. With the Crozet Library in place, the County‘s square foot per capita
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 38 January, 2011
would increase to 0.51; with a new Northern Library, the County‘s per capita sq. ft. would be at the
recommended level of 0.72
Chart 35
Chart 36 below shows the impact on square footage if the County were to withdraw from the JMRL
system and lose the space at Central and Gordon Avenue Libraries in the City. Current space without
Central and Gordon would be at .22 sq. ft. per capita, half of what Albemarle has now. Even with the new
Crozet Library and the Northern Library, in 2020 the County would still be below the .6 sq. ft. minimum
at 0.57. Only by building a Southern Urban Branch with 15,000 square feet would the County be above
the minimum and at the recommended level with 0.69 sq. ft. in 2020. Without building a Southern Urban
Library, the sq. ft. per capita would be down to 0.52 by 2030.
Chart 36
Proposed Library Facilities
Albemarle County Space Current With new With new With Expanded
Space Crozet Library Northern Library Scottsville
2010 2020 2020 2030
Central (50%)14,500 14,500 14,500 14,500
Gordon (50%)3,697 3,697 3,697 3,697
Northside 15,600 15,600 0 0
Northern Library 0 40,000 40,000
Crozet 1,900 23,000 23,000 23,000
Southern Urban
Scottsville 3,900 3,900 3,900 4,540
Total Square Feet 39,597 60,697 85,097 85,737
Minimum Sq. ft. @.6 0.42 0.51 0.72 0.66
Proposed Library Facilities
Albemarle County Space Current With new With new With New Without
Without City Facilities Space Crozet Library Northern Library Southern Urban Southern Urban
2010 2020 2020 2020 2030
Central (50%)0 0 0 0
Gordon (50%)0 0 0 0
Northside 15,600 15,600 0 0 0
Northern Library 0 40,000 40,000 40,000
Crozet 1,900 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000
Southern Urban 15,000 0
Scottsville 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900
Total Square Feet 21,400 42,500 66,900 81,900 66,900
Minimum Sq. ft. @.6 0.22 0.36 0.57 0.69 0.52
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 39 January, 2011
Proposed Library Capital Projects
The following section describes the library capital projects that, with the exception of Crozet, have
been moved into the out year Capital Needs Assessment, FY16 – FY20.
Chart 37
Crozet Library - FY12-13
The proposed Crozet Library will be a 23,000 square foot LEED certified building that will serve as an
anchor for a revitalized downtown , an identified need from the Crozet master planning process. It will
be an expanded 2-story building with library function on the 18,000 square foot upper floor and 4,743‘
on the bottom floor to accommodate a yet-to-be-determined county and community use. This first floor
space will serve as future library expansion space. The Library (Friends of the Library) will fund the
book expenses and ½ of the furniture and fixtures. The County has spent $1.15 million to acquire parcels
and design services to date.
Northern Albemarle Library FY16 – FY20
The long range plan had proposed a 40,000‘ facility with 30,000 sq ft and 10,000 sq ft for system
operations and the bookmobile. This library will replace the current Northside branch and will be the
main library for northern Albemarle, as well as the regional headquarters. The new library will house
61,161 new books for its collection.
The Northside lease expires in 2014. For a projected cost of $13 million, annual debt service would be
approximately $1.3 million. The current rent for Northside is $264,724 per year, so the net additional
cost to build the new facility would be $1,043,726 per year, not taking into consideration rent increases
over that same 20-year period. Construction costs for these improvements will be shared with the City
based on circulation.
Central Library Renovations FY16 – FY20
The long-range plan had proposed to renovate the Central Library facility to be more adaptable to
technology needs with better access to books and computers. However, renovation to the Central
Library cannot begin until the new Northside facility is completed, since Technical Services,
Administration and Bookmobile services would need to move to Northside in order to start work on
Central. Renovation costs for these improvements will again be shared with the City based on
circulation.
Capital Improvement Library Projects
Crozet Northern Central Southern Scottsville Total
Library Albemarle Renovation Urban Renovation
Proposed Fiscal Year FY12/13 FY16-FY20 FY16-FY20 FY16-FY20 FY16-FY20
Additional Square Feet 23,000 40,000 0 15,000 600 78,600
Capital costs 9,027,762 13,084,497 7,443,868 10,181,271 2,245,294 41,982,692
New Collection (books)80,000 61,160 0 46,150 4,200 191,510
Annual Debt Service 902,775 1,308,450 744,390 1,018,125 224,530 4,198,270
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 40 January, 2011
Southern Urban Area Library FY16 – FY20
The long-range plan had proposed to build a 15,000 ‗ branch library near Mill Creek to serve Urban
Neighborhoods 4 and 5 and ½ of rural area 4. Both the 1999 and 2001 library space studies identified
this growing area of the County as being underserved by library services. The new library will have a
collection of 46,150 books. The Southern library branch could be built on county-owned property near
the Monticello Fire Station.
Scottsville - FY16 – FY20
The Scottsville library currently has 3940 sq. ft. of space, which is below the state minimum standard of
4500‘ for a branch library. This planned expansion of 600‘ will bring the library up to 4540‘. The current
library space will also be renovated and the library collection will be expanded by 4,200 new books.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 41 January, 2011
Major Study Findings
One of the major objectives of this study was to provide broad background information, so Board
members would have a better understanding of the library and the services provided to its residents. A
second objective was a better understanding of the costs of providing library services and how JMRL
compared with other similar libraries around the state. The third was to provide some understanding of
the state mandates and standards and how the state dollars are allocated. Another objective was to
provide an understanding of the impact of future library space needs on the County‘s CIP. The final
objective was to determine if a different structure or type of library system might be more effective
and efficient and whether that would mean pulling out of the regional system and setting up an
Albemarle County library system
Contractual Obligations
Albemarle operates under a 1991 Agreement that allocates costs to each regional partner based
on circulation. Of the peer regional libraries, two allocate by circulation and one by population.
Cost allocation under the Agreement is based on each locality‘s circulation, although Albemarle is
bearing a greater percentage of costs due to the current practice of allocating all out-of-area
circulation to Albemarle‘s share.
The Agreement does not speak to levels of service or costs contracted by each locality except
for vague language, ―the Library Board shall provide and regulate library services to its
residents..... consistent with the wishes of the governing bodies of those jurisdictions.‖
Under the agreement, Albemarle must give 2 years notice if it wants to withdraw. A joint
committee is appointed by all the jurisdictions to decide on the distribution or allocation of
buildings, books, furnishing and equipment.
The assessed value of Central Library is $3.2 million and Gordon is $2.2 million for the building
only (land reverts to Perry Foundation). The appointed committee would also decide on the
allocation of these property assets.
The Agreement does not speak to out-of-area circulation, which is an increasing segment of the
region‘s circulation.
Level of service
JMRL provides an efficient and effective library system overall when compared to other
localities despite having one of the lowest per capita funding levels and the lowest number of
staff per capita.
In major performance measures of library visits, collection size, print materials, computer usage,
and number of libraries, JMRL has been able to maintain a comparable level with its peer
localities with less resources.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 42 January, 2011
JMRL falls significantly below the median of peer localities in video and audio materials,
reference transactions, weekly hours, library programs and program attendance, number of
computer terminals and staffing.
Albemarle has increasingly the highest circulation per capita in our region, but not among its peer
localities, i.e. Albemarle 8.96 to 12 median for other localities. However, Albemarle is still above
the state average and median, 7.28 and 5.57 respectively.
Fiscal Measures
In resource capacity, JMRL falls below the median of its peer localities in local revenue and total
revenue per capita, but above the median in per capita State and Federal revenues.
On the expenditure side, JMRL is below the median of its peer localities in the money it spends
on the material collection, staff expenditures relative to total expenditures and total operating
expenditures.
JMRL falls below the minimum state standards in local public funds, operating expenditures per
capita, local operating expenditures per capita, federal and other grant funds, percent
expenditures on staff and percent expenditures on collection.
The JMRL budget has increased on average 6.2% a year since FY04 with benefits and salaries
increasing 11% and 5% a year respectively. The operational budget has seen modest increases at
4% a year.
The Library has taken action to reduce the benefit costs, which have increased by only .6% since
FY09.
Mandates and Receipt of State Assistance
JMRL meets all the state requirements for state aid.
The State Library Board requirement that local library funding must be equal or greater each
year has had no impact on the localities that have reduced library funding over the past three
years.
State assistance favors a regional approach. JMRL currently receives the largest grant in the
state. Albemarle would receive less dollars per capita if it was a county library system.
JMRL meets the minimum state standards or Level A in programmatic areas, but falls below the
state standards in level of public funding, total and local operating expenses per capita and
percent operating expenditures for staff and collection purchases.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 43 January, 2011
Comparison of our model with other peer communities
There are four different models among the peer groups: a regional approach similar to JMRL with
costs based on circulation; a single county library which is operated much like a department of
local government; a single county or jurisdiction approach with shared circulation, i.e. Roanoke
County; a regional system where the locality pays directly for the maintenance and upkeep costs
for its own buildings, i.e. custodial, painting, general maintenance, etc.
Some regional library boards have BOS or executive staff as members.
All peer libraries have substantially reduced their library budgets over the past three years using
different approaches. Some were given a reduction target and some self-imposed reductions to
address revenue shortfalls. Some made across the board reductions and some reduced services
within a specific jurisdiction depending on that locality‘s budget allocation.
Although peer localities significantly reduced their library budgets, state funding was not
reduced or withheld.
Most peer localities work with library staff and board members on budget issues prior to the
actual budget discussion.
Impact of Library Capital Projects
Albemarle currently has 0.41 square feet of library space per capita, which is under the
recommended standard of 0.7 sq. ft. per capita, as well as the state minimum of 0.6 sq. ft. per
capita. To attain these standards, the County would need to add 17,711 sq. ft or 27,236 sq. ft.
respectively.
There are four library capital projects in the prior long-range Capital Needs Assessment:
Northern Albemarle, Central Renovation, Southern Urban and Scottsville for total capital costs
of $38.1 million.
With the addition of Crozet Library, the County will have 0.51 sq. ft. of space per capita: with a
new Northern Albemarle Library, Albemarle would attain the recommended standard of 0.72 sq.
ft. per capita.
Crozet Library and a New Northern Library will provide an additional 63,000 sq. ft of library
space at a cost of $22.1 million in capital costs and annual debt service of approximately $2.21
million.
Options for Albemarle
Does this information show that the County could provide better services on its own at a lower cost than
a regional library? No, the data does not show that. Some regional libraries provide many more services
per capita than JMRL, but at a much higher cost per capita. Per capita costs for the county only
libraries in this study do not show that they can provide better services at a lower cost than the
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 44 January, 2011
regional libraries. Even in the county systems with a lower per capita cost, i.e., Chesterfield, Roanoke
and Fauquier, there are a number of off-budget operating costs incurred by the localities that are not
included in the comparative numbers. In order to make a true comparison, those costs would have to be
part of the analysis.
Advantages of a County library system:
County would have control over library programs and services and the mix of library hours and
programs that fit their budget limitations. This assumes that the County maintains the Level A
minimum standards for Virginia libraries.
There is no requirement to have a Library Board, so Albemarle could operate a library system like
a county department.
The County could use current county systems, i.e., HR, payroll, purchasing, custodial, maintenance
and technology infrastructure, although there would still be a cost to the County.
Disadvantages of a County library system:
The County would receive less state funding as shown in the state funding scenarios. However,
the importance of this will depend on the future of state library funding, which has been on a
downward trend.
The County, as a single entity library, would not have access to the larger collection of materials,
i.e., books, audio, video and electronic books, that are now afforded to Albemarle citizens by the
regional library. Albemarle‘s current collection, assuming 50% of Central and 50% of Gordon and
the other branch libraries, is approximately 251,000 items or half of the regional collection.
Albemarle would have significant start-up costs to implement an independent library system, i.e.
delivery system, record keeping, on-line technology system, as well as additional volumes for the
County‘s collection. There could also be significant buy-out costs for employees currently on the
City‘s retirement system, as well as costs associated with moving employees to the County‘s
health insurance.
Albemarle County does not have the needed library space for its residents without Central and
Gordon Avenue Libraries. With 95,000 citizens, Albemarle is about 18,000 square feet shy of
meeting the .6 minimum sq. ft. requirements for libraries. Without Central and Gordon, Albemarle
would be almost 36,000 sq ft short of the minimum or about .2 sq. ft. per capita. Currently there
is no library space for Albemarle County residents who live east or south of the City or Ivy area
residents except at Central and Gordon Avenue branches.
Albemarle County would lose 18,000 square feet of library space at Central and Gordon that has
already been paid for in exchange for incurring additional debt at a time when capital funds are
limited. Building the Northern Albemarle Library could cost $14.9 million with $1.0 million in
annual debt service. Even if $2.7 million in land and building assets from Central and Gordon
libraries could be used to offset the capital costs, the additional debt service would be $820,
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 45 January, 2011
000 a year. More importantly, even if additional library space is built on 29 North, it will not be
easily accessible to County residents who live east or south of the city.
Unknowns of a County library system
Should the County decide to pull out of the regional library agreement, the ―distribution or allocation of
buildings, books, furnishings and equipment shall be negotiated by a joint committee appointed by all the
participating jurisdictions. However, any library books or other media, permanently assigned to any particular local
collection at the time that negotiation for dissolution begins, shall remain in the jurisdiction responsible for that
local collection for its use or disposal.‖
Dependent on the decisions of a joint committee, there are many unknowns and unanswered questions:
How would the County‘s assets be divided? The County and City jointly own Central Library
(assessed value $3.2 million), but how would the furniture, equipment, collection, computers, etc.
be divided?
No deed of record to the County has been found for the Gordon Avenue Library (building value,
$2.2 million) and the land reverts back to the Perry Foundation if not used as a library or a park.
If ownership is unclear, would Albemarle receive half the assets of Gordon Avenue upon
dissolution?
If the County had its own system of branch libraries, how would County residents be restricted
from using Central Library when it is the closest branch to where they live? How will County
residents continue to use the Central or Gordon Library during the hours they work downtown or
near the University?
If heavy County usage continues at Central and Gordon Libraries, would JMRL charge the County
for out-of-area users based on circulation, as Chesterfield does with Richmond? If such an
agreement was in place, would Albemarle‘s costs for Central and Gordon be similar to what they
are now? Or would JMRL consider County residents out-of-area users and charge them a fee?
Would some County residents (eastern, southern and Ivy) be charged a fee to use a library in the
City, while other County residents had free access to a library?
Estimating the true cost of setting up a separate library system is uncertain at this point without
more detailed information about start up costs, economies of scale and service levels, as well as a
better understanding of Albemarle‘s peer counties off-budget expenditures that support their
library operations.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 46 January, 2011
Recommendations
Organizational
The Regional Library Agreement needs to be updated. It has not been reviewed since 1991 and it should
be reviewed at least every 5 years. There are a number of amendments that could improve the
agreement:
1. Further evaluate Out-of-Area Assessment and strive to achieve more equitable allocation of
these costs among all JMRL users.
2. Consider charging out-of-area users for use of library services if a more equitable allocation
methodology is not achieved.
3. Further evaluate funding formula for regional services.
4. Formalize cost allocation formula between City and County for Monticello Avenue, McIntire
Library and the Bookmobile through formal written agreement with the City pursuant to the
JMRL Agreement.
5. Consider making annual appropriations by Regional Services, City/County and County-only
categories rather than one lump sum annual appropriation.
6. Provide clear direction related to roles and responsibilities for appointed Library Board
Representatives.
7. Consider changing the number of Board members so Albemarle has greater representation for its
share of circulation. Currently, the City and County have an equal number of representatives
although the County has twice the population, generates 65% of the overall circulation for the
system and correspondingly contributes almost 60% of the cost of JMRL operations.
Budget Process
The budget process might be less acrimonious and more aligned with the County‘s wishes and needs if
the following suggestions were implemented:
1. Modify JMRL budget document to mirror County format:
a. Staffing levels by functional area
b. Actual expenditures
c. Total revenues to include contributions and donations – Friends of the Library
d. More detailed description of major budget variances and identification of core vs.
enhanced services.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 47 January, 2011
2. County staff (administrators or budget staff) should establish an official meeting with the
library staff and library board members way ahead of the start of the budget process (October)
to discuss budget issues and agree on a budget target.
3. Agree upon important library performance measures to be included in the County‘s performance
management system for review during budget discussions. Examples from other localities are
included in Appendix F.
4. Include more budget and performance information in the budget for the Board‘s review in
approving funding. Currently, the library with its $3.2 million dollar cost to the taxpayer is
included as a single line-item expenditure along with other smaller community agencies ranging
from $2,500 to $30,000 with the exception of the Visitor‘s Bureau with no explanation of the
library‘s performance and/or budget needs. If library service is an important function of local
government, the library should then be afforded more space with more scrutiny, accountability
and attention similar to a department of government, rather than a small community agency.
Other localities include more detailed analyses of their library budgets and their performance in
their budget documents.
5. The Library Board and its staff need to recognize that the County‘s current fiscal crisis severely
curtailed its ability to fund, not only its own services, but services provided by community
agencies and organizations. Funding reductions were recommended across county government and
community agencies, not only to JMRL. This report showed that other libraries across the state,
whether they were regional or county, responded to their localities fiscal crises by cutting
programs, hours, staff, etc. and that library services like all community services were adjusted to
meet the current economic reality. The Library Board should work with the Board of Supervisors
and County staff to develop a budget request that meets the library‘s needs, as well as the
County‘s fiscal constraints.
Capital Facilities
1. Continue to monitor and evaluate capital needs for County library services as they relate to
evolving changes in technology (on-line transactions, downloadable books/self-check out kiosks),
as well as the need for continued investment in downtown library facilities once County facilities
are constructed at Crozet, Northside and Southern Development Area. Library buildings may still
be needed, but the increasing use of on-line technology to access books and reference materials
may have a major impact on the use and configuration of future library space.
2. Explore realistic options for expanding library space at Northside or building a northern or
southern urban library before deciding to break from JMRL and the space offered at Central and
Gordon Libraries, space that is heavily used by County residents.
3. Since 26% of Scottsville‘s circulation and much of its growth is attributed to out-of-area users,
particularly Fluvanna, agreement with Fluvanna on shared costs may be in order prior to the
Scottsville expansion.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 48 January, 2011
Appendix A. JMRL 1991 Amended Agreement
Appendix B Out-of-Area Library Use 2006
Appendix C Description of Albemarle‘s Regional Library System
Appendix D Calculation of State Funding for Regional Libraries
Appendix E State Library Standards
APPENDIX
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 49 January, 2011
Appendix F Peer County Performance Measures
Appendix A – 1991 JMRL Agreement
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 50 January, 2011
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 51 January, 2011
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 52 January, 2011
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 53 January, 2011
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 54 January, 2011
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 55 January, 2011
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 56 January, 2011
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 57 January, 2011
Appendix B
Out-of-Area Library Use 2006
Number of out-of-area users registered at JMRL:
Nearby Jurisdictions…………Fluvanna 2450
Amherst 201 (2007)
Buckingham 576
Orange 376
Madison 299
Waynesboro 104
Augusta 99
Subtotal 4105
All Other Virginia 345
GRAND TOTAL OUT-OF-AREA 4450
Number of JMRL residents registered at other libraries:
Nearby Jurisdictions…….…Waynesboro 1143 (75% Nelson, 15% Albemarle)
Amherst 900 (Nelson County only)
Pamunkey 767 (Louisa County only)
Orange 750 (estimate)
Augusta 500 (estimate)
Fluvanna 350 (estimate—mostly Scottsville & Louisa)
Staunton 50 (estimate)
Buckingham 50
Madison ?
ESTIMATED TOTAL 4510
% of Out-of-Area Circulation (2005):
Scottsville 32.7%
Central 4.7%
Northside 4.6%
Greene 3.4%
Nelson 2.3%
Gordon Ave. 2%
Bookmobile 1.7%
Crozet 1%
Louisa 1%
6/06
Updated to include Amherst 6/07
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 58 January, 2011
Appendix C
Albemarle’s Regional Library System
Central Library
Central Library serves as the administrative headquarters for the library, as well as a full service library
for City and County residents. The City and County purchased the old Post Office and Federal Building
for $250,000 in 1978. After a 17-month
extensive renovation project for the regional
library headquarters and expanded services
costing over $2.25 million ($1,030,143 each from
the County and City and $200,000 from private
donors), the library opened in 1981 after moving
the McIntire collection of 90,000 volumes from
next door. The library was again renovated in
1995 to allow for the opening of a public
computer lab for internet access, as well as the
development of a community information
network, Monticello Avenue. The 2010 City real
estate assessment is Land Value: $869,000, Bldg.Value: $2,350,000 for a total value of $3,219,700.
Central Library has 29,000 sq. feet of usable space, 3 public meeting rooms with a capacity of 115 people
and holds the largest collection of 143,382 items or 29% of the library‘s collection. There are 47
computers for public use in the public lab and in the reference section, which also provides access to
printers and the microfilm collection.
Total circulation at the Main Library is 394,610 or 24.4% of the total circulation of the library system
and 23.8% of Albemarle‘s circulation. Overall circulation has declined 3% since FY04.
Central Library is open 68 hrs. per week, M-Th 9–9, Fri-Sat 9-5, Sun 1-5
The County‘s FY11 cost to operate Central Library is $538,792 based on 60.77% of circulation; the City‘s
cost is $347,817 based on 39.23% of circulation. There are 28.42 FTE at Central Library
Gordon Avenue Library
Gordon Avenue Library opened in 1966, the
first major addition to library services with
construction funded jointly by the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County. At the
time, Gordon Avenue was needed to serve a
growing population west of the city and to ease
crowded conditions at the McIntire Library
(prior to the purchase and renovation of the
Central Library in 1977). The Perry Foundation
donated the site to the City, as well as 45% of
the construction costs. Federal Library Aid
through the state funded $120,262.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 59 January, 2011
Charlottesville and Albemarle County appropriated $75,000 each for the construction and additional
funds were donated by individuals and groups, notably the America Association of University Women and
the Friends of the Library.
If the land is not used for a library or a park, it is returned to the Perry Foundation.
The 2010 City real estate assessment is Land Value: $446,000, Bldg. Value: $2,150,700 for a total value
of $2,596,700.
Total circulation at the Gordon Avenue Library is 183,127 or 11.3% of the total circulation of the library
system and 10.4% of Albemarle‘s circulation. Circulation has increased 11.8% since FY04. There are 10
computers for the public.
The library was designed to hold 25,000 volumes (with an additional 10,000 in the Bookmobile "garage"
downstairs) with three public meeting rooms. The current collection is 67,253 items or 13.4% of total
collection.
Gordon Avenue is open 52 hrs. per week, M 9-9, T 9-6, W 12-9,Th 10-6, Fri-Sat 10-5, no Sun and is
served by 6.47 FTE.
The County‘s FY11 cost to operate Gordon Avenue Library is $185,527 based on 54.9% of circulation; the
City‘s cost is $152,410 based on 45.1% of circulation.
Northside
Northside opened its doors in 1991 in a
15,500-square-foot space in Albemarle
Square Shopping Center that once housed
a discount pharmacy. Albemarle and
Charlottesville funded the renovation at
$210,000. Albemarle Square also
contributed over $100,000 to the
renovation. Grants from the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Foundation and
the Friends of the Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library augmented the
furnishings‘ budget with an additional
$100,000. The library was intended for a
capacity of 100,000 and is now at 102,634 9 (capacity) and reflects 20.45% of the total system
collection. Northside has 1 meeting room with a 75 person capacity.
Total circulation at Northside is 526,961 or 32.54% of the total circulation of the library system and
42% of Albemarle‘s circulation. Circulation has increased 16.3% since FY04.
There are 14 computers for the public.
Northside is open 55 hrs. per week, Sun 1-5 , M,T 12-9, W 10-9, TH 10-6, F 10-5, Sat 10-5 and is served
by 15.96 FTE‘s.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 60 January, 2011
The County‘s FY11 cost to operate Northside Library is $876,619 based on 85.51% of circulation; the
City‘s cost is $148,547 based on 14.49% of circulation.
Crozet
The Crozet Library opened in 1984 in the old railroad depot, which was purchased and restored by the
Perry Foundation. The building was built in 1923 at a cost of $16,000. When the automated catalog and
record-keeping system was installed in 1987, circulation doubled. The collection at Crozet is now 32,960
items or 6.5% of the collection. Circulation is 137,746 or 8.5% of total circulation and 14% of
Albemarle‘s circulation. Circulation has
increased by 48% since FY04 or 8% per
year.
The library is open for 48 hours each week.
M-T 1-9, W-Sat 9-5 Sun none and is served
by a staff of 4.57 FTE.
There are 5 computers available to the
public and a meeting room that seats 25.
Albemarle‘s FY11 cost to operate is
$228,120.
Scottsville
The beginning of the regional library system
has been traced back to a cooperative
venture between Albemarle and
Charlottesville to have a bookmobile go to the
Scottsville school for two hours a week. The
Scottsville Branch Library opened on June 4,
1959, with 1,500 donated books Open for
sixteen hours a week, the new library was
governed by a local board, with rent of the
building and the salary of the branch‘s first
librarian paid by McIntire Library. In
September 1980, the library was hit by
lightning and almost totally destroyed by fire,
so in 1982 ground was broken for a new building at the site of the old one and in 1982, the current 3900
square foot brick colonial building opened.
Scottsville Branch Library has a collection of 19,096 volumes or 3.8% of the total collection. Circulation
is 67,318 or 4.14% of total circulation and 5% of Albemarle‘s circulation. Circulation has increased 19.4%
since FY04. The greatest increase in circulation has been from out-of-area users at 26% of circulation.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 61 January, 2011
Scottsville has 8 computers for the public and has a staff of 3.09 FTE‘s. The library is open 48 hours a
week: M-T 1-9, W-Sat 9-5 . The County‘s FY11 cost to operate the Scottsville Branch Library is
$159,382.
Bookmobile
The Library has offered Bookmobile services since 1946 with its own collection of 1800 to 2000 books
that are carried to each stop. The Bookmobile operates Monday through Thursday in Albemarle County
and has scheduled stops in the City in the afternoons and evenings. Twice a month, the Bookmobile
travels to Louisa County. Patrons can place holds on materials and pick them up at their respective stops.
Patrons may also request materials on particular subjects to be delivered to their stop. Materials
borrowed from the Bookmobile may be returned to any JMRL location and materials from other JMRL
locations may be returned to the Bookmobile.
