HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-6-08Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JUNE 8, 2011
6:00 P.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
7. Discussion: Land Use Assessment Program.
8. Presentations:
a. Comprehensive Plan Update Process and Schedule and Relationship to Sustainability
Communities Grant.
b. Cool Counties commitments and continued membership in the ICLEI-Local
Governments for Sustainability.
9. Public comment on presentations 8a and 8b.
10. Board Discussion and Action on 8a and 8b.
11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
12. Adjourn to June 30, 2011, 9:00 a.m., Woodland Pavilion at Monticello.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: November 3, 2010.
6.2 Resolution to accept road(s) in Wickham Pond Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
6.3 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
6.4 2010 Emergency Management Performance Grant; Regional Shelter Equipment and Supplies
Project Resolution.
6.5 2010 Emergency Management Performance Grant; Regional Shelter Training and Exercises
Project Resolution.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110608/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/7/2020 4:13:48 PM]
Tentative
FOR APPROVAL:
6.6 Letter dated May 27, 2011 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning
Administrator, to Andrew J. Dondero, Stribling Holdings, LLC, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PARCEL OF RECORD BOUNDARY – Tax Map 76, Parcel 24 (property of Stribling Holdings,
LLC) Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110608/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/7/2020 4:13:48 PM]
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
4th day of November 2009, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Wickham Pond Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated June 8, 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 Tra nsportation 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 County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Wickham Pond
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated June 8, 2011, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant 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) Wickham Pond Drive (State Route 1323) from Route 240 (Three Notch Road) to
the east to end of state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 879, pages 267-270, with a
45-67 foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.12 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.12
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
#2011084 for various general government programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 8, 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.
The total of the requested FY 2011 appropriation itemized below is $21,850.00. A budget amendment public hearing is
not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of one (1) FY 2011 appropriation as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011084) totaling $21,850.00 for two reimbursable Emergency Management grants
for the Emergency Communications Center (ECC).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $21,850.00 and the approval of Appropriation
#2011084.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Description
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011084 $ 21,850.00 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $ 21,850.00
This appropriation provides $21,850.00 for two reimbursable Emergency Management grants for the Emergency
Communications Center (ECC). As a separate consent agenda item at its June 8, 2011 meeting, the Board of
Supervisors is requested and recommended to adopt a Resolution to authorize the County Executive, the ECC
Emergency Management Coordinator or the Executive Director to execute all documents necessary for receipt of
these grants.
The purpose of the first Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) grant of $20,000.00 is to increase
joint training and exercise opportunities between sheltering partners in the Albemarle & Charlottesville jurisdictions.
The partners include Albemarle & Charlottesville Departments of Social Services, the Central Virginia Red Cross, the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department, the local office of Emergency Management, and the Albemarle and
Charlottesville Sheriff’s offices. The grant funds will be used to hire a contractor and for materials and supplies to
conduct the training and exercises.
The purpose of the second VDEM grant of $1,850.00 is to equip and enhance the Albemarle and Charlottesville
Departments of Social Services, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department and the Central Virginia Red
Cross mass care management and response capabilities to operate a mass care management team for sheltering,
feeding and health services during emergency situations.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2010 Emergency Management Performance Grant;
Regional Shelter Equipment and Supplies Project
Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to Authorize Actions to Obtain Virginia
Department of Emergency Management Grant for
Regional Shelter Equipment and Supplies Project
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Hanson; and Ms. Thomas
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 8, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) has awarded a $1,850.00 matching reimbursable grant
through the National Preparedness Directorate, US Department of Homeland Security; 2010 Emergency Management
Performance Grant to the regional Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Management Office of the ECC.
The purpose of this project is to equip and enhance the capability of the Albemarle and Charlottesville Departments of
Social Services, the Charlottesville Albemarle Health Department and the Central Virginia Red Cross to deploy a
regional mass care management team for sheltering, feeding and health services during emergency situations.
DISCUSSION:
The Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Office of Emergency Management is the grant administrator for this
Emergency Management Performance Grant. Because the County of Albemarle serves as the fiscal agent for the
ECC, it is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the County Executive,
the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to execute all grant-in-aid documents
required for implementation of this program in order for the Emergency Management Office of the ECC to administer
the grant.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County of Albemarle is serving as fiscal agent for this State Homeland Security Grant. The ECC Management
Board approved a reappropriation of $925.00 from the ECC’s Fund Balance Account toward the match for this grant.
The remainder of the match will be an “in kind” contribution of materials and staff time from the mass care
management team members listed above.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the County Executive,
the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to execute all VDEM Grant documents
necessary for receipt of this 2010 State Homeland Security Grant.
ATTACHMENT S:
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
(To Be Completed Once Funds are Awarded)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ________________________________________________Board of Supervisors
(Governing Body)
OF THE ________________________________________________________ THAT County of Albemarle, Virginia THAT
(Name of Applicant)
________________________________________________________________ , ORthe ECC Emergency Management Coordinator , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
________________________________________________________________ , ORthe ECC Executive Director , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
________________________________________________________________ , the County Executive ,
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
Passed and approved this _______________ day of ____________________________, 20_____8th day of June , 2011
Certification
I, ____________________________________________________________, duly appointed andElla W. Jordan , duly appointed and
(Name)(Name)
_________________________________ of the ______________________________________Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Title) (Governing Body)
do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by
the _________________________________ of the _______________________________ on theBoard of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
(Governing body)(Name of Applicant)
______________________ day of ____________________________________, 20__________.8th day of June , 2011 .
_Clerk, Board of Supervisors ______
(Official Position)
(Signature)
June 8, 2011________________
(Date)
Return to exec summary
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the named applicant, a public entity established under the laws of the State of
Virginia, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance provided by the federal Department of
Homeland Security and sub-granted through the State of Virginia.
Emergency Management Performance Grant
Governing Body Resolution
Regional Shelter Equipment and Supplies Project
$1,850.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2010 Emergency Management Performance Grant;
Regional Shelter Training and Exercises Project
Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to Authorize Actions to Obtain Virginia
Department of Emergency Management Grant for
Regional Shelter Training and Exercises Project
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Hanson; and Ms. Thomas
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 8, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) has awarded a $20,000.00 matching reimbursable
grant through the National Preparedness Directorate, US Department of Homeland Security; 2010 Emergency
Management Performance Grant to the regional Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Management
Office of the ECC. The purpose of this project is to increase joint training and exercise opportunities between
sheltering partners in Albemarle and Charlottesville. Sheltering partners include the Albemarle and Charlottesville
Departments of Social Services, the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Office of Emergency Management, the
University of Virginia, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department, the Central Virginia Red Cross and the
Albemarle and Charlottesville Sheriffs’ Offices. Planners from this group have clarified roles and responsibilities
following sheltering experiences during winter weather events. The grant funding will be utilized to hire a qualified
contractor to conduct training and exercises as well as purchase associated materials and supplies.
DISCUSSION:
The Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Office of Emergency Management is the grant administrator for this
Emergency Management Performance Grant. Because the County of Albemarle serves as the fiscal agent for the
ECC, it is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the County Executive,
the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to execute all grant-in-aid documents
required for implementation of this program and to approve the reappropriation in order for the Emergency
Management Office of the ECC to administer the grant.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County of Albemarle is serving as fiscal agent for this State Homeland Security Grant. The ECC Management
Board approved a reappropriation of $10,000 from the ECC’s Fund Balance Account toward the match for the grant.
The remainder of the match will be an “in kind” contribution of materials and staff time from the sheltering partners
listed above.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the County Executive,
the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to execute all VDEM Grant documents
necessary for receipt of the 2010 State Homeland Security Grant.
ATTACHMENT S:
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
(To Be Completed Once Funds are Awarded)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ________________________________________________Board of Supervisors
(Governing Body)
OF THE ________________________________________________________ THAT County of Albemarle, Virginia THAT
(Name of Applicant)
________________________________________________________________ , ORthe ECC Emergency Management Coordinator , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
________________________________________________________________ , ORthe ECC Executive Director , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
________________________________________________________________ , the County Executive ,
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
Passed and approved this _______________ day of ____________________________, 20_____8th day of June , 2011
Certification
I, ____________________________________________________________, duly appointed andElla W. Jordan , duly appointed and
(Name)(Name)
_________________________________ of the ______________________________________Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Title) (Governing Body)
do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by
the _________________________________ of the _______________________________ on theBoard of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
(Governing body)(Name of Applicant)
______________________ day of ____________________________________, 20__________.8th day of June , 2011 .
_Clerk, Board of Supervisors ______
(Official Position)
(Signature)
June 8, 2011________________
(Date)
Return to exec summary
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the named applicant, a public entity established under the laws of the State of
Virginia, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance provided by the federal Department of
Homeland Security and sub-granted through the State of Virginia.
Emergency Management Performance Grant
Governing Body Resolution
Regional Shelter Training and Exercises Project
$20,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Land Use Assessment Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the rates used to calculate Land Use
Assessments
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Koonce, and Willingham
LEGAL REVIEW:
AGENDA DATE:
June 8, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide the Board with information regarding the rates used to calculate
the assessment of properties that qualify for taxation under the County’s Land Use Assessment Program.
Virginia Code § 58.1-3231 authorizes counties, cities and towns to adopt an ordinance to provide for use value
assessment and taxation based upon use value instead of fair market value. The County adopted Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article VIII, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate, in 1973.
County Code Section 15-805, Valuation of Real Estate, states that the County Assessor shall use his personal
knowledge, judgment and experience, and shall consider the recommended value ranges published by the State Land
Evaluation Advisory Committee (SLEAC) pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3239, to estimate land values.
DISCUSSION:
In recent years, the County has adhered to SLEAC recommendations as the basis for its use rates. More recent
SLEAC recommendations, however, have been volatile and not reflective of all value indices in the opinion of our
Assessor. Like Albemarle, a number of other localities in Virginia also believe that the published rates do not
adequately reflect fair values for qualifying properties. Rates have varied widely from year to year and are not uniform
from locality to locality. Many jurisdictions have abandoned SLEAC values and have estimated different rates for Land
Use Value Assessment.
The 2011 rates used in the County were set by the Assessor after his consideration of the SLEAC published rates, the
review and verification of information provided during the County’s revalidation program, and discussions with
surrounding localities. The rates used were applied uniformly to all property in the Land Use Assessment Program,
depending on the qualifying use and soil classification.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no budget impacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This Executive Summary for information only. Staff will present an overview of the County’s history with respect to the
use of SLEAC rates and reasons for the recent departure from this practice at the Board meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A – County Code § 15-805
B – Virginia Code § 58.1-3239
C – Land Use Rates of Surrounding Localities
D – Forestry Rates of Surrounding Localities
E – Albemarle County Land Use Rates for 2011
Return to agenda
Attachment A
ARTICLE VIII. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL,
HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE
* * * * *
Sec. 15-805 Valuation of real estate.
A. In valuing real estate for purposes of taxation, the director of finance or the county
assessor shall consider only those indicia of value which such real estate has for agricultural, horticultural,
forest or open space use, and real estate taxes shall be extended upon the value so determined. In addition
to use of his personal knowledge, judgement and experience as to the value of real estate in agricultural,
horticultural, forest or open space use, he shall, in arriving at the value of such land, consider available
evidence of agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space capability, and the recommendations of value
of such real estate as made by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee.
B. In determining the total area of real estate actively devoted to agricultural, horticultural,
forest or open space use, there shall be included the area of all real estate under barns, sheds, silos, cribs,
greenhouses, public recreation facilities and like structures, lakes, dams, ponds, streams, irrigation ditches
and like facilities; but real estate under, and such additional real estate as may be actually used in
connection with, the farm house or home or any other structure not related to such special use shall be
excluded in determining such total area.
C. All structures which are located on real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or o pen
space use and the farm house and home or any other structure not related to such special use and the real
estate on which the farm house or home or such other structure is located, together with the additional real
estate used in connection therewith, shall be valued, assessed and taxed by the same standards, methods
and procedures as other taxable structures and other real estate in the county.
D. In addition, such real estate in agricultural, horticultural, forest or open space use shall be
evaluated on the basis of fair market value as applied to other real estate in the county, and land book
records shall be maintained to show both the use value and the fair market value of such real estate.
(8-23-73; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 8-36; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3236.
* * * * *
Go to next attachment
Return to executive summary
Attachment B
§ 58.1-3231. Authority of counties, cities and towns to adopt ordinances; general
reassessment following adoption of ordinance.
Any county, city or town which has adopted a land-use plan may adopt an ordinance to provide
for the use value assessment and taxation, in accord with the provisions of this article, of real
estate classified in § 58.1-3230. The local governing body pursuant to § 58.1-3237.1 may
provide in the ordinance that property located in specified zoning districts shall not be eligible
for special assessment as provided in this article. The provisions of this article shall not be
applicable in any county, city or town for any year unless such an ordinance is adopted by the
governing body thereof not later than June 30 of the year previous to the year when such taxes
are first assessed and levied under this article, or December 31 of such year for localities which
have adopted a fiscal year assessment date of July 1, under Chapter 30 (§ 58.1-3000 et seq.) of
this subtitle. The provisions of this article also shall not apply to the assessment of any real estate
assessable pursuant to law by a central state agency.
Land used in agricultural and forestal production within an agricultural district, a forestal district
or an agricultural and forestal district that has been established under Chapter 43 (§ 15.2-4300 et
seq.) of Title 15.2, shall be eligible for the use value assessment and taxation whether or not a
local land-use plan or local ordinance pursuant to this section has been adopted.
Such ordinance shall provide for the assessment and taxation in accordance with the provisions
of this article of any or all of the four classes of real estate set forth in § 58.1-3230. If the
uniform standards prescribed by the Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services
pursuant to § 58.1-3230 require real estate to have been used for a particular purpose for a
minimum length of time before qualifying as real estate devoted to agricultural use or
horticultural use, then such ordinance may waive such prior use requirement for real estate
devoted to the production of agricultural and horticultural crops that require more than two years
from initial planting until commercially feasible harvesting.
In addition to but not to replace any other requirements of a land-use plan such ordinance may
provide that the special assessment and taxation be established on a sliding scale which
establishes a lower assessment for property held for longer periods of time within the classes of
real estate set forth in § 58.1-3230. Any such sliding scale shall be set forth in the ordinance.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the governing body of any county, city or town shall
be authorized to direct a general reassessment of real estate in the year following adoption of an
ordinance pursuant to this article.
(Code 1950, § 58-769.6; 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 172; 1973, c. 209; 1974, c. 34; 1975, c. 233; 1977, c.
681; 1978, c. 250; 1984, cc. 92, 675; 1987, c. 628; 1988, c. 695; 1999, c. 1026; 2000, c. 410;
2001, c. 705.)
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
NELSON $10 $10 $10 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0
FLUVANNA $30 $30 $20 $20 $10 $10 $10 $0
LOUISA $100 $90 $70 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10
ORANGE $150 $130 $100 $80 $60 $50 $30 $10
ALBEMARLE $200 $180 $130 $110 $80 $70 $40 $10
WAYNESBORO $220 $200 $150 $120 $90 $70 $40 $10
AUGUSTA $230 $210 $150 $120 $90 $80 $50 $20
GOOCHLAND $240 $220 $160 $130 $100 $80 $50 $20
GREENE $250 $220 $160 $120 $100 $80 $50 $20
CULPEPER $290 $260 $190 $150 $120 $100 $60 $20
AVERAGE $210 $189 $139 $110 $85 $70 $43 $15
MADISON $390 $350 $260 $210 $160 $130 $80 $30
ROCKINGHAM $590 $530 $400 $320 $240 $200 $120 $40
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
SOIL CLASS
2011 LAND USE RATE STUDY
FAIR GOOD EXCEL.
ORANGE $188 $299 $437
FLUVANNA $193 $306 $448
ALBEMARLE $199 $313 $459
WAYNESBORO $202 $319 $465
NELSON $203 $320 $468
CULPEPER $206 $325 $474
AUGUSTA $209 $330 $481
GREENE $220 $346 $504
MADISON $221 $347 $506
ROCKINGHAM $224 $352 $512
AVERAGE $211 $332 $484
GOOCHLAND $368 $550 $783
LOUISA $378 $564 $802
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
PRODUCTIVITY
CODE CLASS TYPE 2009 2010 2011
AA I AGRICULTURE $100 $200 $200
AB II AGRICULTURE $90 $180 $180
AC III AGRICULTURE $70 $130 $130
AD IV AGRICULTURE $50 $110 $110
AE V AGRICULTURE $40 $80 $80
AF VI AGRICULTURE $30 $70 $70
AG VII AGRICULTURE $20 $40 $40
AI VIII AGRICULTURE $10 $10 $10
HA I HORTICULTURE APPLES $110 $220 $220
HB II HORTICULTURE APPLES $100 $210 $210
HC III HORTICULTURE APPLES $80 $160 $160
HD IV HORTICULTURE APPLES $70 $130 $130
HE V HORTICULTURE APPLES $50 $100 $100
HF VI HORTICULTURE APPLES $40 $80 $80
HG VII HORTICULTURE APPLES $20 $50 $50
HH VIII HORTICULTURE APPLES $10 $10 $10
PA I HORTICULTURE PEACHES $110 $220 $220
PB II HORTICULTURE PEACHES $100 $200 $200
PC III HORTICULTURE PEACHES $80 $160 $160
PD IV HORTICULTURE PEACHES $60 $130 $130
PE V HORTICULTURE PEACHES $50 $100 $100
PF VI HORTICULTURE PEACHES $40 $80 $80
PD VII HORTICULTURE PEACHES $20 $50 $50
PH VIII HORTICULTURE PEACHES $10 $10 $10
FA EXC FORESTRY $461 $461 $461
FB GOOD FORESTRY $316 $316 $316
FC AVE FORESTRY $203 $203 $203
FD NP FORESTRY $75 $75 $75
EAA I EASEMENT AGRICULTURE $100 $200 $200
EAB II EASEMENT AGRICULTURE $90 $180 $180
EAC III EASEMENT AGRICULTURE $70 $130 $130
EAD IV EASEMENT AGRICULTURE $50 $110 $110
EAE V EASEMENT AGRICULTURE $40 $80 $80
EAF VI EASEMENT AGRICULTURE $30 $70 $70
EAG VII EASEMENT AGRICULTURE $20 $40 $40
EAI VIII EASEMENT AGRICULTURE $10 $10 $10
LAND USE ASSESSMENT RATES
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
EHA I EASEMENT HORT. APPLES $110 $220 $220
EHB II EASEMENT HORT. APPLES $100 $210 $210
EHC III EASEMENT HORT. APPLES $80 $160 $160
EHD IV EASEMENT HORT. APPLES $70 $130 $130
EHE V EASEMENT HORT. APPLES $50 $100 $100
EHF VI EASEMENT HORT. APPLES $40 $80 $80
EHG VII EASEMENT HORT. APPLES $20 $50 $50
EHH VIII EASEMENT HORT. APPLES $10 $10 $10
EPA I EASEMENT HORT. PEACHES $110 $220 $220
EPB II EASEMENT HORT. PEACHES $100 $200 $200
EPC III EASEMENT HORT. PEACHES $80 $160 $160
EPD IV EASEMENT HORT. PEACHES $60 $130 $130
EPE V EASEMENT HORT. PEACHES $50 $100 $100
EPF VI EASEMENT HORT. PEACHES $40 $80 $80
EPG VII EASEMENT HORT. PEACHES $20 $50 $50
EPH VIII EASEMENT HORT. PEACHES $10 $10 $10
FA EXC EASEMENT FORESTRY $461 $461 $461
FB GOOD EASEMENT FORESTRY $316 $316 $316
FC AVE EASEMENT FORESTRY $203 $203 $203
FD NP EASEMENT FORESTRY $75 $75 $75
OAA I OPEN SPACE AG $100 $200 $200
OAB II OPEN SPACE AG $90 $180 $180
OAC III OPEN SPACE AG $70 $130 $130
OAD IV OPEN SPACE AG $50 $110 $110
OAE V OPEN SPACE AG $40 $80 $80
OAF VI OPEN SPACE AG $30 $70 $70
OAG VII OPEN SPACE AG $20 $40 $40
OAI VIII OPEN SPACE AG $10 $10 $10
OHA I OPEN SPACE HORT APPLES $110 $220 $220
OHB II OPEN SPACE HORT APPLES $100 $210 $210
OHC III OPEN SPACE HORT APPLES $80 $160 $160
OHD IV OPEN SPACE HORT APPLES $70 $130 $130
OHE V OPEN SPACE HORT APPLES $50 $100 $100
OHF VI OPEN SPACE HORT APPLES $40 $80 $80
OHG VII OPEN SPACE HORT APPLES $20 $50 $50
OHH VIII OPEN SPACE HORT APPLES $10 $10 $10
CODE CLASS TYPE 2009 2010 2011
OPA I OPEN SPACE HORT PEACHES $110 $220 $220
OPB II OPEN SPACE HORT PEACHES $100 $200 $200
OPC III OPEN SPACE HORT PEACHES $80 $160 $160
OPD IV OPEN SPACE HORT PEACHES $60 $130 $130
OPE V OPEN SPACE HORT PEACHES $50 $100 $100
OPF VI OPEN SPACE HORT PEACHES $40 $80 $80
OPG VII OPEN SPACE HORT PEACHES $20 $50 $50
OPH VIII OPEN SPACE HORT PEACHES $10 $10 $10
OFA EXC OPEN SPACE FORESTRY $461 $461 $461
OFB GOOD OPEN SPACE FORESTRY $316 $316 $316
OFC AVE OPEN SPACE FORESTRY $203 $203 $203
OFD NP OPEN SPACE FORESTRY $75 $75 $75
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Comprehensive Plan Update Process and Schedule and
Relationship to Sustainability Communities Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to review Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Schedule and how the Sustainable Communities Grant
has been planned to leverage resources
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and
Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 8, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County first adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1970. The Comprehensive Plan is an officially adopted
advisory document that outlines the community’s vision and goals for its future and provides guidance for elected and
appointed officials in making decisions regarding the long-range needs of the community. The written goals and
guiding principles, policies, and recommendations of the Plan provide guidance for decisions affecting growth and
service delivery, the use and development of land, preservation of open space and the expansion of public facilities
and services.
The Commonwealth of Virginia requires localities to have a Comprehensive Plan and to review it every five years
(Attachment A, see Virginia Code § 15.2-2230). The last adoption of all elements of the Comprehensive Plan at the
same time was in 1989. The Land Use element was last reviewed and adopted in its entirety in 1996. Since 1996, the
County has updated sections of the Comprehensive Plan as part of an ongoing review. These reviews include:
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets (1999)
Land Use Plan (LUP) – Neighborhood Model (2001)
Affordable Housing Policy (2004)
Rural Area Plan (2005)
Transportation Section (2005)
Community Facilities (part) (2007)
Economic Development Policy (2009)
Land Use Plan – Four Master Plans (2004, 2008, 2010, 2011)
This method of revising the plan matched staff capabilities and workload demands during a period of high growth and
development review activity and allowed for a more focused and timely review of particular sections/initiatives of the
Plan.
An unintended result of this incremental approach to updating the Comprehensive Plan is that the document has
become very long, somewhat disjointed and difficult for the public to follow. In addition, some sections of the Plan
have not received a complete review since 1996. In February 2010, as part of Community Development’s annual
review of its work program with the Board of Supervisors, staff proposed a holistic approach to updating the plan in
order to address these concerns. The Board agreed with this approach and directed staff to make the update to the
plan a priority project for the department. In February 2011, Community Development again reviewed its work
program with the Board, noting the Comprehensive Plan review was starting and the schedule anticipated the County
leveraging its resources used for the plan update through a grant awarded to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission (TJPDC). There was not an in-depth discussion of TJPDC’s Sustainable Communities Grant at that time,
except to note that it allowed the County to reduce its costs and accelerate the schedule by using resources this made
available to the County.
With regard to sustainability principles and initiatives, the Comprehensive Plan and associated Plan implementation
efforts of the County, dating back to the 1970 Comprehensive Plan, have supported and fostered concepts of
sustainability and livability. Attachment B provides a chronology of actions that have promoted or fostered principles
and measures consistent with sustainability/livability concepts.
AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update Process and Schedule and Relationship to Sustainability Communities
Grant
June 8, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Focus of Plan Update – The primary areas of focus for the Comprehensive Plan Update are:
• To improve the form and continuity of the plan/plan sections, making the document more user friendly and
understandable for all users
• Update of the Land Use Plan section, including
-Evaluate the need for, and location of, any adjustments to the designated Development Area boundaries;
-Designate additional industrial land in Development Areas (per the Economic Development Policy update
and Board’s Economic Vitality Action Plan);
-Evaluate the Interstate Interchange Policy, particularly as related to land uses permitted at Rural Area
interchanges (per the Economic Development Policy update and the Board’s Economic Vitality Action
Plan);
-Consider simplifying and clarifying the Land Use Plan map designation descriptions and development
guidelines and standards;
-Evaluate the need for a policy related to urban agriculture (as directed by the Board);
-Consider updating and integrating current “Three Party Agreement” Area B studies into the Land Use
Plan;
-Evaluate policy on uses permitted in Rural Areas, with a focus on the review of non-residential uses
consistent with and supportive of RA intent/activities (as Directed by the Board);
• Update the Community Facilities Plan, including of level of service standards (specifically, police, fire-rescue,
parks & recreation)
• Review of public requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments (as directed by Planning Commission)
For the remaining sections of the Plan, no major changes to policies are anticipated. For these sections, a more basic
review is anticipated, with a focus on updating information, reformatting and simplifying the content of the sections,
and reviewing and updating the implementation strategies and priorities. These sections include the Natural
Resources and Cultural Assets; Economic Development (recently updated); Rural Areas Plan (recently updated), and
the Affordable Housing Policy. Public requests may generate additional policy considerations, but those would be
vetted with the Planning Commission and/or Board before staff began work on possible policy changes. The general
timeline for the Plan’s review is provided in Attachment C.
Coordination with City, MPO (Regional Transportation Plan), and University
The City is beginning the review of its Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is
beginning the update of the regional transportation plan for the City and the urbanized portion of Albemarle County as
defined by the MPO study area. This provides the County an opportunity to collaborate on issues of mutual interest
with the City. County and City consideration of planning issues of mutual interest, particularly as regards land use and
transportation, have been a long standing expectation of the Planning Commission and the elected officials in both
jurisdictions. County participation in the regional transportation plan is mandatory for any project requiring the use of
federal funds and expected in that the County is a member of the MPO and the regional transportation plan and
modeling is intended to reflect the city and county land use plans.
Under the “Three Party Agreement” between the County, City and University (signed in 1986), all entities agreed to a
planning, review and approval process for certain geographic areas of interest to all parties. The agreement also
establishes expectations for the development of comprehensive plans/master plans by each party. This agreement
calls for each plan to be based on the same planning period, use common definitions and land use data bases, have a
substantially similar topic outline, to share drafts of those plans with each party and established areas mutual of
agreement regarding each plan. Attachment D provides a copy of this agreement which outlines the expectations for
comprehensive plans (this agreement also established the basis for the Planning and Coordination Council, or PACC).
Recognizing this expectation, the Community Development work plan has anticipated coordination with the City and
University since it was proposed in 2010.
AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update Process and Schedule and Relationship to Sustainability Communities
Grant
June 8, 2011
Page 3
The Sustainable Communities Grant – Timed with the planning processes underway in the City, County and MPO,
this grant has provided the opportunity to bolster the collaborative efforts of each and obtain additional resources to
support each plan update by leveraging staff time already allocated to these planning initiatives. This includes a more
extensive public input process than could have been implemented with existing resources. A working group
(consisting of staff from the City, County, UVA and PDC) has been in place since November 2010 to organize the
process for moving forward and to ensure that the interest and concerns of each locality are considered.
The underlying concept of the grant is to develop possible products that can help move the region forward in
implementing the sustainability accords that were adopted by the County, City, and TJPDC in the 1990’s. The
Sustainability Accords were completed in 1998 by an advisory group comprised of citizens from this region. Fifteen
(15) of the fifty-six (56) accords were subsequently incorporated into the County’s Comprehensive Plan with the
update of the Land Use Plan in 1999 (Attachment E). This local and regional sustainability effort was consistent with
the Virginia General Assembly’s Joint Resolution No. 653, encouraging the Governor, State and local officials, and the
leaders of educational institutions and civic organizations to work together to prepare a Virginia Strategy for
Sustainable Development. Staff believes Attachment B demonstrates that many of these accords were not new
concepts, but simply restated long standing County goals that were included in the County’s original 1970
Comprehensive Plan or added in subsequent plan updates before the accords were incorporated.
The draft Consortium Agreement required by HUD as part of the grant agreement, establishes the PACC as the entity
responsible for review and approval of the products resulting from the grant work (Attachment F). The products
resulting from the grant are subject to endorsement by PACC and will be presented in the respective Comprehensive
Plan update processes of each party as non-binding considerations. Those products would then be forwarded to the
City and County for consideration and potential incorporation into each locality’s Comprehensive Plan. Each locality will
decide what will be included in its Comprehensive Plan through the review, public hearing and approval processes with
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
The specific products developed by the grant are outlined in Attachment G.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The sustainability grant is funding additional manpower which augments in-house staff capabilities to update the
Comprehensive Plan. This is leveraging County resources already planned for this project by using them as “in kind”
matches to the grant funding. As the 2011 Community Development work program anticipated this grant providing
additional resources for the plan update, some adjustments to schedules or County funding will be needed without this
grant. Should the Board decide against utilizing this grant, staff recommends a Board work session where those
other priorities on the work program can be considered and a decision made as to either increasing County funding to
maintain the current work program or deferring / deleting other projects from the work program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the County Executive executing the Consortium Agreement on behalf of the
County, particularly in consideration of the following:
The grant funds additional staff support for the update of the County’s Comprehensive Plan without
additional County resources.
The grant provides for expanded public outreach during the County’s Comprehensive Plan review
process.
The project heightens the area’s on-going collaborative and cooperative planning efforts that date
back to the “Three Party Agreement” between the County, City and University signed in 1986.
The grant provides a unique opportunity to closely link the Comprehensive Plans of the City and
County with the MPO’s regional transportation plan.
The work product generated through the Consortium Agreement is merely advisory in nature and will
require an extensive review and public hearing process by the County Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors prior to any aspect of the work being incorporated into the County’s
Comprehensive Plan Update.
AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update Process and Schedule and Relationship to Sustainability Communities
Grant
June 8, 2011
Page 4
Should the Board decide against executing the Consortium Agreement, staff recommends scheduling a work session
so that Community Development’s work program can be reviewed and the Board can provide guidance on how to
balance resources and priorities.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2223-2230, Comprehensive Plans
B – Chronology of Albemarle County Planning Efforts as Related to Sustainability
C – General Timeline for Comprehensive Plan Update
D – Three Party Agreement (County, City and University)
E – Sustainability Accords and Introduction to Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the
Comprehensive Plan
F – Consortium Agreement
G – Regional Sustainability Implementation Plan
Return to regular agenda
Code of Virginia
§ 15.2-2223. Comprehensive plan to be prepared and adopted; scope and purpose.
The local planning commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the
physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt
a comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction.
In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the commission shall make careful and
comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the
probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The comprehensive plan shall be
made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious
development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs
and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general
welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.
The comprehensive plan shall be general in nature, in that it shall designate the general or
approximate location, character, and extent of each feature, including any road improvement and
any transportation improvement, shown on the plan and shall indicate where existing lands or
facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed,
abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be.
As part of the comprehensive plan, each locality shall develop a transportation plan that
designates a system of transportation infrastructure needs and recommendations that may include
the designation of new and expanded transportation facilities and that support the planned
development of the territory covered by the plan and shall include, as appropriate, but not be
limited to, roadways, bicycle accommodations, pedestrian accommodations, railways, bridges,
waterways, airports, ports, and public transportation facilities. The plan should recognize and
differentiate among a hierarchy of roads such as expressways, arterials, and collectors. The
Virginia Department of Transportation shall, upon request, provide localities with technical
assistance in preparing such transportation plan.
The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, shall show the
locality's long-range recommendations for the general development of the territory covered by
the plan. It may include, but need not be limited to:
1. The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as
different kinds of residential, including age-restricted, housing; business; industrial; agricultural;
mineral resources; conservation; active and passive recreation; public service; flood plain and
drainage; and other areas;
2. The designation of a system of community service facilities such as parks, sports playing
fields, forests, schools, playgrounds, public buildings and institutions, hospitals, nursing homes,
assisted living facilities, community centers, waterworks, sewage disposal or waste disposal
areas, and the like;
3. The designation of historical areas and areas for urban renewal or other treatment;
4. The designation of areas for the implementation of reasonable ground water protection
measures;
5. A capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning
district maps, mineral resource district maps and agricultural and forestal district maps, where
applicable;
6. The location of existing or proposed recycling centers;
7. The location of military bases, military installations, and military airports and their adjacent
safety areas; and
8. The designation of corridors or routes for electric transmission lines of 150 kilovolts or more.
The plan shall include: the designation of areas and implementation of measures for the
construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of affordable housing, which is sufficient to meet
the current and future needs of residents of all levels of income in the locality while considering
the current and future needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated.
The plan shall include: a map that shall show road improvements and transportation
improvements, including the cost estimates of such road and transportation improvements as
available from the Virginia Department of Transportation, taking into account the current and
future needs of residents in the locality while considering the current and future needs of the
planning district within which the locality is situated.
(1975, c. 641, § 15.1-446.1; 1976, c. 650; 1977, c. 228; 1988, c. 268; 1989, c. 532; 1990, c. 19;
1993, cc. 116, 758; 1996, cc. 585, 600; 1997, c. 587; 2003, c. 811; 2004, cc. 691, 799; 2005, cc.
466, 699; 2006, cc. 527, 563, 564; 2007, c. 761.)
§ 15.2-2223.1. Comprehensive plan to include urban development areas.
A. For purposes of this section:
"Commercial" means property devoted to usual and customary business purposes for the sale of
goods and services and includes, but is not limited to, retail operations, hotels, motels and
offices. "Commercial" does not include residential dwelling units, including apartments and
condominiums, or agricultural or forestal production, or manufacturing, processing, assembling,
storing, warehousing, or distributing.
"Commission" means the Commission on Local Government.
"Developable acreage," solely for the purposes of calculating density within the urban
development area, means land that is not included in (i) existing parks, rights-of-way of arterial
and collector streets, railways, and public utilities and (ii) other existing public lands and
facilities.
"Population growth" means the difference in population from the next-to-latest to the latest
decennial census year, based on population reported by the United States Bureau of the Census.
In computing its population growth, a locality may exclude the inmate population of any new or
expanded correctional facility that opened within the time period between the two censuses.
"Urban development area" means an area designated by a locality that is (i) appropriate for
higher density development due to its proximity to transportation facilities, the availability of a
public or community water and sewer system, or a developed area and (ii) to the extent feasible,
to be used for redevelopment or infill development.
B. Every locality that has adopted zoning pursuant to Article 7 (§ 15.2-2280 et seq.) of this
chapter and that (i) has a population of at least 20,000 and population growth of at least five
percent or (ii) has population growth of 15 percent or more, shall, and any locality may, amend
its comprehensive plan to incorporate one or more urban development areas.
1. The comprehensive plan of a locality having a population of less than 130,000 persons shall
provide for urban development areas that are appropriate for development at a density on the
developable acreage of at least four single-family residences, six townhouses, or 12 apartments,
condominium units, or cooperative units per acre, and an authorized floor area ratio of at least
0.4 per acre for commercial development, or any proportional combination thereof.
2. The comprehensive plan of a locality having a population of 130,000 or more persons shall
provide for urban development areas that are appropriate for development at a density on the
developable acreage of at least eight single-family residences, 12 townhouses, or 24 apartments,
condominium units, or cooperative units per acre, and an authorized floor area ratio of at least
0.8 per acre for commercial development, or any proportional combination thereof.
3. The urban development areas designated by a locality shall be sufficient to meet projected
residential and commercial growth in the locality for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not
more than 20 years, which may include phasing of development within the urban development
areas. Where an urban development area in a county with the urban county executive form of
government includes planned or existing rail transit, the planning horizon may be for an ensuing
period of at least 10 but not more than 40 years. Future residential and commercial growth shall
be based on official estimates of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University
of Virginia or official projections of the Virginia Employment Commission or the United States
Bureau of the Census.
4. The boundaries and size of each urban development area shall be reexamined and, if
necessary, revised every five years in conjunction with the review of the comprehensive plan and
in accordance with the most recent available population growth estimates and projections.
5. The boundaries of each urban development area shall be identified in the locality's
comprehensive plan and shall be shown on future land use maps contained in such
comprehensive plan.
6. The comprehensive plan shall incorporate principles of traditional neighborhood design in the
urban development area, which may include but need not be limited to (i) pedestrian-friendly
road design, (ii) interconnection of new local streets with existing local streets and roads, (iii)
connectivity of road and pedestrian networks, (iv) preservation of natural areas, (v) mixed-use
neighborhoods, including mixed housing types, with affordable housing to meet the projected
family income distributions of future residential growth, (vi) reduction of front and side yard
building setbacks, and (vii) reduction of subdivision street widths and turning radii at subdivision
street intersections.
7. The comprehensive plan shall describe any financial and other incentives for development in
the urban development areas.
8. A portion of one or more urban development areas shall be designated as a receiving area for
any transfer of development rights program established by the locality.
C. No locality that has amended its comprehensive plan in accordance with this section shall
limit or prohibit development pursuant to existing zoning or shall refuse to consider any
application for rezoning based solely on the fact that the property is located outside the urban
development area.
D. Any locality that would be required to amend its plan pursuant to subsection B that
determines that its plan accommodates growth in a manner consistent with subsection B, upon
adoption of a resolution describing such accommodation and describing any financial and other
incentives for development in the areas that accommodate such growth, shall not be required to
further amend its plan pursuant to subsection B. Any locality that has adopted a resolution
certifying compliance with subsection B prior to February 1, 2010, shall not be required to
comply with this subsection until review of the locality's comprehensive plan as provided for in
provision 4 of subsection B.
E. Localities shall consult with adjacent localities, as well as the relevant planning district
commission and metropolitan planning organization, in establishing the appropriate size and
location of urban development areas to promote orderly and efficient development of their
region.
F. Any county that amends its comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection B may designate one
or more urban development areas in any incorporated town within such county, if the council of
the town has also amended its comprehensive plan to designate the same areas as urban
development areas with at least the same density designated by the county. However, if a town
has established an urban development area within its corporate boundaries, the county within
which the town is located shall not include the town's projected population and commercial
growth when initially determining or reexamining the size and boundary of any other urban
development area within the county.
G. To the extent possible, federal, state and local transportation, housing, water and sewer
facility, economic development, and other public infrastructure funding for new and expanded
facilities shall be directed to the urban development area, or in the case of a locality that adopts a
resolution pursuant to subsection D, to the area that accommodates growth in a manner
consistent with this section.
H. Documents describing all urban development area designations, as well as any resolution
adopted pursuant to subsection D, together with associated written policies, zoning provisions
and other ordinances, and the capital improvement program shall be forwarded, electronically or
by other means, to the Commission within 90 days of the adoption or amendment of
comprehensive plans and other written policies, zoning provisions and other ordinances. The
Commission shall annually report to the Governor and General Assembly the overall compliance
with this section including densities achieved within each urban development area. Before
preparing the initial report, the Commission shall develop an appropriate format in concert with
the relevant planning district commission. Other than the documents, policies, zoning provisions
and other ordinances, resolutions, and the capital improvement program forwarded by the
locality, the Commission shall not impose an additional administrative burden on localities in
preparing the annual report required by this subsection.
I. Any locality that becomes subject to provision 2 of subsection B shall have until July 1, 2012,
to amend its comprehensive plan in accordance with this section.
J. Any locality that becomes subject to this section due to population growth shall have two years
following the report of the United States Bureau of the Census made pursuant to P.L. 94-171 to
amend its comprehensive plan in accordance with this section.
(2007, c. 896; 2009, c. 327; 2010, cc. 465, 528.)
§ 15.2-2224. Surveys and studies to be made in preparation of plan; implementation of
plan.
A. In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the local planning commission shall survey and
study such matters as the following:
1. Use of land, preservation of agricultural and forestal land, production of food and fiber,
characteristics and conditions of existing development, trends of growth or changes, natural
resources, historic areas, ground water, surface water, geologic factors, population factors,
employment, environmental and economic factors, existing public facilities, drainage, flood
control and flood damage prevention measures, dam break inundation zones and potential
impacts to downstream properties to the extent that information concerning such information
exists and is available to the local planning authority, the transmission of electricity, road
improvements, and any estimated cost thereof, transportation facilities, transportation
improvements, and any cost thereof, the need for affordable housing in both the locality and
planning district within which it is situated, and any other matters relating to the subject matter
and general purposes of the comprehensive plan.
However, if a locality chooses not to survey and study historic areas, then t he locality shall
include historic areas in the comprehensive plan, if such areas are identified and surveyed by the
Department of Historic Resources. Furthermore, if a locality chooses not to survey and study
mineral resources, then the locality shall include mineral resources in the comprehensive plan, if
such areas are identified and surveyed by the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. The
requirement to study the production of food and fiber shall apply only to those plans adopted on
or after January 1, 1981.
2. Probable future economic and population growth of the territory and requirements therefor.
B. The comprehensive plan shall recommend methods of implementation and shall include a
current map of the area covered by the comprehensive plan. Unless otherwise required by this
chapter, the methods of implementation may include but need not be limited to:
1. An official map;
2. A capital improvements program;
3. A subdivision ordinance;
4. A zoning ordinance and zoning district maps;
5. A mineral resource map;
6. A recreation and sports resource map; and
7. A map of dam break inundation zones.
(Code 1950, § 15-964.1; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-447; 1975, c. 641; 1977, c. 228; 1980, c. 322;
1981, c. 418; 1988, c. 438; 1990, c. 97; 1991, c. 280; 1993, cc. 758, 770; 1996, cc. 585, 600;
1997, c. 587; 2006, c. 564; 2007, c. 761; 2008, c. 491.)