The new bookmobile valued at $180,000, was purchased in 2005 with funds from Albemarle County, City
of Charlottesville, and Friends of the Library. The City and County share funding for the Bookmobile
based on circulation. The FY11 cost to the County was $64,694 (72%); the City‘s cost was $17,197 (19%).
Louisa County pays $6,900 (7.7%) for two days per month.
The Albemarle County Historical Society Library
The Albemarle County Historical Society Library opened in 1974 at 220 Court Square. The library‘s
collection was consolidated in 1987 with those of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and the
Central Virginia Genealogical Association, to form the Charlottesville-Albemarle Historical Collection.
The collection is housed in the former McIntire Library, extensively restored and renovated in 1994,
and is a branch jointly operated with the Historical Society. Albemarle and Charlottesville share the
cost 50/50 for the operational costs for the Historical Society Library based on an unwritten
agreement. The FY11 cost of operations to each jurisdiction is $37,737.
Mont-AVV
Monticello Avenue is a community information network dedicated to promoting civic use of the World
Wide Web by 1) Assisting community organizations in establishing Web pages; 2) Educating community
members about the resources available and; 3) Organizing the growing amount of electronic community
information.
Through Mont-AVV, people can learn about community‘s government services, school activities and
educational opportunities, local businesses, cultural events, health and human service organizations,
neighborhood associations and religious groups.
Non-profit organizations in Albemarle or Charlottesville are eligible for free space on the community
information server, free email, and free training and tech support. Monticello Avenue is jointly
supported by the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, and the Jefferson-Madison Regional
Library. The server is housed in the Central branch of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library.
In the FY11 budget, the County and the City each contributed $86,145 to maintain the Mont-AVV
program. There has been an informal agreement to share the costs of this program 50/50 with the City,
but it is not part of the formal agreement. To see the site: http://avenue.org/Default.htm
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 62 January, 2011
Appendix D
Step 1
Estimating Locality Expendirues Based on Their Proportional Contribution - using FY06 local expenditures
Percent of
Contribution Contribution Other
Localities to Regional to Regional Regional Unused Total
Served Revenues Revenues Revenues Revenues Expenditures
a b c (a+b) -d
Charlottesville 2,527,089 57.90%360,457 0 2,887,546
Albemarle 1,155,139 26.47%164,766 0 1,319,905
Greene 206,811 4.74%29,499 0 236,310
Louisa 267,858 6.14%38,207 0 306,065
Nelson 207,309 4.75%29,570 0 236,879
Total 4,364,206 622,499 0 4,986,705
622,499
Local
Total Expenditures
Expenditures Grant
d d*0.40 JMRL Local
Charlottesville 2,887,546 250,000 Expenditures Grant
Albemarle 1,319,905 250,000 $811,701
Greene 236,310 94,524
Louiisa 306,065 122,426
Nelson 236,879 94,752
4,986,705 811,701
Step 2 Step 3
Per Capita Grant Calculations Mileage Grant Calculation
JMRL Population -2006 193,037 JMRL Square Mileage 1,861
Number of localities served 5
Number of Localities Served 5
Per Capita Grant Calculation
30 cents per capita for first locality 57,911 Mileage Grant Calculation
(0.30 x 193,037)$10 per square mile for first locality 18,610
($10 x 1,861)
10 cents per capita for each additional $20 per square mile for all additional 37,220
locality (0.10 x 193037) x 4)77,215 localities served $20 x 1,861)
Total Per Capita Grant $135,126 Total Mileage Grant $55,830
Step 4
Final Funding Formula Calculations for Total State Aid
Step 1 - Local Expenditure Grant $811,701
Step 2 - Per Capita $135,126
Step 3 - Mileage Grant $55,830
Criterion 1 - No Certified Librarian Funds
Final State Aid $1,002,657
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 63 January, 2011
Calculations for Albemarle County As a Single County Library System
Step 1
Estimating Locality Expenditures Based on Their Proportional Contribution
FY08 Local Data to Calculate FY11 State Aid
Percent of
Contribution Contribution Other
Localities to Regional to Regional Regional Unused Total
Served Revenues Revenues Revenues Revenues Expenditures
a b c (a+b) -d
Charlottesville 1,287,467 25.03%153,119 115,789 1,324,797
Albemarle 3,041,270 59.12%361,699 273,519 3,129,450
Greene 276,068 5.37%32,833 24,828 284,073
Louisa 307,448 5.98%36,565 27,651 316,362
Nelson 231,776 4.51%27,565 20,845 238,496
Total 5,144,029 611,780 462,632 5,293,178
Local
Total Expenditures
Expenditures Grant
d d*0.40 JMRL Local
Charlottesville 1,324,797 250,000 Expenditures Grant
Albemarle $250,000
Greene 0
Louisa 0
Nelson 0
1,324,797 250,000
Step 2 Step 3
Per Capita Grant Calculations Mileage Grant Calculation
JMRL Population -2008 200,116 JMRL Square Mileage 1,861
Number of localities served 5
Number of Localities Served 5
Per Capita Grant Calculation
30 cents per capita for first locality 60,035 Mileage Grant Calculation
(0.30 x 200,116)$10 per square mile for first locality18,610
($10 x 1,861)
10 cents per capita for each additional $20 per square mile for all additional
locality (0.10 x 200,116) x 4)localities served $20 x 1,861)
Total Per Capita Grant $60,035 Total Mileage Grant $18,610
Step 4
Final Funding Formula Calculations for Total State Aid
Step 1 - Local Expenditure Grant $250,000
Step 2 - Per Capita $60,035
Step 3 - Mileage Grant $18,610
Criterion 1 - No Certified Librarian Funds
Final State Aid Eligibility $328,645
Final State Allocation $180,755 55.00%
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 64 January, 2011
Appendix E
State Standards
Planning for Library Excellence, 2009 sets the standards for library systems across the
Commonwealth and all libraries are expected to meet the minimum or Level A. The history of these
requirements began in January 1978 when the State Library Board approved Recommended Minimum
Standards for Virginia Public Libraries. The five-page document covered staffing, salaries and benefits,
buildings, outlets, collections, reference service, staff development, children‘s services, adult services,
programs, and cooperation. Two additional documents were later approved: Children‘s Service Suggested
Guidelines and Young Adult Services Guidelines for Virginia. In 1982, the Library Development
Committee of the Virginia Library Association started to review the Recommended Minimum Standards.
In 1986, their document was sent to the Library of Virginia Board for consideration. These standards,
Planning for Library Excellence (the blue book), were adopted on November 7, 1987. Chapters included
Administration and Planning, Resources, and Services.
The 1987 edition of Planning for Library Excellence (PLE) established service levels as I, II, III, with
the notation that the levels were intended to provide both incentive and achievability to those goals
where levels were desirable. The 2002 edition of PLE used the terms ―essential, aspiring, and excel for
the guidelines and added planning profiles based on medians.
Planning for Library Excellence, 2009, uses a business model based on the notion of bond ratings, i.e, A,
AA, and AAA, as their ranking system.
A = Investment grade but likely to be subject to changing business conditions. Minimum
standards required for all state funds.
AA = Investment grade at a strong level on all qualities.
AAA = Strongest investment grade and not subject to business cycle extremes.
The 2009 service measures are considered as cumulative. To reach level A (basic and mandated
services), all of the measures must be reached. Levels AA and AAA likewise depend on achieving the
preceding measures. Wherever possible, the measures are progressive. For exa mple: full-time equivalent
staffing levels grow from .3 FTE per 1,000 persons in the library service area at level A to .5 FTE at
level AA and increase to .6 FTE at level AAA.
There are 11 major categories of standards upon which a Virginia library is judged with multiple criteria
under each category: Governance and Administration, Funding and Administration, Public Relations,
Resources, which includes Staff Level, Staff Development and Volunteers, Collections, Facilities,
Technology, Services, which includes access and services, Information Services, Programs, Services to
Targeted Groups.
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 65 January, 2011
Appendix F
Performance Measures – examples from Pamunkey, Stafford and
Henrico
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 66 January, 2011
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 67 January, 2011
Publications and Websites
Budget documents FY09, FY10. FY11: Chesterfield, Fauquier, Hanover, Henrico, James City
County, Roanoke Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties
County of Albemarle, Adopted Budgets – FY 04/05 – FY10/11
County of Albemarle, FY10/11 – FY19/20 Capital Improvement Program
County of Albemarle, Jennifer C. Lyttle, Assistant County Attorney, Memorandum on Regional
Libraries, 11/16/10
Institute of Museum and Library Services- IMLS Library Comparison – Libraries Comparison
Report http://www.imls.gov/
JLARC, Review of State Aid to Libraries July, 2001
http://jlarc.state.va.us/reports/rpt268.pdf
JM RL website; http://jmrl.org/
JMRL, Annual Circulation Reports – FY04 – FY10
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Building Assessment Report, September 1999
Library of Virginia, 2003 - 2008 Statistical Data for Virginia Public Libraries.
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/lib-edu/LDND/libstats/
Planning for Library Excellence - Standards for Virginia Public Libraries, 2009
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/lib-edu/ldnd/standards/PFLE.pdf
Train and Partners Architects, Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Albemarle County Facility
Planning Study, June 2001
VPL Virginia Public Libraries Intranet http://vpl.lib.va.us/
Weldon Cooper ―Population Estimates for Virginia Localities, Planning Districts and Metropolitan
Areas. Final 2008 and Provisional 2009‖; ―Final Population Estimates for 2001-2007, Virginia
Cities and Counties‖
Bibliography
Report on Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Page 68 January, 2011
Other Resources and Interviews
Chesterfield County – Sarah Snead, Deputy County Administrator
Fauquier County - Maria Del Rosso – Library Director
James City County – Sue Mellen, Assistant Finance Manager
Hanover County – John Hodges, Deputy County Administrator
Henrico County - Leon Johnson, Deputy County Administrator and Jerry McKenna, Library
Director
JMRL Library Director – John Halliday
Roanoke County - Diane D. Hyatt, Library Director
Stafford County - Michael Neuhard, Deputy County Administrator
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY2011 2nd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report of cash proffer revenue, expenditures and non-
cash improvements for October – December of 2010.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, and Higgins; and
Ms. McCulley, Ms. Baldwin, and Ms. Ragsdale
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Beginning in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly update on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the
report has been expanded to include updates on non-cash proffer improvements that benefit the County and that mitigate
impacts of development. This report includes proffer activity (both cash and non-cash improvements) for the months of
October through December of 2010 (FY2011 2nd quarter).
DISCUSSION:
Cash Proffers October-December 2010 (2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2011)
Proffered: There were no rezoning requests approved in this quarter that provided new cash proffers.
A. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: Since no new rezonings that increased obligated cash proffers were approved
during the 2nd quarter, the total obligated cash proffers remains the same as last quarter ($38,851,330).
B. Revenue: The County received a total of $47,126 from existing cash proffers during this quarter. The contributions
are from Old Trail ($4,000 for Schools/Parks CIP projects serving Crozet), Poplar Glen ($22,400 for CIP projects
and $16,500 for Affordable Housing), Belvedere ($1,000 for Affordable Housing) and Wickham Pond ($3,226 for
Capital Improvement Projects serving Crozet). Additionally, $9,000 in non-proffered funds was received from
Kenridge as required by the conditions of the special use permit approval for the development.
C. Total Interest Earnings: The amount of interest earned during this quarter from collected cash proffers totaled
$231 bringing the total amount of interest earned on all proffers to $317,743.
D. Expenditures: There were no appropriations of proffer revenue during this quarter.
E. Current Available Funds: As of December 31, 2010, the available cash proffer fund balance is $1,176,854.
Some of those funds were proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within the
CIP (see Attachment A).
Non-Cash Proffers
Proffered: ZMA 2010-00006 Hollymead Town Center, Area A-2, approved on November 10, 2010, was the only rezoning
approved during this quarter. The original rezoning included cash proffers and a number of non-cash proffers that were not
revised with this rezoning approval. The rezoning amended the Code of Development and Application Plan to add an
indoor movie theater as a permitted use and to revise internal circulation with only minor amendments made to the
proffers.
Staff will continue to keep the Board informed on non-cash proffers, including Transportation, Affordable Housing, Parks,
Fire Rescue, Schools and other land dedications. Staff will also include the estimated cash value of non-cash proffers
when reporting to the Board.
During this reporting quarter, the plat for Old Trail Village Block 19, adjacent to the west side of the Brownsville Elementary
and Henley Middle Schools, was approved. This approval triggered a proffer that requires completion of two connections
as shown on the rezoning plan, including a pedestrian pathway and a road/sidewalk connection to the schools. These
connections must be made by June 21, 2011 since the proffer specifies completion within six months of the first plat or site
plan approval. Once the proffer has been completely satisfied, staff will provide the Board with an update and associated
cash value of these improvements.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue that help fund important County projects that would otherwise be funded by
general tax revenue. Non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise be funded by general tax revenue.
AGENDA TITLE: FY2011 2nd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report
February 2, 2011
Page 2
One dedicated full-time staff person continues to monitor and collect proffered funds, improvements and land dedications
with the assistance of other County staff and outside agencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information on proffer activity and no action is required. Staff welcomes any comments for
improvements from the Board that they may wish to see in the future.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A- Cash Proffer Summary October-December 2010 (2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2011)
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT AUPDATED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2010FUND #PROFFER NAMEZMA #'STOTAL ANTICIPATED PROFFER REVENUE2008 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTTOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO CIP/OTHERCURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS*8530 ALBEMARLE PLACE2001-07 2,610,000.00 2,610,000.00 100,000.00 3,666.41(103,666.41)0.008526AVEMORE2000-1050,000.0050,000.0050,000.001,286.43(51,286.43)0.00AVINITY*2006-051,249,500.001,249,500.000.000.000.000.008534AVON PARK2004-0359,000.0059,000.0059,000.005,641.630.0064,641.63AVON PARK II*2007-05408,100.00414,221.500.000.000.000.008536BELVEDERE STATION2004-07400,250.00400,250.0057,250.00759.660.0058,009.66BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING*2007-12286,200.00290,493.000.000.000.000.00CASCADIA2002-04405,000.00405,000.000.000.000.000.008531ECKERD PHARMACY2003-036,000.006,000.000.000.000.000.00FONTANA PHASE 4C*2004-18690,500.00700,857.500.000.000.000.008520GLENMORE1999-16893,000.00893,000.00752,000.00129,920.30(875,364.10)6,556.20PROFFER FUNDS8520GLENMORE1999-16893,000.00893,000.00752,000.00129,920.30(875,364.10)6,556.208521GLENMORE**1999-16569,000.00569,000.00328,700.0056,315.99(375,000.00)10,015.998523 GRAYROCK1997-12 62,500.00 62,500.00 62,500.00 13,197.24 0.0075,697.248539 GREENBRIER2000-06 9,334.00 9,334.00 9,334.00 81.72(9,415.72)0.00HADEN PLACE2005-0782,500.0082,500.000.000.000.000.008532HOLLYMEAD AREA B2001-1950,000.0050,000.0050,000.001,521.85(51,521.85)0.008527 HOLLYMEAD AREA C 2001-20 210,000.00 210,000.00 164,761.85 5,118.00(112,442.36)57,437.498528HOLLYMEAD AREA D2002-02481,000.00481,000.00480,999.6823,823.36(473,712.00)31,111.048545 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1* 2005-15 609,000.00 609,000.00 109,000.00$471.87(28,507.38)80,964.49HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2* 2007-01 14,971,800.00 15,196,377.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00LEAKE*2006-16 2,149,620.00 2,176,993.50 0.00 0.00 0.000.00LIVENGOOD*2006-15 867,095.00 880,101.43 0.00 0.00 0.000.008529 MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE* 2001-15 346,250.00 367,717.50 358,617.50 9,912.96 0.00368,530.46NGIC EXPANSION*2007-03 1,264,800.00 1,264,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.008538NORTH POINTE2000-09460,000.00460,000.00400,000.0028,810.93(400,000.00)28,810.938538NORTH POINTE2000-09460,000.00460,000.00400,000.0028,810.93(400,000.00)28,810.93PATTERSON SUBDIVISION* 2007-11 128,800.00 130,732.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00OAKLEIGH FARM*2007-04 1,494,550.00 1,516,968.25 0.00 0.00 0.000.008537 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE2004-24 2,328,000.00 2,328,000.00 66,000.00 1,845.68(50,000.00)17,845.688546 POPLAR GLEN II2005-1477,800.00 37.85 0.0077,837.85RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE* 2001-08 1,047,000.00 1,062,705.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.008524 SPRINGRIDGE1998-13 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 2,214.97(102,214.97)0.008522 STILL MEADOWS1997-01 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 17,220.78(152,220.78)0.008533 STILLFRIED LANE2003-12 78,000.00 78,000.00 78,000.00 6,245.46 0.0084,245.468525 UVA RESEARCH PARK 1995-04 78,718.00 78,718.00 78,718.00 899.61(79,500.00)117.618535 WESTERN RIDGE2001-02 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,159.12 851.58 0.006,010.70WICKHAM POND II2005-18 405,000.00 405,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.008540 WICKHAM POND2004-17 345,161.67 345,161.67 135,484.02 3,946.28(59,161.00)80,269.30WILLOW GLEN*2006-19 2,907,800.00 2,907,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.008541 WESTHALL (1.1)2006-01 123,000.00 123,000.00 51,000.00 2,766.47 0.0053,766.478542 WESTHALL (1.2)2006-0117,000.00 903.95(7,000.00)10,903.958543 WESTHALL (3.3)2006-013,000.00 162.73 0.003,162.738544 LIBERTY HALL 05-5 & 07-14 137,600.00 137,600.00 60,800.00 119.20 0.0060,919.20TOTAL38,504,078.6738,851,330.353,790,124.17317,742.91(2,931,013.00)1,176,854.08*Current Available Balance includes proffer funds that may have been appropriated for a project but not yet allocated or spent.The proffer report provided on November 3, 2010 incorrectly reflected some appropriated proffer funds as already allocated.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Supervisors
From: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary to Planning Commission
Date: December 22, 2010
Re: Planning Commission Annual Reports
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia says that, among its duties, the Planning Commission
shall, “5. Make . . . an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the
commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction.” While the commission regularly
reports its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and provides the minutes of its meetings
to the board, a formal annual report has not been issued since 2002. Attached you will find
reports summarizing the activities of the commission for each year from 2003 through 2009 as
accepted by the Planning Commission at its December 21, 2010 meeting. Hopefully you will
find this historical information of interest and I am more than happy to answer any particular
questions you might have. I will be providing a 2010 report early in 2011.
2003 Report
2004 Report
2005 Report
2006 Report
2007 Report
2008 Report
2009 Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
2003 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2003.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Bill Edgerton Jack Jouett 1/02 – 12/31/03
Rodney Thomas, Vice Chair
10/7/03 thru 12/31/03
Rio 8/19/98 – 12/31/03
Tracey Hopper, Vice Chair Rivanna 1/00 – 9/30/03 (RESIGNED)
Vacant Rivanna 10/1/03 - 12/31/03
William Rieley, Chair Samuel Miller 1/98 – 12/31/03
William B. (Pete) Craddock Scottsville 1/00 – 12/31/03
William Finley White Hall 1/96 – 12/31/03
Jared Loewenstein At-Large 2/96 – 12/31/03
Pete Anderson University of Va. (Non-voting) 7/05/95 – 5/6/03 (RESIGNED)
2003 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = __43_____
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
4 3 0 1
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA)
0 0 0 0
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
1 0 0 1
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP)
4 4 0 0
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA)
21 8 3 10
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Special Use Permit (SP) 112 83 5 23 (and 1
withdrawn)
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP)
6 4 0 2
Final Site Plan (SDP) 1 1 0 0
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB)
4 3 0 1
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 1 1 0 0
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP)
2 2 0 0
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 4 3 1 0
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB)
3 2 1 0
Critical Slopes Waiver
(separate action)
3 2 1 0
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD)
2 2 0 0
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP)
2 2 N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) 4 4 N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB)
5 5 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 3 3 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP)
2 2 N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 18 18 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB)
5 5 N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD)
2 2 N/A N/A
PC Minutes (N/A) 38 38 N/A N/A
Other – (Annual
Report)
1 1 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
15
N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA)
5 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
1 N/A N/A N/A
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP)
1 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA)
13 N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit (SP) 11 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
0 N/A N/A N/A
Other 9 N/A N/A N/A
2003 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included Mountain Protection Plan, Community Facilities Plan,
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan, Pantops Road Network, Affordable Housing, Rural Areas
and Crozet Master Plan, including boundary changes
ZTAs considered included Relegated Parking and Personal Wireless Service facilities
STAs considered included Comprehensive Changes to the Subdivision Ordinance
CCPs considered included the 5th Street County Office Building and the Rt. 662 relocation
ZMAs considered included Hollymead Town Center Areas A, B, C and D, Fontaine Ave. Condos, Sandy
Lane, Martha Jefferson Hospital, Albemarle Place, North Pointe, Pantops Ridge, Glenwood Station and
The Meadows
SPs considered included Townwood Mobile Home Park, Old Trail Golf Course, White Gables, Browns
Auto Park, ECC towers, Charlottesville Waldorf School, Cedar Hill Mobile Home Estates
SDPs considered included Faulconer Construction and Blue Ridge Shopping Center
Special Project Work Sessions held included the CIP, Historic Country Stores, Development Department
re-organization and the 6 Year Secondary Plan
Go to next report
Return to memo
2004 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2004.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Bill Edgerton Jack Jouett 1/02 – 12/31/04
Rodney Thomas, Chair Rio 8/19/98 – 12/31/04
Calvin Morris Rivanna 1/04 – 12/31/04
William Rieley Samuel Miller 1/98 – 12/31/04
William B. (Pete) Craddock,
Vice Chair
Scottsville 1/00 – 12/31/04
Jo Higgins White Hall 1/04 – 12/31/04
Marcia Joseph At-Large 1/04 – 12/31/04
David Neuman University of Va. (Non-voting) 6/2/04 – 12/31/04
2004 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = __42_____
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
4 3 0 1
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA)
8 6 0 2
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
4 2 0 2
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP)
0 0 0 0
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA)
22 9 2 11
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Special Use Permit (SP) 53 40 1 11 (and 1
withdrawn)
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP)
2 1 1 0
Final Site Plan (SDP) 3 3 0 0
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB)
15 8 3 4
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 3 1 1 1
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP)
2 1 0 1
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 2 1 1 0
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB)
1 1 0 0
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD)
9 7 0 2
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP)
0 0 N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) 2 2 N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB)
0 0 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 6 6 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP)
0 0 N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 9 9 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB)
1 1 N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD)
3 3 N/A N/A
PC Minutes 47 47 N/A N/A
Other 3 3 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
12 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA)
4 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
1 N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP)
0
N/A N/A N/A
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA)
8 N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit (SP) 4 N/A N/A N/A
Other 16 N/A N/A N/A
2004 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included Crozet Master Plan, Rural Areas, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenway Plan,
Community Facilities Plan, Pantops, 5thStreet/Avon and Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan
ZTAs considered included personal wireless service facilities, relegated parking, cluster developments,
groundwater, Monticello Historic District, signs, historic centers and community centers and Flood
Hazard Overlay
STAs considered included comprehensive changes to the subdivision ordinance
ZMAs considered included Belvedere, Rio East, Rio Hills, Glenwood Station, Stillfried Lane Townhomes,
Avon Park, Fontaine Ave. Condos, The Meadows, Mountain Valley Farm and Briarwood
SPs considered included Crozet Commons, Kappa Sigma Headquarters, The Rocks, Lewis and Clark
Center and Kenridge
SDPs considered included Blue Ridge Shopping Center, Faulconer Construction and Gazebo Plaza
SUBs considered included Orchard Estates, Meadow Estates and Blenheim Estates
Special Project Work Sessions held included UnJam, the CIP, Community Recreation Needs, the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District and the 6 Year Secondary Plan
Go to next report
Return to memo
2005 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2005.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Bill Edgerton, Chair Jack Jouett 1/02 – 12/31/05
Rodney Thomas Rio 8/19/98 – 12/31/05
Calvin Morris Rivanna 1/04 – 12/31/05
William Rieley Samuel Miller 1/98 – 12/31/05
William B. (Pete) Craddock Scottsville 1/00 – 12/31/05
Jo Higgins White Hall 1/04 – 12/31/05
Marcia Joseph, Vice Chair At-Large 1/04 – 12/31/05
David Neuman University of Va. (Non-voting) 6/2/04 – 12/31/05
2005 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = _43__
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
3 2 0 1
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA)
10 7 1 2
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
0 0 0 0
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP)
1 1 0 0
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA)
34 15 3 16
Special Use Permit (SP) 69 40 1 28
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP)
3 1 0 2
Final Site Plan (SDP) 7 7 0 0
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB)
12 11 0 1
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 3 2 0 1
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP)
2 2 0 0
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 7 6 0 1
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB)
2 2 0 0
Critical Slopes Waiver
(separate action)
0 0 0 0
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD)
1 1 0 0
OTHER 3 3 0 0
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP)
0 0 N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) 0 0 N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB)
0 0 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 1 1 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP)
0 0 N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 16
16 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB)
6 6 N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD)
2 2 N/A N/A
PC Minutes (N/A) 41 41 N/A N/A
Other – (Annual
Report)
5 5 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
8
N/A N/A N/A
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA)
6 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
0 N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP)
0 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA)
5 N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit 0 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
0 N/A N/A N/A
Other 9 N/A N/A N/A
2005 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included the Dickerson Road Affordable Housing, Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport
Master Plan, the Stormwater Master Plan, Places 29, Transportation Plan, Growth Management and
Southern Urban Area B
ZTAs considered included Signs, Historic Center and Community Center, Monticello Historic District,
Airport Impact Area, Special Events, Setbacks, Outdoor Lighting, EC District Addition and Rural Areas
Implementation
ZMAs considered included Glenwood Station, Belvedere, Luxor Commercial, Rivanna Village at
Glenmore, Wickham Pond, Old Trail Village, Haden Place, UVa Research Park, HTC Area A, Pantops Park
and Woodbrook Station
SPs considered included Kenridge, Car Max and the Lewis and Clark Center
SDPs considered included Northtown Center
Special Project Work Sessions held included a Planning Commission Retreat, the CIP and the 6 Year
Secondary Plan
Go to next report
Return to memo
2006 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2006.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Bill Edgerton Jack Jouett 01/02 – 12/31/06
Jon Cannon Rio 01/06 – 12/31/06
Calvin Morris, Vice Chair Rivanna 01/04 – 12/31/06
Eric Strucko Samuel Miller 01/06 – 12/31/06
William B. (Pete) Craddock Scottsville 01/00 – 12/31/06
Jo Higgins White Hall 01/04 - 09/6/06 (RESIGNED)
Duane Zobrist White Hall 09/06/06 - 12/31/06
Marcia Joseph, Chair At-Large 1/04 – 12/31/06
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 01/06 – 12/31/06
2006 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = _48__
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
#Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
0 0 0 0
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA)
4 2 0 2
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
0 0 0 0
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP)
1 1 0 0
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
#Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA)
23 11 4 8
Special Use Permit (SP) 36 28 1 7
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP)
12 7 1 4
Final Site Plan (SDP) 3 3 0 0
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB)
13 8 4 1
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 2 2 0 0
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP)
3 2 0 1
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 9 4 2 3
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB)
7 6 (portion of 2
requests denied)
1 0
Critical Slopes Waiver
(separate action)
1 0 1 0
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD)
2 1 0 1
OTHER 1 1 0 0
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP)
2 1 N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) 2 2 N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB)
1 1 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 0 0 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP)
1 1 N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 7 7 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB)
2 2 N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD)
2 2 N/A N/A
PC Minutes (N/A) 39 39 N/A N/A
Other – (Annual
Report)
7 7 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
14 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA)
4 N/A N/A N/A
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
#Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
0 N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP)
0 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA)
30 N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit 2 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA)
0 N/A N/A N/A
Other 11 N/A N/A N/A
2006 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included Places 29, Southern Urban Area B, Dickerson Road Affordable Housing, Green
Building and Pantops Master Plan
ZTAs considered included Temporary Farm Workers’ Housing, Affordable Housing/Density Bonus, Rural
Areas Implementation and Civil Penalties
ZMAs considered included Liberty Hall, Biscuit Run, UVa Research Park Expansion, Wickham Pond II,