§ 15.2-2225. Notice and hearing on plan; recommendation by local planning commission to
governing body; posting of plan on website.
Prior to the recommendation of a comprehensive plan or any part thereof, the local planning
commission shall (i) post the comprehensive plan or part thereof that is to be considered for
recommendation on a website that is maintained by the commission or on any other website on
which the commission generally posts information, and that is available to the public or that
clearly describes how the public may access information regarding the plan or part thereof being
considered for recommendation, (ii) give notice in accordance with § 15.2-2204, and (iii) hold a
public hearing on the plan. After the public hearing, the commission may approve, amend and
approve, or disapprove the plan. Upon approval, the commission shall by resolution recommend
the plan, or part thereof, to the governing body and a copy shall be certified to the governing
body. Any comprehensive plan or part thereof approved by the commission pursuant to this
section shall be posted on a website that is maintained by the commission or on any other
website on which the commission generally posts information, and that is available to the public
or that clearly describes how the public may access information regarding the plan or part thereof
approved by the commission and certified to the governing body. Inadvertent failure to post
information on a website in accordance with this section shall not invalidate action taken by the
local planning commission following notice and public hearing as required herein.
(Code 1950, §§ 15-908, 15-921, 15-922, 15-964.2, 15-964.3; 1958, c. 389; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-
448, 15.1-449; 1968, c. 735; 1975, c. 641; 1976, c. 642; 1997, c. 587; 2009, c. 605.)
§ 15.2-2226. Adoption or disapproval of plan by governing body.
After certification of the plan or part thereof, the governing body shall post the comprehensive
plan or part thereof certified by the local planning commission on a website that is maintained by
the governing body or on any other website on which the governing body generally posts
information, and that is available to the public or that clearly describes how the public may
access information regarding the plan or part thereof being considered for adoption. After a
public hearing with notice as required by § 15.2-2204, the governing body shall proceed to a
consideration of the plan or part thereof and shall approve and adopt, amend and adopt, or
disapprove the plan. In acting on the plan or part thereof, or any amendments to the plan, the
governing body shall act within ninety days of the local planning commission's recommending
resolution. Any comprehensive plan or part thereof adopted by the governing body pursuant to
this section shall be posted on a website that is maintained by the local governing body or on any
other website on which the governing body generally posts information, and that is available to
the public or that clearly describes how the public may access information regarding the plan or
part thereof adopted by the local governing body. Inadvertent failure to post information on a
website in accordance with this section shall not invalidate action taken by the governing body
following notice and public hearing as required herein.
(Code 1950, § 15-964.4; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-450; 1975, c. 641; 1976, c. 642; 1997, c. 587;
2000, c. 893; 2009, c. 605.)
§ 15.2-2227. Return of plan to local planning commission; resubmission.
If the governing body disapproves the plan, then it shall be returned to the local planning
commission for its reconsideration, with a written statement of the reasons for its disapproval.
The commission shall have sixty days in which to reconsider the plan and resubmit it, with any
changes, to the governing body.
(Code 1950, § 15-964.5; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-451; 1997, c. 587.)
§ 15.2-2228. Adoption of parts of plan.
As the work of preparing the comprehensive plan progresses, the local planning commission
may, from time to time, recommend, and the governing body approve and adopt, parts thereof.
Any such part shall cover one or more major sections or divisions of the locality or one or more
functional matters.
(Code 1950, §§ 15-906, 15-921, 15-964.6; 1958, c. 389; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-452; 1997, c. 587.)
§ 15.2-2229. Amendments.
After the adoption of a comprehensive plan, all amendments to it shall be recommended, and
approved and adopted, respectively, as required by § 15.2-2204. If the governing body desires an
amendment, it may prepare such amendment and refer it to the local planning commission for
public hearing or direct the local planning commission to prepare an amendment and submit it to
public hearing within 60 days or such longer timeframe as may be specified after written request
by the governing body. In acting on any amendments to the plan, the governing body shall act
within 90 days of the local planning commission's recommending resolution. If the local
planning commission fails to make a recommendation on the amendment within the aforesaid
timeframe, the governing body may conduct a public hearing, which shall be advertised as
required by § 15.2-2204.
(Code 1950, §§ 15-908, 15-921, 15-964.7; 1958, c. 389; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-453; 1975, c. 641;
1997, c. 587; 2000, c. 893; 2010, c. 821.)
§ 15.2-2230. Plan to be reviewed at least once every five years.
At least once every five years the comprehensive plan shall be reviewed by the local planning
commission to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan.
(Code 1950, § 15-964.8; 1962, c. 407, § 15.1-454; 1975, c. 641; 1997, c. 587.)
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
A CHRONOLOGY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING EFFORTS AS RELATED TO SUSTAINABILITY
1970 Comprehensive Plan Goals:
Provide a suitable living environment for the present and future population of the County
Establish balanced communities with the provision of adequate employment and service facilities
Provide housing to match the varied needs and income levels of the County’s present and future populations
Respect conservation values, including the preservation of stream valleys, mountain slopes, watersheds and other open space areas
Provide for orderly development consistent with good land use practices and the availability of public and semipublic facilities
1980 Zoning Ordinance
Increase minimum lot size in Rural Areas to 21 acres, except for 5 -2 acre lots for each parcel existing at adoption
1982 Comprehensive Plan Goals:
Conserve and promote use of important farmlands and forestall areas for their local economic benefit, scenic beauty and place in the county’s
heritage
Provide safe, sanitary and adequate housing for Albemarle County residents of all income groups
Provide human service needs for Albemarle County residents through a combination of public and private programs.
Conserve and promote efficient energy utilization in the County
Establish balance residential communities in the County with the provision of adequate employment and service facilities
Conserve and retain historic sites and values in the County
Allow expansion of existing industries as well as location of new industries in keeping with the County’s desire to provide jobs for residents
entering the labor force, to maintain a balanced employment mix and to avoid stimulating rapid population growth
Encourage the development of a safe, efficient and balanced transportation system for the movement of people, goods, and services into, out of,
and within the area that is consistent with the land use and sound in regard to fiscal consideration of the County
Guide the location, form and size of new development in the County by providing and controlling public utilities in a cost effective manner
1989 Comprehensive Plan Goals:
Promote the efficient utilization of County resources through a combination of
a. Designated growth areas that provide a variety of land uses, facilities, and services to support the County’s future growth
b. Emphasis on the importance and priority of the four major elements that form the basis for the Rural Areas 1) preservation of
agricultural and forestal activities, 2) water supply protection, 3) limited service deliver y to these areas, and 4) conservation of natural,
scenic, and historic resources. Of these, the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities is the highest priority.
1996 Comprehensive Plan Goals:
Preserve and manage the County’s natural resources in order to protect the environment and conserve resources for future use
Preserve the County’s scenic resources as being essential to the County’s character, economic vitality and quality of life
Protect the County’s historic and cultural resources
1999 Natural Resources and Cultural Assets section of the Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Goal and Strategy
Goal: Achieve a sustainable community that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.
Strategy: Review and support as appropriate the Sustainability Council’s Statements of Accord.
“Sustainable Design in Buildings and Planning” section amended into the Plan in 2007, it strategies encouraging efficient use of energy and
resources in building and site design and development.
2009 Economic Development Policy Goal (same goal as 1996 Economic Development Policy):
Maintain a strong and sustainable economy: 1) benefiting County citizens and existing businesses and providing diversified economic
opportunities; 2) supportive of the County's Growth Management Policy and consistent with the other Comprehensive Plan goals; and,
3) taking into consideration the greater Charlottesville Metropolitan region.
SUSTAINABILITY ACCORDS vs. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS
SUSTAINABILITY ACCORDS per 1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1970 Comp
Plan
1982 Comp
Plan
1989 Comp
Plan
1996 Comp
Plan
Encourage and maintain strong ties between the Region’s urban and rural areas,
fostering healthy economic, environmental, social and political interactions. X X X X
Strive for a size and distribution of human population that will preserve the vital
resources of the Region for future generations. X X X X
Retain the natural habitat required to support viable plant and animal communities
that make up the Region’s biological diversity X X X X
Ensure that water quality and quantity in the Region are sufficient to support the
human population and ecosystems X X X X
Optimize the use and reuse of developed land. Promote clustering in residential
areas and the integration of business, industry, recreation, residential and open
space
X X X X
Promote the consideration of appropriate scale in all development and land use
decisions X X X
Retain farmland and forest land for the future
X X X X
Broaden the use of sustainable forestry practices among loggers and landowners
X X X
Promote the sale of locally produced farm and forest products in local, national and
international markets X X X
Develop attractive and economical transportation alternatives to single occupancy
vehicle use. X X X X
Promote the conservation and efficient use of energy resources
X X X
Provide, at all levels, educational opportunities open to every member of the
community X X X
Ensure that every member of the community is able to obtain employment that
provides just compensation, mobility, and fulfillment. X X X X
Increase individual participation in neighborhood and community organizations.
X X
Encourage greater understanding of sustainability issues as they affect individuals
and the Region, using formal and informal education and local media coverage. X
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Timeline for Comprehensive Plan Update
The general timeline for the Plan review is provided below. It is based in a structure that allows for a
“front end” public input process to simultaneous inform all four planning processes underway (City and
County Comprehensive Plan Updates, MPO Regional Transportation Plan update, and Sustainability
Grant effort).
Timeline
March 22, 2011 – Joint City/County Work Session – Overview of Grant
April 27, 2011– Comp Plan Kick Off
May 2011/June – Data review of Kickoff
Summer 2011 – Joint PC meeting to review kick off and perhaps another collaboration topic
June/July 2011 – Data gathering and setting up schedules with citizen advisory groups (where
requested) on plan updates
Mid July/Early August 2011 – Joint PC – topic to be determined
September – Feb 2012 - Public participation workshops
March/April 2012 - Joint PC work session – Wrap up/Report out on Public Meetings
Spring 2012 – Focused Citizen input meetings (as requested)
Spring & Summer 2012 – Work sessions with Commission on Various Chapter updates (group
those needing minimal update with more focused sessions on larger updates)
Fall 2012 – Citizen check-ins
Winter/Spring 2013 – Target for Adoption
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Introduction to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets
Component of the Comprehensive Plan
This Comprehensive Plan recognizes that both the Rural Area and the Development Areas are
subsets of the overall environment of Albemarle County, upon which the developed environment
and its people depend. The maintenance and enhancement of our quality of life, our economic
wealth, and the health of our citizens are dependent on our natural environment and the ecological
services it provides. Ecological services are ways in which nature meets and fulfills human
needs.1
The ecological functions provided by the County’s environmental resources are critical to our
economy, health, safety, and welfare, and quality of life. These functions include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
purification of air and water
mitigation of floods and droughts
detoxification and decomposition of wastes
generation and renewal of soil fertility
pollination of crops
control of pests
maintenance of biodiversity for human needs
moderation of climate, including temperature extremes, wind, etc.
aesthetic beauty and intellectual stimulation
recreation
This Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter applies to both the Development Areas and
the Rural Area. It discusses the concept of sustainability; the physical setting of Albemarle
County; open space resources, including natural, scenic and historic resources; and open space
planning. Water resources (including surface water, surface drinking water and groundwater) and
agricultural and forestry resources are discussed in this chapter under "Natural Resources."
This chapter incorporates as part of the Comprehensive Plan the following freestanding
documents: the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan adopted in 1992, the Historic
Preservation Plan adopted in 2000, and the Stormwater Master Plan adopted in 2005. Amended
02/09/05
Included as Appendix A is the detailed Greenways Plan. The Mountain Protection Plan, prepared
by the Mountain Protection Committee in 1996, is Appendix B. The Open Space and Critical
Resources Plan, the Historic Preservation Plan, and the Stormwater Master Plan are located
under separate cover. Amended 02/09/05
1 As defined by Gretchen Daily in her book, Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, 1997,
“ecological services” are “the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make
them up, sustain and fulfill human life.”
1
Sustainability
GOAL: Achieve a sustainable community that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Sustainability is a concept that recognizes that natural systems are essential to providing both
economic needs and quality of life. Sustainability gained international attention at the 1992
United Nations’ Conference on Environment and Development. In 1993, the Virginia General
Assembly passed House Joint Resolution No. 653, encouraging the Governor, state and local
officials, and the leaders of educational institutions and civic organizations to work together to
prepare a Virginia strategy for sustainable development.
The Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council was created in 1994 by the regional Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission. The Council grew out of the 1990-92 Thomas Jefferson
Study to Preserve and Assess the Regional Environment (TJSPARE). It is a 34-member council
with representatives from the six member localities: Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and
Nelson counties, and the City of Charlottesville. The diverse group of farmers, business people,
foresters, environmentalists, developers and elected officials was given the charge to “describe a
future where our economic, human, social, and environmental health are assured.” The Council
addressed the areas of: human population, basic human needs, economic development,
transportation, land development, waste, values/ethics, community awareness,
interdependence/balance, government, natural environment, and agriculture/forestry.
The Council has developed a mission statement, principles that govern a sustainable community,
and the goals, objectives, indicators and benchmarks of a sustainable region. These conclusions
stress the importance of taking the long view and the interdependence of all aspects of a
community.
The Mission of the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council is to provide citizens
throughout the Region with information and encouragement to meet the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.†
The final product of the Council’s work is development of 15 Statements of Accord. Through the
Accords and the State of the Region Report the Council now seeks to develop a consensus in the
localities, within local governments and among the diverse interests of the community to work
together for a sustainable future in the Region.
† Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council, "1998 Sustainability Accords and Vision of Sustainability."
3
Strategy: Review and support as appropriate the following Sustainability
Council’s Statements of Accord:
• Encourage and maintain strong ties between the Region’s urban and rural areas, fostering
healthy economic, environmental, social and political interactions.
• Strive for a size and distribution of human population that will preserve the vital resources of
the Region for future generations.
• Retain the natural habitat required to support viable plant and animal communities that make
up the Region’s biological diversity.
• Ensure that water quality and quantity in the Region are sufficient to support the human
population and ecosystems.
• Optimize the use and reuse of developed land. Promote clustering in residential areas and the
integration of business, industry, recreation, residential and open space.
• Promote the consideration of appropriate scale in all development and land use decisions.
• Retain farmland and forest land for the future.
• Broaden the use of sustainable forestry practices among loggers and landowners.
• Promote the sale of locally produced farm and forest products in local, national and
international markets.
• Develop attractive and economical transportation alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use.
• Promote the conservation and efficient use of energy resources.
• Provide, at all levels, educational opportunities open to every member of the community.
• Ensure that every member of the community is able to obtain employment that provides just
compensation, mobility, and fulfillment.
• Increase individual participation in neighborhood and community organizations.
• Encourage greater understanding of sustainability issues as they affect individuals and the
Region, using formal and informal education and local media coverage.
4
Sustainable Design in Buildings and Planning
Amended July 11, 2007 (CPA 07-03, Green Building and Sustainability)
In September 2006, as a response to interest in green building among Board and Planning
Commission officials, from citizens, and continued pursuits by staff regarding sustainability, the
Board directed Staff to develop strategies to increase sustainability and expand the County’s
commitment to implementing and supporting the Accords.
Nearly ten years old, the Sustainability Accords increase in relevance with the expanded
understanding of the potential local and regional results of global climate change. The Accords
are furthered through applying specific green building objectives and strategies to the
construction, planning, and renovation of County facilities. Increasingly, green buildings are
proving to be ideal learning and productive work environments that generate less airborne carbon
associated with climate change. Decreased utility outlays associated with green buildings allow
more revenue to be retained each year to further the County’s Strategic Plan.
To Implement the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council’s Statements of Accord, to promote
green building and to protect the fiscal and civic health of the community generally, the County
establishes the following Objectives and Strategies for green building, site design, innovation,
grants and incentives, education, and preparedness.
The Strategies support the County’s EnergyStar Courthouse partnership, initiated by the County
Executive in 2006, through reducing daily energy use with technology, awareness, and systematic
elimination of inefficient facilities and systems.
To achieve a high level of knowledge of green building and environmental issues, the strategies
encourage and support citizens and developers toward furthering the Sustainability Accords with
educational support and public outreach. An aligned effort seeks to reduce collective demand and
dependence on costly conventional energy sources that have negative environmental impacts.
INTERNAL OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
Strategy: Participate in the EnergyStar Courthouse Campaign (ESCC) to reduce local
government’s consumption of energy. (Begun 12/06 by County Executive)
Strategy: In keeping with (ESCC), create a policy for County buildings and operations to reduce
energy consumption by 30% in keeping with EnergyStar guidelines.
Strategy: For new County projects, perform energy modeling during the design-development
phase to assess long-term economic benefits of green upgrades.
Strategy: Achieve U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) basic level certification on new public buildings so long as planning and energy
modeling determine that the upfront expense does not unreasonably exceed the long-term savings.
4.1
Strategy: Develop and adopt criteria (e.g. square footage / project cost) for pursuing LEED
certification for new construction.
Strategy: Recognize and respond to the significant role that site characteristics play in sustainable
design.
Strategy: Locate and apply for grants related to improving the energy efficiency and
environmental aspects of existing or proposed County facilities. Actively pursue EnergyStar tax
credits.
Strategy: Investigate and pursue the purchase of energy credits for renewable energy.
ADVANCE SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
Strategy: Offer, facilitate, and/or support green building training for builders and provide
information on programs and organizations which will help facilitate this strategy.
Strategy: Engage Blue Ridge Home Builders Association and other similar local groups in
conjunction with local government legislative issues.
Strategy: Make changes to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure it does not create obstacles to green
building.
Strategy: Assist developers in locating and applying for EnergyStar tax credits for energy
efficient projects.
Strategy: Encourage builders and developers to seek LEED, Earthcraft, EnergyStar or other
comparable certifications.
ADVANCE SUSTAINABILITY AMONG RESIDENTS
Strategy: Develop and maintain links and/or pages on the County website that provide
information and strategies to help residents reduce their consumption of resources and resulting
pollution.
Strategy: Assist residents in locating and applying for EnergyStar tax credits for energy efficient
projects.
CONTINUE RESEARCH AND UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Strategy: Continue investigating aggressive and viable strategies for green building, energy
efficiency, and the following:
- Recycling
- Alternative Energy
4.2
- Local Food Production
- Protection of Water Resources
- More efficient Wastewater Treatment
- Enhanced Transit, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities, Trails and Greenways
4.3
1
Charlottesville-Albemarle Livability Partnership Consortium Agreement
Introduction and Purpose
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Livability Partnership (Livability Partnership) is a broad-based, inclusive
group formed to develop the Charlottesville Area Livability Implementation Plan (the Plan). The Plan will
provide data, analysis, and proposed strategies that will lead to increased livability and sustainability for
the Charlottesville area. The Plan is advisory only and its contents and recommendations are nonbinding.
Any recommendations from this process that are considered for inclusion in local Comprehensive Plans
will be required to go through the mandated processes with Planning Commission and governing body
consideration and approval. This Consortium Agreement identifies opportunities for participation, and
defines a governance structure for the project. The Livability Partnership includes the following four
participating groups or organizations:
1) Primary Partners (City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, and the University of Virginia), each
having an equal participation roles in the Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Planning and
Coordinating Council (PACC);
2) Members of the Livability Advisory Committee (Rivanna River Basin Commission, Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development, Jefferson Area Board on Aging, Local Energy Alliance
Program, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, County of Albemarle Housing Office,
and an unaffiliated citizen representative), each providing technical and professional input;
3) Members of the Livability Group (designated representatives of community based organizations),
each reviewing and providing feedback on project products based on the specific community based
interested represented by their organizations; and,
4) Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission serving as the lead organization, and providing staffing
for the HUD Sustainable Communities Planning Grant.
Benefits of Participation in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Livability Partnership
The Charlottesville Area Livability Implementation Plan will provide recommendations that can be used to
guide the implementation of livability principles in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area. The three
primary partners in the project – the City of Charlottesville (City), Albemarle County (County), the
University of Virginia (UVA) – along with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
developed a strategy to implement livability in the Charlottesville-Albemarle metro area. The shared
understanding is the project processes with require five steps:
1) Determine the current, overview picture of the area using performance measures based on existing,
readily available data;
2) Identify strategies for livability and create a list of policy recommendations for elected and appointed
officials to consider for incorporation into local government comprehensive plans, the UVA Grounds
Plan and the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan;
3) Create a list of recommended ordinance and code changes for local governments to consider which
will assist in the implementation of livability strategies that are incorporated into appropriate long
range planning documents;
4) Develop systems for voluntary changes in behavior on the part of individuals and institutions to
increase livability, and assist in implementation of such systems where appropriate; and,
5) Use performance measures to monitor communitywide effects of incorporated livability strategies
over the long term.