Cascadia, HTC A, Avinity, Jarman Hill, Poplar Glenn II, Westhall IV, Crozet Station, Georgetown/Hydraulic
Offices, Haden Place, Rivanna Village at Glenmore, Berkmar Business Park, 5th Street/Avon Center,
Livengood, Leake, Treesdale Park and Forest Ridge
SPs considered included Pleasant Grove Church
SDPs considered included The Woodlands
SUBs considered included Bundoran Farms
Special Project Work Sessions held included joint meetings with the Board of Supervisors, the CIP and
the 6 Year Secondary Plan
Go to next report
Return to memo
2007 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2007.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Bill Edgerton Jack Jouett 1/02 - 12/31/07
Jon Cannon Rio 1/06 – 12/31/07
Cal Morris, Vice Chair Rivanna 1/04 - 12/31/07
Eric Strucko Samuel Miller 1/06 - 12/31/07
William “Pete” Craddock Scottsville 1/00 - 12/31/07
Duane Zobrist White Hall 9/6/06 - 12/31/07
Marcia Joseph, Chair At-Large 1/04 - 12/31/07
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/06 - 12/31/07
2007 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = ___46____
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
5 5 0 0
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 4 4 0 0
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 1 0 0
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 0 0 0 0
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 28 18 6 4
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Special Use Permit (SP) 49 43 2 4
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 9 3 1 5
Final Site Plan (SDP) 2 2 0 0
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 14 3 6 5
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 2 2 0 0
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 1 1 0 0
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 6 3 3 0
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) 6 3 3 0
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 3 3 0 0
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 0 0 N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) 1 1 N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 0 0 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 0 0 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 0 0 N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 2 2 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) 2 2 N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 6 6 N/A N/A
PC Minutes 44 44 N/A N/A
Other 5 5 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
18 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 6 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 0 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 18 N/A N/A N/A
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Special Use Permit (SP) 4 N/A N/A N/A
Other 11 N/A N/A N/A
2007 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included the Southern Urban Area B, Places 29, Pantops Master Plan, Dickerson Road
Affordable Housing (Willow Glenn), Green Building, Growth Management, US250/Crozet Ave. and
Proffer Policy
ZTAs considered included Country Stores, Crozet Downtown District, Zero Lot Line, Planned
Development and Neighborhood Model Modifications, Critical Slopes and Access, Affordable
Housing/Density Bonus and Development Review Task Force - Administrative Approval
STAs considered included Family Divisions
ZMAs considered included Biscuit Run, Whittington, Commons at Albrecht, HTC A, 5th Street/Avon
Center, Rivanna Village at Glenmore, Avinity, Fontana 4-C, Blue Ridge Co-housing, McCauley
Crossing/Mermac, Leake, Livengood, Oakleigh, NGIC Expansion, Willow Glenn, Avon Park II, Treesdale,
Airport Rd. Limited Partnership, Spring Hill Village, Three Notch’d Center, Patterson Subdivision, Liberty
Hall, Watkins, Fontaine Research Park and Hartman Property
SPs considered included SOCA South Fork Expansion, King Family Vineyard Expansion, The Field School,
Farm Worker Housing, Cutright Development Right, Glen Oaks, Crozet Station, Faith Christian, 1st Church
of the Nazarene, SPCA Expansion and Grace Baptist Church
SDPs considered included the Lewis and Clark Center
SUBs considered included Bundoran Farms
Special Project Work Sessions held included review of the Citizen Survey results, the CIP, Planning
Commission retreat, joint meetings with the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission and the 6 Year
Secondary Plan
Go to next report
Return to memo
2008 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2008.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Bill Edgerton Jack Jouett 1/02 - 12/31/08
Jon Cannon, Vice Chair Rio 1/06 – 12/31/08
Cal Morris, Chair Rivanna 1/04 – 12/31/08
Eric Strucko Samuel Miller 1/06 - 12/31/08
Linda Porterfield Scottsville 1/08 – 12/31/08
Thomas Loach White Hall 1/08 – 12/31/08
Marcia Joseph At-Large 1/04 - 12/31/08
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/06 - 12/31/08
2008 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = ____34___
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
3 2 0 1
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 5 5 0 0
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 2 2 0 0
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 1 1 0 0
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 6 4 2 0
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Special Use Permit (SP) 29 24 1 4
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 6 3 0 3
Final Site Plan (SDP) 10 9 0 1
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 9 4 4 1
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 1 1 0 0
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 2 1 0 1
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 5 4 1 0
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) 1 1 0 0
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 9 8 0 1
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 1 1 N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) 2 2 N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 3 3 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 2 2 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 0 0 N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 0 0 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) 2 2 N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 5 5 N/A N/A
PC Minutes 35 35 N/A N/A
Other 7 7 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
5 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 8 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 1 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 3 N/A N/A N/A
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Special Use Permit (SP) 4 N/A N/A N/A
Other 10 N/A N/A N/A
2008 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included Places 29, Economic Development Policy, Rivanna Master Plan, Water Supply
and Yancey Mills Business Park
ZTAs considered included Crozet Downtown District, Montalto, Development Review Task Force -
Administrative Approval, Zero Lot Line, Wind Turbines, Country Stores, Pole Lighting, Planned
Development and Neighborhood Model Modifications and Contractor’s Office/Equipment Storage Yard
STAs considered included Rural Area 2-lot Road Standard and Subdivision Fees
CCPs considered included UVa Long Term Care Hospital and Charlottesville Day School
ZMAs considered included Patterson Subdivision, Watkins, Cavalier Mini-Storage, Georgetown/Hydraulic
Offices, Innovative Construction, East Pantops Complex, Wavertree, Berkmar Business Park, Riverside
Village and NGIC Expansion
SPs considered included Graceworks, Camp Watermarks, 5th Street Development Fill in Floodplain,
Southwood Community Center, SOCA Belvedere, St. Anne’s Belfield Expansion, 4 Seasons Learning
Center, Field School and Pine Ridge Church
SDPs considered included Northtown Center, Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport and Lewis and Clark
Center
SUBs considered included Bellair and Clifton Lake
Special Project Work Sessions held included review of the CIP, Planning Commission retreat, joint
meetings with the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, Personal Wireless Policy, Rural Fire
Protection, Community Development Work Program, ASAP Presentation, 6 Year Secondary Plan, Joint
Meeting with ACSA and Stream Water Presentation
Go to next report
Return to memo
2009 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2009.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Bill Edgerton Jack Jouett 1/02 - 12/31/09
Jon Cannon Rio 1/06 – 1/26/09 (RESIGNED)
Don Franco Rio 3/4/09 - 12/31/09
Cal Morris Rivanna 1/04 - 12/31/09
Eric Strucko, Chair Samuel Miller 1/06 - 12/31/09
Linda Porterfield Scottsville 1/08 - 12/31/09
Thomas Loach, Vice-Chair White Hall 1/08 - 12/31/09
Marcia Joseph At-Large 1/04 - 12/31/09
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/06 - 12/31/09
2009 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = ___26____
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
2 2 0 0
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 10 9 0 1
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 1 0 0
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 3 3 0 0
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 3 1 0 2
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Special Use Permit (SP) 31 18 2 11
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 6 6 0 0
Final Site Plan (SDP) 5 5 0 0
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 6 6 0 0
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 5 4 1 0
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 0 0 0 0
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 2 2 0 0
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) 0 0 0 0
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 28 26 0 2
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 1 1 N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) 8 8 N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 0 0 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 0 0 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 2 2 N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 1 1 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) 2 2 N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 28 28 N/A N/A
PC Minutes 25 25 N/A N/A
Other 8 8 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
8 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 12 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 0 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 0 N/A N/A N/A
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS
# Agenda Items
Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Special Use Permit (SP) 1 N/A N/A N/A
Other 6 N/A N/A N/A
2009 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included Places 29, Village of Rivanna and Crozet Master Plan Update
ZTAs considered included Planned Development and Neighborhood Model District Modifications, Farm
Wineries, Wind Turbines, Entrance Corridor Process Improvements, Downtown Crozet District
Modifications, Non-conforming Lots, Zoning Fees, and Miscellaneous Use, Enforcement and
Administration Amendments
STAs considered included Subdivision Fees
CCPs considered included UVa’s Morven Meeting Barn, Pantops Fire Station and Meadow Creek Sewer
Interceptor
ZMAs considered included UVa Research Park – North Fork and Hollymead Town Center Area C
SPs considered included Forest Lakes Office Park, Luxor Commercial, Keswick Hall, Rivanna - Preddy
Creek Transmission Line, South Plains Presbyterian Church, Kenridge, Matheny Development Right, Old
Crozet School, Harris Garage, Earlysville Service Center, Senior Center, Montessori Community School,
Central Virginia Recycling Center and Old Dominion Equine
SDPs considered included South Pantops Condos, Arden Place, Earlysville Business Park, Byrom Forrest
Preserve Park, Luck Stone, Treesdale and a number of Personal Wireless Facilities
SUBs considered included Bellair, Belle Vista and Little Yellow Mountain Private Road
Special Project Work Sessions held included the CIP, Crozet Library Design, United Jefferson Area
Mobility Plan, Virginia Stormwater Regulations and County Strategic Plan Progress Update
A number of AFDs were also reviewed
Return to memo
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 27, 2011
Marcia Joseph
481 Clarks Tract
Keswick, Va 22947
RE: CPA201000001 Redfields
Tax Map 76R, Parcels 1 & E4
Dear Ms. Joseph:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting its meeting on November 30, 2010, by a vote
of 4:2 vote, approved the further study of the above noted proposal as part of the with the Comprehensive
Plan update that staff will undertake beginning of 2011. On December 21, 2010, the Commission
approved a Resolution of Intent reflecting their prior action on November 30th (Attached).
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,
David Benish
Chief of Planning
CC: Redfields Development Corporation
800 E Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Va 22902
Ella Jordan
File
Attachment - Resolution of Intent
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Redfields CPA-2010-001
WHEREAS, Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 076R0-00-00-00100 and 076R0-00-00-000E4 (the
“Property”) are composed 58 acres and are part of the Redfields Planned Residential Development
(“PRD”) and are designated as open space on the PRD Application Plan; and
WHEREAS, although most of the Redfields PRD is designated Development Areas under the
Land Use Plan, which is part of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, the Property is designated as
Rural Areas under the Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the Property applied for a resolution of intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of the Property under the Land Use Plan from Rural
Areas to Development Areas (“CPA-2010-00001”); and
WHEREAS, the County will begin a County-wide review and update of its Comprehensive Plan
beginning in 2011, and the review and update will include studying the boundaries of the Rural Areas and
the Development Areas; and
WHEREAS, in general, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan should be evaluated in the
larger context of the entire Development Areas and the Rural Areas, rather than on a piecemeal basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good planning and land use practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
hereby adopts this resolution of intent that CPA-2010-00001 be studied in conjunction with the
Comprehensive Plan review and update beginning in 2011; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with its recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan review
and update.
* * * * *
Review of CPA Process
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is one of a limited number of localities in Virginia that allows
landowners to submit applications requesting that the Comprehensive Plan be amended; and
WHEREAS, these applications request that a resolution of intent be adopted to amend the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the County has several policies and criteria for considering landowner -initiated
applications requesting that a resolution of intent be adopted to amend the Comprehensive P lan; and
WHEREAS, the policies and criteria have not been comprehensively reviewed in many years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good planning and land use practices, the Albemarle C ounty Planning Commission
hereby adopt this resolution of intent to review the policies and criteria for the review of a landowner -
initiated applications requesting that a resolution of intent be adopted to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Return to memo
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance Amendment—Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend
section 4-100, Definitions, of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl,
of the County Code.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Parrent, and Allen; and Ms.
Lyttle, Jenkins, and Maddox.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 8, 2009 the Board adopted a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Albemarle
County Code to bring the County’s animal laws into conformance with State law. The comprehensive amendment
included the adoption of animal welfare laws.
Last year, Board members received requests and petitions from the public to consider adopting an ordinance to
regulate the number of hours a dog may be tethered. On October 6, 2010, staff recommended that the Board amend
specific definitions of the animal ordinance to better address the reported welfare concerns, rather than adopt a
tethering ordinance. See the attached October 6 executive summary (Attachment B). The Board decided not to
pursue adopting a tethering ordinance. Instead, the Board directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance to amend the
definitions of ―adequate shelter‖, ―adequate space‖, and ―treatment/adequate treatment‖. The Board also asked staff
to look into requiring a ―pulley-only‖ system for dogs that are tethered. A proposed ordinance was presented to the
Board on January 5, 2011 for its review and comment. The Board authorized the proposed ordinance be set for public
hearing.
DISCUSSION:
The attached ordinance (Attachment A) amends Section 4-100 Definitions, of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl of the
Albemarle County Code. Specifically, the ordinance amends the definitions of ―adequate shelter‖, ―adequate space‖,
and ―treatment/adequate treatment‖ as follows:
4-100(5) Adequate shelter—amended to provide examples of structures that are not adequate
shelters. Such inadequate shelters include metal barrels, plastic barrels, airline crates, carrying
crates, and dog houses with no floors. This amendment addresses reported animal shelter concerns.
4-100(6) Adequate space—amended to further define the length and weight of a tether and/or a
running line. Specifically, the allowable length of a tether for an animal is increased from three (3)
times the length of the animal to five (5) times the length of the animal, and such tether must have a
swivel at both ends, weigh no more than 1/8 the animals’ weight, and multiple animals shall have their
own tether. A pulley or running line shall be at least fifteen (15) feet in length, and less than seven (7)
feet above the ground in such a manner to protect the animal from injury and prevent the line from
becoming entangled with other objects or animals. When there is more than one animal on a pulley
or running line, than each animal shall have its own tether on the pulley or running line. This
amendment addresses reported animal welfare concerns.
4-100(38) Treatment or adequate treatment—amended to state that tethering a dog six months old
or younger, and tethering a female dog in heat is not deemed to be adequate treatment. It is also
amended to include ways in which an animal may be transported in an open-bed truck in order for
such transportation to be deemed adequate treatment of the animal. This amendment addresses
reported animal welfare concerns.
While the Animal Control Officers (ACOs) can adequately handle most reported welfare concerns under the existing
County animal laws, amendments to these definitions would provide the ACOs additional tools when responding to
animal welfare calls and greater clarity to animal owners and concerned citizens.
In order to gather more comprehensive data regarding the various animal welfare calls received, the ACO’s have
updated their call-in logs and report sheets. Staff will provide a report to the Board at the end of the year identifying
AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance Amendment—Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl
February 2, 2011
Page 2
the number of animal welfare calls received, the specific types of animal welfare concerns reported, and the outcome
of the animal welfare concerns after investigation. Prior to submission of the report to the Board, staff will make such
collected information available to the public and seek public feedback.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff anticipates limited additional enforcem ent by ACOs under the proposed ordinance and, therefore, does not
anticipate a significant budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Ordinance
B – Executive Summary from October 6, 2010
Return to agenda
Draft: December 15, 2010
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-4(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY AMENDING ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, SECTION
4-100, DEFINITIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4,
Animals and Fowl, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Article I, In General, Section 4-100,
Definitions, as follows:
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 4-100 Definitions.
The following words as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings:
(1) Abandon. The term "abandon" means to desert, forsake, or absolutely give up an animal without
having secured another owner or custodian for the animal or by failing to provide the elements of basic care as
set forth in Virginia Code § 3.2-6503 for a period of five (5) consecutive days.
(2) Adequate care or care. The term "adequate care" or "care" means the responsible practice of good
animal husbandry, handling, production, management, confinement, feeding, watering, protection, shelter,
transportation, treatment, and, when necessary, euthanasia, appropriate for the age, species, condition, size and
type of the animal and the provision of veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or impairment of
health.
(3) Adequate exercise. The term "adequate exercise" or "exercise" means the opportunity for the
animal to move sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and mass for the age, species, size, and condition
of the animal.
(4) Adequate feed. The term "adequate feed" means access to and the provision of food which is of
sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is
prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is
provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests;
and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily,
except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting
normal for the species.
(5) Adequate shelter. The term "adequate shelter" means provision of and access to shelter that is
suitable for the species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for each
animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the adverse effects
of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly lighted; is properly cleaned; enables
each animal to be clean and dry, except when detrimental to the species; and, for dogs and cats, provides a
solid surface, resting platform, pad, floormat, or similar device that is large enough for the animal to lie on in a
normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner. Under this chapter, shelters whose wire, grid, or
slat floors (i) permit the animals' feet to pass through the openings, (ii) sag under the animals' weight, or (iii)
otherwise do not protect the animals' feet or toes from injury are not adequate shelter. In addition, the
following are also deemed to be inadequate shelters: (i) metal or plastic barrels, (ii) airline crates or carrying
crates, (iii) dog houses with no floors.
(6) Adequate space. The term "adequate space" means sufficient space to allow each animal to (i)
easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position
for the animal and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. When an animal is tethered,
"adequate space" means a tether that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the
animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the
animal from injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or animals, or
from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation or injury of the animal; and is at
least three five times the length of the animal, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, and
Draft: December 15, 2010
2
terminates at both ends with a swivel, and weighs no more than 1/8 of the animal’s weight, and if multiple
animals, each animal shall be on its own tether, except when the animal is being walked on a leash or is
attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and
appropriately restricting movement of the animal according to professionally accepted standards for the species
is considered provision of adequate space. When an animal is on a pulley or running line, “adequate space”
means a pulley or running line that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the
animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar and is at least fifteen feet in length and less than
seven feet above the ground and configured so as to protect the animal from injury, and prevent the line from
becoming entangled with other objects or animals or resulting in strangulation or injury of the animal, and if
multiple animals, each animal shall be on its own tether.
(7) Adequate water. The term "adequate water" means provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable
water of a drinkable temperature which is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at suitable
intervals, but at least once every twelve (12) hours, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species,
condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally
occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles
which are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by excrement
and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry practices.
(8) Adoption. The term "adoption" means the transfer of ownership of a dog or cat, or any other
companion animal, from a releasing agency to an individual.
(9) Agricultural animals. The term "agricultural animals" means all livestock and poultry.
(10) Ambient temperature. The term "ambient temperature" means the temperature surrounding the
animal.
(11) Animal. The term "animal" means any nonhuman vertebrate species except fish. For the
purposes of Article IV, Rabies Control, animal shall mean any species susceptible to rabies. For the purposes
of section 4-109, animal shall mean any nonhuman vertebrate species including fish captured and killed or
disposed of in a reasonable customary manner.
(12) Animal control officer. The term "animal control officer" means any person employed,
contracted, or appointed by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision for the purpose of aiding in the
enforcement of any other law or ordinance relating to the licensing of dogs, control of dogs and cats, cruelty to
animals, or seizure and impoundment of companion animals and includes any state or county police officer,
animal control officer, sheriff or other employee whose duties in whole or in part include assignments which
involve seizure or taking into custody of any dog or other animal.
(13) Animal shelter. The term "animal shelter" means a facility, other than a private residential
dwelling and its surrounding grounds, which is used to house or contain animals and which is owned, operated,
or maintained by a non-governmental entity, duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society, society
for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other nonprofit organization devoted to the welfare, protection, and
humane treatment of animals.
(14) Boarding establishment. The term "boarding establishment" means a place or establishment
other than a pound or animal shelter where companion animals not owned by the proprietor are sheltered, fed,
and watered in exchange for a fee.
(15) Clearly visible sign. The term “clearly visible sign” means a sign that is (i) unobstructed from
view, (ii) contains legible writing, and (iii) may be read by any person without assistance while standing ten
feet away from the sign.
(16) Collar. The term "collar" means a well-fitted device, appropriate to the age and size of the
animal, attached to the animal's neck in such a way as to prevent trauma or injury to the animal.
(17) Commercial dog breeder. The term “commercial dog breeder” means any person who, during
any twelve (12) month period, maintains thirty (30) or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the
sale of their offspring as companion animals.
Draft: December 15, 2010
3
(18) Companion animal. The term "companion animal" means any domestic or feral dog, domestic or
feral cat, non-human primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit not raised for human food or fiber, exotic or native
animal, reptile, exotic or native bird, or any feral animal or any animal under the care, custody, or ownership of
a person or any animal which is bought, sold, traded, or bartered by any person. Agricultural animals, game
species, or any animals regulated under federal law as research animals shall not be considered companion
animals for the purposes of this chapter.
(19) Emergency veterinary treatment. The term “emergency veterinary treatment” means veterinary
treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or
prevent further disease progression.
(20) Enclosure. The term "enclosure" means a structure used to house or restrict animals from
running at large.
(21) Euthanasia. The term "euthanasia" means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by
a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death or by a method that involves
anesthesia, produced by an agent which causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss of
consciousness.
(22) Foster care provider. The term “foster care provider” means an individual who provides care or
rehabilitation for companion animals through an affiliation with a pound, animal shelter, or other releasing
agency.
(23) Hearing dog. The term “hearing dog” means a dog trained to alert its owner by touch to sounds
of danger and sounds to which the owner should respond.
(24) Injury to a person. The term “injury to a person” means any superficial cut, scratch, scrape, or
minor tear to the skin, or any bruise to bone or skin area resulting from an unfriendly encounter. An injury
shall be presumed to have occurred when a dog knocks a person to the ground or tears that person's clothing or
any possession on his or her person.
(25) Kennel. The term “kennel” means any establishment in which five (5) or more canines, felines,
or hybrids of either are kept for the purposes of breeding, hunting, training, renting, buying, boarding, selling,
or showing.
(26) Leash. The term “leash” means any rope, strap, chain, or other material not exceeding four (4)
feet in length, being held in the hand of a person capable of controlling the dog to which it is attached.
(27) Livestock. The term "livestock" includes all domestic or domesticated: bovine animals; equine
animals; ovine animals; porcine animals; cervidae animals; capradae animals; animals of the genus Lama;
ratites; fish or shellfish in aquaculture facilities, as defined in Virginia Code § 3.2-2600; enclosed
domesticated rabbits or hares raised for human food or fiber; or any other individual animal specifically raised
for food or fiber, except companion animals.
(28) Owner. The term "owner" means any person who: (i) has a right of property in an animal, (ii)
keeps or harbors an animal, (iii) has an animal in his care, or (iv) acts as a custodian of an animal.
(29) Person. The term "person" means any individual, partnership, firm, joint-stock company,
corporation, association, trust, estate, or other legal entity.
(30) Poultry. The term “poultry" includes all domestic fowl and game birds raised in captivity.
(31) Pound. The term "pound" means a facility operated by the Commonwealth, or county for the
purpose of impounding or harboring seized, stray, homeless, abandoned, or unwanted animals; or a facility
operated for the same purpose under a contract with any county, city, town, or incorporated society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals.
Draft: December 15, 2010
4
(32) Primary enclosure. The term "primary enclosure" means any structure used to immediately
restrict an animal or animals to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen, cage, compartment, or hutch.
For tethered animals, the term includes the shelter and the area within reach of the tether.
(33) Properly cleaned. The term “properly cleaned” means that carcass, debris, food waste and
excrement are removed from the primary enclosure with sufficient frequency to minimize the animals’ contact
with the above-mentioned contaminants; the primary enclosure is sanitized with sufficient frequency to
minimize odors and the hazards of disease; and the primary enclosure is cleaned so as to prevent the animals
confined therein from being directly or indirectly sprayed with the stream of water, or directly or indirectly
exposed to hazardous chemicals or disinfectants.
(34) Releasing agency. The term “releasing agency” means a pound, animal shelter, humane society,
animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other similar entity or home-
based rescue that releases companion animals for adoption.
(35) Serious injury to a person. The term “serious injury to a person” means any bodily injury for
which medical attention was sought and obtained, which involves a serious laceration requiring stitches to
more than one puncture wound or which is serious in the opinion of a licensed physician.
(36) Service dog. The term “service dog” means a dog trained to accompany its owner for the
purpose of carrying items, retrieving objects, pulling a wheelchair or other such activities of service or support.
(37) Sterilize or sterilization. The term "sterilize" or "sterilization" means a surgical or chemical
procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian that renders a dog or cat permanently incapable of reproducing.
(38) Treatment or adequate treatment. The term "treatment" or "adequate treatment" means the
responsible handling or transportation of animals in the person's ownership, custody or charge, appropriate for
the age, species, condition, size and type of the animal. When any such animal is being transported in an open-
bed truck or similar vehicle, such carrier shall be secured to the vehicle so as to be immovable, and shall
permit normal postural movements of the animal. The following shall not be deemed “adequate treatment”:
(i) tethering of a dog six months old or younger; (ii) the tying up or tethering of a female dog in heat; (iii)
transporting an animal in the back of an open-bed truck or similar vehicle in an unsecured carrier and/or
tethered to a collar.
(39) Veterinary treatment. The term "veterinary treatment" means treatment by or on the order of a
duly licensed veterinarian.
(Code 1967, § 4-4; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
State law reference—Va. Code §§ 3.2-6500, 6528.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Tethering Ordinance Proposal
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discuss whether Albemarle County should consider
adopting a tethering ordinance.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliot, Davis, Parrent, and Jenkins; and
Ms. Lyttle.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 6, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 8, 2009 the Board adopted a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Albemarle
County Code to bring the County’s animal laws into conformance with State law. The comprehensive amendment
included the adoption of animal welfare laws as well as an am endment to the County’s running at large restrictions.
Dogs are permitted to run at large on properties zoned as rural areas unless an area is specifically restricted by
designation in the ordinance.
Board members have recently received requests and petitions from the public to consider adopting an ordinance to
regulate the number of hours a dog may be tethered. Currently, the Albemarle County Code does not have a specific
ordinance to prohibit or limit the tethering of dogs or other companion animals; however, does regulate the welfare and
care of animals by defining adequate shelter and space for animals and basic tethering regulations intended to protect
animals from injury. The Board has never previously considered adopting a specific tethering ordinance, and thus
directed staff to review this matter and research tethering ordinances in other localities.
DISCUSSION:
Tethering in Virginia
The Virginia Code does not specifically authorize localities to ban tethering. Rather, Virginia Code § 3.2-6543 (A)
authorizes localities to adopt certain animal ordinances which are parallel to or more stringent than the Virginia Code.
Tethering and certain conditions of a tether are set forth in the Virginia Code definition of “adequate space”, which is
the same definition used in Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Section 4-100 Definitions of the County Code (See
Attachment A). The “adequate space” definition sets forth the minimum length of a tether, requires such tether to be
attached to a proper collar, halter or harness and requires that the animal be protected from injury or becoming
entangled. Section 4-105(A) of the County Code requires all companion animal owners to provide such “adequate
space.” Initial violations of Section 4-105 are a Class 4 misdemeanor, with subsequent violations being a Class 2 or
Class 3 misdemeanor, as set forth in section 4-105(B) of the County Code.
Approximately 10 localities (8 Cities, 2 Counties) in Virginia have adopted ordinances to restrict the number of hours
an animal may be tethered. Those localities are the City of Alexandria, City of Charlottesville, City of Danville, City of
Martinsville, City of Norfolk, City of Richmond, City of Staunton, City of Virginia Beach, Fauquier County, and
Northhampton County. (See Attachment B) The time limitation for tethering varies among the localities, from 1 hour in
a 24 hour period up to 12 hours in a 24 hour period. The City of Charlottesville restricts tethering to no more than 10
hours in a 24 hour period. Both the City of Martinsville and Danville restrict tethering to no more than 4 hours in a 24
hour period, and have additional restrictions based on weather. The City of Staunton has taken a different approach
and only prohibits tethering between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Only 2 of the localities adopted a stand-alone
tethering ordinance. Most of the localities incorporate the tethering restrictions in their ordinances defining or
addressing adequate shelter. The City of Richmond was the only locality to incorporate the tethering restriction in its
animal cruelty ordinance.
Albemarle County
Since this matter was first brought to the Board’s attention in June of this year, approximately 50 Albemarle County
citizens have submitted to the Board of Supervisor’s office a petition in support of Albemarle County adopting a
tethering ordinance. The Albemarle County Animal Control Officers (ACO) assessed the number of complaints
received regarding tethering concerns by reviewing their call logs for the years of 2008-2010. During that two year
AGENDA TITLE: Tethering Ordinance Proposal
October 6, 2010
Page 2
period, ACOs received approximately 101 calls regarding animal welfare concerns and 6 calls specific to tethering
concerns. Of the 6 calls specific to tethering concerns, ACOs found the tether to not be in compliance with the County
Code in all 6 cases. No charges were placed, as the ACO’s first approach to such violations is to educate the animal
owner, and provide a “Notice to Comply”, which provides an opportunity for the violation(s) to be corrected. All noted
violations were corrected by the animal owner once the ACO explained the concern and violation(s). During animal
welfare checks, the ACOs often find the dog to be in a pen, not tethered, and generally there are no violations of the
County Code, but the ACOs do spend time educating the animal owner on the welfare concerns reported. Based on
the number of complaints received from 2008-2010, the ACOs have not found tethering to be a significant animal
safety issue in Albemarle County.
Staff is concerned that a tethering ordinance would be difficult to enforce, and would not address the welfare concerns
reported by citizens. Additionally, there is concern that a tethering ordinance would not be compatible with the
County’s running at large ordinance, which permits dogs to run at large in the rural areas unless specifically prohibited
by designation in the ordinance. An ordinance that restricts the number of hours a dog may be tethered could
discourage dog owners from tethering their dog and increase the likelihood that such dog be allowed to run loose.
Lastly, dogs which are generally properly cared for while being tethered during the day would become subject to such
tethering ordinance restrictions, despite the lack of specific animal welfare concerns. This could cause an increase in
reported animal welfare calls for ACOs related to tethering, in turn increasing the number of animal welfare inspections
for dogs and dog owners which are otherwise in compliance with the County’s animal laws and for dogs that are
otherwise being cared for properly.
Rather than adopt an ordinance which would limit the amount of time a dog can be tethered outside, the ACOs believe
amendments to the definition of “adequate shelter”, “adequate space” and “treatment/adequate treatment” would more
appropriately address the concerns reported to and seen by the ACOs. For example, an amendment to the adequate
shelter definition to provide examples of the types of structures not deemed adequate would address reported animal
shelter concerns, and an amendment to the “adequate space” definition to further define the length and weight of a
tether and/or a running line, and prohibiting dogs six (6) months of age or younger and female dogs in heat from being
tethered, would provide more clarity to citizens as to what is appropriate for dogs. While the ACOs can adequately
handle the reported welfare concerns under the existing County animal laws, amendments to these definitions would
provide the ACOs additional tools when responding to animal welfare calls and greater clarity to animal owners and
concerned citizens.
Based on feedback received from the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA (CASPCA) Executive Director, the CASPCA
takes the position that tethering for twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week is not appropriate, but has not
specifically commented on a tethering ordinance. The CASPCA also recognizes that any tethering ordinance
considered by the County should be balanced with and looked at congruently with other County animal laws. The
CASPCA was part of a staff-citizen committee when the City of Charlottesville considered adopting a tethering
ordinance, and such committee drafted the proposed City ordinance, which was adopted by City Council in 2006. The
CASPCA advocates this same committee process be used in the County should the Board decide to consider
adopting a tethering ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Police Department is concerned that the adoption of a tethering ordinance could lead to a significant increase in
the number of calls for service in a couple of areas. One area would be where ACOs are requested to check on the
compliance of pet owners with this new ordinance. This could be very time consuming if an ordinance is adopted
where a specific time limit is placed on tethering. Another area indirectly related to the enactment of such an
ordinance could be the increase of complaints of dogs running at large. The Police Department fears that having a
tethering ordinance without a running at large ordinance applicable to the entire County, could lead to instances where
dog owners allow dogs to run loose rather than deal with the new restrictions on tethering. This will increase the
population of the dogs running at large and ACO’s and the community could be dealing with dogs that have been
tethered for years that are now at large and potentially dangerous or vicious.
The Police Department currently has four ACOs that are responsible for a very heavy call volume. Any significant
increase to their calls for service would require another ACO to be hired at the following costs:
Total salary and benefits for ACO ($43,246.57) + Operating and Capital Costs ($47,600) + Overtime ($3,000) =
$93,846.57
AGENDA TITLE: Tethering Ordinance Proposal
October 6, 2010
Page 3
In addition, there is currently only one ACO on duty in the evenings and none on the weekends. A tethering ordinance
could increase the call volume on the weekends to necessitate either moving one of the current daylight officers to
weekend coverage or use a new officer to handle weekends and assist on evenings. Moving an ACO off of the
regular Monday-Friday daylight coverage would create a significant delay in answering calls for service and conducting
follow-up investigations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff does not recommend a tethering ordinance at this time because historical ACO data does not indicate tethering
to be a significant animal safety issue in the County, it would subject otherwise responsible dog owners and properly
cared for dogs to an additional restriction, enforcement would be difficult, and such an ordinance may not be
compatible with the County’s running at large ordinance. Staff does recommend that the Board consider amending
the definitions of “adequate shelter”, “adequate space”, and “treatment/adequate treatment” of Chapter 4, Animals and
Fowl, to better clarify and define suitable space and treatment. (See Attachment C) If the Board desires to pursue
adopting a tethering ordinance, staff recommends a staff-citizen committee be formed to develop a consensus
approach.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Albemarle County Code excerpts from Chapter 4
B – Tethering Ordinances in Virginia
C – Preliminary Recommendation of ACOs for Ordinance Amendment
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Precious Metals Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend
County Code Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Article
III, Dealers in Precious Metals
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, Walters, and
Jenkins, G.; and Ms. Kim
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
During its July 7, 2010 meeting, the Board heard concerns from a citizen regarding itinerant dealers of precious
metals operating at temporary locations in the County. Based on this input, the Board requested staff to review the
County Code as it relates to the sale/exchange of precious metals and offer suggested amendments to address
itinerant dealers. During the Board’s January 5, 2011 meeting, staff submitted a proposed ordinance addressing
these changes and the Board authorized advertising the proposed ordinance for public hearing at its February 2,
2011 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Although precious metals dealers are regulated by state law, localities can adopt ordinances that parallel state
requirements or impose more stringent rules. Consistent with the provisions of Virginia Code § 54.1-4108(E), the
County’s existing ordinance requires that dealers conduct their business exclusively from a fixed and permanent
location specified in their application for a permit. However, the County’s current ordinance does not clearly specify
whether only the location itself must be fixed and permanent, or whether the dealer’s operations there must likewise
be fixed and permanent. This question arises when, for example, an itinerant dealer holds a weekend event in a
hotel conference room. While the hotel building itself is fixed and permanent, the dealer’s operations there are not.
Staff proposes that the Board amend County Code to conform with the intent of Virginia Code by clearly stating that
a dealers’ operations, not just their location, be fixed and permanent. One indication of that intent is that Virginia
Code § 54.1-4104(A) already requires dealers to retain all purchased precious metals or gems, and not remove them
from the jurisdiction, for a minimum of ten calendar days.
The revised ordinance (Attachment A) recommends revisions to four sections of the Albemarle County Code,
Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises, Article III, Dealers in Precious Metals:
1. Definition of “fixed and permanent location” (§ 12-300(3)) – The proposed ordinance would make “fixed and
permanent location” a defined term, meaning a location in the county at which the dealer conducts a regular
and continuous course of dealing for thirty consecutive days or more, with Saturdays, Sundays and
recognized holidays excepted. A fixed and permanent location may include a location leased or otherwise
obtained from another person on a temporary or seasonal basis. This language is patterned after the term
“definite place of business” in Virginia Code § 58.1-3700.1 applicable to business licenses.
2. New application requirements (§ 12-302(A)) – The proposed ordinance would add a number of requirements
to the dealer’s license application, namely:
a. Requiring the full name, any aliases, address, age, date of birth, sex and fingerprints of not just the
dealer (as currently required), but also of any agents of the dealer doing business in the County.
b. Specifying the dealer’s hours of operations – to facilitate enforcement
c. Specifying the location in the County where all precious metals or gems purchased will be retained,
as required.
d. Furnishing a zoning clearance to verify that the dealer’s business is permitted under the applicable
county zoning regulations.
AGENDA TITLE: Precious Metals Ordinance
February 2, 2011
Page 2
3. Notification of business closings; location of business (§ 12-302(D)) – Additionally, to facilitate enforcement,
the proposed ordinance would require the dealer to notify the chief of police of all closings and re-openings
of the business of the dealer if the business were not open for business to conduct purchases without
interruption, with Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays excepted. This section would also restate the
requirement that the dealer’s use must be permitted under the applicable county zoning regulations.
4. Mandatory two-year revocation following a second conviction (§ 12-307) – The proposed ordinance would
follow a 2010 amendment to Virginia Code § 54.1-4110, requiring a mandatory two-year revocation of a
dealer’s license following a second conviction for violating any provisions of the ordinance.
5. Retention and accessibility of all precious metals or gems purchased (§ 12-311(C)) – The proposed
ordinance would re-emphasize the requirement that all precious metals or gems purchased be retained in
the jurisdiction, and would require the dealer to make them available for inspection by law enforcement.
The complete Article regulating dealers in precious metals is attached for reference and information (Attachment B).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Though the proposed ordinance would require the Police Department to revise the license application for precious
metals dealers, the Police are already responsible for enforcing the existing precious metals ordinance. Staff does
not foresee the cost of enforcement increasing under the proposed ordinance especially in light of the fact that over
the last two years the County’s Police Department has issued a total of ten permits to dealers doing business in
Albemarle County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Proposed Ordinance
B – Albemarle County Code Chapter 12, Article III, Dealers in Precious Metals
Return to agenda
Draft: 1/10/10
1
ORDINANCE NO. 11-12(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 12, REGULATED ENTERPRISES, ARTICLE III, DEALERS IN
PRECIOUS METALS, 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 III, Dealers in Precious Metals, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 12-300 Definitions.
Sec. 12-302 Permit--Procedure for obtaining; term; renewal.
Sec. 12-307 Penalties.
Sec. 12-311 Dealer to retain purchases.
CHAPTER 12. REGULATED ENTERPRISES
ARTICLE III. DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS
State law reference—Regarding dealers in precious metals generally, see Va. Code §§ 54.1-4100 et seq.; authority of county to
enact ordinance regulating dealers in precious metals and gems, see Va. Code § 54.1 -4111.
Sec. 12-300 Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this section,
unless the context requires a different meaning:
(1) Coin. The term "coin" shall mean any piece of gold, silver or other metal fashioned into a prescribed shape,
weight and degree of fineness, stamped by authority of a government with certain marks and devices, and having a
certain fixed value as money.
(2) Dealer. The term "dealer" shall mean any person engaged at any location in the county in the business of
(a) purchasing precious metals or gems, (b) making loans for which precious metals or gems are received and held as
security, (c) removing in any manner precious metals or gems from manufactured articles not then owned by such person
or (d) buying, acquiring or selling precious metals or gems removed from such manufactured articles. As used herein,
"dealer" includes employers and principals on whose behalf a purchase or loan is made and all employees and agents
who make such purchases and loans for or on behalf of their employers or principals.
This definition shall not be construed so as to include persons engaged in the following:
(a) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from other dealers, manufacturers or wholesalers
for retail or wholesale inventories, provided the selling dealer has complied with the provisions of this chapter, if
applicable.
(b) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from a qualified fiduciary who is disposing of
the assets of an estate being administered by such fiduciary.
(c) Acceptance by a retail merchant of trade-in merchandise previously sold by such retail
merchant to the person presenting that merchandise for trade in.
(d) Repairing, restoring or designing of jewelry by a retail merchant, if such activities are within
the normal course of such merchant's business.
(e) Purchases of precious metals or gems by industrial refiners and manufacturers insofar as such
purchases are made directly from retail merchants, wholesalers or dealers or by mail originating outside the county.
Draft: 1/10/10
2
(f) Regular purchasing and processing of nonprecious scrap metals which incidentally may contain
traces of precious metals recoverable as a by product.
(3) Fixed and permanent location. The term “fixed and permanent location” shall mean a location in the county
at which the dealer conducts a regular and continuous course of dealing for thirty consecutive days or more, with
Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays excepted. A fixed and permanent location may include a location leased or
otherwise obtained from another person on a temporary or seasonal basis.
(34) Gems. The term "gems" shall mean any item containing or having any precious or semiprecious stones
customarily used in jewelry or ornamentation.
(45) Precious metals. The term "precious metals" shall mean any item, except coins, containing as part of its
composition in any degree gold, silver, platinum or platinum alloys.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code §§ 54.1-4100.
Sec. 12-302 Permit--Procedure for obtaining; term; renewal.
A. Application; issuance; fee. To obtain a permit, the dealer shall file with the chief of police an
application form which shall include the dealer’s full name, any aliases, address, age, date of birth, sex and fingerprints
of both the dealer and any agents of the dealer doing business in the county; the name, address and telephone number of
the applicant's employer, if any, and the location and hours of operation of the dealer's place of business, and the location
in the county of all items to be retained pursuant to section 12-311 herein. In addition, the dealer shall furnish a zoning
clearance verifying that the dealer’s business is permitted under the applicable county zoning regulations. Upon filing
this application and the payment of a two hundred dollar ($200) application fee, the dealer shall be issued a permit by the
chief of police; provided, that the applicant had not been convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude within seven
years prior to the date of application, and that the dealer meets all other applicable requirements. The permit shall be
denied if the applicant has been denied a permit or, within the preceding twelve months, has had a permit revoked under
any ordinance or law similar in substance to the provisions of this chapter.
B. Inspection of weighing devices. Before a permit may be issued, the dealer must have all weighing
devices to be used in the business inspected and approved by local or state weights and measures officials and must
present written evidence of such approval to the chief of police.
C. Duration; renewal. A permit shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance and may be renewed
for one-year periods in the same manner as the initial permit is obtained, with an annual permit fee of two hundred
dollars ($200).
D. Notification of business closings; location of business. If the business of the dealer is not operated open
for business to conduct purchases without interruption, with Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays excepted, the
dealer shall notify the chief of police of all closings and reopenings of such business. The business of a dealer shall be
conducted only from a fixed and permanent location specified in such dealer's application for a permit, and only if such
business is permitted at that location under the applicable county zoning regulations.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 5.1-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4108.
Sec. 12-307 Penalties.
A. Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a class 2
misdemeanor for the first offense. Upon conviction of any subsequent offense, such person shall be guilty of a class l
misdemeanor.
Draft: 1/10/10
3
B. Upon the first conviction by any court of a dealer for violation of any provision of this article, the chief
of police may revoke his permit to engage in business as a dealer under this chapter for a period of one full year from the
date the conviction becomes final. Such revocation shall be mandatory for two full years from the date the conviction
becomes final upon a second conviction.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 5.1-13; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4110; as to punishment for class 1 and 2 misdemeanors, see Va. Code §
18.2-11.
Sec. 12-311 Dealer to retain purchases.
A. The dealer shall retain all precious metals or gems in the condition in which purchased for a minimum
of ten calendar days from the time of filing the bill of sale for their purchase with the chief of police. During such period
of time, the dealer shall not sell, alter or dispose of a purchased item in whole or in part, or remove it from the county.
B. If a dealer performs the service of removing precious metals and gems, such dealer shall retain the
precious metals or gems removed and the article from which such removal was made for a period of ten calendar days
after receiving such article and precious metals or gems.
C. All items required to be retained hereunder shall be retained in the county at the location specified in the
dealer’s permit application. An agent of the dealer shall be readily accessible throughout the applicable retention period
to make the retained items available for inspection by the chief of police or any law enforcement official of the state or
federal government.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; Code 1988, § 5.1-9; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4104.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Attachment B
1
CHAPTER 12. REGULATED ENTERPRISES
ARTICLE III. DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS
State law reference—Regarding dealers in precious metals generally, see Va. Code §§ 54.1 -4100 et seq.; authority of county to enact
ordinance regulating dealers in precious metals and gems, see Va. Code § 54.1-4111.
Sec. 12-300 Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them by this
section, unless the context requires a different meaning:
(1) Coin. The term "coin" shall mean any piece of gold, silver or other metal fashioned into a prescribed
shape, weight and degree of fineness, stamped by authority of a government with certain marks and devices, and
having a certain fixed value as money.
(2) Dealer. The term "dealer" shall mean any person engaged at any location in the county in the business
of (a) purchasing precious metals or gems, (b) making loans for which precious metals or gems are received and
held as security, (c) removing in any manner precious metals or gems from manufactured articles not then owned by
such person or (d) buying, acquiring or selling precious metals or gems removed from such manufactured articles.
As used herein, "dealer" includes employers and principals on whose behalf a purchase or loan is made and all
employees and agents who make such purchases and loans for or on behalf of their employers or principals.
This definition shall not be construed so as to include persons engaged in the following:
(a) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from other dealers, manufacturers or wholesalers for
retail or wholesale inventories, provided the selling dealer has complied with the provisions of this chapter, if
applicable.
(b) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from a qualified fiduciary who is disposing of the
assets of an estate being administered by such fiduciary.
(c) Acceptance by a retail merchant of trade-in merchandise previously sold by such retail merchant
to the person presenting that merchandise for trade in.
(d) Repairing, restoring or designing of jewelry by a retail merchant, if such activities are within the
normal course of such merchant's business.
(e) Purchases of precious metals or gems by industrial refiners and manufacturers insofar as such
purchases are made directly from retail merchants, wholesalers or dealers or by mail originating outside the county.
(f) Regular purchasing and processing of nonprecious scrap metals which incidentally may contain
traces of precious metals recoverable as a by product.
(3) Gems. The term "gems" shall mean any item containing or having any precious or semiprecious stones
customarily used in jewelry or ornamentation.
(4) Precious metals. The term "precious metals" shall mean any item, except coins, containing as part of
its composition in any degree gold, silver, platinum or platinum alloys.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code §§ 54.1-4100.
Sec. 12-301 Permit--Required.
Effective July l, 1981, no person shall engage in the activities of a dealer as defined in section 12 -300
without first obtaining a permit from the chief of police of the county.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; Code 1988, § 5.1-2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 54.1-4108, 54-1.4111.
Attachment B
2
Sec. 12-302 Permit--Procedure for obtaining; term; renewal.
A. Application; issuance; fee. To obtain a permit, the dealer shall file with the chief of police an
application form which shall include the dealer's full name, any aliases, address, age, date of birth, sex and
fingerprints; the name, address and telephone number of the applicant's employer, if any, and the location of the
dealer's place of business. Upon filing this application and the payment of a two hundred dollar ($200) application
fee, the dealer shall be issued a permit by the chief of police; provided, that the applicant had not been convicted of a
felony or crime of moral turpitude within seven years prior to the date of applica tion. The permit shall be denied if
the applicant has been denied a permit or, within the preceding twelve months, has had a permit revoked under any
ordinance or law similar in substance to the provisions of this chapter.
B. Inspection of weighing devices. Before a permit may be issued, the dealer must have all weighing
devices to be used in the business inspected and approved by local or state weights and measures officials and must
present written evidence of such approval to the chief of police.
C. Duration; renewal. A permit shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance and may be
renewed for one-year periods in the same manner as the initial permit is obtained, with an annual permit fee of two
hundred dollars ($200).
D. Notification of business closings; location of business. If the business of the dealer is not operated
without interruption, with Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays excepted, the dealer shall notify the chief of
police of all closings and reopenings of such business. The business of a dealer shall be conducted only from a fixed
and permanent location specified in such dealer's application for a permit.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 5.1-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4108.
Sec. 12-303 Permit--Nontransferable and to be displayed.
The permit issued hereunder shall be a personal privilege and shall not be transferable, nor shall there be
any abatement of the fee for such permit by reason of the fact that the dealer shall have exercised the privilege for
any period of time less than that for which it was granted. The permit shall at all times be displayed prominently by
the dealer on the business premises.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code §§ 54.1-4108(D); 54.1-4111.
Sec. 12-304 Permit--False statements.
A permit issued upon an application containing a statement made with knowledge of its falsity sh all be void
from the beginning.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-5; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 12-305 Dealer's bond or letter of credit.
A. Prior to receiving a permit, each dealer shall provide a bond to the county secured by a corporate
surety authorized to do business in the Commonwealth, to be payable to the county in the penal sum of ten thousand
dollars and conditioned upon due observance of the terms of this article. In lieu of a bond, a dealer may cause to be
issued by a bank authorized to do business in the Commonwealth a letter of credit in favor of the county in the sum
of ten thousand dollars.
B. A single bond upon an employer or principal may be written or a single letter of credit issued to
cover all employees and all transactio ns occurring at a single location.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-11; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4106.
Attachment B
3
Sec. 12-306 Private action on bond or letter of credit.
Any person aggrieved by a dealer's violation of the provisions of this article may maintain an action for
recovery in any court of proper jurisdiction against such dealer and such dealer's surety provided that recovery
against the surety shall be only for that amount of the judgment , if any, which is unsatisfied by the dealer.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-12; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4107.
Sec. 12-307 Penalties.
A. Any person convicted of violating any of the pr ovisions of this article shall be guilty of a class 2
misdemeanor for the first offense. Upon conviction of any subsequent offense, such person shall be guilty of a class
l misdemeanor.
B. Upon the first conviction by any court of a dealer for violation of any provision of this article, the
chief of police may revoke his permit to engage in business as a dealer under this chapter for a period of one full
year from the date the conviction becomes final. Such revocation shall be mandatory upon a second co nviction.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 5.1-13; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4110; as to punishment for class 1 and 2 misdemeanors, see Va. Code §
18.2-11.
Sec. 12-308 Records, copies of bills of sale required; inspection.
A. Every dealer shall keep at such dealer's place of business an accurate and legible record of each
purchase of precious metals or gems, security arrangement, or transaction involving the removal of precio us metals
or gems from any manufacture article not then owned by the dealer. The record of each such purchase or security
arrangement shall be retained by the dealer for not less than twenty -four months. These records shall set forth the
following:
1. A complete description of all precious metals or gems purchased, taken as security or
removed from a manufactured article not then owned by the dealer, including the true weight of the precious metals
or gems purchased or taken as security and all names, initials, serial numbers or other identifying marks or
monograms appearing on each item in question;
2. The price for each item purchased or taken as security;
3. The date and time of receiving the items purchased or taken as security;
4. The full name, residence address, work place, home and work telephone numbers, date of
birth, sex, race, height, weight, hair and eye color, and legible handwritten signature of the seller, borrower or
persons for whom the service of removal is performed;
5. Verification of identification by exhibition of a government-issued identification card
such as a driver's license or military identification card that contains a photograph of the seller and at least one other
corroborating piece of identification. The record shall contain the type of identification exhibited, the issuing
agency, and the number thereon; and
6. A statement of ownership from the seller.
B. The information required by subparts (1) to (5) of paragraph (A) of this section shall appear on
each bill of sale, the form of which shall be provided by the chief of police. One copy of the form is to be retained
by the dealer, one copy to be delivered during regular work hours to the chief of police at his office within twenty -
four hours of the purc hase or loan or mailed to the chief of police within such twenty-four hour period, and one copy
to be delivered to the seller of such precious metals or gems or to the borrower. If the purchase or loan occurs on a
Saturday, Sunday or recognized holiday, then the delivery or mailing to the chief of police shall be made no later
than 10:00 A.M. of the next regular workday.
Attachment B
4
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Code 1988, §§ 5.1-6, 5.1-7; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 54.1-4101.
Sec. 12-309 Examination of record and property; seizure of stolen property.