2
Partners who chose to participate in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Livability Partnership will be provided
with the following opportunities:
1. Participation in a challenging project which will shape the Charlottesville/Albemarle metro area’s
future;
2. Ensured representation of community views on livability issues for the area; and,
3. Provide valuable input to the Plan.
Products
The product of this cooperative effort will be the Charlottesville Region Livability Implementation Plan
(CRLIP), referred to in the grant application as the Charlottesville Region Sustainability Plan. The CRLIP will
create the focus among the public, governments, and non-profits to move livability from the realm of
recommendation into actual implementation. This will be accomplished through the creation of five
products that will make up the CRLIP. The CRLIP and its five products will be recommendations which the
signatories will consider, but not be bound by in each organization’s processes. These products are
described below:
Product #1: Livability Performance Measurement System
The Livability Performance Measurement System will focus ongoing attention on key factors in the
Charlottesville and Albemarle community. This will be accomplished by using the Performance
Measurement System to baseline and identify livability issues in Charlottesville and Albemarle.
Periodic updates of the Livability Performance Measurement System will enable decision makers,
government agencies, non-profits and the public to understand the current status of the area on
the key livability issues and will quantify progress in advancing the areas livability. The Livability
Performance Measurement System will focus on six areas identified from the HUD Livability
Principals: housing, environmental quality, transportation, economic opportunity, fresh food
access, and healthy communities.
Product #2: Common Land Use – Transportation Vision
The intent of the Common Land Use – Transportation Vision is to enable elected officials,
government agencies, non-profits and the public to understand the relationship between
Charlottesville, Albemarle and University of Virginia future plans. The Common Land Use -
Transportation Vision will integrate on one map existing City and County future land use plans and
the MPO transportation plan utilizing consistent graphic representation of applicable data. A
version of the combined map will be prepared early in the project to represent existing policies
and a second version will be prepared at the end of the project following the update of both
Comprehensive Plans as well as the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan.
Product #3: Integrated Livability Strategies
The Charlottesville and Albemarle area has a long history of planning for livability and many
livability plans. However, all of these are single issue documents which focused on livability
recommendations for individual systems such as housing, climate or transportation. Although
these plans have provide many good recommendations for the individual systems they have not
focused on cross cutting recommendations showing how all the major systems should be modified
to increase livability in the area. This product will examine all the plans to identify the key livability
recommendations. Strategies will then be developed for coordinating changes within all the
systems to result in increased livability. The strategies will focus on recommended changes to the
3
City and County Comprehensive Plans, and the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan which are
the main policy documents for housing, transportation, environment and economic development
for the area. The final product will be a list of recommended policies that may be incorporated in
the updated Comprehensive Plans as well as the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan and
proposed data, analysis and text which can be incorporated into the three plans to support the
proposed strategies. These recommended policies will be required to undergo the mandated
processes with planning commission and local governing body review and approval before they
are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plans.
Product #4: Recommendations for Changes to Local Codes and Ordinances
The final step of moving livability from the realm of unrealized goals into actual implementation at
the local government level is to incorporate the livability strategies from the updated
comprehensive plans into local codes and ordinances. Although this process is relatively easy to
describe, it is extremely difficult to undertake. There are several reasons that this is true. The
proposed codes and ordinances must be developed to accomplish exactly what is called for in the
adopted comprehensive plan and avoid any unintended consequences. Virginia is a Dillion Rule
state, meaning that local governments cannot do anything unless specifically authorized to do so
by the Legislature. Local codes and ordinances are legally enforceable and must be crafted to be
consistent with the provisions of the Virginia Code as well as other local codes, ordinances and
regulations. In addition, local land use codes and regulations powerfully impact property owners
rights pertaining to development type and intensity and must be carefully reviewed to avoid any
undue impact. Finally, the codes and ordinances as developed must be enforceable and not create
an undue administrative burden for either local government or for the public.
Due to the high degree of complexity involved in changes to local codes and ordinances, it is not
the intent of Product #4 to actually create the revised codes and ordinances that will be necessary
for Charlottesville and Albemarle County to implement the livability strategies adopted in the
comprehensive plans. Rather, Product #4 will create a plan for the development of the required
codes and ordinances. This plan for development of the required code and ordinance changes will
be a nonbinding guide for the consideration of the participants. Any changes that are made to
local code or ordinances will undergo the required adoption processes including public hearings
and approval by local governing body.
Product #5: Plan for Voluntary Individual and Organizational Change to Promote Livability
Change in favor of livability on the part of both individuals and organizations are a critical
component of actually implementing livability. Long term, permanent livability requires changes
to the processes that shape the built environment. But the built environment changes very slowly.
In the short term the most immediate gains in livability can be achieved by change on the part of
individuals and organizations. It is expected that as part of this project, a few key areas will be
identified that, if changed, would greatly benefit the overall livability of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle metro area. This task is designed to prepare a plan for the process that
would need to be put in place to bring about those changes.
Governance of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Livability Partnership
The governance and decision making model for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Livability Partnership was
selected to build on existing relationships while giving voice to and encouraging participation by all
interested organizations within the community. The approving organization for the Charlottesville-
4
Albemarle Livability Implementation Plan shall be through the existing Charlottesville-Albemarle-
University of Virginia Planning and Coordinating Council (PACC). The PACC was formed in 1986 through a
Three Party Memorandum of Understanding of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle and
University of Virginia. One of the primary purposes of PACC is “To coordinate cooperative, community
efforts in areas of mutual concern and interest between Charlottesville, Albemarle and the University of
Virginia.” Included among those cooperative efforts is “To develop, implement, and monitor a process to
carry out mutual planning activities.” The PACC will be assisted in this effort by the PACC Tech Committee,
also formed as part of the Three Party Memorandum of Agreement. Development of the livability
implementation plan will require the formation of two additional committees, the Livability Advisory
Committee and the Livability Group. As the lead organization for the HUD Sustainable Communities
Planning Grant the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will act as staff to all four of these
organizations. In addition, the project will include a proactive public involvement process to solicit and
incorporate input from all segments of the community. The following describes the composition and
responsibilities of each committee in regard to the development of the Charlottesville Region Livability
Implementation Plan. The Organizational Chart following page 6 depicts the relationship between the
committees.
A. Livability Group
Composition and Function: The Livability Group will be a standing focus group open to any
community organization in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area. The Group will provide input on
the project and its products. This input will represent missions and views of each specific community
group, will allow for a wide range of viewpoints and provide a basis for communitywide conversations.
Any group wishing to participate will be able to do so by signing the Group Agreement and appointing
a representative. A copy of the Group Agreement is attached. The Livability Group will meet quarterly
in March, June, September and December.
A key goal of the Livability Group is to provide connection to all types of community groups providing
the opportunity for detailed review of products, as well as a high level of input and feedback. TJPDC
staff will work with the membership of the Livability Group to ensure all perspectives are represented,
as well as ensuring the Group processes are conducted in a fair and unbiased manner. At Group
quarterly meetings TJPDC project staff will present information regarding projects under
development. Group members will then have the opportunity to discuss and interact about the
products through various group facilitation methods. Following the meeting, the members of the
Livability Group will be asked to present meeting materials to their represented organizations, and
provide written comments for inclusion in the project record and submittal to PACC Tech and PACC.
TJPDC project staff will participate in meetings for that purpose. TJPDC project staff will also develop
online survey tools that will be provided to representatives on the Partnership to poll them regarding
their position on the products. A summary report of the poll results will be prepared and submitted to
PACC Tech and PACC for their consideration during their consideration of products.
Decision Making Procedures: At each quarterly Livability Group meeting, TJPDC staff will provide a
summary of the last quarterly meetings conversations, work products, and subsequently received
comments, input, or materials. The Livability Group will be asked to vote on acceptance and adoption
of TJPDC staff’s summary as true and representative.
Responsibilities: The responsibilities of the members of the Livability Partnership shall be as follows:
Attendance at quarterly Livability Partnership meetings;
5
Acceptance and adoption of TJPDC staff’s summary of previous quarterly meeting summary;
Discussion of Livability Project products with other members of their community group;
Provide comments in writing on project products for consideration by PACC Tech and PACC;
Provide input through online polling;
Discussion and interaction with the Livability Group members in a respectful manner. It is
anticipated that issues under discussion will result in divergent opinions among members of
the Group. While recognizing the passion that can arise in such a situation, it is expected that
members of the partnership will respect the rights of all to participate. If members behave in a
confrontational or disruptive fashion they will be removed from the meeting at the discretion
of project staff. If individuals are removed from more than one meeting, project staff will ask
the community organization they represent to assign a different representative. If
confrontational or disruptive behavior continues on the part of representatives of the group,
staff will recommend to PACC Tech and PACC that the group no longer be allowed to
participate.
B. Livability Advisory Committee
Composition and Function: The Livability Advisory Committee will serve as the technical committee
for the CRLIP on issues of community livability. The following organizations shall each appoint one
official representative to serve on the Livability Advisory Committee: City of Charlottesville, County of
Albemarle, University of Virginia, Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA), Thomas Jefferson Partnership
for Economic Development (TJPED), Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC), Local Energy Alliance
Program (LEAP), Albemarle County Office of Housing, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing
Authority (CRHA). The Livability Advisory Committee will also include a non-affiliated community
representative appointed by PACC at the recommendation of PACC Tech. The Livability Advisory
Committee will meet quarterly in March, June, September and December.
Decision Making Procedures: The Livability Advisory Committee will operate on the basis of
consensus.
Responsibilities: The responsibilities of the Livability Advisory Committee shall be as follows:
Review CRLIP products and provide technical input on livability and livability issues based on
their expertise in their respective disciplines.
C. Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Planning and Coordinating Council Technical
Committee (PACC Tech)
Composition and Function: PACC Tech is a standing technical committee providing input and support
to PACC on planning issues that involve Charlottesville, Albemarle and University of Virginia. It is made
up of nine members, three from the City, three from the County of Albemarle and three from the
University of Virginia. PACC Tech meets quarterly in January, April, July and October.
Decision Making Procedures: PACC Tech will follow Roberts Rules of Order for all decision making. All
meetings at which items for the CRLIP are to be considered will be posted on both the project
website, as well as at the TJPDC office. Minutes of all PACC Tech meetings which include consideration
of items for the CRLIP will be posted on the project website, and will be available for review in the
public documents collection at TJPDC.
6
Responsibilities: PACC Tech shall be responsible for the following:
Providing recommendations to PACC on the Consortium Agreement and any future
amendments or modifications.
Providing recommendation of all products for the CRLIP as described above. Such approval
shall be based on the requirements of the Sustainable Communities Grant Letter of
Agreement, Work Plan and Logic Model. Such approval shall consider input from the Livability
Advisory Committee, the Livability Group and public input received through project outreach.
D. Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Planning and Coordinating Council (PACC)
Composition and Function: The Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Planning and
Coordinating Council (PACC) serves as the decision making body for the joint planning process put in
place by the 1986 Three Party Memorandum of Understanding. PACC will serve as the approval body
for the products of the Livable Communities Project. PACC is composed of 9 members as identified in
the PACC Bylaws: three from the City to be appointed by the City Council, three from the County of
Albemarle to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and three from the University of Virginia to be
appointed by the President of the University. PACC meets quarterly in February, May, August and
November.
Decision Making Procedures: PACC will follow Roberts Rules of Order for all decision making. All
meetings at which items for the CRLIP will be considered will be posted on both the project website as
well as at the TJPDC office. Minutes of all PACC meetings which include consideration of items for the
CRLIP will be posted on the project website and will be available for review in the public documents
collection at TJPDC.
Responsibilities: The Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Planning and Coordinating
Council shall be responsible for the following:
Approval of the Consortium Agreement and any future amendments or modifications.
Approval of all products for the CRLIP as described above. Such approval shall be based on the
requirements of the Sustainable Communities Grant Letter of Agreement, Work Plan and Logic
Model. Such approval shall also consider the recommendation of PACC Tech, as well as input
from the Livability Advisory Committee, the Livability Partnership and public input received
through project outreach. All decisions by PACC to approve products of this project will be
nonbinding recommendations to the City, County and University for their consideration.
E. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
Function: The TJPDC will serve as lead agency for the HUD Sustainable Communities Planning Grant.
As such the TJPDC will be the point of contact between the project and HUD. The TJPDC will be
responsible for the preparation of all products. TJPDC will also be responsible for fulfilling all financial
and legal requirements of the grant as identified in the Letter of Agreement, Work Plan and Logic
Model. The TJPDC will also oversee all activities by subreceipients.
F. Working Group
7
Composition and Function: The Working Group will be composed of TJPDC’s responsible project staff
(Executive Director, Chief Operating Officer and Project Manager) and the assigned staff
representatives of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle and University of Virginia. The
Working Group will oversee project management and provide a mechanism for coordinating and
scheduling project activities. The Working Group will also oversee the umbrella public outreach
process for the project as well as the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle Comprehensive
Plans and the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan.
Approved by the Members of the Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Planning and
Coordinating Council:
_______________________________________ ______________________________
University of Virginia Date
_______________________________________ ______________________________
City of Charlottesville Date
_______________________________________ ______________________________
County of Albemarle Date
Approved by the Lead Agency for the HUD Sustainable Communities Planning Grant:
_______________________________________ ______________________________
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Date
Charlottesville Area Livability Implementation Plan Organizational Chart
Livability Group Livability
Advisory
Committee
Public Outreach
Process
Planning and
Coordinating Council
Technical Committee
Planning and
Coordinating Council
TJPDC Staff &
Working Group
County of
Albemarle Comp
Plan
City of
Charlottesville
Comp Plan
MPO Long Range
Transportation
Plan
Draft Products and Project Information
Approved Products
Recommendations
1
Charlottesville Region Sustainability Implementation Plan
General Description
The Plan: The outcome of this proposed project will be a full regional implementation plan for the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization area, consisting of the City of Charlottesville
and the urbanized area of Albemarle County in Central Virginia. The Charlottesville Region Sustainability
Implementation Plan will build on the region’s 1998 Sustainability Accords and other planning documents
to integrate strategies for land use, transportation, housing, economic development, air and water quality,
and energy use. The project will create six products that will move sustainability in the region from a
regional goal to actual implementation:
1. Sustainability Baseline and Performance Measurement System
2. Common Land Use – Transportation Vision for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Region
3. Integration of Sustainability Strategies into Comprehensive Plans and the Long Range
Transportation Plan
4. Code and Ordinance Sustainability Recommendations
5. Plan for Behavior Change Processes
6. Public Engagement
The partners in the project have a long history of work on sustainability. Experience has taught each of the
partners that although implementation of sustainability is a key objective, there are several major barriers:
• It is very difficult to achieve the necessary change in mind set for both individuals and institutions
from business as usual to a new paradigm.
• Sustainability strategies and approaches are must be developed and tailored to fit the local/regional
context.
• Typical planning documents that set policies for local governments and metropolitan planning
organizations are not generally developed with sustainability in mind and incorporation of
sustainability into those documents requires additional effort.
• Once sustainability policies and strategies have been developed and incorporated into policy
documents, it is still necessary to put structures in place that will allow the actual implementation.
These include legal mechanisms through codes and ordinances, systems for educating individuals
and institutions on sustainability and encouraging behavior change, and performance monitoring
systems to determine if real change is taking place.
This implementation plan will create specific strategies to realize the vision articulated in the Sustainability
Accords. It will build on the lessons learned through the Eastern Planning Initiative, subsequent scenario
planning efforts, and other plans and studies to develop a Performance Management System, align land use
and transportation visions and long range plans, and develop and codify implementation strategies into the
City and County’s Comprehensive Plans, the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan, as well as codes and
ordinances, and activities to result in changes in behavior for individuals, institutions and other
organizations.
2
Threshold Requirements
Consortium Members: The three main partners of the Sustainable Communities consortium are the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)/Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CAMPO), City of Charlottesville, and Albemarle County. The University of Virginia
will serve as the project’s consulting participant, serving in an advisory role under the auspices of the
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC), a 20-year cooperative effort among the University, City and
County. The Consortium also includes six additional partners with specialized expertise, including the
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED), Jefferson Area Board for Aging
(JABA), Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC), Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP), Charlottesville
Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA), and the County of Albemarle Housing Office (CAHO). A
single Memorandum of Agreement signed by all members is included in the appendices.
Applicant Type: The region meets the definition of applicant type “Small-Sized Region, Rural
Communities, and Small Town Areas” with a population under 100,000. The boundaries of the consortium
are the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO, with a total population of 86,308.
Applicant Lead: TJPDC/CAMPO will serve as lead applicant for this grant, functioning as the point of
contact between the Sustainable Communities consortium and HUD.
Grant Request: The Sustainable Communities consortium requests federal assistance of $1,000,000 from
the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant.
Leverage Funds: The Sustainable Communities consortium agrees to provide in excess of 50% in
leveraged funds or in-kind contributions of the total grant funds requested. See response to Rating Factor 4
for a full description of funding commitments. The City of Charlottesville is also submitting a proposal for
TIGER II funds in this round for the extension of Hillsdale Drive. If awarded, the work would be
coordinated and considered as part of this Sustainable Communities Implementation Plan, but those funds
are not included in the leverage calculations.
Funding Category: The consortium is applying for Funding Category 2. Our existing Regional Plan for
Sustainable Development is the 1998 Sustainability Accords , summarized in the narrative. The full text of
the Accords is included in the appendices.
General Requirements: No members of the Sustainable Communities consortium have outstanding civil
rights matters. Partner Codes of Conduct address all requirements. All members of the consortium have a
Financial Management System that meets federal standards. All members of the consortium agree to abide
by the Fair Housing Act.
Process to Develop the Implementation Plan
The consortium has developed a strategy to bring about the implementation of sustainability in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle metro area. The overall philosophy the partners share is that implementing
sustainability will require a cycle of five steps:
1) Determine the existing condition of the region using sustainability performance measures based on
existing, readily available data
2) Identify strategies for sustainability and incorporate those strategies into local government
comprehensive plans, and the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
3) Implement sustainability in the built environment through codes and ordinances
3
4) Develop and implement systems for changing behavior on the part of individuals and institutions to
increase sustainability
5) Use performance measures and existing readily available data to monitor sustainability performance on
an on-going basis.
This project will create six products based on the above philosophy that will move sustainability in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle metropolitan area from a regional goal to actual implementation through the
existing processes of the partners.
Task #1: Sustainability Baseline and Performance Measurement System
The sustainability baseline and performance measurement system for this project will focus on the seven
identified areas in the NOFA: housing cost, environmental quality, transportation access, socioeconomic
inequity, economic opportunity, fresh food access and healthy communities. Within the region, certain
issues appear to be of concern and will receive special focus: 1) Concentration of poverty - a focus of
the performance measures will be on methods for measuring such concentrations at the neighborhood
level; 2) Shifting transportation demand from single occupant vehicles to alternative modes (transit, bike
and pedestrian) and 3) energy use. Environmental performance measures will focus on non-point source
water quality and on air quality – specifically the generation of ozone precursors and green house gases.
The sustainability baseline and performance measurement system will be designed to be accomplished
using data that is typically generated through existing processes. TJPDC staff working with the project
technical committee will identify a limited number of measures of sustainability for the region, develop
the sustainability performance measures, conduct a baseline assessment, adopt performance goals,
conduct annual performance reports for the region, and develop a process review for development
proposals.
Task #2: Common Land Use – Transportation Vision for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Region
As noted previously, there is no common land use – transportation vision for the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Region. Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia all have land use –
transportation visions, but those visions are not coordinated as a regional plan. The common land use –
transportation vision for the region will integrate the future land use and transportation plans of all three
partners using consistent definitions and map symbols to portray in one graphic the land use –
transportation plan for the future. Associated with the map will be tabular data that identifies anticipated
population, employment, number of housing units by type, and anticipated area of non-residential land
uses. This product will be provided to PACC members for their review and will be incorporated into the
city and county comprehensive plans and the MPO LRTP.
Task #3: Integrate Sustainability Strategies into Comprehensive Plans and MPO LRTP
A barrier to implementation in the region has been the lack of specific strategies in the Comprehensive
Plans of Charlottesville and Albemarle County and in the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. Work
in the region over the past 10 years by consortium partners and other organizations have identified key
sustainability issues and specific recommendations. This work task will involve the identification of
specific sustainability strategies for the region and on updating the city and county comprehensive plans
as well as the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan to incorporate those strategies.
The greatest benefit of the approach being proposed is that the two local government partners in this
project (City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County) and CAMPO will be updating their major plans at
4
the same time. As a result, it will be possible for all entities to work together on the development of
strategies, ways to incorporate those into these plans, and specific implementation actions. Specific steps
under this task will include:
1) Review Sustainability Needs and Issues from Existing Single Purpose Plans
The region has a developed a number plans have focused on particular issues, many of which are
listed as the description of the existing regional plan. Additional plans include, but are not limited to,
the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, Hazard Mitigation Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan,
HUD Consolidated Plan, Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, State of Housing Report, Needs
Assessment for People with Disabilities, and area Master Plans. Many of the findings and
recommendations of these plans focus on particular segments of the population (the elderly, low
income or disadvantaged) or are narrowly focused (transit system, energy costs or housing
affordability). True sustainability is accomplished when the barriers between single purpose
organizations and plans are broken down, and the focus shifts to the cross cutting approaches that
meet the needs of end users. The needs, recommendations and strategies from these single purpose
plans will be summarized by TJPDC with input from the technical committee based on several
variables including need, target population, and proposed strategy approaches. These
recommendations will then be reorganized to approach sustainability from the point of view of
households and businesses and evaluated based on the core principles of sustainability. The resulting
cross-cutting recommendations will be submitted to PACC for review and approval.