Each dealer or his employee shall admit to such dealer's premises during regular business hours the chief of
police or any law enforcement official of the state or federal gov ernment. The dealer or his employee shall permit
the chief of police or his designee or such other law enforcement official to (i) examine all records required by this
chapter and any article listed in such records which is believed by the officer or offi cial to be missing or stolen; and
(ii) search for and take into possession any article known to him to be missing or believed by him to be stolen.
(Code 1988, § 5.1-7; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4101.1.
Sec. 12-310 Prohibited purchases.
A. No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any seller who is under the age of eighteen.
B. No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any seller whom the dealer believes or has
reason to believe is not the owner of such items, unless the seller has written and duly authenticated authorization
from the owner permitting and directing such sale.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-8; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4103.
Sec. 12-311 Dealer to retain purchases.
A. The dealer shall retain all precious metals or gems in the condition in which purchased for a
minimum of ten calendar days from the time of filing the bill of sale for their purc hase with the chief of police.
During such period of time, the dealer shall not sell, alter or dispose of a purchased item in whole or in part, or
remove it from the county.
B. If a dealer performs the service of removing precious metals and gems, such dealer shall retain the
precious metals or gems removed and the article from which such removal was made for a period of ten calendar
days after receiving such article and precious metals or gems.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; 11-14-84; Code 1988, § 5.1-9; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 54.1-4104.
Sec. 12-312 Record of disposition.
Each dealer shall keep and maintain for at least twenty-four months an accurate and legible record of the
name, address and age of the person to whom such dealer sells any precious metal or gem in its original form after
the waiting period required by section 12-311 and shall require such person to verify such information by a
government-issued identification card such as a driver's license or military identification card containing a
photograph of the person and one other piece of corroborating means of identification. This record shall also show
the name and address of the seller from whom the dealer purchased such item.
(11-12-80, § 1; 7-8-81; Code 1988, § 5.1-10; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 54.1-4105.
Return to exec summary
Core Service Package:
VA Eligibility Determination VA Registration Health Education Disease Management
VA Education & Services to Veterans In Rural Central Virginia
Rural Health Initiative Program (RHIP)
RHIP provides health education and
health services to Veterans in Rural
Central Virginia Communities.
Disease Management
High Blood Pressure
Diabetes
Weight Management
Healthy Lifestyles
Women’s Health
Breast Health Education
Pap Education
Osteoporosis
Mental Hygiene
Suicide Awareness
Depression
Addiction
Recent Service Separation
Support Services
Iraq and Afghanistan
PTSD
Providing the following services:
If your actions inspire others to
dream more,
learn more,
do more and
become more,
you are a leader.
—John Quincy Adams
We are here to offer our rural veterans an
opportunity to receive health care that is
convenient to them! And we are commit-
ted to making it as easy as 1, 2, 3! Here’s
all you have to do...
Complete a form 1010EZ so we can
determine your eligibility
(this is available from any Rural
Health Initiative employee, or available
online at https://www.1010ez.med.va.gov/
sec/vha/1010ez/
One of our enrollment specialists
will get back in contact with you to
notify you of your status.
If eligible, we will set an appoint-
ment for you with one of our health
care providers. An appointment
will be arranged for you.
And to make this program even better, you
do not have to give up your current
primary care provider. This is simply
additional health care for you, our veteran.
It really is as easy as 1, 2, 3—so what are
you waiting for? Give us a call today!
1
2
3
McGuire Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center
1201 Broad Rock Blvd Richmond VA 23249
RHIP Office is located:
Richmond VAMC BLDG 507B
Office #205
804.675.5559
Office hours:
Monday—Friday: 7:30 am – 4:30 pm
We believe in the following
values and treat our
veterans utilizing
each of these:
Trust
Respect
Excellence
Compassion
Commitment
Supporting
Our
Veterans In Rural Areas
Rural Health Initiative
Geriatrics & Extended Care Service Line
RHIP (181H)
12/2010
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2009-2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Acceptance of the FY 2009-2010 CAFR
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Wiggans
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
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.
DISCUSSION:
Attached for the Board’s review is the recently completed FY 2009-2010 CAFR. As in previous years, the Report
contains a detailed accounting of the County’s financial operations for the 2009-2010 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 January 25, 2011 by Mr. Jack Farmer
and Mr. David Hughes of the County’s outside auditing firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates. The Committee
recommended acceptance of the Report. Mr. Farmer and Mr. Hughes will be at the Board meeting to address any
questions from the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the FY 2009-2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
ATTACHMENTS
FY 2009-2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (on file in Clerk’s Office)
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ARB-2010-126: Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Ratify Phase 1 of the revised Entrance Corridor Design
Guidelines, which bring them in conformance with long-
standing practices of the ARB and clarify typical design
requirements for applicants.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Cilimberg; and Ms.
Maliszewski
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
County Code § 18-34A.2(a) directs the Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) to promulgate design standards for ratification
by the Board of Supervisors.
The ARB’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines have not received a comprehensive update since their ratification in 1994.
Over the years, updates have been made to specific sections of the guidelines, including lighting, fuel pump canopies and
signs (see Attachment A). The Entrance Corridor Overlay District regulations in the Zoning Ordinance were amended in
early 2010.
DISCUSSION:
The ARB and staff will be considering revisions to the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines in phases to allow for more
timely progress in recognition of the fact that staff resources available for this undertaking are limited. The four
recommended phases are as follows:
Phase 1 includes minor and new text revisions to bring the guidelines up to date with long-standing practices of the ARB
and to clarify standard design requirements as well as guidelines which have proven difficult for applicants to understand.
This phase will also eliminate from the guidelines lists and process-related information (as opposed to design-related
information) because the lists and process information are now easily available at the County’s web site where they can be
updated quickly and easily. (See www.albemarle.org/ARB) Eliminating this information will streamline the guidelines,
allowing for more timely updates in the future. These revisions are separated from the subsequent phases because they do
not involve actual changes to current requirements or practice.
Phase 2 will bring the guidelines in line with the County’s expectations for the Development Areas. This will include
coordination with the Neighborhood Model and the master plans for Crozet, Pantops, Places 29 (when adopted), and the
Village of Rivanna. Updates to the Development Area guidelines are an important second step in this process since the
majority of ARB applications are for sites in these areas. This phase of updates will begin to address the issue of context in
the Entrance Corridors more specifically. To this end, qualifications will be added to the guidelines to distinguish
appropriate treatments sought/desired in the Development Areas against what is considered appropriate in the Rural
Areas. (For example, a rustic split rail fence might be appropriate in the Rural Areas but generally not at a commercial
development in the Development Areas.)
Phase 3 will begin after completion of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review and will ensure that the guidelines are
consistent with the County’s expectations for the Rural Areas using the updated Comprehensive Plan as guidance. This
phase will complete the revisions needed to address context issues in the Development Areas and the Rural Areas.
Phase 4 will incorporate any updates that are necessary to bring the guidelines into conformance with revisions made to
the site plan review process, which is currently under development.
The ARB has already promulgated the Phase 1 Guidelines. Attachment B is a black-line draft and attachment C is the
clean draft of the proposed Phase 1 Guideline revisions as recommended by the ARB at its November 1, 2010, November
15, 2010 and January 3, 2011 meetings. (See Attachments D, E and F for the ARB’s actions.) The revisions:
AGENDA TITLE: ARB-2010-126: Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Update
February 2, 2011
Page 2
1) Eliminate process-related information and lists, much of which is outdated and is now available on the County’s
website, such as:
Identification of types of projects that require ARB review
Steps in the ARB review process
Submittal requirements
How to appeal a decision of the ARB
The list of the County’s Entrance Corridors
Explanation of what falls within an Entrance Corridor
The County’s Entrance Corridor map
The County’s recommended tree list
2) Further clarify standard design requirements, such as:
Additional information on window glass to clarify that highly tinted and highly reflective glass is generally
not appropriate in the Entrance Corridors, with detail on the acceptable level of reflectance and the
submittal items required for review.
Clarification on the appropriate treatment of equipment and other objectionable features in the Entrance
Corridors, clarifying that appropriate siting of such features is the first step, followed by the addition of
screening to eliminate visibility.
Addition of information on the typical maximum light level found appropriate for display lots in the Entrance
Corridors.
Clarification on the size of trees required along interior roads, pedestrian ways and parking areas.
Information directing applicants to add standard equipment, landscape and lighting notes to their plans.
3) Provide assistance on guidelines that have proven difficult for applicants to understand, such as:
Clarification on the ornamental tree spacing requirement along the EC frontage.
Clarification on the appropriate appearance of the illumination from site lights in the Entrance Corridors.
Clarification on the desired appearance of grading proposed in the Entrance Corridors.
These revisions clarify long-standing practices of the ARB and do not revise current guidance or process. Staff anticipates
that these changes will improve efficiency in the review and approval of ARB applications.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The ARB and staff recommend that the Board ratify the revised Guidelines set forth in Attachment C and endorse the
phased approach to the Guideline revisions as outlined in this Executive Summary.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: History of Updates to the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
Attachment B: Black-line Revisions to the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
Attachment C: Proposed Revised Text - Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
Attachment D: ARB November 1, 2010 Action on the Proposed Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
Attachment E: ARB November 15, 2010 Action on the Proposed Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
Attachment F: ARB January 3, 2011 Action on the Proposed Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
Return to agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES HISTORY
DATE ACTION
1990 Entrance Corridors were first established in Albemarle County in late 1990.
April 10, 1991 The first ARB applications were reviewed against interim design guidelines
that were adopted in April 1991.
August 21, 1991 The interim guidelines were amended in August 1991.
November 1, 1993 The ARB adopted design guidelines to replace the interim guidelines.
January 12, 1994 The design guidelines were adopted by the Board of Superv isors.
August 1998 Fuel pump canopy guidelines were added.
November 16, 1998 The general lighting guidelines were updated.
October 12, 2000 Guidelines were added for the use of decorative landscape lighting.
October 2004 The fuel pump canopy guidelines were updated.
October 13, 2004 The sign guidelines were updated and separated from the general
guidelines.
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DESIGN GUIDELINES
DRAFT UPDATE – FEBRUARY 2, 2011
Comment [MM1]: Illustrations have been deleted
from the draft revisions for easier editing, but Phase
1 revisions do not include changes to the
illustrations. Revisions to illustrations will be
addressed in the future phases. The illustrations
currently included in the Design Guidelines will be
returned to the document once the revised Phase 1
wording is finalized.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Background
Section 15.1-503.215.2-2306 of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities to regulate the design of development
along streets, roads, and highways providing access to significant routes of tourist access to the County and to
designated historic landmarks, structures or districts and to contiguous cities and towns to insure that such
development is compatible with the architecture of the historically significant landmarks, buildings, and structures
to which these routes lead. These “entrance corridors” are to behave been designated by the locality. The review
of development proposals within such corridors is to be undertaken by the locally designated Architectural Review
Boards.
On October 3, 1990, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted Section 30.6 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance. The section is titled “Entrance Corridor Overlay District” and implements the authority
described above. It specifically designates a number of “entrance corridors,” establishes standards for the review of
development proposed within the corridors and creates a five member Architectural Review Board (ARB). The
Board of Supervisors also appointed members to the ARB and charged them with the responsibility for proposing
and administering a set of Guidelines for development within the designated corridors.
Purpose
The goal of the regulation of the design of development within the designated Entrance Corridors is to insure that
new development within the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the area. Therefore, it is the purpose of
ARB review and of these Guidelines, that proposed development within the designated Entrance Corridors reflect
elements of design characteristic of the significant historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive development within these corridors.
Procedures and Requirements
State law and County ordinance both require that the ARB approve only those proposals which reflect designs
which are compatible with the historically significant architecture of the County of Albemarle and City of
Charlottesville. It is not intended that proposed designs mirror existing historic structures in the area. Replication
of historic structures is neither required nor desired. However, developers proposing “trademark” designs can
expect that significant modification will be required by the ARB before approval will be granted.
The guidelines which follow are intended to provide assistance to the applicant in designing projects which will
satisfy these design guidelines. In addition, Appendix A contains a list of the pictures of historically significant
structures in the area that are illustrated in this booklet; drawings which highlight some of the important features of
these structures; and photographs of modern buildings, both in the area and elsewhere, which are considered
compatible with these historic structures.
See the ARB page on the Albemarle County website at www.albemarle.org/ARB for additional details
regarding:
Application requirements and the types of ARB applications
Steps in the ARB review process
The types of projects that require ARB review
Areas of the County that are included in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District
A map of the County‟s Entrance Corridors
Comment [MM2]: Changes in this paragraph
make this text consistent with the new purpose and
intent section of the EC regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance that was recently amended and that is
based on the state enabling authority.
Comment [MM3]: This section was moved to the
beginning of “Design Guidelines – General”. See
page 6.
Comment [MM4]: These two paragraphs are not
new text. They have been moved from the
“Summary of Procedures and Requirements”
section, which follows.
Comment [MM5]: This paragraph has been
added to guide readers to additional information at
the county‟s web site. The list of items that follows
was added at the request of the ARB.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 2
Links to relevant forms and related information (including a link to Section 30.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance: Entrance corridor overlay district – EC).
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 3
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES
AND REQUIREMENTS
Comment [MM6]: This section was deleted,
except for the two paragraphs in the preceding
section, and reference has been added to the updated
information on the county‟s web site.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 4
What projects must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board?
If a proposed development project has the following characteristics, it must be reviewed by the Albemarle County
Architectural Review Board:
The project is to be located upon a parcel which is within an Entrance Corridor, and
1.) The project requires County approval of a site plan or approval of an amendment to an approved site plan
before development can begin (generally, only commercial, industrial, or multi-family development projects are
required to have a site plan and, therefore, require ARB approval), or
2.) The project requires County approval of a building permit for a commercial, industrial, or multi-family
development project before construction can begin, or
3.) The project requires a Special Use Permit from the Albemarle Board of Supervisors because it involves
outdoor storage or display within an Entrance Corridor street, or
4.) The project requires a Special Use Permit, rezoning, or comprehensive plan amendment and the Albemarle
Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission have requested advice from the ARB before acting upon the
proposal.
An Entrance Corridor includes all parcels which adjoin or are located within five hundred (500) feet of the right-of-
way of a County road or highway designated in Section 30.6.2b of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as an
Entrance Corridor street.” Appendix A contains a list of the current designations.
In the case of reviews under items 1 and 2 above, the ARB must issue a Certificate of Appropriateness in
order for the site plan to receive final approval and the project to commence. In the case of reviews under
items 3 and 4 above, the ARB must make a non-binding recommendation to the Planning Commission or
Board of Supervisors.
What is required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board?
Filing an Application for ARB Review
The developer must submit an application for ARB review to the Planning Department . The ARB meets
twice a month on the first and third Monday. Reviews are scheduled according to the County‟s ARB
Submission and Review Schedule. The items that must be submitted with each ARB application are
outlined in checklists. The applications, checklists, and review schedule are available in the Planning
Department and on line at www. albemarle.org/planning. Typically, there is a four-to six-week review
period between submittal day and meeting day.
Preliminary Reviews
It is recommended, but not required, that prior to filing an application for ARB review that the applicant
first meet with the ARB staff. Then, an application can be submitted for a preliminary review with the
ARB. After the preliminary review, the ARB will provide the applicant within a written list of any
suggestions discussed during the meeting. Experience has shown that incorporating these suggestions into
the final application will save the applicant time and expense.
Comment [MM7]: This section was deleted
because it is out of date and updated information is
now available on the county‟s web site.
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Comment [MM8]: This section has been deleted
because it is out of date and the updated steps of the
ARB review process are now outlined on the
County‟s web site.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 5
Design Requirements
State law and County ordinance both require that the ARB approve only those proposals which reflect
designs which are compatible with the historically significant architecture of the County of Albemarle
and City of Charlottesville. It is not intended that proposed designs mirror existing historic structures in the
area. Replication of such structures is neither required nor desired. However, developers proposing
“trademark” designs can expect that significant modification will be required by the ARB before
approval will be granted.
The guidelines which follow are intended to provide assistance to the applicant in designing projects which
will meet the design requirements of the ARB. In addition, Appendix B contains a list of the pictures of
historically significant structures in the area that are illustrated in this booklet; drawings which highlight
some of the important features of these structures; and photographs of modern buildings, both in the area
and elsewhere, which are considered compatible with these historic structures.
What is required for a review other than one required for approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness?
Review of development requiring a Special Use Permit because outdoor display is proposed within an
Entrance Corridor shall require provision of the information required for a “preliminary review,” or, in the
discretion of the ARB staff such additional information, any of which would be required for the issuance of
a Certificate of Appropriateness. Any other reviews requested by the Board of Supervisors shall be
accompanied by such information as shall be deemed appropriate by the ARB or ARB staff, including the
information which would be required for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
What appeal is available from decisions of the Architectural Review Board?
Provisions of a Certificate of Appropriateness, or the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness may be
appealed to the Board of Supervisors by making a written demand for such appeal to the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the decision with respect to which the appeal is sought.
Recommendations of the ARB with respect to Special Use Permits, rezonings, comprehensive plan
amendments, and preliminary conferences preceding application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, are
not appealable because they are advisory only.
Decisions regarding the application or intent of Section 30.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
establishing the Entrance Corridor Overlay District may be appealed to the Albemarle County Zoning
Administrator.
Comment [MM9]: This section has been revised
and moved up to page 2.
Comment [MM10]: This section has been
deleted because updated information is now covered
on the county‟s web site.
Comment [MM11]: This section has been
deleted because the information on appeals has been
added to the county‟s web site.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 6
DESIGN GUIDELINES – GENERAL
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 7
Purpose
1. The goal of the regulation of the design of development within the designated Entrance
Corridors is to insure that new development within the corridors reflects the traditional
architecture of the area. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and of these Guidelines,
that proposed development within the designated Entrance Corridors reflect elements of design
characteristic of the significant historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive development within
these corridors. Applicants should note that replication of historic structures is neither required
nor desired.
2. Visitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience
these sites as ensembles of buildings, land, and vegetation. In order to accomplish the
integration of buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of these sites, the Guidelines
require attention to four primary factors: compatibility with significant historic sites in the
area; the character of the Entrance Corridor; site development and layout; and landscaping.
Compatibility with significant historic sites:
3. New structures and substantial additions to existing structures should respect the traditions of
the architecture of historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area.
Photographs of historic buildings in the area, as well as drawings of architectural features, which
provide important examples of this tradition are contained in Appendix BA.
4. The examples contained in Appendix B A should be used as a guide for building design: the
standard of compatibility with the area‟s historic structures is not intended to impose a rigid
design solution for new development. Replication of the design of the important historic sites in
the area is neither intended nor desired. The Guideline‟s standard of compatibility can be met
through building scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in architecture which is
contemporary as well as traditional. The Guidelines allow individuality in design to
accommodate varying tastes as well as special functional requirements.
Compatibility with the character of the Entrance Corridor:
5. It is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish a pattern of compatible
architectural characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in order to achieve unity and
coherence. Building designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby structures
within the Entrance Corridor. Where a designated corridor is substantially developed, these
Guidelines require striking a careful balance between harmonizing new development with
the existing character of the corridor and achieving compatibility with the significant
historic sites in the area.
Site development and layout:
6. Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute
to the creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent
Comment [MM12]: The first two sentences of
this paragraph are not new text. They were moved to
this location from an earlier section of the guidelines.
Comment [MM13]: The last sentence of this
paragraph is repeated from an earlier section for
emphasis.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Numbered +
Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start
at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" +
Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Numbered +
Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start
at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" +
Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Numbered +
Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start
at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" +
Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 8
practical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees
along streets and pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements;
insuring that any grading will blend into the surrounding topography thereby creating a
continuous landscape; preserving, to the extent practical, existing significant river and
stream valleys which may be located on the site and integrating these features into the
design of surrounding development; and limiting the building mass and height to a scale that
does not overpower the natural settings of the site, or the Entrance Corridor.
Landscaping:
7. The requirements of the Guidelines regarding landscaping are intended to reflect the
landscaping characteristic of many of the area‟s significant historic sites which is
characterized by large shade trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual order
within the Entrance Corridor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of
the corridor.
8. Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be obtained by planting different types of
plant materials that share similar characteristics. Such common elements allow for more
flexibility in the design of structures because common landscape features will help to
harmonize the appearance of development as seen from the street upon which the Corridor
is centered.
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 9
DESIGN GUIDELINES – SPECIFICS
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 10
This section provides specific recommendations intended to achieve the goals described in the
general design statement.
Compatibility with significant historic sites:
Structure design
9. Building forms and features, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors and textures
should be compatible with the forms and features of the significant historic buildings in the area,
exemplified by (but not limited to) the buildings described in Appendix BA. The standard of
compatibility can be met through scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in
architecture which is contemporary as well as traditional. The replication of important historic
sites in Albemarle County is not the objective of these guidelines.
10. Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding context of buildings.
11. The overall design of buildings should have human scale. Scale should be integral to the
building and site design.
12. Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale, and
materials to create a cohesive whole.
13. Any appearance of “blankness” resulting from building design should be relieved using design
details or vegetation, or both.
14. Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural connecting devices should be used to unify groups of
buildings within a development.
15. Trademark buildings and related features should be modified to meet the requirements of the
Guidelines.
15.16. Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should not be highly tinted or highly reflective.
Reflectance off the outside pane of glass should be kept below 7%. Specifications on the
proposed window glass and samples of tinted window glass should be submitted with the
application for final review.
Accessory structures and equipment
16.17. Accessory structures and equipment should be integrated into the overall plan of
development and shall, to the extent possible, be compatible with the building designs used on
the site.
17.18. The following should be screened located to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor
street. If, after appropriate siting, these features will still have a negative visual impact on the
Entrance Corridor street, screening should be provided to eliminate visibility:.
Comment [MM14]: This section informs
applicants of the ARB‟s standards for tinted and
reflective window glass, which have been in use for
several years. At the request of the ARB,
clarification has been added regarding the timing of
the submittal of the glass sample.
Comment [MM15]: The revisions here clarify
the ARB‟s standard practice regarding the location
and screening of objectionable site elements.
Applicants are encouraged to first find appropriate
locations for such elements. If locations that
eliminate visibility are not available, screening is
then required.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 11
a) Loading areas,
b) Service areas,
c) Refuse areas,
d) Storage areas,
e) Mechanical equipment,
f) Above-ground utilities, and
g) Chain link fence, barbed wire, razor wire, and similar security fencing devices.
19. Screening devices should be compatible with the design of the buildings and surrounding
natural vegetation and may consist of:
a) Walls,
b) Plantings, and
c) Fencing.
20. Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be designed to fit into the
natural topography to avoid the need for screening. When visible from the Entrance Corridor
street, these features must be fully integrated into the landscape. They should not have the
appearance of engineered features.
21. The following note should be added to the site plan and the architectural plan: “Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
Lighting
General Guidelines
(Adopted by the ARB on November 16, 1998)
21.22. Light should be contained on the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties or
streets;
23. Light should be shielded, recessed or flush-mounted to eliminate glare. All fixtures with
lamps emitting 3000 lumens or more must be full cutoff fixtures.;
22.24. Light levels exceeding 30 footcandles are not appropriate for display lots in the Entrance
Corridors. Lower light levels will apply to most other uses in the Entrance Corridors.
Comment [MM16]: This additional text further
clarifies the anticipated treatment that is typically
required for stormwater facilities that are visible
from the ECs.
Comment [MM17]: This additional text informs
applicants of a standard note that is required on
Entrance Corridor plans regarding the visibility of
mechanical equipment.
Comment [MM18]: This sentence has been
added to emphasize the ordinance requirement for
full cutoff fixtures.
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Comment [MM19]: This text has been added to
outline the expectation for light levels in outdoor
storage and display areas in the ECs. The 30
footcandle maximum is standard practice and has
been approved as a condition of Special Use Permits
for outdoor display in the ECs over the past several
years.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 12
23.25. The lLight should achieve an incandescent effect;have the appearance of white light with
a warm soft glow; however, a consistent appearance throughout a site or development is
required. Consequently, if existing lamps that emit non-white light are to remain, new lamps
may be required to match them.
24.26. Dark brown, dark bronze, or black are appropriate colors for free-standing pole mounted
light fixtures in the Entrance Corridors.
25.27. The height and scale of freestanding, pole-mounted light fixtures should be compatible
with the height and scale of the buildings and the sites they are illuminating, and with the use
of the site. Typically, the height of freestanding pole-mounted light fixtures in the Entrance
Corridors should not exceed 15 20 feet in height, including the base. Fixtures that exceed
1520 feet in height will typically require additional screening to achieve an appropriate
appearance from the Entrance Corridor.
26.28. In determining the appropriateness of lighting fixtures for the Entrance Corridors, the
individual context of the site will be taken into consideration on a case by case basis.
29. The following note should be included on the lighting plan: “Each outdoor luminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire.
The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or
rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle.”
Guidelines for the Use of Decorative Landscape Lighting
(Adopted by the ARB on October 12, 2000)
If other site lighting is visible from the Entrance Corridor, lighting used for decorative purposes
will generally not be approved. However, the ARB will review each proposal to determine
impact and appropriateness for the Entrance Corridor.
27.30. Exterior light used for decorative effect shall:
a) be compatible with the character of the Entrance Corridor. Compatibility of exterior
lighting and lighting fixtures is assessed in terms of design, use, size, scale, color, and
brightness.
b) impact only the immediate site. The effect of the illumination should not be discernible
from distances along the Entrance Corridor.
31. Where used for decorative effect, outdoor light fixtures shall:
a) be equipped with automatic timing devices and shall be extinguished between the hours
of 11:00 p.m. and dawn.
b) be shielded and focused to eliminate glare. Glare control shall be achieved primarily
through the use of such means as cutoff fixtures, shields and baffles, and appropriate
application of mounting height, wattage, aiming angle, fixture placement, etc.
Comment [MM20]: The text of this guideline
has been revised to clarify the intent. The
“incandescent effect” wording has been problematic
and misunderstood.
Comment [MM21]: The ARB has consistently
approved pole lights at 20‟ high.
Comment [MM22]: This additional text informs
applicants of a standard note that is required on site
plans when exterior lighting is proposed.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 13
c) be cutoff luminaires, aimed so as not to project their output beyond the objects intended
to be illuminated; or non-cutoff luminaires, equipped with glare shields, visors, barn
doors, and/or other similar shielding accessories as required to meet the following
criteria: Light distribution from all lighting installations shall be cut-off at all angles
beyond those required to restrict direct illumination to within the perimeter of the
landscape feature being illuminated.
d) never exceed 3,000 lumens. Further restrictions on lumens may be imposed by the ARB.
e) not be modified to reflect seasonal colors.
f) be of a number that is compatible with the scale of the object and the development to be
illuminated, such that the light emitted will not over-illuminate or overpower the site, as
determined by the ARB.