2) Develop Regional Sustainability Strategies
Incorporating sustainability into the major plans for Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the MPO
will require cross cutting strategies that address the major sustainability issues of the region in an
integrated fashion. The inter-related nature of these issues will make the development of these
strategies very challenging. Implementation of such strategies will require increased levels of
coordination, particularly between Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Implementation strategies
for the following issues have been identified as the most critical to be developed and integrated in
the comprehensive plans and long range transportation plan:
a) Land Use – This area will focus on the development of strategies that allow flexibility in meeting
regulatory requirements to increase the ability to provide integrated, mixed use development.
b) Housing – Strategies for housing will focus on decreasing the total cost of housing by increasing
integration with transportation systems, employment, and services, as well as by decreasing the
energy requirements. Due to the lack of focus on housing in the Sustainability Accords, it is
anticipated that development of the sustainability strategies for housing will be the largest single
effort. City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and TJPDC will work closely with the Public
Housing Authorities (PHAs) to develop the sustainable housing strategies.
c) Economic Development – Strategies for economic development will focus on methods for
broadening the economic base of the Charlottesville/Albemarle region, attracting businesses that
provide jobs for individuals with average levels of education, and the creative use of sites in
specific areas such as the downtown core, and the US29 corridor.
d) Regional Transit Authority Plan – There is a strong desire on the part of members of the public
and elected officials in the Charlottesville/Albemarle region to extend existing transit services
out of the current core in Charlottesville to provide a higher level of service in the
unincorporated areas of Albemarle County. A conceptual plan for a Regional Transit Authority
5
(RTA) which would change the governance model and extend services has been approved by the
MPO Policy Board. Specific strategies will be developed to guide RTA implementation.
e) Bicycle and Pedestrian Modal Plans – There is also a strong desire that the
Charlottesville/Albemarle region become one of the most friendly regions in the country for
bicycle and pedestrians. Several bicycle and pedestrian plans have previously been developed. It
is necessary to develop specific strategies that will lead to full development of these
transportation modes within the region.
f) Water Quality – The Charlottesville/Albemarle County metropolitan area is within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and will be subject to the requirements of Virginia’s Watershed
Implementation Plan for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL program. Strategies must be developed
and incorporated into the comprehensive plans to implement those requirements.
g) Air Quality – Recent air quality monitoring shows that the Charlottesville/Albemarle region is
approaching nonattainment thresholds for ground level ozone. Reductions in the thresholds as
has been suggested by EPA will very likely put the region in non-attainment status for ozone. In
addition, there is a great deal of focus in the region on green house gas generation. Strategies
must be developed for incorporation into the comprehensive plans and LRTP to reduce the
generation of both ozone precursors and green house gases.
h) Reducing Energy Needs by Households and Businesses – Charlottesville and Albemarle County
in 2009 formed Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP). The purpose of LEAP is to implement
programs to assist households and businesses to increase the energy efficiency of their homes or
business locations, reducing their energy costs and reducing the generation of green house gases.
Given the high percentage of the cost of housing or business space that goes to pay for energy
the success of this program will have measurable benefit in terms of both housing affordability
and business employment. Strategies need to be developed to incorporate LEAP’s
recommendations in the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Comprehensive Plans
i) Adapting to Climate Change – Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia
have been conducting a joint process called the Local Climate Action Planning Process. The
purpose of this process is to identify strategies to reduce green house gas emissions and to
develop recommendations for sustainable adaption to climate change.
j) Livable for a Lifetime – The Area Agency on Aging that serves the region (Jefferson Area Board
for Aging) led the effort to develop a plan focusing on inter-generational sustainability. This plan
recognizes that access barriers that impact seniors also often impact children and focuses on
recommendations to eliminate these barriers. The addition of strategies to implement these
recommendations in the comprehensive plans and LRTP will result in improved access to
housing and transportation for all age groups and for the disabled.
3) Update Comprehensive Plans and MPO Long Range Transportation Plan
The next step will be to develop the plan updates incorporating agreed-upon strategies. Such plan
updates will be complex to develop since these strategies will be cross-cutting in nature and require
updates in several of the typical comprehensive plan elements. For example, strategies that seek
lower total household cost for housing, transportation and energy would through coordination of
affordable housing incentives, transit access and energy reducing design features could require wide
spread changes in the land use, housing, transportation, and design elements of a typical community
comprehensive plan.
a) Draft Comprehensive Plan Text: Once strategies have been developed and agreed upon by the
PACC, TJPDC will develop comprehensive plan text including goals, objectives and supporting
6
data and analysis under direction of staff from the city and county for each recommendation. It
is anticipated that such changes will require substantial redrafting of large sections of the existing
comprehensive plan elements. The emphasis will be on creating parallel updates in the city and
county comprehensive plans such that both localities have the same policy approaches to the
sustainability recommendations. These sections of draft plan text will be reviewed by the project
technical committee.
b) Comprehensive Plan Updates
• After review of the draft plan text is complete, staff members from Charlottesville and
Albemarle County will incorporate the text into draft updates of the two localities
comprehensive plans.
• Once the review and input process is complete, staff from Charlottesville and Albemarle
County will incorporate any changes. The updated comprehensive plan elements will then be
submitted for review and recommendation by the two localities Planning Commissions.
Finally the updated comprehensive plans will be submitted to the Charlottesville City
Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for adoption.
c) Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Long Range Plan Update: Although the goals for the MPO
Long Range Plan have in the past focused on sustainability, the structure of the plan and
methods of selecting projects has been very traditional, with the focus of plans selected being
mitigation of congestion and improving safety. Once the emphasis of the plan becomes a
sustainable transportation system, the approach to transportation planning should radically shift.
In a transportation plan based on principles of sustainability the emphasis should be on
establishing sustainable levels of vehicle miles traveled and then employing alternative modes,
land use techniques and behavior change to keep VMT within manageable limits and prevent
congestion from occurring. For an MPO focused on sustainability major activities would include
performance measurement of all modes of transportation, operational analysis/management
such that the system functions at peak efficiency, review of development proposals to
incorporate sustainable land use/transportation practices and public education to encourage
behavior change. During the 36 month span of this project, the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO
will be updating its Long Range Transportation Plan and associated modal elements. In that
process it proposes to fully incorporate sustainability principles such as those described above.
The goal of this effort will be to create the model sustainable small MPO.
• Incorporate Common Land Use – Transportation Vision. The MPO will participate in the
development of the common land use – transportation vision described under Task #2.
MPO staff will then use the resulting product as a major input into the LRTP.
• Update Regional Travel Demand Model. The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO is currently
using a four step travel demand model which includes a logic mode choice model as well as a
special sub-model for the University of Virginia. Although the travel demand model is
generating person trips for transit, bicycle and pedestrian, it is not currently assigning those
trips on the network. As a result, it is not possible to currently analyze travel for the
alternative modes. As part of this project MPO staff will develop and implement networks
for transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes.
• Develop Corridor Simulations for Major Traffic Corridors. Simulations will be developed in
a joint effort with City of Charlottesville and Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT). Although the Charlottesville region has a few high capacity facilities, such as I-64,
7
nearly all the traffic issues involve operations of the network of signalized intersections in
the major arterial corridors. As the use of transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes increases
within the region, the operations of these intersections will become even more complex. The
simulations will be used by staff from the MPO, City of Charlottesville and VDOT to
maintain the operations of the signalized intersections at peak efficiency. (It should be noted
that in Virginia counties do not have responsibility for road maintenance or operations. All
roads outside independent cities such as Charlottesville are under VDOT jurisdiction)
• Update LRTP Policies For Sustainability Strategies. MPO staff will conduct a process with
the MPO Citizens Committee, MPO Technical Advisory Committee and the MPO Policy
Board to develop and adopt sustainability based goals and strategies for meeting the region’s
long range transportation needs.
• Prepare Modal Plans for Transit, Bike and Pedestrian. Based on the sustainability goals and
strategies, MPO staff will work with Charlottesville, Albemarle County, VDOT and the
region’s three transit systems to develop modal plans for roads/highways, transit, and bicycle
and pedestrian modes.
• Develop Alternative Projects List. Working with its partners, MPO staff will conduct
workshops designed to develop a series of project alternatives scenarios. Each will focus on
different approaches to meeting transportation needs, based on differing investment
strategies. Staff will use the MPO’s quantitative tools to analyze the results of each scenario
including the expected cost. Staff will then work with the partners to develop a composite
scenario that adequately meets the transportation needs and is fiscally constrained. As part of
this process, MPO staff will provide feedback to planning staff from Charlottesville and
Albemarle County to help shape land use recommendations in light of the likely impact on
the transportation system. The final scenario will be submitted to MPO Citizens Committee,
MPO Technical Advisory Committee, and MPO Policy Board for review and approval.
• Develop Project Descriptions and Phasing. Once a final scenario has been developed MPO
staff will convert the scenario into a final project list and produce cost estimates for all the
projects.
• Develop Financial Plan. MPO staff will work with VDOT staff and member governments to
estimate fiscal resources for the LRTP and develop a fiscally constrained project list using
year of expenditure costs for the final plan.
• Adopt Updated LRTP. MPO staff will assemble the full fiscally constrained sustainable
transportation plan. Under the MPO Public Participation Plan two public hearings will be
held by the MPO Policy Board prior to adoption.
Task #4: Code and Ordinance Sustainability Recommendations
The final step of moving sustainability from the realm of unrealized goals into actual implementation at
the local government level is to incorporate the sustainability strategies from the updated comprehensive
plans into local codes and ordinances. Although this process is relatively easy to describe, it is extremely
difficult to undertake. There are several reasons why this is true. The proposed codes and ordinances
must be developed to accomplish exactly what is called for in the adopted comprehensive plan and
avoid any unintended consequences. Virginia is a Dillon Rule state, meaning that local governments
cannot do anything unless specifically authorized to do so by the state legislature. Local codes and
ordinances are legally enforceable and must be crafted to be consistent with the provisions of the
Virginia Code as well as other local codes, ordinances and regulations. In addition, local land use codes
8
and regulations powerfully impact property owners’ rights pertaining to development type and intensity
and must be carefully reviewed to avoid any undue impact. Finally, the codes and ordinances as
developed must be enforceable and not create an undue administrative burden for either local
government or for the public.
Due to the high degree of complexity involved in changes to local codes and ordinances, it is not the
intent of Task #4 to actually create the revised codes and ordinances that will be necessary for
Charlottesville and Albemarle County to implement the sustainability strategies adopted in the
comprehensive plans. Rather, Task #4 will create a plan for the development of the required codes and
ordinances.
1) Review of Existing Codes/Ordinances.
The first step in the process will be a thorough review of existing codes and ordinances on the part
of both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. This will focus on sorting codes and
ordinances into four groups: a) sections that are not affected by the adoption of the sustainability
strategies; b) code section which must be replaced/eliminated due to irreconcilable conflicts with the
sustainability strategies; c) code sections which can be modified to work with the sustainability
strategies; d) code sections which do not exist and must be created.
2) Recommend Implementable Code Improvements to Bridge Identified Gaps.
Once the code sections have been sorted into the groups identified above, the second step will be
research and identify and recommend implementable code improvements that can be used for the
sustainability strategies. In development these recommendations, staff will work to create
approaches for the city and county which are as similar as possible in hopes that policies will
function effectively across the city/county border.
Task #5: Plan for Behavior Change Processes
Changing behavior in favor of sustainability on the part of both individuals and organizations is a critical
component of actually implementing sustainability. Long term, permanent sustainability requires
changes to the processes that shape the built environment. But the built environment changes very
slowly. In the short term the most immediate gains in sustainability can be achieved by changing
behaviors on the part of individuals and organizations. It is expected that as part of this project, a few
key behaviors will be identified that, if changed, would greatly benefit the overall sustainability of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle metropolitan area. This task is designed to prepare a plan for the process that
would need to be put in place to bring about those changes in behavior.
1) Identify Behavior Changes that have Greatest Benefit for Sustainability
As noted we believe that the process of carrying out this project will help identify the behaviors
which, if changed, will provide the greatest overall sustainability benefit. There are already a several
organizations active in the region working to change behaviors.
• University of Virginia TDM Program. The University of Virginia has a very aggressive TDM
program implementing a number of different strategies to impact the travel behavior of
students, faculty and staff. These include programs for preferential treatment of carpoolers,
NuRide ridesharing incentive program, a bike sharing program, and aggressive support for
transit use on both the University Transit System as well as on Charlottesville Area Transit.
• Rideshare. The Rideshare program is operated by TJPDC and funded by the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation. In August 2010 the TJPDC Commission
9
adopted a Travel Demand Management Plan to guide the Rideshare program over the next 10
years. This plan recommends that Rideshare move beyond marketing and ride matching to
expand its operation to include all types of travel demand management.
• Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP). LEAP is a non-profit formed in 2009 by Charlottesville
and Albemarle County for the purpose of assisting residents and businesses to decrease their
energy consumption and green house gas footprint. The operational plan for LEAP calls for the
organization to increase outreach to educate the public about simple approaches to energy
savings.
• Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation (ACCT). ACCT focuses on encouraging
bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation. Currently ACCT is working to organize
bicycling advocates in the region and is also working with Charlottesville and Albemarle County
to develop Safe Routes to School programs at area elementary and middle schools.
2) Research Methods for Achieving Behavior Change
Although there have been some notable failures in attempts to change behavior on the part of the
public, there have also been some successes. Recent efforts in both this country and overseas are
beginning to develop approaches that may be successful on a more consistent basis. In this step
research will be conducted to identify the best approaches for the unique characteristics of this
region.
3) Develop Plan for Implementation of Behavior Change Approaches
Based on the identified needs and research on behavior change approaches a plan will be developed
for implementing these approaches in the Charlottesville/Albemarle region.
4) Seek Funding to Support Behavior Change
The partners will work together to seek funding to implement the behavior change plan.
Task #6: Public Engagement
Public engagement of all sectors of the community will be a very important part of this project. This
public engagement program is designed to ensure that all segments of the Charlottesville/Albemarle
region become actively aware of and engaged with the process and the decisions that are being made by
the four partner organizations.
1) Broadcast methods
A project website will be developed and maintained by TJPDC. It will be linked to websites for the
partner organizations. Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter will be used as additional outreach tools.
Research conducted under an FTA grant by TJPDC showed that these tools are more effective for
reaching younger members of the community. Partners will participate in local radio shows to
inform the community of this planning effort.
2) Outreach for events, meetings and workshops.
This project will include many special events, meetings, workshops and other gatherings over its 36
month course. TJPDC will develop an email list of interested parties and send out email blasts in
advance of each event. Email blasts will also be used to provide notice of release of important
products. Flyers, posters and articles in newsletters will also be used.
3) Public Kickoff Event
A public kickoff event will be conducted that will increase public awareness of the project as well as
the Comprehensive Plan updates by Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
10
4) Citizen Advisory Groups
All four of the partners maintain some type of Citizens Advisory Groups. Both Charlottesville and
Albemarle County maintain citizen advisory groups of representatives from their neighborhoods and
planning areas. The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO has a standing Citizens Committee (CHART)
that recently initiated a community wide citizen outreach effort focused on transportation issues. In
addition, the University of Virginia holds regular community relations meetings with neighborhood
groups, has an ex-officio representative on the MPO and both the city and County planning
commissions, and maintains Master Planning and Sustainability committees representing campus
and community stakeholders. Briefings with groups will be conducted early in the grant period, with
periodic updates throughout the planning process.
5) Focused Citizen Input Meetings
The partners will use focused citizen input meetings to go to specific groups or neighborhoods that
have typically not participated in the community planning process to seek their input. The partners
will work with the two PHAs in the region, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority
and the County of Albemarle Housing Office, to utilize their expertise and contacts. The partners
will also work with a network of nonprofit organizations that work specifically with minority groups,
people with disabilities, and neighborhoods with high rates of poverty. In addition, the partners will
reach out to seniors with the assistance of Jefferson Area Board for Aging, the Area Agency on
Aging. The partners will work through the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development, the economic development organization for the region to reach out to the business
community of the region.
6) Comprehensive Plan Work Sessions and Public Hearings.
Both Charlottesville and Albemarle County will require a number of work sessions for the Planning
Commissions and elected bodies to review and discuss the proposed changes to the Comprehensive
Plans as well as the Code and Ordinance Sustainability Recommendations. All of these will be open
to the public at locations that are accessible for transit, bicycle and pedestrians and all are publically
noticed in the media and on websites. Both localities will also conduct multiple public hearings in
advance of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan updates.
7) MPO Policy Public Hearing
The MPO Policy Board is required to hold two public hearings prior to the adoption of updates to
the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Task #7: Project Management
The TJPDC will act as the lead applicant for this project and will be the project manager if the project is
funded. TJPDC will be responsible for representing the partners in all conversations with HUD. TJPDC
will also maintain all financial records for the project and will be responsible for all required reporting.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
December 5, 2007 Resolution for Cool Counties Climate
Stabilization Declaration and ICLEI-Local Governments for
Sustainability USA Membership
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion of Cool Counties commitments and continued
membership in the ICLEI-Local Governments for
Sustainability
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Shadman and Lowe
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 8, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County has advocated good energy conservation and environmental stewardship programs dating back to
the 1990’s. Board focus in these areas intensified on September 13, 2006 with a Board work session that included
discussion regarding Green Building and Sustainability and a review of the County’s Comprehensive Plan goals for
sustainability and the County’s green building and sustainability efforts up to that time. (Attachment A)
On October 4, 2006, the Board unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the intent of a resolution adopted by the
U.S. Conference of Mayors regarding the U. S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as part of the
County’s effort toward Green Building initiatives and sustainability. (Attachments B and C)
On February 7, 2007, staff provided a status report to the Board on progress and efforts made to increase
sustainability in the four areas that had been identified by the Board during the September 13, 2006 work session.
(Attachment D) The four areas were:
1. Work with the public to expand knowledge and benefits of green building
2. Work with development community to promote green building and remove obstacles.
3. Work with County policy and operations to demonstrate and promote green building and overall
efficiency.
4. Amend the Comprehensive Plan in support of green building.
During the regular Board of Supervisors meeting on July 11, 2007, Supervisor Rooker distributed the “US Cool
Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration” and stated he would like to discuss it at a future meeting for possible
adoption. Also during the July 11, 2007 meeting the Board unanimously approved CPA-2007-003, Green Building and
Sustainability Amendment to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
(Attachment E) The adoption of the “U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration” resolution (Attachment F)
was unanimously approved by the Board at its December 5, 2007 meeting. This resolution committed Albemarle
County to:
“i. Create an inventory of our county government (operational) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
implement policies, programs and operations to achieve significant, measurable and sustainable
reduction of those operational GHG emissions to help contribute to the regional reduction targets as
identified in paragraph ii; and
ii. Work closely with local, state and federal governments and other leaders to reduce county
geographical GHG emissions to 80 percent below current levels by 2050, by developing a GHG
emissions inventory and regional plan that established short-, mid-, and long-term GHG reduction
targets, with recommended goals to stop increasing emissions by 2010, and to achieve a 10 percent
reduction every five years thereafter through to 2050; and
iii. Urge Congress and the Administration to enact a multi-sector national program of requirements,
market-based limits, and incentives for reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below current levels by
2050. Urge Congress and the Administration to strengthen standards by enacting legislation to
strengthen standards by enacting legislation such as a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (“CAFÉ”)
standard that achieves at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg) within 10 years for cars and light trucks.
AGENDA TITLE: December 5, 2007 Resolution for Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration and ICLEI-Local
Governments for Sustainability USA Membership
June 8, 2011
Page 2
We will take immediate steps to identify regional climate change impacts; and
We will draft and implement a county plan to prepare for and build resilience to those impacts.”
Involvement with ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability
Given Albemarle County’s support of sustainability and environmental stewardship, its adopted resolution supporting
the intent of the 2006 US Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement and the general focus on the importance of reducing
emissions to address climate change efforts, staff researched communities that had already adopted climate
protection initiatives as well as other Virginia counties with a reputation for excellent environmental programs.
Following these benchmarking efforts, Albemarle County joined ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability on
October 3rd, 2007 to “Provide technical assistance with climate change protection program development and
implementation” as specified in the application. ICLEI-LGS membership provides staff with the resources and
information needed to assist in implementation of the Board’s direction established through sustainability efforts and
policies including the unanimous endorsement of the 2006 resolution supporting the Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement and ongoing discussion of the Cool Counties Stabilization Declaration. While the primary benefit of
membership is access to the Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software program used to inventory and track
greenhouse gas emissions and reduction targets eventually set through adoption of the Cool Counties Stabilization
Declaration, additional benefits include opportunities to network with other communities and access to case studies for
various programs and projects around the United States but more specifically in Virginia.