Signs
See the ARB‟s revised sign guidelines, adopted October 13, 2004.
Landscaping
32.) Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor streets should include the following:
a) Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees
should be at least 3½ inches caliper (measured 6 inches above the ground) and should be of
a plant species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 35 feet on
center.
b) Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area should be interspersed among
the trees required by the preceding paragraph. The ornamental trees need not alternate one
for one with the large shade trees. They may be planted among the large shade trees in a less
regular spacing pattern.
c) In situations where appropriate, a three or four board fence or low stone wall, typical of the
area, should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor street.
d) An area of sufficient width to accommodate the foregoing plantings and fencing should be
reserved parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive of road right-of-way and
utility easements.
33.) Landscaping along interior roads:
Comment [MM23]: Applicants often mistake
“interspersed” for “alternating”. This new text is
added to further clarify the intent for the spacing of
ornamental trees.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 14
a) Large Ttrees should be planted parallel to all interior roads. Such trees should be at least 2½
inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be of a plant species
common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 40 feet on center.
34.) Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
a) Medium tTrees should be planted parallel to all interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should
be at least 2½ inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be of a
species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 25 feet on center.
35.) Landscaping of parking areas:
a) Large Ttrees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located 40 feet on center. Trees
should be planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of one tree for every 10 parking
spaces provided and should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area.
b) Trees required by the preceding paragraph should measure 2½ inches caliper (measured six
inches above the ground); should be evenly spaced; and should be of a species common to
the area. Such trees should be planted in planters or medians sufficiently large to maintain
the health of the tree and shall be protected by curbing.
c) Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the parking area‟s impact on Entrance
Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches in height.
36.) Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
a) Trees or other vegetation should be planted along the front of long buildings as necessary to
soften the appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and type of such trees or
vegetation should be determined by the length, height, and blankness of such walls.
b) Shrubs should be used to integrate the site, buildings, and other structures; dumpsters,
accessory buildings and structures; “drive thru” windows; service areas; and signs. Shrubs
should measure at least 24 inches in height.
37.) Plant species:
a) Plant species required should be as approved by the Staff based upon but not limited to the
Generic Landscape Plan Recommended Species List and Native Plants for Virginia
Landscapes (Appendix D)..
38.) Plant health:
a) The following note should be added to the landscape plan: “All site plantings of trees and
shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height ; the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of
the plant.”
Comment [MM24]: This addition is to further
clarify the size requirement for trees along interior
roads that has been standard practice.
Comment [MM25]: This addition is to further
clarify the size requirement for trees along pedestrian
ways that has been standard practice.
Comment [MM26]: This addition is to further
clarify the size requirement for trees around parking
lots that has been standard practice.
Comment [MM27]: This additional text informs
applicants of a standard note that is required on
landscape plans in the ECs.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 15
Site development and layout:
Development pattern
39.) The relationship of buildings and other structures to the Entrance Corridor street and to other
development within the corridor should be as follows:
1.)a) An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and pedestrian walks should
guide the layout of the site.
2.)b) In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor street should be parallel to the
street. Building groupings should be arranged to parallel the Entrance Corridor street.
3.)c) Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent pedestrian and vehicular
circulation systems.
4.)d) Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to provide continuity within the
Entrance Corridor.
5.)e) If significant natural features exist on the site (including creek valleys, steep slopes,
significant trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical, then such natural features
should be reflected in the site layout. If the provisions of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance apply, then improvements required by that section should be
located so as to maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements from
Entrance Corridor streets.
6.)f) The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas on
and around the site.
Site Grading
35.) The site grading should respect the existing topographic characteristics of the site and blend
with adjacent properties.
36.) Site grading should not change the basic relationship of the site to surrounding conditions.
37.) Steep cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable.
35.) Cut and fill slopes should be rounded (minimum ten foot radius) to meet adjacent
conditions.
38.)
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 32 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent
at: 0.5"
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 16
40.) Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of the site to surrounding conditions by
limiting the use of retaining walls and by shaping the terrain through the use of smooth, rounded
land forms that blend with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are generally
unacceptable. Proposed contours on the grading plan shall be rounded with a ten foot minimum
radius where they meet the adjacent condition. Final grading should achieve a natural, rather
than engineered, appearance. Retaining walls 6 feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall
be terraced and planted to blend with the landscape.
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 40 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
Comment [MM28]: This re-worded guideline is
intended to better explain the intent for grading in
the ECs, incorporating the guidelines previously
numbered 35 through 38. The “respecting existing
conditions” and “10 foot radius” wording in the
previous text has not been understood by applicants
and the ARB‟s standard approach to tall retaining
walls is currently not spelled out in the guidelines.
The “discouraged” and “encouraged” grading
diagrams, above, have been added for further clarity.
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 17
39.)41.) No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within the drip line of any trees or
other existing features designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness.
Adequate tree protection fencing should be shown on, and coordinated throughout, the grading,
landscaping and erosion and sediment control plans.
40.)42.) Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness should
be clearly delineated and protected on the site prior to any grading activity on the site. This
protection should remain in place until completion of the development of the site.
41.)43.) Preservation areas should be protected from storage or movement of heavy
equipment within this area.
42.)44.) Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required, new drainage patterns) should be
incorporated into the finished site to the extent possible.
45.) Fuel Pump Canopies
(Adopted by the ARB on August 25, 1998, revised October 13, 2004)
a) Fuel pump canopies may be required to provide customers with protection from the
elements and to provide lighting levels required for dispensing fuel. Such fuel pump
canopies are functional elements of present-day gas/convenience stores and their
character and appearance shall reflect a minimalist design consistent with that function.
b) Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible to offer protection from the
elements. Canopies shall not exceed the sizes identified in Standards for Fuel Pump
Canopies as outlined in Appendix CB.
c) The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support columns shall be in proportion to the
overall size of the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36" in total height,
including any accent bands.
d) Canopy fascias shall not be illuminated.
e) Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest level that will provide safe
dispensing of fuel. All canopy lighting shall be flush-mounted and shielded, downward
directed, and shall not emit light above the horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall
meet the .5 foot-candle spillover requirement in compliance with zoning ordinance
regulations.
f) Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers, support columns, spandrels, planters,
etc. shall be compatible with the character of the building and site and shall not be used
for advertising.
g) The architectural elements of a building should not be altered to reflect trademark canopy
design.
h) Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one principal color, with ARB review.
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 40 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
Comment [MM29]: This additional text informs
applicants of a standard requirement related to the
protection of trees in the ECs.
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 40 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 40 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 40 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 40 +
Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after:
0.25" + Indent at: 0.25"
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 18
i) Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to coordinate canopies with a site, its
building(s), and structures.
j) Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to ARB Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies.
(Appendix CB)
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 19
APPENDIX A
Entrance Corridor Overlay District
Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts are established:
1.) To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the adoption date of Section 30.6 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance which are contiguous to the rights-of-way of the
following Entrance Corridor streets in Albemarle County; or
2.) To a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the rights-of-way, whichever shall be greater,
along the following Entrance Corridor streets in Albemarle County:
U.S. Route 250 East and West
U.S. Route 29 North and South
Virginia Route 20 North and South
Virginia Route 631 south from Charlottesville City limits to Virginia Route 708
Virginia Route 631 from US Route 29 North to Route 743
Virginia Route 6
Virginia Route 151
Interstate Route 64
Virginia Route 22
Virginia Route 53
Virginia Route 231
Virginia Route 240
U.S. Route 29 Business
U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass
Virginia Route 654
Virginia Route 742
Virginia Route 649 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 606
Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 676
Comment [MM30]: This section has been
deleted because it is now included on the ARB‟s
page at the county‟s web site. The letter references
for the two following appendices have been updated
throughout the document.
Formatted: No bullets or numbering
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 20
Comment [MM31]: The EC map has been
deleted from the guidelines because it is now
available at the County‟s web site.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 21
APPENDIX BA
The following list contains properties that serve as examples for architecture and site design
proposed within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The list contains historic buildings
as well as more recently constructed buildings. The buildings are located within Albemarle
County and the City of Charlottesville.
Albemarle County Court House
Albemarle First Bank (Route 29 North)
Liberty Station & Convenience Store (previously Amoco, intersection of Route 29 North and
Airport Road)
Ash Lawn
Barracks Road Shopping Center (Barracks Road and Emmet Street intersection)
Crestar Building (High Street)
Forest Lakes Commercial Area (intersection of Route 29 North and Airport Road)
Ivy Commons (Ivy Road)
Legal Research Building (Route 250 West)
McDonald's (intersection of Route 250 East and Route 20 North)
Memorial Gym (University of Virginia)
Monticello
Moser Radiation Therapy Center (Route 250 West)
Peter Jefferson Place (Route 250 East)
Queen Charlotte (High Street)
Rotunda and the Lawn (University of Virginia)
Shell Convenience Store Building (Route 250 East)
Wachovia Bank (Route 29 North)
The buildings as noted above are either historically significant or serve as examples of
architecture compatible with historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and
Albemarle area and serve as examples of shapes, structures, materials, colors, textures, site
development, and the integration of site and structure which are encouraged by these
guidelines.
It should be recognized, however, that replication of these examples will not necessarily
result in the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board
because each building site and its context is unique.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 22
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 23
APPENDIX CB
Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies
(Adopted by the ARB on August 13, 1998)
LENGTH
Maximum length for a single island canopy = 26'
(= 4' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 4' comfort zone back)
Maximum length for a double island canopy = 42'
(= 2' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 2' comfort zone middle + 18' auto length + 2' comfort
zone back)
Maximum length for a triple island canopy = 66'
(= 3' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 3' comfort zone middle + 18' auto length + 3' comfort
zone back + 18' auto length + 3' comfort zone back)
WIDTH
Maximum width for single island canopies = 26'. (= 3' (open door overhang) + 6' (car width) +
2' (curb clearance) + 4' (island width) + 2' (curb clearance) + 6' (car width) + 3' (open door
overhang))
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 24
HEIGHT (from ground to bottom of fascia)
Maximum acceptable height is 14' 6”.
FASCIA HEIGHT
Maximum fascia height is 36”.
FUEL DISPENSER SIZE
A typical size is 7' 9" high (approximately half the minimum canopy height), 4'6" wide, 32"
deep.
ISLAND SIZE
A typical size is 12-14' long, 4' wide, 9" tall.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 25
APPENDIX D
Generic Landscape Plan
Recommended Species List
Large Shade Trees (50’-70’)
Botanical Name Common Name
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Acer saccharum Sugar Maple
Aesculus carnea Red Horsechestnut
Aesculus hippocastanum Common Horsechestnut
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Fraxinus americana White Ash
Gingko biloba Gingko (male species)
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum
Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum
Platanus acerifolia London Planetree
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore
Quercus acutissima Sawtooth Oak
Quercus alba White Oak
Quercus imbricaria Shingle Oak
Quercus palustris Pin Oak
Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Quercus robur English Oak
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak
Tilia americana American Linden
Tilia cordata Littleleaf Linden
Tilia tomentosa Silver Linden
Ulmus hollandica Groenveldt Elm
Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm, Lacebark Elm
Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova
Medium Shade Trees (40’-50’)
Botanical Name Common Name
Carpinus betulus European Hornbeam
Cercidiphyllum japonicum Katsuratree
Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree
Halesia monticola Mountain Silverbell
Sassafras albidium Sassafras
Sophora japonica Japanese Pagodatree
Comment [MM32]: This list has been deleted
because it is available on the ARB page at the
county‟s web site.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 26
Ornamental Trees (20’-40’)
Botanical Name Common Name
Amelanchier canadensis Shadblow Serviceberry
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud
Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood
Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur Thorn
Crataegus laevigata Paul's Scarlet English Hawthorn
Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Hawthorn
Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Raintree
Malus spp. Crabapple
Ostrya virginiana American Hophornbeam
Oxydendrum arboreum Sourwood
Prunus spp. Cherry
Pyrus calleryana Pear
Syringa amurensis Japanese Tree Lilac
Small Ornamental Trees (10’-20’)
Botanical Name Common Name
Styrax japonica Japanese Snowbell
Viburnum prunifolium Blackhaw Viburnum
Screening Trees (20’-60’)
Botanical Name Common Name
Cedrus atlantica "Glauca" Blue Atlas Cedar
Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar
Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Lawson Falsecypress
X Cupressocyparis leylandii Leyland Cypress
Ilex x attenuata “Fosteri” Foster Holly
Ilex x "Nellie R. Stevens" Nellie Stevens Holly
Ilex opaca American Holly
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar
Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia
Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine
Taxus baccata English Yew
Taxus cuspidata Upright Japanese Yew
Thuja occidentalis „Nigra‟ Dark American Arborvitae
Tsuga caroliniana Carolina Hemlock
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 27
Screening Shrubs (4’-15’)
Botanical Name Common Name
Abelia grandiflora Glossy Abelia
Buxus sempervirens Common American Boxwood
Ilex cornuta "Burfordii" Burford Holly
Ilex cornuta “Burfordii nana” Dwarf Burford Holly
Ilex crenata Japanese Holly
Ilex glabra “Compacta” Compact Inkberry
Juniperus spp Juniper varieties
Ligustrum japonicum Japanese Privet
Myrica cerifera Waxmyrtle
Osmanthus x fortunei Fortune‟s Osmanthus
Photinia fraseri Redtip Photinia
Prunus laurocerasus "Schipkaensis" Schip Laurel
Viburnum rhytidophyllum Leatherleaf Viburnum
Street Shrubs
Botanical Name Common Name
Abelia "Edward Goucher" Pink Abelia
Abelia grandiflora Glossy Abelia
Deutzia gracilis Slender Deutzia
Forsythia spp. Forsythia varieties
Jasminum nudiflorum Winter Jasmine
Leucothoe axillaris Coast Leucothoe
Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo
Pyracantha coccinea Scarlet Firethorn
Rhododendron spp. Rhododendron and Azaela varieties
Spiraea spp. Spirea varieties
Taxus spp. Yew varieties
Viburnum spp. Viburnum varieties
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 28
Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes
Trees
Small/ medium deciduous
Botanical Name Common Name
Amelanchier canadensis Shadblow Serviceberry
Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam
Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud
Chioanthus virginicus White Fringetree
Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood
Crataegus spp. Washington Hawthorn
Green Hawthorn
Ilex decidua Possumhaw
Magnolia tripetala Umbrella Magnolia
Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia
Ostrya virginiana American Hophornbeam
Oxydendrum arboreum Sourwood
Prunus spp. Carolina Cherrylaurel
Beach Cherry
Wild Red Cherry
Salix caprea Goat Willow
Large deciduous
Botanical Name Common Name
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Betula nigra River Birch
Carya spp. Shagbark Hickory
Pignut Hickory
Celtis laevigata Sugar Hackberry
Cladrastis kentuckea (lutea) AmericanYellowwood
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon
Fagus grandifolia American Beech
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum
Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree
Magnolia spp. Cucumbertree Magnolia
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore
Quercus spp. White Oak
Swamp White Oak
Southern Red Oak
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 29
Shingle Oak
Chinkapin Oak
Water Oak
Scarlet Oak
Chestunt Oak
Post Oak
Pin Oak
Willow Oak
Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust
Sassafras albidum Sassafras
Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress
Tilia americana American Linden
Evergreen Trees
Botanical Name Common Name
Ilex opaca American Holly
Ilex vomitoria Yaupon Holly
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar
Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia
Pinus spp. Virginia Pine
Loblolly Pine
Shortleaf Pine
Quercus virginiana Live Oak
Tsuga caroliniana Carolina Hemlock
Shrubs
Deciduous
Botanical Name Common Name
Callicarpa japonica American Beautybush
Calycanthus floridus Carolina Allspice
Clethra alnifolia Summersweet Clethra
Cornus racemosa Gray Dogwood
Cornus sericea Redtwig Dogwood
Fothergilla major Large Fothergilla
Hamamelis virginiana Common Witchhazel
Ilex decidua Possumhaw
Lindera benzoin Spicebush
Rhododendron spp. Deciduous Azaleas
Rhus spp. Sumac varieties
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines – Revised October 2004 Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 30
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry
Vaccinium spp. Highbush Blueberry
Viburnum spp. Mapleleaf Viburnum
Arrowwood
Evergreen Shrubs
Botanical Name Common Name
Ilex glabra Inkberry
Myrica cerifera Southern Waxmyrtle
Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel
Vines
Botanical Name Common Name
Clematis virginiana Virginsbower
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper
Campsis radicans Trumpet Creeper
Gelsemium sempervirens Carolina Yellow Jessamine
Lonicera sempervirens Trumpet Honeysuckle
Groundcovers
Botanical Name Common Name
Gaultheria procumbens Creeping Wintergreen
Mitchella repens Partridgeberry
Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DESIGN GUIDELINES
DRAFT UPDATE – FEBRUARY 2, 2011
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 2
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 3
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Background
Section 15.2-2306 of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities to regulate the design of
development along streets, roads, and highways providing significant routes of tourist access to the
County and to designated historic landmarks, structures or districts and to contiguous cities and
towns to insure that such development is compatible with the architecture of the historically
significant landmarks, buildings, and structures to which these routes lead. These “entrance
corridors” have been designated by the locality. The review of development proposals within such
corridors is to be undertaken by the locally designated Architectural Review Board.
On October 3, 1990, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted Section 30.6 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The section is titled “Entrance Corridor Overlay District”
and implements the authority described above. It specifically designates a number of “entrance
corridors,” establishes standards for the review of development proposed within the corridors and
creates a five member Architectural Review Board (ARB). The Board of Supervisors also
appointed members to the ARB and charged them with the responsibility for proposing and
administering a set of Guidelines for development within the designated corridors.
Procedures and Requirements
State law and County ordinance both require that the ARB approve only those proposals which
reflect designs which are compatible with the historically significant architecture of the County
of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville. It is not intended that proposed designs mirror existing
historic structures in the area. Replication of historic structures is neither required nor desired.
However, developers proposing “trademark” designs can expect that significant modification
will be required by the ARB before approval will be granted.
The guidelines which follow are intended to provide assistance to the applicant in designing projects
which will satisfy these design guidelines. In addition, Appendix A contains a list of the pictures of
historically significant structures in the area that are illustrated in this booklet; drawings which
highlight some of the important features of these structures; and photographs of modern buildings,
both in the area and elsewhere, which are considered compatible with these historic structures.
See the ARB page on the Albemarle County website at www.albemarle.org/ARB for
additional details regarding:
Application requirements and the types of ARB applications
Steps in the ARB review process
The types of projects that require ARB review
Areas of the County that are included in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District
A map of the County’s Entrance Corridors
Links to relevant forms and related information (including a link to Section 30.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance: Entrance corridor overlay district – EC).
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 4
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 5
DESIGN GUIDELINES – GENERAL
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 6
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 7
Purpose
1. The goal of the regulation of the design of development within the designated Entrance
Corridors is to insure that new development within the corridors reflects the traditional
architecture of the area. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and of these Guidelines,
that proposed development within the designated Entrance Corridors reflect elements of design
characteristic of the significant historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive development within
these corridors. Applicants should note that replication of historic structures is neither required
nor desired.
2. Visitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area experience
these sites as ensembles of buildings, land, and vegetation. In order to accomplish the
integration of buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of these sites, the Gui delines
require attention to four primary factors: compatibility with significant historic sites in the
area; the character of the Entrance Corridor; site development and layout; and landscaping.
Compatibility with significant historic sites:
3. New structures and substantial additions to existing structures should respect the traditions of
the architecture of historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area.
Photographs of historic buildings in the area, as well as drawings of architectural features, which
provide important examples of this tradition are contained in Appendix A.
4. The examples contained in Appendix A should be used as a guide for building design: the
standard of compatibility with the area’s historic structures is not intended to impose a rigid
design solution for new development. Replication of the design of the important historic sites in
the area is neither intended nor desired. The Guideline’s standard of compatibility can be met
through building scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in architecture which is
contemporary as well as traditional. The Guidelines allow individuality in design to
accommodate varying tastes as well as special functional requirements.
Compatibility with the character of the Entrance Corridor:
5. It is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish a pattern of compatible
architectural characteristics throughout the Entrance Corridor in order to achieve unity and
coherence. Building designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby structures within
the Entrance Corridor. Where a designated corridor is substantially developed, these
Guidelines require striking a careful balance between harmonizing new development with the
existing character of the corridor and achieving compatibility with the significant historic sites
in the area.
Site development and layout:
6. Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute to
the creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 8
practical, by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the area; planting new trees along
streets and pedestrian ways and choosing species that reflect native forest elements; insuring
that any grading will blend into the surrounding topography thereby creating a continuous
landscape; preserving, to the extent practical, existing significant river and stream valleys which
may be located on the site and integrating these features into the design of surrounding
development; and limiting the building mass and height to a scale that does not overpower the
natural settings of the site, or the Entrance Corridor.
Landscaping:
7. The requirements of the Guidelines regarding landscaping are intended to reflect the
landscaping characteristic of many of the area’s significant historic sites which is characterized
by large shade trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual order within the Entrance
Corridor and help to integrate buildings into the existing environment of the corridor.
8. Continuity within the Entrance Corridor should be obtained by planting different types of plant
materials that share similar characteristics. Such common elements allow for more flexibility in
the design of structures because common landscape features will help to harmonize the
appearance of development as seen from the street upon which the Corridor is centered.
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 9
DESIGN GUIDELINES – SPECIFICS
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 10
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 11
This section provides specific recommendations intended to achieve the goals described in the
general design statement.
Compatibility with significant historic sites:
Structure design
9. Building forms and features, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors and textures
should be compatible with the forms and features of the significant historic buildings in the area,
exemplified by (but not limited to) the buildings described in Appendix A. The standard of
compatibility can be met through scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied in
architecture which is contemporary as well as traditional. The replication of important historic
sites in Albemarle County is not the objective of these guidelines.
10. Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding context of buildings.
11. The overall design of buildings should have human scale. Scale should be integral to the
building and site design.
12. Architecture proposed within the Entrance Corridor should use forms, shapes, scale, and
materials to create a cohesive whole.
13. Any appearance of “blankness” resulting from building design should be relieved using design
details or vegetation, or both.
14. Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural connecting devices should be used to unify groups of
buildings within a development.
15. Trademark buildings and related features should be modified to meet the requirements of the
Guidelines.
16. Window glass in the Entrance Corridors should not be highly tinted or highly reflective.
Reflectance off the outside pane of glass should be kept below 7%. Specifications on the
proposed window glass and samples of tinted window glass should be submitted with the
application for final review.
Accessory structures and equipment
17. Accessory structures and equipment should be integrated into the overall plan of development
and shall, to the extent possible, be compatible with the building designs used on the site.
18. The following should be located to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor street. If,
after appropriate siting, these features will still have a negative visual impact on the Entrance
Corridor street, screening should be provided to eliminate visibility.
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 12
a) Loading areas,
b) Service areas,
c) Refuse areas,
d) Storage areas,
e) Mechanical equipment,
f) Above-ground utilities, and
g) Chain link fence, barbed wire, razor wire, and similar security fencing devices.
19. Screening devices should be compatible with the design of the buildings and surrounding
natural vegetation and may consist of:
a) Walls,
b) Plantings, and
c) Fencing.
20. Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be designed to fit into the
natural topography to avoid the need for screening. When visible from the Entrance Corridor
street, these features must be fully integrated into the landscape. They should not have the
appearance of engineered features.
21. The following note should be added to the site plan and the architectural plan: “Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.”
Lighting
General Guidelines
22. Light should be contained on the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets;
23. Light should be shielded, recessed or flush -mounted to eliminate glare. All fixtures with
lamps emitting 3000 lumens or more must be full cutoff fixtures.
24. Light levels exceeding 30 footcandles are not appropriate for display lots in the Entrance
Corridors. Lower light levels will apply to most other uses in the Entrance Corridors.
25. Light should have the appearance of white light with a warm soft glow; however, a consistent
appearance throughout a site or development is required. Consequently, if existing lamps that
emit non-white light are to remain, new lamps may be required to match them.
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 13
26. Dark brown, dark bronze, or black are appropriate colors for free-standing pole mounted
light fixtures in the Entrance Corridors.
27. The height and scale of freestanding, pole-mounted light fixtures should be compatible with
the height and scale of the buildings and the sites they are illuminating, and with the use of
the site. Typically, the height of freestanding pole-mounted light fixtures in the Entrance
Corridors should not exceed 20 feet , including the base. Fixtures that exceed 20 feet in
height will typically require additional screening to achieve an appropriate appearance from
the Entrance Corridor.
28. In determining the appropriateness of lighting fixtures for the Entrance Corridors, the
individual context of the site will be taken into consideration on a case by case basis.
29. The following note should be included on the lighting plan: “Each outdoor luminaire
equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initia l lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire.
The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or
rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle.”
Guidelines for the Use of Decorative Landscape Lighting
If other site lighting is visible from the Entrance Corridor, lighting used for decorative purposes
will generally not be approved. However, the ARB will review each proposal to determine
impact and appropriateness for the Entrance Corridor.
30. Exterior light used for decorative effect shall:
a) be compatible with the character of the Entrance Corridor. Compatibility of exterior
lighting and lighting fixtures is assessed in terms of design, use, size, scale, color, and
brightness.
b) impact only the immediate site. The effect of the illumination should not be discernible
from distances along the Entrance Corridor.
31. Where used for decorative effect, outdoor light fixtures shall:
a) be equipped with automatic timing devices and shall be extinguished between the hours
of 11:00 p.m. and dawn.
b) be shielded and focused to eliminate glare. Glare control shall be achieved primarily
through the use of such means as cutoff fixtures, shields and baffles, and appropriate
application of mounting height, wattage, aiming angle, fixture placement, etc.
c) be cutoff luminaires, aimed so as not to project their output beyond the objects intended
to be illuminated; or non-cutoff luminaires, equipped with glare shields, visors, barn
doors, and/or other similar shielding accessories as required to meet the following
criteria: Light distribution from all lighting installations shall be cut-off at all angles
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 14
beyond those required to restrict direct illumination to within the perimeter of the
landscape feature being illuminated.
d) never exceed 3,000 lumens. Further restrictions on lumens may be imposed by the ARB.
e) not be modified to reflect seasonal colors.
f) be of a number that is compatible with the scale of the object and the development to be
illuminated, such that the light emitted wi ll not over-illuminate or overpower the site, as
determined by the ARB.