It was found that the Clean Air Climate Protection software program was currently in use by some highly regarded
cities and counties across the nation and also endorsed by the National Association of Counties (NACo), the Virginia
Association of Counties (VACo) and the Virginia Municipal League (VML). This particular software would assist staff
to meet the targets approved by the Board. CACP’s development was partially funded by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). While the software is available at no cost through various EPA outlets, the necessary
software maintenance, updates, training and technical support requires an annual fee of $1,200.00 in the form of
membership in ICLEI-USA.
Current efforts in the Cool Counties Program
Staff has used the CACP software to produce an “Emissions Baseline Report” which summarizes the greenhouse gas
and criteria air pollutant emissions for the County using the baseline year 2000. Updates to the report for 2006 and
2008 have been completed and included in the report. (Attachment G) The goal of the program has been to continue
tracking emission levels every 2 years.
In a subsequent effort to advance regional GHG reductions, the County, City and UVA formed a local steering
committee to make recommendations for a strategic plan that would enable the three entities to reach their respective
goals. The steering committee’s charge, entitled Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP), was endorsed by
the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC). A resolution passed unanimously by the BOS on January 14, 2009,
endorsed this collaborative effort. (Attachment H) LCAPP consists of over 70 local citizens from government,
business, real estate, corporate, academia, and construction areas and have met regularly in an effor t to formulate a
GHG reduction plan to meet the goals in the Cool County Resolution.
Other staff efforts related to Cool Counties and ICLEI include attendance at conferences or workshops as follows:
March 6, 2009 – Sarah Temple, George Shadman and Thushara Gunda attended the Virginia State Climate
Protection Network Meeting at the Charlottesville Community Design Center Charlottesville, VA.
May 15, 2009 – Sarah Temple gave a presentation at ICLEI Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Regional Workshop –
White Plains, New York. Hotel and registration provided by ICLEI – travel approved by County Executive.
November 13, 2009 – Thushara Gunda facilitated a GHG inventory work group at an ICLEI, Clean Cities and
VML roundtable meeting regarding the Go Green Virginia Community Challenge at the Department of
Environmental Quality regional offices Richmond, VA.
April 7, 2011 – Andy Lowe attended the Virginia State Climate Protection Network meeting in Lexington,
Virginia. This meeting occurred at the end of the Virginia Environment Symposium that he was already
scheduled to attend.
AGENDA TITLE: December 5, 2007 Resolution for Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration and ICLEI-Local
Governments for Sustainability USA Membership
June 8, 2011
Page 3
The ICLEI-LGS network meetings (March 6, 2009 and April 7, 2011) were free of charge and intended to allow
representatives from localities, companies and organizations to meet and discuss energy efficiency projects and
programs to further climate protection initiatives and goals.
Administrative Policies
The County has implemented administrative policies to assure that the County complies with environmental law
requirements and best practices and to promote energy savings and efficiencies. (See Attachments I, J and K)
DISCUSSION:
This executive summary is provided as background information to assist in the Board’s discussion regarding its
commitments pursuant to the adoption of the “U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration” resolution that
was unanimously approved by the Board at its December 5, 2007 meeting and its continued membership in ICLEI-
USA.
ATTACHMENTS
A – September 13, 2006 Executive Summary for Board work session: Green Building and Sustainability
B – October 4, 2006 Executive Summary for Resolution to endorse intent of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
C –Resolution Endorsing the Intent of the Resolution Adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
D – February 7, 2007 Executive Summary with Attachment C for Board Status Report: Green Building and
Sustainability Initiative
E – July 11, 2007 CPA-2007-003, Green Building and Sustainability Amendment to the Natural Resources and
Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
F – December 5, 2007 Resolution: U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration
G – County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report
H – January 14, 2009 Resolution: Support the County, City, and University working collaboratively to address energy
efficiency and climate change
I – 2004 Environmental Management Policy
J – 2007 Environmental Management Policy
K – 2008 Administrative Policy – Energy Management and Conservation (AP-9)
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WORK SESSION
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review the County‟s Comprehensive Plan goals for
sustainability, and examine our green building and
sustainability efforts to date.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Dougherty
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 13, 2006
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
PURPOSE OF THE WORK SESSION:
Over the past several months, some Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission members have expressed an interest
in reviewing green building and sustainability against existing County policies and what others are doing in this area. The
attached report from Community Development staff examines sustainability and green design and what steps other
localities and organizations have taken. This includes a review of recent efforts by the City of Charlottesville and the
University of Virginia. With this review of green building and sustainability, the Board can determine if additional initiatives in
this area are desired.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF VARIOUS PROGRAMS:
Philosophically, the green building movement exists in order to address a wide range of environmental issues, from
protecting forests and habitats to saving energy, reducing toxins, and keeping materials out of landfills. It seeks to protect
the whole planet as well as a building‟s occupants. The buildings created through pursuing these ideals are often healthier
to live in, have lowered operational and maintenance costs, and a have better “feel” to them. As a result, they achieve a
broad appeal far beyond traditional environmentalism.
Checklists are the main tool used to evaluate the effectiveness of a green project. Green rating systems, whether for
buildings or land planning, offer an ala-carte list of options for fulfilling green design. While those are very helpful,
underlying those lists is a fundamentally different way of thinking. It‟s about optimizing a building‟s relationship with its
external environment. It‟s about making buildings reflect the way we use them and it‟s about looking at our impacts locally,
regionally, nationally, and globally.
Defining green building and planning is challenging because it encompasses many environmental issues and can be
applied on many levels. As green building address a wide range of issues where the modernized world pushes against
protection of natural resources, there are no fixed set of priorities. Instead, solutions are based on carefully weighing all of
the issues and recognizing compromises will be required. In addition to green building, there are smarter ways of
designing neighborhoods and communities that decrease impacts. This is sometimes referred to as “green planning”.
Green building and green planning is about building with smaller impacts and lower lifecycle costs. As such, the green
building and green planning movements push for a decreased dependence on energy and other resources by requiring
less. By extension, green design responds to our dependence on the world‟s conventional fuel supply and offers hope for
resilience in changing market conditions. Green building techniques and various approaches to landscaping, water
consumption, and water collection work to demand less from the public water supply. As our regional climate has trended
toward drought several of the past eight years, green building and water conservation is an increasingly relevant tool to
make better use of our water resources Though the green building and planning movements began as an effort to address
a wide range of environmental impacts, it is also a method for local government to buffer itself from the fiscal impacts of a
volatile energy market and shifts in climate.
Green Building Rating Programs
Green building rating programs have been developed and implemented locally, regionally, and nationally to provide some
measure of effectiveness. Local rating programs, discussed in more detail by location below, are a locally-developed and
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
September 13, 2006
Page 2
administered program that helps to guide local government and developers toward a more green design. Local rating
systems may have particular objectives. For instance, solar power and water conservation may be more important in New
Mexico while sustainable-harvested building materials and energy efficient heating systems may be more important in
Maine. National rating systems provide a checklist or guidelines to encourage green design and construction with less
weighting of locally important issues. In general, all green rating systems set a standard for what is green. In some
localities, green building checklists are reviewed in conjunction with development proposals. See Attachment C, D and E
for examples of the leading national green building rating system checklists.
Energy Star – national program
Energy Star is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy to help
consumers save money, make energy go farther, and protect the environment through energy efficient products and
practices. Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved enough energy in 2005 alone to avoid greenhouse gas emissions
equivalent to those from 23 million cars while saving $12 billion on their utility bills. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed in
to law last summer, significantly increases incentives for a wide range of Energy Star programs. See Attachment D for the
Energy Star incentives made available through the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Energy Star qualified homes are at least 15% more energy efficient than homes built to the 2006 International Energy
Conservation Code. With the help of independent Home Energy Raters, Energy Star builder partners choose the most
appropriate energy-saving features for their homes. Additionally, raters conduct onsite testing and inspections to verify that
the homes qualify as Energy Star. However, other options and incentives exist for utilizing Energy Star-rated products in
new and existing commercial and residential buildings.
The Energy Star program offers tax credits for new construction and renovations for commercial, institutional, and
residential uses. For example, a homeowner who retrofits an existing home with Energy Star windows and heat pump
qualifies for a tax credit of 10% of the cost of the windows and 30% (up to $300 on a system costing at least $500) of the
cost of the heat pump. Home builders are eligible for a $2,000 tax credit for a new Energy Star-rated home.
Energy Star Tax Deductions for Commercial Buildings
Through Energy Star, a tax deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot is available to owners or designers of new or existing
commercial buildings that save at least 50% of the heating and cooling energy of a building that meets certain standards.
Partial deductions of up to $.60 per square foot can be taken for measures affecting any one of three building systems: the
building envelope, lighting, or heating and cooling systems.
LEED - national program
The LEED program (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) represents the efforts of a coalition including the US
Green Building Council to establish a nationwide standard for constructing “green” buildings. Obtaining LEED certification
requires compliance with a minimum number of criteria affecting many aspects of a project, from site selection to the
recycled content of building materials. Projects earn points for criteria that they fulfill; those that earn more points are
awarded a higher level of certification. Thus far, participation in the LEED program has been mostly voluntary. Some
government entities have implemented requirements that publicly funded projects apply for LEED certification.
While empirical and projected data vary widely, the American Institute of Architects estimates that LEED certification will
add from one to 15 percent to a project‟s construction costs. An analysis of the cost of LEED certification prepared by
Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants of Westford, Massachusetts for The American Chemistry Council of
Arlington, Virginia has determined that obtaining LEED certification adds from four to eleven percent to a project‟s
construction costs. More than half of these costs are for “greening” investments in alternative systems, practices, and
materials that earn points under the LEED system. The remaining costs fall outside of the range of con struction costs;
these are “soft costs” and they include incremental costs for design, documenting compliance, and verifying compliance
through the commissioning process. The cost impact of LEED certification may decline over time as a percentage of total
construction costs as architects, contractors, and consultants become more familiar with the process.
Given the County‟s objective of fiscal responsibility, a focus on LEED principles short of certification may allow us to
achieve green building goals without some of the soft costs that go along with certification. This has been done in other
localities by using the LEED certification criteria and hiring a LEED-certified architect or designer. However this approach,
though intended to recognize the fine balance local government works to achieve with revenue, would not yield much if it
led to only marginally environmentally-friendly buildings.
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
September 13, 2006
Page 3
EarthCraft – regional program
EarthCraft House is a green building program that serves as a model for healthy and comfortable homes that reduce utility
bills and protect the environment. EarthCraft House is a partnership between the Greater Atlanta Home Builders
Association, Southface ( a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving understanding of sustainable building), and other
government and industry partners focusing on residential construction and renovation. EarthCraft Homes are currently
being built and certified in Virginia, including Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
The Southface Institute, the organization that administers the EarthCraft rating, estimates that energy upgrades on a 1,500
square foot home in the EarthCraft House program would cost only $700 more t han a standard ($160,000) home. For
example, improvements to the home‟s building envelope (insulation, sheathing, windows) allows for a smaller air
conditioner to be installed. EarthCraft design allows for the cost of green upgrades to be mitigated in some other way.
Though the upfront cost is slightly higher, the long-term costs are lower because the utility costs are much lower.
An Earthcraft home must be certified as Energy Star. A builder must provide verification of Energy Star certification upon
completion of construction. The house must be rated “5 star” by a certified rater, requiring a blower door and a duct
pressurization test plus a certified software rating. This rating qualifies the developer for a $2,000 Energy Star tax credit as
outlined above. The implementation of Energy Star or EarthCraft certification and associated residential tax credit
programs for builders would provide enough credit to cover certification costs and a portion of the cost of “green” upgrades.
Green Building Programs – Local
Most local-government green building programs are implemented through a formal municipal process such as
comprehensive plan change or ordinance adoption. Mandatory programs are typically codified through a standard local
procedure. In many cases, programs are implemented through a committee created for this purpose. Many green building
programs have no mandatory requirements. Most green building programs rely on one or more full-time staff members. If a
program or rating standard is created and administered by a locality, trained building inspectors would be needed to
provide support and evaluate a project‟s attainment with the established rating system. Additionally, some locations have
offered certification free of charge in support of increasing the number of homes and businesses built green. Utilizing and
augmenting existing green building rating systems, such as LEED, Earthcraft, or Energy Star to evaluate building
performance is normally conducted by a privately-operating trained inspector. Outreach and education regarding monetary
incentives, decreased energy costs, and general benefits of green building are a critical part of local government green
building programs.
Austin, Texas
Austin administers its own voluntary green building program by rating new and remodeled homes on a scale of 1 to 5 stars
in the following areas: energy efficiency, testing, water efficiency, materials efficiency, health and safety, community. A new
or remodeled home in the Austin Energy service area may be rated if the builder, architect, or designer is a member of the
green building program. The Austin green building program helps developers and homeowners by providing information
regarding design and specification choices.
Boulder, Colorado
Boulder‟s Green Points Ordinance created the first mandatory residential green building program in the United States.
Building permit applicants are required to earn Green Points according to a schedule based on house size. For example,
use of certified sustainable-harvested lumber for framing earns 5 points.
Portland, Oregon
Portland‟s residential program promotes voluntary green building practices in the general residential market and sets
mandatory requirements for city-funded affordable housing. The residential program relies heavily of training, outreach,
development of materials, and grants. The program grew from an intensive public process which led to the city council
adopting mandatory LEED requirements for city-funded buildings.
Charlottesville, Virginia
On July 17, 2006, the City of Charlottesville endorsed the U.S. Mayors Global Climate Agreement which supports policies
adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in response to global warming and climate change. Charlottesville joins at least
202 other cities in endorsing the climate agreement. The agreement acknowledges the findings of Inter-Governmental
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
September 13, 2006
Page 4
Panel on Climate Change, the international community‟s most respected assemblage of scientists, who have found that
climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increased concentration of global
warming pollution. Global Warming gasses, based on data provided by the U.S. EPA and Department of Energy, come
from the following sources: automobile: 34%; electricity generation: 28%; natural gas for heating and cooking: 18%;
shipment and processing of goods and waste: 20%. The agreement challenges municipalities to inventory and then work to
reduce global warming emissions, adopt and enforce land use policies that reduce sprawl, purchase only Energy Star-rated
equipment, convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel, and increase the use of clean energy, to name a few. The city of
Charlottesville will be developing an action plan in conjunction with this recent endorsement. To date, the following Virginia
cities have signed the climate agreement: Richmond, Williamsburg, Virginia Beach, and Alexandria. See Attachment D for
the U.S. Mayors Global Climate Agreement.
Charlottesville‟s transit center, currently under construction on the east end of the Downtown Mall, is designed to fulfill the
requirements of a LEED certified building. Included in the transit center design are a geothermal heating and cooling
system, recycled and local building materials, water efficient landscaping, extensive use of natural lighting, and public
education displays. This transit center represents a government project that responds to the U.S. Mayors Global Climate
Agreement.
After a charette last spring to explore how the City of Charlottesville may attain a higher level of energy efficiency and
ecological balance, the city formed a green building committee. During a scheduled review and update of the city‟s
comprehensive plan this fall, the City of Charlottesville is expected to include guidelines and objectives prepared by the
green building committee in May 2006 to reach the following goals:
1. Promote the achievement of a 30 percent reduction from current energy use by businesses and residences through a
citywide education, assistance and incentive program.
2. Encourage green building and resource and energy conservation practices in new and existing buildings through
financial incentives.
3. Ensure a consistent citywide policy that promotes green building by ensuing that other city regulations, practices and
guidelines actively allow for and encourage green building practices.
4. Prevent excessive resource use through capturing the „embodied energy‟ of existing buildings via ad aptive re-use of
existing structures to minimize use of „virgin‟ resources.
Attachment H includes a complete summary of the revisions proposed for the City of Charlottesville‟s Comprehensive Plan.
Arlington County, VA
Arlington County makes use of the LEED green building rating system as a way to measure the energy and environmental
performance of buildings in their county. Arlington is committed to building its own public facilities using LEED as a guide
and the silver LEED certification as the goal. Virginia‟s first Silver LEED certification was awarded to an Arlington school in
September 2003. Arlington County encourages private developers to evaluate the environmental im pacts of all site plan
projects. In Arlington County, site plan projects are approved by special exemption of their zoning ordinance. Conditions of
approval for those development applications typically include:
1. LEED Accredited Professional. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that all site plan projects have a LEED
accredited professional on the development team.
2. LEED Scorecard. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that all site plan applications complete the LEED
scorecard with an explanation of each LEED credit, describing how they intend to achieve the credit, or why they
are unable to incorporate the component into the project.
3. LEED Tracking. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that a final number of LEED credits are identified and the
commitment to incorporate them into the project is formalized in a site plan condition.
4. Construction Waste Management. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that the developer provide a plan for
diverting from landfill disposal the demolition, construction, and land clearing debris generated by the project.
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
September 13, 2006
Page 5
5. Energy Star Appliances. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that, for multi-family residential projects, the
developer assures that appliances, fixtures, and/or building components used in the project shall have earned the
U.S. EPA's Energy Star label.
Green Building Fund
In 2003, Arlington County established a green building fund and a policy for site plan developers (site plans approved by
special exception) who do not commit to achieving a LEED rating to contribute to the fund. The contribution is calculated at
a rate of $0.03 per square foot. The green building fund is used to provide education and outreach to developers and the
community on green building issues. If a project achieves 26 or more points and the developer receives LEED certification
from the USGBC, the Fund contribution is refunded upon receipt of the final LEED certification.
Green Building Incentive Program
Originally adopted in October 1999, the incentive program was revised and enhanced in December 2003. The program
allows a private developer to apply for additional density if the project achieves a LEED award from the USGBC. The
program applies to all types of building projects (office, high rise residential, etc.) ach ieving any one of the four LEED
awards. The density bonus ranges from a minimum of .15 FAR for a LEED Certified project to a maximum of .35 FAR for a
platinum project.
Alexandria, Virginia
Alexandria made use of the same funds that assisted Albemarle County with our green roof project. Their project includes
a 9,000 square foot green roof, which serves as an outreach and demonstration project. The city of Alexandria has signed
the U.S. Mayor‟s Global Climate Agreement. To date, no green building programs exists in Alexandria.
University of Virginia
The University of Virginia has worked to further identify goals and objectives through the creation of sustainability
guidelines. The guidelines are intended to educate students, staff, and A/E consultants. The university developed and is
utilizing a sustainability assessment tool to identify and analyze current university activities. Sustainability concepts have
been applied to various projects and sustainability goals have been incorporated into the grounds plan for the university. In
terms of green planning, the university has worked to increase walkability and provide excellent management of
stormwater runoff in new construction.
Charlottesville Community Design Center
The design center is one of over 40 community design centers across the country that provides design assistance and
works to identify and solve social, economic, and political problems as they relate to the built environment. This process
promotes change to the built environment from the neighborhood to regional scale, and aims to meet community needs
through participatory decision-making at all levels.
Last spring, the Community Design Center assisted the City of Charlottesville with a public charette to determine the
interest of and collect ideas regarding green building from the people of Charlottesville.
This fall, the design center will focus on the achievements being made in green building and sustainability in our area.
Through this effort, the recognition, visibility, and understanding of green building will be enhanced. In discussing green
building ideas with design center staff, it has been suggested that an education and outreach partnership between the City
of Charlottesville, University of Virginia, and Albemarle County would provide information and resources to a wide range of
residents and could work to reduce the area‟s energy consumption through simple short-term steps and defining long-term
goals for creating a more sustainable region in general.
Green Building Education and Outreach
Fundamentally, all green building programs rely on outreach, education, technical assistance, and the individual desire of
building users to strike a balance between development and the natural environment. Significant opportunities exist to
provide information and guidance on how residents can build green or go green with existing structures. This can be as
simple as winterizing a home to helping a homeowner in locating the Energy Star tax credit information.
Similar to the pamphlets the County distributes regarding our urban areas, a pamphlet illustrating tax credits and resources
available, techniques for utilizing resources more efficiently, among others can work to raise awareness, and help residents
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
September 13, 2006
Page 6
to better define their vision of a green and clean community. However, a more comprehensive outreach partnership with
multiple organizations would work to address green building and local stakeholders as a whol e. This partnership would
likely require funding, but could be managed and implemented through an organization such as the Charlottesville
Community Design Center.
Green Planning Rating Programs
LEED- ND (for Neighborhood Development)
The LEED for Neighborhood Developments (LEED-ND) rating system, currently under development, integrates the
principles of smart growth, urbanism, and green building into the national standard for neighborhood design. LEED-ND is
being developed by U. S. Green Building Council in partnership with the Congress for New Urbanism and the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Using the framework of the LEED Green Building Rating System , LEED-ND certification will recognize development
projects that successfully protect and enhance the overall health, natural environment, and quality of life of our
communities. Like other LEED rating systems, LEED-ND will deliver more efficient energy and water use – especially
important in urban areas where infrastructure is often overtaxed. It will also focus on smart growth and new urbanist best
practices, including designing neighborhoods that reduce vehicle miles traveled and building communities where jobs and
services are accessible by foot or public transit.