Signs
See the ARB’s revised sign guidelines, adopted October 13, 2004.
Landscaping
32. Landscaping along the frontage of Entrance Corridor streets should include the following:
a) Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the Entrance Corridor Street. Such trees
should be at least 3½ inches caliper (measured 6 inches above the ground) and should be of
a plant species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 35 feet on
center.
b) Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area should be interspersed among
the trees required by the preceding paragraph. The ornamental trees need not alternate one
for one with the large shade trees. They may be planted among the large shade trees in a less
regular spacing pattern.
c) In situations where appropriate, a three or four board fence or low stone wall, typical of the
area, should align the frontage of the Entrance Corridor street.
d) An area of sufficient width to accommodate the foregoing plantings and fencing should be
reserved parallel to the Entrance Corridor street, and exclusive of road right-of-way and
utility easements.
33. Landscaping along interior roads:
a) Large trees should be planted parallel to all interior roads. Such trees should be at least 2½
inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be of a plant species
common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 40 feet on center.
34. Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
a) Medium trees should be planted parallel to all interior pedestrian ways. Such trees should
be at least 2½ inches caliper (measured six inches above the ground) and should be of a
species common to the area. Such trees should be located at least every 25 feet on center.
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 15
35. Landscaping of parking areas:
a) Large trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located 40 feet on center. Trees
should be planted in the interior of parking areas at the rate of one tree for every 10 parking
spaces provided and should be evenly distributed throughout the interior of the parking area.
b) Trees required by the preceding paragraph should measure 2½ inches caliper (measured six
inches above the ground); should be evenly spaced; and should be of a species common to
the area. Such trees should be planted in planters or medians sufficiently large to maintain
the health of the tree and shall be protected by curbing.
c) Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the parking area’s impact on Entrance
Corridor streets. Shrubs should measure 24 inches in height.
36. Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
a) Trees or other vegetation should be planted along the front of long buildings as necessary to
soften the appearance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and type of such trees or
vegetation should be determined by the length, height, and blankness of such walls.
b) Shrubs should be used to integrate the site, buildings, and other structures; dumpsters,
accessory buildings and structures; “drive thru” windows; service areas; and signs. Shrubs
should measure at least 24 inches in height.
37. Plant species:
a) Plant species required should be as approved by the Staff based upon but not limited to the
Generic Landscape Plan Recommended Species List and Native Plants for Virginia
Landscapes .
38. Plant health:
a) The following note should be added to the landscape plan: “All site plantings of trees and
shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of
the plant.”
Site development and layout:
Development pattern
39. The relationship of buildings and other structures to the Entrance Corridor street and to other
development within the corridor should be as follows:
a) An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and pedestrian walks should guide
the layout of the site.
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 16
b) In general, buildings fronting the Entrance Corridor street should be parallel to the street.
Building groupings should be arranged to parallel the Entrance Corridor street.
c) Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent pedestrian and vehicular circulation
systems.
d) Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to provide continuity within the Entrance
Corridor.
e) If significant natural features exist on the site (including creek valleys, steep slopes,
significant trees or rock outcroppings), to the extent practical, then such natural features
should be reflected in the site layout. If the provisions of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance apply, then improvements required by that section should be
located so as to maximize the use of existing features in screening such improvements from
Entrance Corridor streets.
f) The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas on and
around the site.
Site Grading
40. Site grading should maintain the basic relationship of the site to surrounding conditions by
limiting the use of retaining walls and by shaping the terrain through the use of smooth, rounded
land forms that blend with the existing terrain. Steep cut or fill sections are generally
unacceptable. Proposed contours on the grading plan shall be rounded with a ten foot minimum
radius where they meet the adjacent condition. Final grading should achieve a natural, rather
than engineered, appearance. Retaining walls 6 feet in height and taller, when necessary, shall
be terraced and planted to blend with the landscape.
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 17
41. No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within the drip line of any trees or other
existing features designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness.
Adequate tree protection fencing should be shown on, and coordinated throughout, the grading,
landscaping and erosion and sediment control plans.
42. Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness should be clearly
delineated and protected on the site prior to any grading activity on the site. This protection
should remain in place until completion of the development of the site.
43. Preservation areas should be protected from storage or movement of heavy equipment within
this area.
44. Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required, new drainage patterns) should be
incorporated into the finished site to the extent possible.
45. Fuel Pump Canopies
(Adopted by the ARB on August 25, 1998, revised October 13, 2004)
a) Fuel pump canopies may be required to provide customers with protection from the
elements and to provide lighting levels required for dispensing fuel. Such fuel pump
canopies are functional elements of present-day gas/convenience stores and their
character and appearance shall reflect a minimalist design consistent with that function.
b) Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible to offer protection from the
elements. Canopies shall not exceed the sizes identified in Standards for Fuel Pump
Canopies as outlined in Appendix B.
c) The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support columns shall be in proportion to the
overall size of the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36" in total height,
including any accent bands.
d) Canopy fascias shall not be illuminated.
e) Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest level that will provide safe
dispensing of fuel. All canopy lighting shall be flush-mounted and shielded, downward
directed, and shall not emit light above the horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall
meet the .5 foot-candle spillover requirement in compliance with zoning ordinance
regulations.
f) Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers, support columns, spandrels, planters,
etc. shall be compatible with the character of the building and site and shall not be used
for advertising.
g) The architectural elements of a building should not be alter ed to reflect trademark canopy
design.
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 18
h) Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one principal color, with ARB review.
i) Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to coordinate canopies with a site, its
building(s), and structures.
j) Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to ARB Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies.
(Appendix B)
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 19
APPENDIX A
The following list contains properties that serve as examples for architecture and site design
proposed within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The list contains historic buildings
as well as more recently constructed buildings. The buildings are located within Albemarle
County and the City of Charlottesville.
Albemarle County Court House
Albemarle First Bank (Route 29 North)
Liberty Station & Convenience Store (previously Amoco, intersection of Route 29 North and
Airport Road)
Ash Lawn
Barracks Road Shopping Center (Barracks Road and Emmet Street intersection)
Crestar Building (High Street)
Forest Lakes Commercial Area (intersection of Route 29 North and Airport Road)
Ivy Commons (Ivy Road)
Legal Research Building (Route 250 West)
McDonald's (intersection of Route 250 East and Route 20 North)
Memorial Gym (University of Virginia)
Monticello
Moser Radiation Therapy Center (Route 250 West)
Peter Jefferson Place (Route 250 East)
Queen Charlotte (High Street)
Rotunda and the Lawn (University of Virginia)
Shell Convenience Store Building (Route 250 East)
Wachovia Bank (Route 29 North)
The buildings as noted above are either historically significant or serve as examples of
architecture compatible with historically significant buildings in the Charlottesville and
Albemarle area and serve as examples of shapes, structures, materials, colors, textures, site
development, and the integration of site and structure which are encouraged by these
guidelines.
It should be recognized, however, that replication of these examples will not necessarily
result in the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board
because each building site and its context is unique.
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 20
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 21
APPENDIX B
Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies
(Adopted by the ARB on August 13, 1998)
LENGTH
Maximum length for a single island canopy = 26'
(= 4' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 4' comfort zone back)
Maximum length for a double island canopy = 42'
(= 2' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 2' comfort zone middle + 18' auto length + 2' comfort
zone back)
Maximum length for a triple island canopy = 66'
(= 3' comfort zone front + 18' auto length + 3' comfort zone middle + 18' auto length + 3' comfort
zone back + 18' auto length + 3' comfort zone back)
WIDTH
Maximum width for single island canopies = 26'. (= 3' (open door overhang) + 6' (car width) +
2' (curb clearance) + 4' (island width) + 2' (curb clearance) + 6' (car width) + 3' (open door
overhang))
ATTACHMENT C
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Design Guidelines –Draft Revisions 2/2/2011– page 22
HEIGHT (from ground to bottom of fascia)
Maximum acceptable height is 14' 6”.
FASCIA HEIGHT
Maximum fascia height is 36”.
FUEL DISPENSER SIZE
A typical size is 7' 9" high (approximately half the minimum canopy height), 4'6" wide, 32"
deep.
ISLAND SIZE
A typical size is 12-14' long, 4' wide, 9" tall.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
November 1, 2010
FINAL ACTION MEMO
ATTACHMENT D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ARB ACTION MEMO
Date: 11-1-2010
Time: 1:00 PM
Meeting Room: Room #241
Members:
Charles T. Lebo: Present
Fred Missel, Chair: Present
Paul M. Wright: Present
Bill Daggett, Vice Chair: Present (Arrived at 1:07 p.m.)
Bruce Wardell: Present (Arrived at 1:12 p.m.)
Staff:
Margaret Maliszewski: Present
Eryn Brennan: Present
OTHER BUSINESS
a) Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines: Draft changes
The ARB reviewed the proposed Phase 1 changes to the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines and
provided the following comments:
1. The ARB agreed with the proposed phasing of revisions and the update process, noting that the
standard advertising for ARB agenda items would be appropriate for the phase 1 revisions.
2. The ARB agreed that public comment would be allowed at ARB meetings.
3. Mr. Missel indicated that he would be willing to facilitate a round-table session and encouraged
all ARB members to attend.
4. The ARB was in general agreement with the Phase 1 revisions and recommended the following
changes:
a. In the last sentence on page 1, include a bulleted list of the administrative items moved
from the guidelines to the website.
b. On page 9, #16, indicate when the glass sample is required – at preliminary or final
review.
Go to next attachment
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2
November 1, 2010
FINAL ACTION MEMO
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
November 15, 2010
FINAL ACTION MEMO
ATTACHMENT E
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ARB ACTION MEMO - PARTIAL
Date: 11-15-2010
Time: 1:00 PM
Meeting Room: Room #241
Members:
Charles T. Lebo: Present
Fred Missel, Chair: Present
Paul M. Wright: Present
Bill Daggett, Vice Chair: Present
Bruce Wardell: Present (Mr. Wardell left the meeting at 1:45 p.m.)
Staff:
Margaret Maliszewski: Present
OTHER BUSINESS
Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines: Proposed Phase 1 Changes
Motion: Mr. Daggett made a motion to forward the following recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors regarding the proposed revisions to the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines:
The ARB recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
Phase 1 revisions as outlined in the draft dated 11/5/2010.
Mr. Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Wardell absent)
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
January 3, 2011
FINAL ACTION MEMO
ATTACHMENT F
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ARB ACTION MEMO
Date: 01-03-2011
Time: 1:00 PM
Meeting Room: Room #241
Members:
Charles T. Lebo: Present
Fred Missel, Chairman: Present
Paul M. Wright: Present (Mr. Wright arrived at 1:03 p.m.)
Bill Daggett, Vice Chair: Present
Bruce Wardell: Present
Staff:
Margaret Maliszewski: Present
Eryn Brennan - Present
ARB-2010-126: Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Phase 1
Motion: Mr. Daggett moved to promulgate the guidelines dated December 22, 2010 as stated in the staff
report.
Mr. Wardell seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development
Areas
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review changes made at Board’s direction and provide
further direction on the Hollymead Development Area ;
Approval of Master Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Cilimberg, and Benish; and
Ms. Echols and Ms. Wiegand
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On November 10, 2010, the Board held a public hearing on the Places29 Master Plan and directed staff to make
changes to the Master Plan, mostly related to transportation recommendations.
On January 12, 2011, the Board reviewed several Master Plan text and map amendments that staff prepared in
response to the Board’s earlier direction and generally accepted those changes, then directed staff to make several
additional changes. At that meeting, the Board also agreed to include an expansion to the Piney Mountain
Development Area, generally located just west of the Rivanna Station military base . To date, the Board has not given
final direction on a potential expansion to the Hollymead Development Area.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has revised the draft Master Plan to incorporate the expansion of the Piney Mountain Development Area . As
noted above, the Board has not provided final direction on the possible expansion of the Hollymead Development Area.
A proposed text and map amendment for an expansion of the Hollymead Development Area is attached (Attachments
A and B) for the Board’s review. Direction is needed from the Board regarding this potential expansion area.
The full revised Master Plan document with appendices is available in the Clerk’s office in “track changes format.” It is
also available online at: http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=37 35
At the January work session, staff was directed to add language to the Master Plan that would explain the relationship
between the transportation study recommendations and the ultimate Places29 transportation recommendations found
in the Places29 Master Plan. This language is found in red type in these sections of Chapters 4 (page 4 -28) and 8
(Page 8-2) along with several other corrections to the text provided by the Board at the meeting.
Staff has made several other non-substantive changes to the Master Plan to improve the format of the
document, clarify confusing text, or otherwise address ing typographical errors:
1. Chapter 1, Introduction, has been revised to include a section on “How to Use This Plan.”
2. Chapter 7, Design Guidelines, has been revised to clarify which roadway cross sections will apply to
which roads.
3. Appendix 3, Roadway Cross Sections, has been revised to clarify which roadway cross sections will
apply to which roads.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no direct budget impact with this action.
AGENDA TITLE: Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas
February 2, 2011
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests direction from the Board as to whether these changes meet the Board’s expectations and final direction
on the Hollymead Development Area. If the proposed changes are acceptable, staff rec ommends approval of the
Place29 Master Plan. Should the Board choose to expand the Hollymead Development Area as described in
Attachments A and B, the Board’s action should reference inclusion of this text in Chapter 4, the section “Key Subareas
of the Future Land Use Plan” on page 4 -19 and amend Future Land Use Map—North at the end of Chapter 4.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Hollymead Expansion Area Text Amendment
B: Hollymead Expansion Area Map Amendment, Future Land Use Map, North
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5832
Fax (434) 972 - 4126
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4 for EXPANSION AREA 2:
The following is a draft of language that could be added to Places29 Master Plan text should the
Board of Supervisor choose to include this area in the Master Plan. The text change would be
added to Chapter 4, Future Land Use Plan and Transportation Network, at the end of the section
“Key Subareas of the Future Land Use Plan,” on page 4-19 .
Hollymead South Expansion Area
The newly expanded portion of the Hollymead Community is located west of US 29
approximately 2000 feet north of Rio Mills Road, east of the critical slopes and stream adjacent
to Rio Mills Road, and south of an unnamed stream. This area is to the east of the Templeton
Hills Subdivision located off of Rio Mills Road. This area consists of approximately 140 acres of
rolling terrain, with wooded and open areas. Existing development consists of radio and cellular
communication towers.
This expansion of the Hollymead Community is related to the proposed extension of Berkmar
Drive north across the South Fork Rivanna River to its connection with Meeting Street in the
Hollymead Town Center. The cost for this improvement is significant and will require a
combination of public and private funding. The Master Plan expands the Development Area and
designates urban uses along the alignment corridor for Berkmar Drive to support the
development of the road. An alignment for Berkmar Drive through a Development Area (as
opposed to a Rural Area) will create more opportunities and incentives for new development to
finance the new road, and the road would be necessary to support the new development around
it.
The selection and distribution of the land uses within the expansion area reflect the community’s
desire to maintain the appearance of the forested stretch of US 29, and to facilitate a transition
from the high intensity of the Hollymead Town Center to the open space at the south end of this
corridor and along the South Fork of the Rivanna River. A Neighborhood Service Center
designation is provided, surrounded on two sides by an Urban Mixed Use designation that would
permit a single large-format retail store as an additional incentive for development to finance the
road. It is important that commercial development (Neighborhood Service Center/Urban Mixed
Use) be oriented primarily to the side street(s) and Berkmar Drive and not directly to US 29 in
order to avoid replicating the commercial strip development pattern currently prevalent along the
Places29: Southern Expansion Area, Hollymead Community, February 2, 2011August 04,
2009 2
US 29 corridor. VDOT’s access management regulations and the Access Management Plan
component of Places29 will also guide access decisions in this area.
Expectations for development within this expansion area include:
Within the Urban Mixed Use area, one large-format (big box) retail use of up to 120,000
square feet may be constructed, provided it is developed in a manner otherwise consistent
with design/development expectations for the Urban Mixed Use designation. If no large-
format retail use is developed, the area designated Urban Mixed Use should retain the
character described in the definition of that designation.
The large-format retail building should adhere to the following guidelines for the purpose
of creating an appropriate streetscape:
The building’s facades and rooflines should be of visual interest and should
reduce the massive scale and the uniform, impersonal appearance of such large
buildings.
The building should have architectural features and patterns at a pedestrian scale
to provide visual interest, reduce massive aesthetic effects, and recognize local
character. These elements should be integral parts of the building fabric and not
applied trim, graphics, or paint.
A large building’s design should integrate small liner stores with entrances onto
the sidewalk in order to break up the façade of the larger user.
The large building’s location should be integrated with other buildings and site
features to encourage a more pedestrian-friendly composition.
All large buildings should present at least a two-story elevation to the streetscape.
Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities
should be incorporated into the building design or site to limit visibility.
Retail uses within the Neighborhood Service Center should be those neighborhood scale
uses typically expected in such a Center (see Land Use Table 1).
Office/R&D/Flex and space for contractor services are encouraged to be provided within
or near (north of) the Urban Mixed Use area.
All development, including the Neighborhood Service Center and Urban Mixed Use area,
should be primarily oriented to Berkmar Drive and/or the east-west connecting road(s)
from US 29 to Berkmar Drive.
Access to all development within the Expansion Area, including the Neighborhood
Service Center and the Urban Mixed Use area should be provided from Berkmar Drive
and/or the planned perpendicular roads (consistent with the recommendations of the
Access Management Plan). No new commercial entrances should be constructed on US
29 to serve individual properties or developments.
Provision of public active recreation space (playfields/practice fields) in this area should
be considered to meet the larger community needs.
A wooded, naturalistic buffer along US 29 from Rio Mills Road to the southern edge of
the Hollymead Town Center development should be provided to avoid or minimize the
appearance of uninterrupted urban development from the City to northern end of Piney
Mountain.
Places29: Southern Expansion Area, Hollymead Community, February 2, 2011August 04,
2009 3
This expansion area is not within a Priority Area for public capital investment and land use
activity. Approval of any development within this new DA expansion area, as with other lands
within the non-priority areas, will be predicated on the completion of a number of transportation
and infrastructure improvements needed to support development in these areas. These
improvements include:
The widening of US 29 to six lanes total between the South Fork Rivanna River and the
existing six-lane section near Hollymead Town Center, including any major intersection
improvements the grade separation/jug handle road system at US 29 and Ashwood Blvd.
that are deemed necessary by the County and/or VDOT at the time the property is
rezoned to permit the first development in this Expansion Area.
The extension of Berkmar Drive north across the South Fork Rivanna River to its
connection with Meeting Street in the Hollymead Town Center.
The construction of the east-west road from US 29 to Earlysville Road.
The construction of a road connecting Rio Mills Road to Berkmar Drive Extended.
All of the above improvements are needed to better distribute traffic generated from
within this Expansion Area to various roads in the transportation network and to
minimize the impact of development in this Expansion Area to US 29.
Provision of an easement for the upgrade to the RWSA water distribution line to serve
the Hollymead and Piney Mtn. Development Areas. The easement is expected to run
approximately adjacent to Berkmar Drive Extended and must be acceptable to RWSA.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
RWSA
Hollymead Dr.Ash
wood Blvd
P
o
l
o Gr
ounds Rd.US 29
Rio Mills R d .Route 643Earlysville Rd.
Templeton Acres
Forest Lakes South Hollymead
Hollymead Townhouses
Expansion Area 2
Date: 10/11/2010
°0 200 400 600100Feet
0 0.05 0.1 0.15Miles
NOTE: Users of the Places29 Future Land Use Map must also consultthe Places29 Parks & Green Systems Map to see if additionalopen space should be preserved and/or trails preserved
(1) FOR BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSED ROADS INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES SEE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK DIAGRAM(2) BOUNDARIES ARE FLEXIBLE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Consulting Team:Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Inc.Community Design + Architecture, Inc.Urban Advantage
Thomas Jefferson Planning District CommissionVirginia Department of Transportation
MASTER PLAN
Consulting Team:Community Design + Architecture, Inc.Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Inc.ZHA, Inc.Kathleen M. Galvin, ArchitectTimmons GroupUrban Advantage
Albemarle County
Source: Office of Geographic Data Services, Dept. of Community Development, Albemarle County;Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; Community Design + Architecture
NSCDUp
LegendProposed Roadway Network (1)Possible Additions to Roadway Network (beyond 2025)Potential Connections (Pedestrian, Bicycle, or Vehicular)Neighborhood Service CenterCommunity CenterDestination CenterUptownParcels Y2008
Small Area Plan Recommended (2)
Development Area Boundary
Airport District
Urban Mixed Use ( in Centers)
Urban Mixed Use ( in areas around Centers)
Commercial Mixed Use
Urban Density Residential
Neighborhood Density Residential
Office / R & D / Flex / Light Industrial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Institutional
Public Open Space
Privately owned Open Space ; Environmental Features
Proposed Development Area Boundary
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: February 2, 2011
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions
through May 2011 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Housing Committee: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy, business representative.
No applications received.
Pantops Community Advisory Council: One vacancy, (traditionally a State Farm
representative.)
Stephanie Lowenhaupt
Amy Preddy
Places 29 Community Advisory Council: One vacancy. Names highlighted in
yellow were appointed on January 5, 2011. After extending the vacancy deadline,
only one additional application (Thomas Fromm) was received. Previous
applications have also been included for your consideration.
Joseph Barnes
Pete Borches
Hawkins Dale
Scott Elliff
George Fitz-Hugh
Thomas Fromm (New applicant)
Vicki Gist
Joan Graves
Rebecca Harrison
Mariclaire Hession
Brian Johnson
Tim Kaczmarek
George Larie
Charles Lebo
Christopher Lee
Joe Milby
Cynthia Neff
Jeff Pixton
Joel Spring
Henry Weinschenk
Lloyd Wood
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: Four vacancies (one being a
joint City/County Chair).
No applications received.
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council: Ten vacancies. Application
deadline is February 16, 2011.
Cyndi Burton
Betsy Gohdes-Baten
Neil Means
Dennis Odinov
Rick Randolph
Richard Wagaman
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
Public Defender Office Citizens Advisory Committee:
Marilyn Minrath
Public Recreational Facilities Authority:
Jay Fennell
Thomas Jefferson Water Resource Protection Foundation Board:
Steve Murray
1 MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Committee Joseph Samuels 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 No Advertised, no applications recv'd
Advisory Council on Aging M. Waltine Eubanks 5/31/2011 5/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Advisory Council on Aging William Harvey 5/31/2011 5/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Agricultural and Forestal District Adv. Cmte.John Mattern 4/17/2011 4/17/2015 Eligible No Action Required
Agricultural and Forestal District Adv. Cmte.Brad Cogan 4/17/2011 4/17/2015 Eligible No Action Required
CHART Jeff Monroe 4/3/2011 4/3/2014 Eligible No Action Required
CHART Brad Sheffield 4/3/2011 4/3/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Crozet Community Advisory Council Paul Clark 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, applications due 2/16/11
Crozet Community Advisory Council Meg Holden 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Crozet Community Advisory Council David Mellen 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Housing Committee Jana Crutchfield 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Ineligible Advertised, no applications recv'd
JABA Constance Palmer 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
JABA Richard Lindsay 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
JABA Jean Wyant 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Amber Capron 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, no applications recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Kate Clapper Resigned 1 Application Received
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Vacant 2 Applications Received
Public Defender Office Citizens Adv. Com.Marilyn Minrath 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Yes Action Required
Public Recreational Facilities Authority Jay Fennell 12/13/2010 12/13/2013 Yes Action Required
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Reed Muelman 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible Advertised, no applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, no applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Deborah Rutter 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 Resigned Advertised, no applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Teri Kent 12/31/2011 12/31/2011 Resigned Advertised, no applications recv'd
TJ Water Resource Protection Foundation Board Steve Murray 1/31/2011 1/31/2015 Yes Action Required
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 6 Received
Revised 01/26/11
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Vitality Action Plan Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Quarterly Report on the Economic Vitality Action Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and S.
Allshouse; and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors ado pted an Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010, following extensive
public discussion and review. That plan establishes a quarterly schedule for reporting back to the Board on the
progress and activities of the Action Plan and staff will present a quarterly report at this meeting.
This item is related to one of Albemarle County’s Strategic Action Plan Goals - FY 10/11- FY 11/12 –
Goal 3: By June 30, 2012, the County and its partners will complete the first two year’s activities identifi ed in the
County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan.
The Board’s adoption of the Economic Vitality Action Plan on August 4, 2010 was the latest action in the County’s
economic development efforts over the past five years. Other actions previously taken inc lude participating as a
member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development,
identifying economic vitality as an objective in the County’s strategic plan, updating the Economic Development
Policy in the Comprehensive Plan, implementing the Resource Utilization Study recommendations , and adopting the
2010 Albemarle County Action Plan in January, 2010 . In June, 2010, the Board reaffirmed its commitment by
naming economic development as one of Albemarle County’s Strategic Action Plan Goals - FY 10/11- FY 11/12. As
was stated very clearly throughout the drafting and adoption process, the Plan is grounded in and works within the
guidance and framework of the Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Outreach/visibility/stakeholder relations
Virginia Department of Business Assistance (DBA) – County staff met with the Director of the DBA, Peter
Su, and his staff to discuss the County’s action plan and possible partner ships.
Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP ) – County staff along with representatives from the
Defensive Intelligence Agency met with the Director of the VEDP, Jeff Anderson, and his staff to discuss
updates to the Albemarle County Community Profile on the VEDP website.
Free Enterprise Forum – County staff including County Executive Tom Foley met with the Free Enterprise
Forum to discuss the County’s action plan .
Quarterly roundtables
First quarterly business roundtable - Focus on Small Businesses - was held November 18, 2010. The major
outcome of that session will be the creation of a small business assistance guide/toolkit and a draft of that
document is currently underway.
Second quarterly roundtable - Focus on Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Promoting Economic Vitality - is
scheduled for January 28, 2011. This program will feature a presentation by Mark Crowell, UVA Executive
Director and Associate Vice President for Innovation Partnerships and Commercialization.
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan Update
February 2, 2011
Page 2
Business Retention
Albemarle County along with other jurisdictions in the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership
has been selected to participate in a pilot business retention partnership wi th the Virginia Department of
Business Assistance – the Existing Business Advocacy Program – that will involve outreach and
engagement with County businesses beginning this spring.
The Central VA Small Business Development Center was awarded $30,000 to add to the Center’s small business-
counseling resources. This will allow for the hiring of an additional counselor, significantly reduce the current wait
time for client access to business-counseling services, and help add resources for second -stage existing
business operation expansions.
Major Business Expansions
The local defense intelligence industry continues to add new jobs to the local economy. BRAC -mandated
jobs are now up to 350, with the goal of reaching 1,000 by September of 2011. By that time, the Rivanna
Station operations should reach a combined employment base over 2,600 jobs.
A defense industry workforce development model from Dayton OH is under study by Piedmont Virginia
Community College for helping to create career ladder training opportunity in the local industry sector. Once
rolled out, this training program will help address immediate job openings and also begin to address longer -
term workforce development in this industry target.
Continued regulatory reform
Home occupations - County Code changes were approved and amended by the Board of Supervisors on
January 9, 2011, for home -based businesses in the rural areas. Key changes included authorizing
administrative approval of all home occupations in the Rural Areas, a corresponding lower f ee (as compared
to the fee for the special use permit formerly required for Class B home occupations), and a reduction in the
time needed to review applications.
Industrial districts’ uses and commercial and industrial setbacks and buffers - Work sessions were
held with the Planning Commission on January 11th. Staff addressed questions and comments and are
working on providing additional information for future Planning Commission review. Other parts of the project
include amending and updating performance standards for industrial uses. These proposed, additional
changes to the Zoning Ordinance should aid in the Action Plan’s Objective II to simplify and create certainty
in development review of industrial uses .
Farm winery operations – Staff is conducting work sessions with the Planning Commission regarding a
potential amendment to the noise standard for outdoor amplified music at farm wineries.
Data reporting
As stated in the Plan, it is critical that the County regularly monitor and assess the economy an d the local business
climate in order to be proactive and to perform effectively i n promoting economic vitality. During the quarterly update
with the Board in November, 2010, staff presented a preliminary list of measures based on researching other
communities and discussions with stakeholders.
While many of the measures are very long term and may not show much variance from quarter to quarter, or even
year to year as the national economy continues to struggle, staff has included other shorter term mea sures that will
indicate more incremental progress in meeting the objectives of the Plan.
Due to reporting deadlines for some of the data, the first data report is not included in the Executive Summary but will
be presented at the Board meeting on Febru ary 2 and will be posted to the County’s website and shared with
interested stakeholders.
Upcoming Milestones
Implementation of the Target Industry Study
Agricultural Economy Roundtables
BUDGET IMPACT:
No immediate budget impact is associated with this Executive Summary.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action is required by the Board of Supervisors regarding this item.
Return to agenda
Presented toPresented toPresented to The Albemarle County Board of SupervisorsThe Albemarle County Board of SupervisorsThe Albemarle County Board of Supervisors The Albemarle County School BoardThe Albemarle County School BoardThe Albemarle County School Board PPPRESCHOOLRESCHOOLRESCHOOL NNNETWORKETWORKETWORK & & & BBBRIGHTRIGHTRIGHT SSSTARSTARSTARS PPPROGRAMROGRAMROGRAM FY 2010 AFY 2010 AFY 2010 ANNUALNNUALNNUAL RRREPORTEPORTEPORT
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction z Letter from the Superintendent and the Director 3 z Coordinator’s Report and Program Highlights 4 z Frequently Asked Questions 5 II. Preschool Network Program Highlights z Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Overview 6 z Personnel and Social Development 7 z End-of Year Parent Evaluation 8 z Leadership Team 9 III. Bright Stars z A Closer Look at Bright Stars 10 z Risk Factors and Program Outcomes 11 z Number of Children Served 12 z Demographics 13 z Alumni Services 14 z Program Budget 15 z Community Supporters/Partners 16
3 We are pleased to write this introductory letter to the FY 2010 Annual Report for the Albemarle County Preschool Network/Bright Stars Program, in this fifteenth year of successful collaboration. The collaboration on behalf of young children between the County Schools and Social Services as a department of local government is unique in the Commonwealth. For this and other reasons, we are proud to report on this latest year of achievement. For the first time this report includes students in our Title I and Early Childhood Special Education programs who are in blended and inclusion classes alongside the Bright Stars children. This en-hanced program has eleven classes in eight elementary schools, including six inclusion classes, one blended Bright Stars and Title I class and one blended Title I, Bright Stars and Early Childhood Special Education class. The preschool program strives to be holistic and comprehensive in the way it sets out to prepare at-risk four-year old children for future schooling. All the classes offer a robust, academic learning experience with daily opportunities for children to develop critical social and personal skills through on-going interactions with peers and adults. Family coordinators invite active parent en-gagement throughout the year because we respect the significant role parents play in the lives of their children. Families are assisted in identifying and accessing community services to create sta-bility, opportunity and a network of support. The Preschool Network concept allows for closer working relationships within the county, with Head Start and the City preschool. Preschool will fulfill its highest aspirations as we continually learn from our work with children and families, adapt to changing conditions in the community, and strive to improve our processes and performance. The Albemarle County Preschool Network believes in the following: Core Beliefs z All children have the potential to be lifelong learners z Children learn through play. Play is the work of children and the medium through which children learn new concepts. Children play to solve problems and practice skills. z Families play a key role in the learning process z Classroom practices have a solid foundation in research and best practices Operating Principles z The role of the teacher changes throughout the year in response to children’s growth. Sometimes, direct instruction is the most appropriate approach and at other times child exploration and discovery are more effective z Learning is hands-on and interactive. Children explore, interact and engage with materials, peers and adults z Teachers value the role of the parent/family in the educational process and actively reach out to communicate with them regarding their child’s progress Kathy Ralston Director Dr. Pamela R. Moran Superintendent
4 BRIGHT STARS PROGRAM COORDINATOR’S REPORT In 2009-2010, the Preschool Network concept became more of a reality thus enhancing cooperation and coordination with school and community partners and identifying un-met needs for the economically and educationally disadvantaged and those needing spe-cial services. Bright Stars . . . z worked closely with Head Start, Title I and Early Childhood Special Education to streamline our recruitment process by developing a web-based system to track the disposition of all applications z expanded the capacity of the Preschool Network on the Albemarle County Schools website z expanded planning, service delivery and professional development for teachers, teaching assistants and family coordinators through the Preschool Network z aligned program goals with the Smart Beginnings Leadership Council z added a program at Stony Point Elementary School funded through Title I and Spe-cial Education Funds, the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant and additional sup-port from the Virginia Preschool Initiative z Referred 16 uninsured children for intensive, pediatric dental services provided by local specialists and funded by a Community Health Partnership award from Martha Jefferson Hospital z Accessed and funded interpretation services for more than 25 limited English-speaking families. 8096 961121351481540204060801001201401601802004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Growth and ExpansionGrowthChart includes Bright Stars, Early Childhood Special Education and Title I students served in blended preschool classes in years 2008,2009 and 2010.
5 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. Are we serving the targeted, at-risk population? Low income/poverty based on eligibility for free or reduced meals Limited education/illiteracy of parent (Mother): did not complete high school Single parent families Teen parent at time of child’s birth Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Children who reside in Title I school districts (Title I designation if based on F/R lunch population) Children with special needs whose abilities allow them to benefit from inclusion programs 2. How is the program funded? The programs that comprise the Preschool Network are funded with local, state and federall dollars according to formulas based on a number of specified criteria 3 What results do we want to achieve? Close the gap between at-risk students and their peers Transition children successfully to kindergarten Engage parents in the education of their children Refer families to needed community services Develop positive social and emotional behaviors and skills Foster a life-long curiosity for learning 5. How are we changing and improving? Forming a Preschool Network with Albemarle County Schools: Title I and Early Childhood Spe-cial Education and Head Start Participating in Partnership for Children and Smart Beginnings initiatives Partnering with for-profit and not-for profit preschools to expand opportunities for our at-risk population Focusing on staff development and learning Intensifying efforts to reach out to the ESOL population Ensuring that families who need wrap-around services receive these services To increase the opportunities to learn for our children and their families by pro-moting family involvement and addressing risk factors that affect school per-formance.
6 PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS LITERACY SCREENING OVERVIEW 2007 – 2010 PreKindergarten language and literacy screenings are administered by classroom teach-ers in fall and spring. The screenings include questions about letters of the alphabet, letter sounds, rhymes and awareness of print in the context of a story. Children who are in preschool network classes for at least six months and who complete these assess-ments show substantial improvement between the beginning and end of the year. Chil-dren with higher Pre Kindergarten Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening scores are more likely to achieve benchmark levels in kindergarten and first grade because they have mastered basic skills that contribute to readiness to read. In 2009-2010, 22% of the preschool students (Bright Stars, Early Childhood Special Edu-cation and Title I) reached or exceeded the benchmark range on the PreK Literacy Screening in the fall. However, by spring, 82% reached or exceeded this benchmark range. * *For Bright Stars only see page 11 19%20%18%22%76%75%68%82%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%2006-2007 2007-2008 2007-2009 2009-2010Children Meeting or Exceeding Developmental RangePreK Phonological Awareness Literacy ScreeningFallSpringSchool Year
7 PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 2009—2010 Virginia’s Foundation Blocks for Early Learning: Comprehensive Standards for Four-Year-Olds (2007) is a document that “attempts to establish a measurable range of skills and knowledge essential for four-year-olds to be successful in kindergarten.” The six Blocks are Literacy, Science, History and Social Science, Mathematics, Physical and Motor Development and Personal and Social Development. Why is Personal and Social Development included as a standard? Teachers say that readiness for kindergarten is about knowing how to get along with others, to share, take turns, follow directions, to be curious and excited about learn-ing. Teachers say that if preschool can teach these things, children will be ready to be successful. Extensive research in the field fully supports what teachers say. “Research has established a compelling link between personal and social development and school success. The personal, social and behavioral competence of young children is a strong predictor of academic performance in the early grades. Appropriate and supportive learning experiences provide an important foundation for personal and social growth.” Virginia’s Foundation Blocks of Learning Percentage of Children Who Usually and Consistently Met Objectives Block Self-Concept The child will dem-onstrate self-confidence and self- reflection Self-Control The child will show self-direction and responsibility Approaches to Learning The child will show eagerness and persistence as a learner Interaction w/Others The child will interact easily with other chil-dren and familiar adults Social Problem-Solving The child will learn and use non-physical ways to resolve conflicts Fall 2009 51% 55% 58% 56% 49% Spring 2010 77% 88% 95% 92% 88%
8 “The classroom was neat and orderly, the family events were fun and interactive. The teachers were wonderful, caring and kind! The field trips were age appropriate and well organized. My child learned social and educational skills daily. Our family is very thankful for the Bright Stars experience!” Scottsville Parent Family Coordinator was, “great at helping figure out solutions to any problem..and always willing to listen and help any way she can.” Stone-Robinson Parent ExcellentGood Fair PoorUnsureNo RespClassroom environment71 12 1 1Teacher interaction w/children78 5 1 1TA interaction w/children71 9 3 2Program rating80 3 1 10102030405060708090End of Year Parent Evaluation 2010155 Sent 85 Responses(55% Return Rate)
9 LEADERSHIP TEAM 2009 - 2010 The Leadership Team for the county preschool programs brings together the coor-dinators and directors of the various public preschool programs and fulfills a re-quirement for the Virginia Preschool Initiative Grant. Members of the Leadership Team are drawn from Albemarle County Schools and Social Services Department as the two systems most closely connected to the personnel and operational aspects of Bright Stars, Title I and Early Childhood Special Education. In addition, the Di-rector of MACAA Head Start is also a member of the Leadership Team. Members for 2009—2010 Cynthia Bayless Director, MACAA Head Start Debora Collins Director of Elementary Education & Federal Programs Charity Haines Program Coordinator, Bright Stars Kevin Kirst Director, Special Education—ACPS Deborah Morris Coordinator, Special Education—ACPS Kathy Ralston Director, Department of Social Services Cyndi Wells Lead Instructional Coach, ACPS Kristen Williams Lead Instructional Coach & Title I Coordinator, ACPS
10 A Closer Look at Bright Stars Bright Stars is one of the preschool programs within the Albemarle County Preschool Net-work. Funding for Bright Stars comes through the Virginia Preschool Initiative Grant which provides state funds matched with local dollars. Eligibility for Bright Stars is need-based reflecting the state and local commitment to providing opportunities for those children and families who face particu-lar challenges. Family Coordinators can con-tinue to work with families through fifth grade.
11 RISK FACTORS All children enrolled in the Bright Stars program are identified with individual or fam-ily risk factors that could result in poor school performance over the years. High risk points for Bright Stars children are associated with limited parental education and/or illiteracy of parent(s), unemployment, domestic violence, incarceration of a parent, previous child protective services reports and/or foster care involvement, siblings having difficulty in school, mental health issues, poverty and living in a single parent family. Despite these challenges, all children enrolled in the Bright Stars program, show con-siderable progress during the year. The Bright Stars Program sets specific and meas-urable goals for the children and families who are enrolled. Teachers and Family Co-ordinators assist children and parents in meeting these goals. The following table shows how closely we came in meeting our goals over a three year period OUTCOME MEASURE MEASUREMENT GOAL ACTUAL Children who are in Bright Stars for at least six months reach or exceed the benchmark developmental range scores on the PreK PALS* at the end of the preschool year Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening Summary Report FY10 Target: 80% FY 10 Actual 80% FY 09 Actual 68% FY 08 Actual 75% Bright Stars alumni achieve the benchmark score on the KPALS during the kindergarten year. Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Kin-dergarten FY10 Target: 80-85% FY 10 Actual 78%* FY 09 Actual 85% FY 08 Actual 86% Parents of BS children attend at least three Bright Stars/school functions during the school year Bright Stars database FY10 Target: 85% FT 10 Actual 88%* FY 09 Actual 93% FY 08 Actual 86% Parents of BS children attend two parent-teacher conferences during the school year Bright Stars database FY10Target: 85% FY 10 Actual 91%* FY 09 Actual 88%* FY 08 Actual 91%* Parents of BS children make progress on goals that support their child’s success dur-ing the school year. Family Needs Assessment FY10 Target: 80% FY 10 Actual 85% FY 09 Actual 91% FY 08 Actual 71%
12 0204060801001201402003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20108096 96112135 135138134Number of Children Served by VPI Grant
13 48%50%2%Parent CompositionSingle-ParentFamilyTwo-Parent FamilyUnknown70%8%18%Lunch ProgramFreeReducedPaid39%6%38%3%6%4%3%Parent Education Did not finish HSGEDHS DiplomaCollege 2 YearCollege 4 YearPost-graduateUnknown48%52%GenderFemaleMaleDEMOGRAPHICS 2009-2010 24%2%10%38%25%1%EthnicityAfrican AmericanAsianBiracialCaucasianHispanicUnknown
14 BRIGHT STARS “ALUMNI” WHO CONTINUED TO RECEIVE SERVICES IN 2009 - 2010 Bright Stars Family Coordinators are able to provide on-going services to eligible children and families past the Bright Stars year. These services are entirely voluntary; parents agree to par-ticipate or not depending on their circumstances. Providing a link between home and school, family members and community services and ensuring that families have the means to be safe, secure and self-sufficient throughout the elementary school years are the ways the Bright Stars Program enhances education, health and workforce development in the community. Bright Stars children and families continue to receive services, as needed, throughout elementary school. The charts show the num-ber of “alumni” receiving services by grade (Chart 1) and by school (Chart 2). This continuity of care and support is a unique character-istic of the program. Results show that children and families benefit from an on-going relationship with the family coordinator. Family Coordinators continue to encourage regular school atten-dance, parent participation in par-ent-teacher conferences, preven-tion of dental and medical prob-lems and improved housing, and employment. 686570256624201020304050607080Agnor-Hurt Cale Greer Red Hill Scotttsville Stone RobinsonWoodbrookBright Stars "Alumni" Who Continued to Receive Services in2009-2010 (by School)978561534227020406080100120Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th GradeBright Stars "Alumni" Who Continued to Receive Services in 2009-2010 (by Grade)
15 VII. PROGRAM BUDGET: FY 2010 Bright Stars Revenues FY 2009-2010 Virginia Preschool Initiative Grant 414,000 Transfer from School Fund 95,535 Transfer from Local Government 647,086 Total Bright Stars Revenues 1,156,621 Revenues Expenditures Bright Stars Expenditures FY 2009-2010 Total Personnel Expenses 997,266 Total Maintenance and Operating Expenses 61,784 Total Bright Stars Expenditures 1,059,049 Virginia Preschool Initiative Grant35.8%Transfer from School Fund8.3%Transfer from Local Government55.9%Bright Stars FY2010 RevenuesTotal Personnel Expenses94.2%Total Maintenance and Operating Expenses5.8%Bright Stars FY2010 Expenditures
Community Supporters/Partners The following community businesses, agencies, organizations and individuals pro-vided assistance to Bright Stars during 2009-2010: Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation * Albemarle County Schools Ann Mallek * Applebees * Book Baskets * Bright Beginnings * Charlottesville Lioness Lions Club * Chick-Fil-A * Children, Youth and Family Services Chili’s * Dr. Larry Brannon * Dr. D.J. Bickers * Dr. David Hamer * Dr. Miles Wilhelm * Dr. Carlos Armengol * First United Methodist Church Preschool Giant * Guadalajara * Martha Jefferson Hospital * NGA (formerly Needlework Guild of America) * Piedmont YMCA * The Villa * Thomas Jefferson Emergency Food Bank * United Way/Smart Beginnings * University of Virginia Health Sciences System * University of Virginia Curry School of Education Virginia Cooperative Extension Service * Virginia Discovery Museum Virginia Film Festival * Wendy’s * Whole Foods Bright Stars 5K Run Supporters: C&O, Hamilton’s, Outback Steakhouse, Melting Pot, Ivy Inn, Ten, Blue Light Grill, Cheeseburger in Paradise, Wild Wing Café, Five Guys, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Sticks Kebob Shop, Mona Lisa Pasta, Gearhart’s Fine Chocolate, Boat House, Raising Cane, Papa John’s, Zazu’s, Mudhouse, Hampton Inn and Suites, Courtyard Marriott, The Omni, Doubletree Hotel, Charlottesville Pavilion, LLC, The Paramount, Live Arts, Heritage Repertory Theatre, Bikram Yoga, Don’s Florist, Harris-Teeter, Kroger, Great Scott’s Popcorn
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2011 Community Development Work Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Establish 2011 Community Development Work Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham , Cilimberg, and Fritz;
and Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this work session is to establish work program priorities for Community Development for calendar year
2011. Community Development reviews its workload and Board priorities annually to set direction for the upcoming
year. Historically, the recommended initiatives have greatly exceeded staff resources available to work on them,
making it necessary to prioritize initiatives. This annual review provides the Board the opportunity to set priorities and
establish an annual work program. The last annual review was completed in February 2010 and the adopted work
program is provided as Attachment A. Attachment B provides a status report of staff’s efforts on the 2010 work
program while Attachment C offers a historical review of staffing, budget, and workload for Community Development,
establishing the baseline for available staff resources.
DISCUSSION:
Resource Considerations:
In developing its 2011 work program, staff first focused on workload and available resources. Staff resources are first
dedicated to meeting federal, state and local mandates. Local mandates include County ordinances that require plan
reviews, permits issuance, and inspections. Ordinance enforcement includes enforcement of Board policy, such as
the Entrance Corridor Guidelines and the Comprehensive Plan. After meeting those mandates, the remaining staff
capacity is dedicated to the work program. To assist the Board in understanding the current workload and staffing,
staff has prepared an overview of workload in key areas. (Attachment C). In preparing this, staff notes that Community
Development staffing has been reduced from 84 FTEs in FY 06 to its current authorized level of 59 FTEs which
represents an overall 30% reduction. Staff also notes that on an inflation adjusted basis, Community Development
has witnessed a 29% budget reduction since FY 06. Through 2009, the staff reduction roughly matched the reduction
in workload. However, in 2010, the workload began to increase while staffing reductions continued. This has created
a reduction in the available staff resources to dedicate to the work program. In an effort to continue to make progress
on the achievement of the work program, staff has modified and eliminated programs that are not mandated. For
example, staff no longer provides assistance to property owners with respect to stream buffers or groundwater issues
and staff has prioritized zoning enforcement to focus limited resources on the areas of highest concern (e.g. Entrance
Corridors).
Priorities:
Staff has recommended priorities for the 2011 work program, focusing on three factors. First, staff has considered
mandates. Beyond the ordinance enforcement discussed above, t he County is required by State law to review its
Comprehensive Plan every five years. As initiated in the 2010 work program, staff has started a multi-year effort to
update the Comprehensive Plan and anticipates some of these sections will reach the Planning Commission in the
second half of 2011. Staff notes this will include last year’s State mandate with respect to “Urban Development
Areas.”
Second, staff is focused on the Board’s January 6, 2010 Action Plan, with its efforts primarily focused on modifications
to the ministerial and legislative review processes as considered by the Board in June and September 2010.
AGENDA TITLE: 2011 Community Development Work Program
February 2, 2011
Page 2
Third, and finally, staff is focused on other initiatives that address process improvements or clarify ordinance
requirements. These efforts include the current review of noise standards for wineries and simplifying the
administration of critical slope requirements in the Development Areas As these items are the lowest priority of the
three, the Board should recognize that work on these initiatives may be delayed if the mandated workload significantly
increases or new initiatives are given a higher priority.
Proposed Work Program:
Staff’s recommended work program is provided as Attachment D. In establishing the priorities, staff anticipates that
the Board could complete the review of Places 29 in the first quarter of 2011 without a need for significant staff time.
With respect to the work on the Comprehensive Plan, staff notes this will include the State mandated changes for
Urban Development Areas. Staff anticipates hiring a temporary planner in the first half of 2011, entirely funded by a
grant already received by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, to assist with this effort.
Beyond work on mandated programs, staff’s primary focus is completing the modifications to the ministerial and
legislative review processes, as agreed to by the Board, recognizing that these are listed as strategies in the
Economic Vitality Action Plan that was adopted in 2010. Staff anticipates that the ordinance amendments for the
ministerial processes will reach the Planning Commission in the second quarter of 2011 and the revisions to the
legislative processes near the end of the third quarter of 2011. This puts the ministerial process ahead of the schedule
discussed with the Board in June 2010. The legislative processes are behind the September 2010 schedule due to a
surge in legislative applications seen in late 2010 and staff resources being diverted to work on Places 29, wh ich had
been expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2010. Beyond those efforts, staff anticipates supporting the
other 2011 strategies of the Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Remaining staff time has been dedicated to ordinance revisions, such as the winery noise amendment and critical
slopes. Items that have been recommended for deferral include consideration of Historic Resources or Natural
Heritage ordinances, as well as engineering process and stormwater changes. With respect to stormwater changes,
staff anticipates significant work may be required in 2012 related to the Watershed Implementation Plan for the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL, but there is not enough information at this time to estimate the level of effort that will be
required to make these mandated modifications. Finally, staff notes that some additional initiatives are listed as
“constrained” in Attachment D, meaning those are the initiatives staff plans to support on a time available basis. If
other efforts require more time than anticipated, staff anticipates these issues would be deferred to a future year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This work program has been drafted to fit within the department’s current FY 11 budget and its anticipated FY 12
budget. Staff has assumed the workload will continue the current trend of small increases and that no additional
staff resources will be made available by the Board. If the workload exceeds what current staffing can accomplish,
or if additional staff reductions are made, it will be necessary to make adjustments to this work program and some
items may need to be deferred or eliminated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board consider the 2011 work program as proposed in Attachment D, advise staff of any
changes desired in it, and authorize staff implementation.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – 2010 Work Program
Attachment B – Progress on 2010 Work Program
Attachment C – Historical Staffing and Workload
Attachment D – 2011 Recommended Work Program
Return to agenda
Community Development 2010 Work Program Attachment A
Community Development 2011 Work Program Attachment B 2010 Work ProgramMaster Plans –CPA2005-010 Places 29 MP–CPA2008-003 RivannaVillage Master Plan–CPA2009-002 Crozet Master PlanComprehensive Plan •Update started Fall 2010Comprehensive Plan Implementation•RA Uses / Home Occ’s•RA Uses / Churches Ordinances and Programs •ZTA2009-020 Downtown Crozet District•ZTA2009-016 Zoning Fees•STA2009-001 Division of Land•ZTA2009-020 Multiple Dwellings on Parcel•ZTA2009-009 Entrance Corridor Process•ZTA2009-003 Farm Wineries•ZTA2009-018 Farm Stands, Farm Sales•Economic Vitality Action PlanGreen = CompleteBlue = In ProcessRed = Delayed
Community Development 2011 Work Program Attachment C
2010 Staffing, Budget and Workload
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
January-06 January-07 January-08 January-09 January-10 January-11
Funded FTEs
FTEs
Poly. (FTEs)
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11Expenditure, $ MillionCommunity Development Budgeted
Expenditures
BUDGETED
2004 $'s
Inflation
adjusted
per CPI
Community Development 2011 Work Program Attachment C
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Building Permit Applications
Total, All Types
Building Permit
Applications
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Zoning Workload
Zoning Violations
Home Occ Permits
Zoning Clearances
Sign Permits
Community Development 2011 Work Program Attachment C
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2006-2010 ARB Applications
ARB Applications
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2006-2010 Legislative Applications
(Rezonings, Special Use Permits)
Legislative Applications
Community Development 2011 Work Program Attachment C
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total Site Plan and Subdivision Applications
Subdivisions
Site Plans
Attachment D2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM - February 2011 ReviewSTATUS2010 2011 2012 2013 20141st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th QtrComp Plan Master Plans Places 29WITH BOARD RivannaCOMPLETE * Crozet UpdateCOMPLETE * Southern Urban DEFER Advisory CouncilsONGOINGEcon Vitality LI Uses IN PROCESS Develop Action PlanCOMPLETE * - Quarterly Updates Ongoing - LI Rezoning 2nd Half 2011 - Ministerial Process In Process - Legislative Process 2nd Half 2011 - Agriculture Roundtables Assist, 2011Comp Plan Update Natural/Cultural Comp Plan Format Land Use Plan Utilities Rural Areas Comm. FacilitiesDev Areas NMD AmendmentsCONSTRAINEDARB Update GuidelinesCONSTRAINEDHistoric PresDEFER OrdinanceNatural HeritageDEFER Study Other RedistrictingIN PROCESSInitiativesMPO, PACC, EtcONGOING Farm StandsCOMPLETE * Eng. ProcessDEFERRA Uses - ChurchesPOSTPONEDRA Uses - Home Occ's IN PROCESSZoning Ord FeesCOMPLETE *ARB Admin ProcessCOMPLETE *Wineries, Phase 2IN PROCESS Critical Slopes CONSTRAINEDSign Ordinance UpdatesIN PROCESS Dev Review, Board Action #1 WITH ECON VITALITY Stormwater - "After the Storm"DEFERZoning Ord RecodificationDEFERHousekeeping Ord, Phase IIDEFER