The LEED – ND program is finalizing the rating criteria and will be seeking entities interested in their pilot program
sometime this fall. Though the rating system is not finalized, the proposed criteria are established and could be
administered or reviewed versus development proposals regardless of the LEED-ND timeline.
LID – Low Impact Development
Low impact development is a more environmentally sensitive approach to development than conventional practices. Low
Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of maintaining and
enhancing the pre-development hydrologic regime of urban and developing watersheds. LID primarily focuses on site
planning and can be approached in different ways. This design approach incorporates strategic planning with micro-
management techniques to achieve superior environmental protection, while allowing for development. Techniques used to
achieve LID include pervious pavers, rain gardens and biofilters, sand filters and filter vaults, compensatory plantings,
green roofs, and use of cisterns and rain barrels.
COUNTY POLICY, PAST AND CURRENT EFFORTS:
County Comprehensive Plan
In 1996, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan was amended to include a strategy to support the accords of the
Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council. Many of these accords are reflected in the County‟s strategic plan today and
others have room for further development.
Some of the accords include striving for a size and distribution of human population that will preserve the vital resources of
the region for future generations; ensuring that water quality and quantity in the region are sufficient to support the human
population and ecosystems; promoting clustering in residential areas and the integration of business, industry, recreation,
residential and open space; retaining farmland and forest land for the future; promoting the sale of locally produced farm
and forest products in local, national and international markets; developing attractive and economical transportation
alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use; providing educational opportunities open to every member of the community
to encourage greater understanding of sustainability issues as they affect individuals and the region, using formal and
informal education and local media coverage. See Attachment A for the complete set of the Comprehensive Plan‟s
sustainability goals.
Local Government and School Efforts
To date, the County has undertaken several efforts toward green building and sustainable design. The most visible
accomplishments are the construction of the Monticello High School and associated storm water management facilities, the
construction of the green roof on the County Office Building, tax credits for energy efficiency measures, as permitted by
law, and the adoption of the Neighborhood Model, which guides a more sustainable form of development. In addition, in
January of 2005, the Board of Supervisors and School Board officially adopted an Environmental Management Policy that
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
September 13, 2006
Page 7
clearly states a commitment to compliance, pollution prevention, and continual overall environmental improvement. Both
local government and the school system have hired environmental compliance managers to begin implementation of
Environmental Management Systems (EMS) with the responsibility for implementing the adopted policy throughout our
operations. General Services has made “green” qualifications a consideration when hiring A/E firms to design new
buildings or major renovations. For example, the architect for the Crozet library is LEED certified and General Services
intends to incorporate cost effective green building measures into the design. With existing operations, General Services is
also replacing light fixtures with high efficiency bulbs, has purchased and is evaluating the performance of hybrid vehicles,
is improving building and grounds maintenance procedures, and is pursuing Low Impact Development (LID) and Best
Management Practices in storm water management.
The schools division has a broad approach to green building and sustainability. This includes the use of water efficient
toilets and shower heads and use of biofilters to improve the quality of the water that leaves school sites. New carpet
installation will use closed cell foam in carpets, and “green” cleaning and floor finish supplies are used to improve indoor air
quality. All interior paint in new construction and remodels is required to be low in volatile organic compounds. All new
classrooms will have a significant amount of lighting furnished by the sun through low-E energy efficient windows and roof
monitors. New construction and renovation will include the installation of high-efficiency heating and cooling systems. To
limit energy usage, cycle equipment, and control hall and exterior lights, all existing controls are being upgraded with direct
digital controls. Roof replacement projects and new construction requires an R-30 insulation rating.
Schools are managing energy by using the strategies listed above. Virtually every school now has summer school and
building rental usage throughout the year, which was not the case five years ago. Despite this increase in usage, the school
division has been able to control energy consumption. For example, the schools consumed less natural gas and fuel oil,
per SF in 2005 than in 2000, and experienced a modest increase of 1 KWH of electricity, per square foot, during the same
time frame. This was accomplished by using the strategies noted above and with the use of energy audits, which involved
nighttime building inspections and encouraged the building occupants to conserve energy. With everyone‟s assistance, the
school‟s 2005/06 over-all energy consumption was less than in 2004/05, even though several changes were made to
buildings, including constructing a new, large gym at Hollymead, an addition at Henley and an auxiliary gym at Monticello
High School.
The School EMS incorporates compliance and pollution prevention-initiatives into its goals, objectives, and targets. This
includes biodiesel testing in school buses, stormwater pollution prevention training, rechargeable battery recycling,
mercury-containing lamp recycling, hazardous chemical clean-out, electronic waste recycling, chemical hygiene plan for
instructional areas, hazardous waste management, and refrigerant management program. See Attachment B for a
complete summary of our efforts. The school division has developed and implemented a school-wide Environmental
Management System (EMS) that is recognized by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality‟s Environmental
Excellence Program.
Beyond the Sustainability section of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan, the County has taken initiative in demonstrating
and integrating green building and sustainability into many of its programs. Beyond those current efforts, questions have
typically fallen into three categories: what obstacles can the County remove, what can the County require, and what can
the County do to encourage green building.
What obstacles can the County remove?
It does not appear there are any significant obstacles in County process to green building. Numerous structures are being
built in the County to green building standards and the County permit process has not been found to create any obstacles.
Additionally, the County has already adopted tax incentives as allowed. Thus, it appears there are no additional obstacles
that the County controls.
What can the County require?
By the building code, the County cannot require buildings to be built to a different standard than the code. It does not
appear local governments have the authority to require structures be constructed to a different standard than the building
code. It is possible that the County could seek commitments to green building as part of legislative reviews, which will be
discussed under ways to encourage green building.
What can the County do to encourage green building?
There are several possible measures the County could initiate. The following are some examples.
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
September 13, 2006
Page 8
1. Similar to the University of Virginia, the County can create sustainability guidelines for all of its future building
activities. Recognizing the vast majority of the County buildings are schools, it would be best if this effort was
coordinated with the School Board.
2. Independent of schools, the County can initiate a policy that all future public buildings should be designed to one of
the above described standards. Recognizing certification can be both expensive and time consuming, this policy
should consider whether it is sufficient to build to the standard or if certification is also required.
3. The Sustainability section of the Comprehensive Plan can be revised to incorporate green building and
sustainability guidelines. The County could then seek commitments to green building as part of legislative reviews.
4. The County can develop education materials and work with the development industry in finding ways to encourage
more green building.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
Incorporating green principles in building and site design often increases the upfront costs when compared to conventional
construction, with reduced lifecycle costs. These additional upfront costs are associated with design and green upgrades.
Given that the long-term operational costs are reduced, green buildings are designed to pay for themselves over time. The
time it takes for a green building to recover upfront costs varies depending upon the design, efficiency a building achieves,
and interest rates used for determining payback.
The state of California has conducted extensive research on the cost of green building. Though some variables, such as
the cost of electricity and raw materials by region may vary somewhat, they have found that integrating green building
practices into the construction of buildings is a solid financial investment. A comprehensive analysis contained in a report
titled, “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California's Sustainable Building Task Force ”
finds that a minimal upfront investment of about two percent of construction costs typically yields life cycle savings of ove r
ten times the initial investment. For example, an initial upfront investment of up to $100,000 to incorporate green building
features into a $5 million project would result in a savings of at least $1 million over the life of the building, assumed
conservatively to be 20 years.
Green buildings provide a way to help address a range of challenges with budgetary impacts such as:
- The high cost of utilities
- Water shortage and waste disposal issues
- Continued state and federal pressure to cut criteria pollutants
- Growing concern over the cost of global warming
- The rising incidence of allergies and asthma, especially in children
- The health and productivity of employees
- The effect of the physical school environment on children‟s abilities to learn
- Increasing expenses of maintaining and operating inefficient County facilities
Local Government green building and green planning programs have costs. These costs are relative to the breadth and
nature of the program. Programs focusing on education and outreach have the lowest costs while locally-administered
programs require the most staff support, generating the highest costs.
Finally, if the Board desired to expand efforts at promoting green buildings, there could be additional operational costs to
support that effort. Until that effort is defined, it is not possible to estimate those costs.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff has presented this information to help the Board understand current efforts at green building and sustainability, as
well as what others are currently doing. Should the Board be interested in expanding beyond the current effort, staff
would develop a recommendation based on the Board‟s guidance and bring this to the Board for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Comprehensive Plan sustainability goals
Attachment B – Summary of County‟s efforts in green building and sustainability
Attachment C – LEED checklist
Attachment D – EarthCraft checklist
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Session: Green Building and Sustainability
September 13, 2006
Page 9
Attachment E – EnergyStar checklist
Attachment F – Energy Policy Act of 2005 Energy Star tax initiatives
Attachment G – U.S. Mayors Climate Agreement
Attachment H – City of Charlottesville‟s proposed Comprehensive Plan changes regarding green building
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution Endorsing the Intent of the Resolution Adopted
by the U.S. Conference of Mayors Regarding the U.S.
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of the Resolution
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 4, 2006
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the last Board of Supervisors meeting, at the request of Supervisor Slutzky, the Board agreed to consider a resolution
supporting the intent of the resolution adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors regarding the U.S. Conference of Mayor s
Climate Protection Agreement.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal One: Enhance Quality of Life for All Citizens
DISCUSSION:
At the September 13th Board of Supervisors meeting, staff provided an extensive review of the County’s efforts toward Green
Building initiatives and sustainability. This included discussion of the Comprehensive Plan’s sustainability goals, adoption of the
Neighborhood Model which guides a more sustainable form of development, and the County’s current Environmental
Management Policy, adopted by the Board in 2004, among other policy initiatives. Also included was discussion of the many
efforts made in the past, and recently to move toward the principles of sustainability. Though additional plans are being
developed to further ensure that our operations and construction plans and activities continue to move us toward these
principles, the Board’s intent and direction through past actions is consistent with the principles contained in the resoluti on
adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors regarding the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Specific budget impacts will be determined as any new initiatives are proposed. The proposed County resolution does not
establish specific actions that require a fiscal impact analysis at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached County resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution Endorsing Intent of Resolution Adopted by U.S. Conference of Mayors
B – Resolution Adopted by U.S. Conference of Mayors
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE INTENT OF
THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
REGARDING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has adopted a Resolution endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement, as amended at the 73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, which urges mayors of cities from around the
nation to join the effort to take actions to reduce global warming pollution; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle acknowledges the importance of this initiative and supports the intent of this
Resolution and the need to explore reasonable implementation of policies and practices to support this initiative.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia hereby endorses
the intent of the Resolution adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors titled “Endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement” incorporated herein by reference.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Green Building/Sustainability Initiative, Status Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Provide status report on County’s progress and
efforts in green building and sustainability and
provide opportunity for Board to comment on staff’s
approach to bring the Planning Commission’s
resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to improve our commitment to green building
and sustainability.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Dougherty, Temple
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 7, 2007
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On September 13, 2006, staff made a presentation to the Board of Supervisors to update them on the Natural
Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan that addresses sustainability. Staff also provided a
comprehensive background on green building. (Attachment A, September Executive Summary) At that meeting the
Board requested that staff pursue four areas to increase sustainability and return to the Board with an update. The four
areas are as follows:
1. Work with the public to expand knowledge and benefits of green building
2. Work with the development community to promote green building and remove obstacles.
3. Work with County policy and operations to demonstrate and promote green building and overall
efficiency.
4. Amend the Comprehensive Plan in support of green building.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal Two: Protect the County’s Natural Resources
At the core of green building and sustainability is the objective of protecting natural resources. Through green building,
conservation is implemented through reuse of materials or sustainable extraction of resources, such as sustainably-
harvested lumber and lower consumption of operational resources, such as water, natural gas, and electricity.
Goal Five: Fund the County’s Future Needs
Aside from environmental benefits, the operational costs for green buildings are much lower than conventional
buildings. Over time, green buildings developed or retrofitted to support local government activities will have lower
operational costs.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment C outlines the progress m ade with respect to the Board’s direction. Progress has been made in each of the
four areas discussed in September.
In conjunction with the University of Virginia and the City of Charlottesville, the County participated in a two-month long
sustainability exhibit at the Charlottesville Design Center where such projects as the County green roof and Monticello
High School were featured. On January 18th, the County hosted the Virginia Sustainable Building Network and 50
professionals, contractors, inspectors and educators for a training session in the EarthCraft green building standard
endorsed by Governor Tim Kaine and Virginia Home Builders, among others. Changes to County policy regard ing
internal operations are being reviewed by Sarah Temple, the County’s new environmental manager. Ms. Temple will be
bringing the Board more information regarding our operations in months to come. The most noteworthy progress in this
area is the County’s
AGENDA TITLE:
Green Building/Sustainability Initiative, Status Report
February 7, 2007
Page 2
participation in the ENERGY STAR Courthouse campaign, which guides local government toward energy efficiency
while offering partnered localities access to grants for energy efficient equipment. Contemporary to a discussion of
larger shifts in operations regarding energy efficiency and green building at the County level is the upcoming Crozet
Library project and the extent to which it is built green. As a preview, Attachment C, a detailed update, lays out the hard
and soft costs associated with green building using the LEED certification standards. In conjunction, staff is obtaining
and analyzing information necessary to assist the Board in determining what level of green is best for the Crozet
Library.
Finally, at the December 19, 2006 Commission hearing, Mr. Edgerton introduced a resolution of intent to work with
staff to prepare Comprehensive Plan language that would increase the County’s support for green building. Following
Mr. Edgerton’s initiative, staff is helping develop a number of objectives and strategies to be considered as part of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Recognizing that the breadth of objectives and strategies available for expanding
green building and sustainability are multiple and potentially controversial, the proposed statements have been ranked,
with those most likely to gain support by the Board first, those items requiring additional staff time, research, or funding
second, and those objectives seeming to possess significant impacts to the Work Plan and budget ranked third. This
language is included as Attachment B. The first tier of statements will be reviewed by the Commission and prepared to
advance as a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Board. As the second and third tiers are vetted through research
and work sessions, those items will return to the Board in the future, potentially as part of a scheduled update of the
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Current efforts with green building and sustainability have utilized limited staff resources and existing programs have
not required significant investments. Longer term paybacks with future facilities will be considered starting with the
Crozet Library project, but current projects have emphasized short-term or immediate payback. Recognizing the
Planning Commission is pursuing a possible Comprehensive Plan Amendment, staff has prioritized the possible
Comprehensive Plan statements that are anticipated to have a minimal budget impact. As other objectives and
strategies are developed that require additional resources, staff will return with more specific budget impact information
on those items. Additional Information regarding budget impacts is provided in Attachment C.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This executive summary is provided as an update to affirm staff is proceeding as the Board directed in September
2006.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – September 13, 2006 Green Building and Sustainability Executive Summary
Attachment B – DRAFT Initiatives for consideration with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Attachment C – Detailed Green Building and Sustainability Update
Attachment C – Detailed Green Building and Sustainability Update
Green Building and Sustainability Update
The four areas the Board directed staff to pursue are as follows:
1. Work with development community to promote green building and remove obstacles.
The County hosted EarthCraft training on January 18, 2007. This day-long workshop was attended by 50 professionals
including architects, builders, and building specialists. Interest in a second training session is significant among
members of the Blue Ridge Home Builders as well as other professionals. This training was a remarkable success
with real impacts. Our meeting facilities have been offered for a future training session to be scheduled.
Staff has met with the Blue Ridge Home Builders Green Building Committee and their Director of Government Affairs.
These meetings were to convey the County’s interest in collaboration and to review the Comprehensive Plan language
propose by staff. As staff has ranked the proposed Comprehensive Plan language in three categories, we have
requested that the Home Builders advise the Board of their position on the first tier of the proposed objectives and
strategies (having the least impacts and obstacles to Board support).
2. Work with the public to expand knowledge and benefits of green building
The sustainability exhibit at the Charlottesville Design Center reached hundreds of people and larger interest groups.
Exposure to more information about sustainability, green building, and climate change is becoming a greater part of
our every day lives through public service announcements, television programming, and interest groups, such as the
Sierra Club.
The County’s website offers an opportunity to create a hub where green information resources can be managed and
made available with little operational cost. Tax bills and other County mailings could include a supplemental flyer to
advise residents on small and large changes they can make to be a greater part of the green movement or update
them on ENERGYSTAR tax credits for consumers. In the past, these sorts of efforts have been managed with support
from the County Executive’s Office and could continue to do so. With additional staff time and funding, a larger public
outreach campaign could be launched. However, for the time being, staff feels that amending the Comprehensive Plan
and working on internal operations is a better use of staff time as currently allocated. A coordinated campaign has
been discussed favorably with City of Charlottesville representatives. However, staff believes that a unified public
outreach campaign shared between both localities will be more manageable and successful once each locality has
amended their Comprehensive Plan. To date, the City of Charlottesville has not adopted new green building and
sustainability into their Comprehensive Plan. Their Planning Commission participated in a work session on green
building and sustainability on January 23, 2007. No date has been set for Charlottesville City Council to finalize the
proposed amendments to the Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan with respect to green building and sustainability.
3. Work with County policy and operations to demonstrate and promote green building and overall
efficiency.
In December of 2006, the County officially partnered with ENERGYSTAR. ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy that encourages a strategic method of
energy management for homeowners, businesses and consumers. We are one of the first 115 Counties in the United
States to join the program with the goal of reducing energy consumption throughout County owned and operated
facilities. The decision to participate in ENERGY STAR is consistent with the County's Environmental Management
Policy, signed by the County Executive in March 2004, which includes a commitment to environmental compliance,
pollution prevention, and continuous environmental improvement.
The basic steps involved in ENERGY STAR participation include: making a commitment to the program, forming an
energy management team, adopting an energy policy, assessing energy performance through measuring and
tracking, setting energy-use reduction goals, developing and implementing an energy management plan to reach
these goals, and continually evaluating progress.
Staff drafted the following timeline for beginning the program steps. This timeline is subject to periodic revision based
on program development progress and staff time.
February 1st – 28th 2007
Collect utility and fuel-use data for past 24 months (or more) and put into electronic format. This information
will be used to establish a baseline of County energy use.
March 1st – April 30th 2007
Establish an Energy Management Team, consisting of various County staff members, that will carry out the
steps listed above, and coordinate overall program participation
May 1st – June 30th 2007
Draft Energy Management Policy
July 1st – August 31st 2007
Submit policy to County Executive for official approval
Energy Management Team to discuss goals/objectives/targets
o Low/No-cost energy saving ideas
o Higher-cost ideas that will require budget request(s)
o Education/outreach component
September 1st – October 31st 2007
Begin work on Energy Management Plan
Develop action plan to carry out goals set
Cost Associated with Green Building
To better determine the financial impacts of green building on County facilities, staff is researching and compiling
information related to the basic costs associated with obtaining LEED Certification. Regarding institutional
buildings, LEED is nationally recognized and the most comprehensive green building rating system. Within the
LEED standard, buildings can obtain basic certification or higher levels of silver, gold, or platinum. Local examples
of LEED certification are the City of Charlottesville aiming to gain basic LEED certification for its new transit Center
and Monticello aiming for LEED Platinum with its new visitors and education complex.
Staff is compiling cost information on the 14 LEED Certified buildings in Virginia. Estimates to construct lead
certified buildings vary and the ability of professionals in our state to implement green buildings in a cost-effective
manner is developing. We will also include cost information from other areas such as the District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware to expand the data set. Though only 14 buildings in Virginia have been
LEED certified, 120 are in the pipeline. As these building are completed and gain certification, we will eventually
know more about the up front costs of green building. Staff is will provide more detailed information concerning the
cost of certification in conjunction of a review of the Crozet Library in March.
Life-Cycle Savings
It is important to note that while there are typically “upfront” costs incurred as a result of pursuing LEED
Certification, one of the main goals in the process of sustainable design is to obtain payback over the life of the
building.
Hard Costs
The cost of obtaining LEED Certification varies per project and is largely based on project scope, size, and the
level of certification sought (certified, silver, gold, or platinum). For example, if the certification goal is the basic
“certified” level, there may be little-extra cost incurred, whereas if the goal is “gold” or “platinum”-level certification,
the cost incurred may be significantly higher.
Typically, there are hard and soft cost implications involved in obtaining any level of certification. Hard or “fixed”
costs include fees associated with going through the project registration and certification process, including a one -
time, fixed-rate registration fee, and certification fees involving design and construction review. These costs are
detailed in the table below:
LEED Registration and Certification Fees1
Registration Fees
Fixed Rate
Members2 $450
Non-Members $600
Certification Fees
Fixed Rate Based on Square Feet Fixed Rate
Design &
Construction Review
< 50,000 Sq. Ft. 50,000 – 500,000 Sq. Ft. >500,000 Sq. Ft.
Members $1,750 $0.035 / Sq. Ft. $17,500
Non-Members $2,250 $0.045 / Sq. Ft. $22,500
1 Information taken directly from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) website
2 “Member” and “Non-Member” references relate to the optional USGBC Membership, which currently costs
$500/annually
The following is a “hard cost” example: Registration and certification for a project involving the design and
construction of a 42,000 square foot building, assuming the applicant is a member of the USGBC, would cost the
applicant $2,700 ($450 registration fee, plus the $1,750 design and construction review fee, plus the $500
membership fee).
Project registration simply involves registering the project with the U.S. Green Building Council, which is typically
done via their website. The design and construction review process involves a review of standard templates and
supporting documentation that are submitted in pursuit of the various LEED credits. This review is done by
USGBC staff. These hard/fixed costs are typically minimal relative to the overall project cost.
Soft Costs
Soft cost impacts can be defined as LEED-related aspects of the project that are “above and beyond” typical or
standard design/construction project requirements. These aspects can be grouped into two categories:
Design Costs – Aspects of the project that increase the design team’s scope of work during the design and
construction phases
Design costs fluctuate depending on the number and type of LEED credits sought, the level of LEED Certification
desired, and the size of the project. Another factor in design cost is the implementation of an integrated design
process. This process is often used in sustainable building design and typically entails upfront planning and
communication among all involved in the design process (architects, engineers, owner representatives,
maintenance staff, etc), which is a relatively new process for many organizations.
Project Documentation and Application Costs – Aspects associated with documenting the project and submitting a
LEED application to the U.S. Green Building Council.
Project documentation involves ensuring the project specifications are written so that various LEED credits can be
achieved, and also includes the tracking and logging of various aspects of the project. The project documentation
and application process is often managed by a LEED-accredited individual or architect/engineering (A/E) firm
involved with the design of the project; therefore, the associated costs can differ based on the individual A/E firm’s
fees for this service. As these soft costs depend so much on the aforementioned variables, it is difficult to provide
a total cost estimate for certification without a specific planned project or design in place.
4. Amend the Comprehensive Plan in support of green building.
Objectives and strategies in support of the four areas the Board directed staff to advance have been ranked into
three categories in Attachment B. Statements that do not require changes to the work plan or additional
research are shown in green. Those statements that require additional staff time or funding are written in
orange. Finally, statements that require staff time, research, and significant additional consideration regarding
implementation are found in red. Staff will review these statements with the Planning Commission as old
business in March in advance of the Commission forwarding a Comprehensive Plan amendment
recommendation to the Board thereafter.
County of Albemarle, VA
Emissions Baseline Report
A summary of greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions for the
County of Albemarle, VA for the year 2000
County of Albemarle, VA
Emissions Baseline Report
A summary of greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions for the
County of Albemarle, VA for the year 2000
Department of General Services
County of Albemarle
A summary of greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emissions for the
Department of General Services
County of Albemarle
February 2009
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements……………………...……………………….……………………………..…...…..3
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………..………...…..4
Part 1. Climate Change
Overview.........................................................................................................................................7
Causes..............................................................................................................................................7
Impacts.............................................................................................................................................8
Criteria Air Pollutants.................................................................................................................10
Part 2. Addressing Climate Change at the National, State, and Local Levels
Background...................................................................................................................................11
National Level…………………………..………………...……...……………………………..12
State Level….……………………………………………………………………………………13
County Level…..………………………………………………………………………………...15
The ICLEI Program......................................................................................................................15
Part 3. Baseline Inventory
Methodology.................................................................................................................................17
Data Collection.............................................................................................................................18
Part 4. Baseline Results
Summary.......................................................................................................................................20
Residential Sector.........................................................................................................................24
Commercial Sector.......................................................................................................................26
Industrial Sector...........................................................................................................................28
Transportation Sector..................................................................................................................30
Waste Sector..................................................................................................................................32
Other Sector..................................................................................................................................33
Municipal Sector...........................................................................................................................34
Trends
Interim Year Emissions: 2006........................................................................................36
Forecast Year Emissions: 2020.......................................................................................37
Part 5. Local Climate Action Planning Process……….......................................................................38
Glossary…………………………………………………………...……………………………..………41
References.................................................................................................................................................44
APPENDIX A: Agriculture Emissions Methodology…………………….……………….……..…46
APPENDIX B: Employee Commute Methodology…………..…………………….……….………56
APPENDIX C: Corrections to the Baseline……………………………………………………….….57
APPENDIX D: 2008 Update……………………………………………………………………………58
APPENDIX E: Board of Supervisors Resolution..…………………………………………………..61
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Albemarle County Department of General Services would like to sincerely thank the
following individuals for providing data, information, and guidance throughout the process of
establishing our baseline inventory:
Cynthia Adams Climate Protection Program Coordinator, City of Charlottesville
Willie Adcock Dominion Virginia Power
Miranda Baird Accounts Receivable Technician, Rivanna Authorities
Derek Bedarf GIS Specialist II, County of Albemarle
Kim Branham Management Analyst, County of Albemarle
Mary Beth Castanien Dominion Virginia Power
Tammy Critzer Management Analyst, County of Albemarle
Nellie Durham Administrative Assistant, Fire & Rescue, County of Albemarle
Sarah Edwards Environmental Intern, City of Charlottesville
Christina Frederick American Electric Power
Michael Freitas Chief of Public Works, County of Albemarle
Frankie Giles Assistant Division Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation
Peggy Graves Accounts Payable Senior Clerk, County of Albemarle
Meade Harris Senior Management Analyst, County of Albemarle
Jill Preddy Charlottesville-UVa-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center
Tami Radcliff Regulatory Consultant, American Electric Power
Ben Rasmussen Senior Program Officer, ICLEI
Kristel Riddervold Environmental Administrator, City of Charlottesville
Tom Schinkel Senior Transportation Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation
Michelle Shively Manager Government Sales, Mansfield Oil
Lindsay Snoddy Environmental Compliance Manager, Albemarle County Public Schools
Ella Terry Senior Accounts Clerk, Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail
Tex Weaver GDS Manager, County of Albemarle
Lonnie Wood Director of Finance and Administration, Rivanna Authorities
Megan Wu Program Associate, ICLEI
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scientists from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) both state that "there is robust scientific evidence that human-induced
climate change is occurring.” Over the last one hundred years, there has been an increase of
~0.6°C in average global surface temperatures, an increase of ~20cm in sea level and an increase
of ~2% in global precipitation over land. As a result of greenhouse gases already emitted, the
U.S. Climate Change Program’s 2007 report predicts that temperature increases will likely
increase globally by another 1°C up to 4°C over the next 100 years. Scientists from George
Mason University and the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies in Maryland estimate
that Virginia in particular can expect to see an increase in its temperature by 3.1ºC. To mitigate
further change, many institutions have urged reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Initiative is a commitment made by 12 pioneering U.S.
counties to reduce their contributions to climate change and help their communities become
resilient to consequent changes. On December 5, 2007 the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors joined these counties by adopting the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization
Declaration, pledging to reduce emissions County-wide by 80% by 2050.
The County is following the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’ (ICLEI)
Five Milestone approach to addressing climate change. This baseline inventory is the first of the
Milestones. The Five Milestones include, in summary: 1) Conduct a baseline emissions
inventory and forecast; 2) Adopt an emissions reduction target for the forecast year; 3) Develop
a Local Action Plan; 4) Implement policies and measures in Local Action Plan; and 5) Monitor
and verify results.
The Kyoto Protocol calls for a reduction of emissions by developed countries by 5% relative to a
baseline year of 1990. However, due to difficulty in accessing accurate records for community
and government utility use for the year 1990, the County is using a baseline year of 2000. This is
consistent with the City of Charlottesville’s, University of Virginia's, and the State of Virginia’s
baselines, and therefore will aid any future collaboration on emission reduction measures
between the organizations.
Baseline Data Summary:
Year
Energy Use
Million British Thermal Units
(MMBtu)
Total eCO2 Emissions
(Tons)
2000 13,132,671 1,503,163
2006 14,923,434 1,688,426
2020 Projection 18,424,667 2,034,650
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CONTINUED
The baseline data was analyzed using the Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software
developed by ICLEI. According to the software, the County emitted a total of metric tons of
equivalent carbon dioxide (eCO2) in the year 2000. Specific breakdowns across sectors
(transportation, commercial, residential, etc.) are presented below. In 2000, the 84,186 residents
of the County each emitted approximately 17.9 tons of eCO2. In 2006, total emissions increased
to 1,688,426 eCO2 tons while the population grew to 85,752 people, so per capita eCO2 emissions
were 19.7 tons. The following graph breaks down the relative contributions to baseline
emissions by sector:
The CACP software allows for “forecast” projections up to the year 2020 based on a “business-
as-usual” scenario. This scenario assumes that governments, companies or individuals will not
take any actions specifically directed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The projected
emissions for 2020 in this “business as usual” scenario are 2,034,650 eCO2 tons (See Figure 10 for
more detailed information).
By adopting the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration, the County pledged to
reduce emissions by 80% by the year 2050, or an average of 2% per year beginning in 2010.
Thus, by the year 2020 the County must reduce emissions by 20% from its baseline emissions, or
to 1,202,530 tons of eCO2 (see figure on next page) in order to meet its target.
Residential
27.0
Commercial
11.5
Industrial
1.9
Transportation
52.1
Waste
0.1
Other
3.8
Municipal*
3.6
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector:
Albemarle County, 2000
*Municipal sector includes:
Buildings
Streetlights
Employee commutes
Vehicle fleet
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CONTINUED
The next major step following the baseline emissions analysis is to engage in a Local Climate
Action Planning Process. Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the
Charlottesville City Council, and officials from the University of Virginia have all expressed a
keen interest in collaborating on such a process. In January 2009, the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council unanimously passed resolutions in support
of the County, City and University working together to address energy efficiency and climate
change. Environmental staff members from the three organizations are currently developing
plans to establish a Steering Committee and a set of Focus Groups that will launch the planning
process. It is anticipated that outcomes from this process will shape public policies and
programs as we individually and collectively look to reduce our contribution to the world’s
greenhouse gas emissions. The Steering Committee will ultimately issue a report outlining
strategies that are particular to each entity, as well as those that present shared opportunities.
In the end, each participating entity will have to determine what strategies are appropriate for
implementation and how that implementation will take place. However, the expectation is that
in those areas where cooperation and synergy are needed, Albemarle, Charlottesville, and UVa
will share an approach.
1,503,163
1,645,134
2,034,649
1,202,530
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
1,500,000
1,600,000
1,700,000
1,800,000
1,900,000
2,000,000
2,100,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020eCO2 (tons)Year
GHG Emissions Projections and Progress:
Albemarle County
2000 Baseline 2000-2006 2008 Progress
Business as Usual Projection Goal: 2% Annual Decrease
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 7
PART 1. CLIMATE CHANGE
Overview
Over the last one hundred years, there has been an increase of ~0.6°C in average global surface
temperatures, an increase of ~20cm in sea level and an increase of ~2% in global precipitation
over land. These changes represent a dramatic departure from natural weather fluctuations
that occur every few millennia. Scientists from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) both confirm that these changes are not
natural and, in fact, "there is robust scientific evidence that [this is] human-induced climate
change.” Furthermore, these global temperature and precipitation trends have also been
observed in the United States.
Causes
Climate change, also known as “global warming”, results from an over-amplification of the
greenhouse effect. Solar radiation that hits the Earth is equaled in magnitude with the amount
of energy the Earth emits towards space. The greenhouse effect, a naturally occurring process,
occurs when greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc.) absorb and re-emit
some of the Earth’s outgoing infrared radiation back towards it (Figure 1). Water vapor is
actually the most abundant of these gases, and is therefore the most important. Note: Because
almost 99% of water vapor originates naturally and cannot be controlled through greenhouse
gas reduction measures, it is not included in Table 1 below or assessed in this report.
Figure 1: The naturally-occurring greenhouse effect is necessary for life. Historically, it
has increased the average global surface temperature from 0°F to a more pleasant 57°F.
Historically, the greenhouse effect has made conditions much more bearable on Earth by
increasing the average global surface temperature from 0°F to a more pleasant 57°F. Human
activities in the last 150 years, however, have greatly amplified the greenhouse effect by
increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some of these gases occur
naturally (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor), while others are exclusively man-made
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 8
(e.g. hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride). Table 1 lists some well-
known greenhouse gases and their sources. Fossil fuel burning and land use changes
(deforestation and pollution from industrial sources, in particular) have increased the volume of
greenhouse gases in the air.
While all greenhouse gases re-emit energy back towards the Earth, some are much more
efficient in doing so than others. The global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of this
efficiency. It is a ratio of the warming that would result from one kilogram per greenhouse gas
relative to one kilogram of carbon dioxide (kg CO2) over a fixed period of time. When reporting
total emissions of all tracked greenhouse gases, it is standard to convert the GWPs into CO2
equivalent units (eCO2).
Table 1. Key greenhouse gases and their corresponding global warming potential.
Greenhouse Gas Source GWP
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Fossil fuel burning, solid waste,
trees and wood products.
1
Methane (CH4) Landfills, coal mines, oil / natural
gas operations, and agriculture.
21
Nitrous oxide (N2O) Fertilizers, fossil fuel burning,
and waste management.
310
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
Synthetic industrial byproducts. 650-
11,700
Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
Synthetic industrial byproducts
produced in the manufacturing of
aluminum products.
6,500
Sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6)
Synthetic industrial byproduct. 23,900
Impacts
While the aforementioned ~0.6°C increase in average global surface temperatures over the last
100 years may seem minor, it should be noted that the temperature difference between an ice
age and a warm age is only roughly 4°C. Thus, even small temperature variations on the global
scale can have drastic effects overall. Some regions of Alaska have already warmed by 4°C.
The Great Plains are expected to experience intensified drought cycles while the West is
expected to have fewer but more intense winter precipitation events. While we know that the
U.S. as a whole became warmer and wetter over the past 100 years, local effects can vary greatly
by geographic region. Scientists from George Mason University and the Center for Ocean-
Land-Atmosphere Studies in Maryland estimate that Virginia, for example, will experience an
increase in temperature of 3.1°C along with an 11% increase in annual precipitation over the
next one hundred years. Of these region-specific changes, one of the most noticeable has been
the consistent decrease in Arctic sea ice as the air temperatures in the region rise.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 9
Figure 2: Photo in the News: Study Shows Arctic Ice Melting Rapidly.
Image source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-arctic-ice.html
Changes in physical climate are coupled with population changes for various species of plants
and animals. Some ecosystems will alter as their natural processes (e.g. nesting times,
migratory routes, predator/prey relationships, etc.) acclimate to reflect new climate patterns.
However, scientists estimate that large numbers of species, potentially 30-40% globally during
the next 50 years, may be unable to adapt to climate change and will be lost.
Our quality of life will also be affected by changes in agricultural productivity and increases in
forest fires, insect outbreaks, severe storms, and droughts. While agricultural productivity
might increase in the short-term, over the long-term, productivity will decrease as changing
weather patterns exceed plants’ thresholds for adaptability. The management of these effects
will be very difficult due to our limited understanding of these altered ecosystems and
inadequate resources. Thus, it is crucial to increase our understanding of past, present, and
future processes to mitigate some of these effects.
A study conducted by Miller-Rushing
et. al. in 2008 documents that the
mean arrival dates for North
American passerines at Manomet,
Massachusetts occurred earlier and
earlier each decade. The variations
in migratory changes over time were
partially explained by climate
variables. In particular, short-
distance passerine migrants
appeared to respond to changes in
temperature.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 10
Criteria Air Pollutants
In addition to increasing global surface temperatures, the greenhouse gases listed in Table 1 also
contribute to air pollution. The six most common air pollutants in the U.S. are collectively
known as “criteria air pollutants.” These pollutants are known to endanger public health and
the environment and have therefore been the focus of Congress’ regulatory attention. Table 2
lists the criteria air pollutants, their sources, and known health effects. Note: Ozone (O3) that
occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere surrounding the Earth provides a filter for the
ultraviolet light emitted by the Sun. At ground level, however, ozone is harmful to living
things and is an air pollutant that damages human health, vegetation, and many common
materials.
Table 2. Criteria air pollutants and their corresponding sources and health hazards.
Criteria Air
Pollutant
Source Health Effects
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Burning of fossil fuels; 77% from
transportation sources; wood-burning
stoves, incinerators, and industrial
sources.
Reduces oxygen to organs and
tissues. Causes impairment of
vision and dexterity.
Lead (Pb) Lead gasoline additives, non-ferrous
smelters, and battery plants.
Causes adverse reproductive
effects (reduced fertility,
miscarriage). Affect nervous,
digestive and cardiovascular
blood-forming systems.
Nitrogen oxides
(NOx)
Combustion processes from
transportation vehicles and electric
utility and industrial boilers.
Irritates lungs. Causes bronchitis
and pneumonia.
Ozone (O3) Combustion processes. Damages lung tissue and reduces
lung function.
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Factories, power plants, cars,
construction activity, fires, and
natural windblown dust.
Reduces visibility. Affects
breathing. Contributes to cancer
and premature death.
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
Burning of fossil fuels, steel mills,
refineries, pulp and paper mills and
nonferrous smelters.
Causes visual impairment.
Affects breathing.
Environment California Research & Policy
Center state in their December 2007
"When It Rains, It Pours" Global Warming
Report: "Scientists expect global warming
to increase the frequency of heavy
precipitation. Also, weather records show
that storms with extreme precipitation
have become more frequent over the last
60 years. Consistent with the predicted
impacts of global warming, we found that
storms with extreme precipitation have
increased in frequency by 24 percent
across the continental U.S. since 1948."
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 11
PART 2. ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AT THE
NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LEVELS
Background
Climate change, caused in part by human activities in the past 100 years, will continue into the
21st century. As a result of greenhouse gases already emitted, the U.S. Climate Change
Program’s 2007 report predicts that temperatures will likely increase by another 1°C, up to 4°C.
The temperature patterns previously noted will thus continue to worsen. Many institutions
have urged for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate further changes.
The most renowned of these measures is the Kyoto Protocol, which was introduced in 1997.
This measure calls for a 5% emissions reduction in developed countries relative to their 1990
levels by 2012. The Protocol was ratified by nearly 150 countries and has been in effect since
2005.
In addition to committing to the goals set by the Kyoto Protocol, many other European nations
have set more stringent emission reduction targets. The United Kingdom, for example, set a
“27% reduction by the year 2020” target in July 2007.
Vehicle Emissions Smog over the United Kingdom
County of Albemarle, VA
National Level
Although more than 150 nations have
global emissions. The U.S. has not yet si
though its population, which makes up
of worldwide emissions. The U.
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
who are signatories to develop and periodically update national inventories of
emissions by sources and removals by sinks
that results in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has routinely tabulate
for the U.S. in their annual report
Sinks.” According to their most recent report released in 2008, t
industrial and transportation sectors are the two largest contributors to
accounting for more than half of total
information included in their 2008
Figure 3: U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by sectors for the year 2004.
These sector-related
Emissions Baseline Report
ore than 150 nations have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, they only account for 32% of
U.S. has not yet signed any binding climate protection agreement even
makes up only 4% of the global population, accounts for over 25%
.S. has, however, signed the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. Article 2 of the UNFCCC directs all nations
who are signatories to develop and periodically update national inventories of anthropogenic
emissions by sources and removals by sinks (“sink” in this context denotes a process or activity
that results in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere). Thus, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has routinely tabulated the greenhouse
in their annual report entitled “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
According to their most recent report released in 2008, their data shows that the
industrial and transportation sectors are the two largest contributors to emissions in the U.S.,
more than half of total emissions (Figure 3). Data from 2004 is the most current
2008 report.
Figure 3: U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by sectors for the year 2004.
related percentage trends have been consistent over the years.
12
hey only account for 32% of
agreement even
, accounts for over 25%
the United Nations Framework
Article 2 of the UNFCCC directs all nations
anthropogenic
a process or activity
Thus, the
d the greenhouse gas emissions
nhouse Gas Emissions and
heir data shows that the
emissions in the U.S.,
Data from 2004 is the most current
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 13
State Level
Furthering national efforts, action at the state level has been significant in recent years.
According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the following 36 states have either
completed or are in the process of completing their climate action plans. This graph (Figure 4)
was updated by the Pew Center as recently as January 12, 2009.
Figure 4: States with climate action plans. Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Of these states, Virginia is one of roughly 20 that have also set greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets. In 2007 Governor Tim Kaine’s first comprehensive energy plan set a goal to
reduce Virginia’s emissions by 30% by the year 2025. The Governor appointed a Commission
on Climate Change to ensure the state’s target is met. The Commission's first assignment was
to inventory all state actions to assess the status of their emissions. The Commission released
the final state greenhouse gas inventory report at the end of 2008 (Figure 5).
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 14
Figure 5: Virginia State Emissions. Total Emissions for the sectors above are 86.45 million metric tons (MMT) of eCO2.
In a related effort Governor Kaine launched his Renew Virginia initiative in December 2008,
which will include legislative and executive actions to make Virginia a leader in energy
conservation, efficiency and protecting the environment. The Governor met with his economic
development team to discuss strategies for attracting renewable energy companies to the
Commonwealth. He also unveiled plans to establish an interagency task force and create an
energy marketing plan that will attract green jobs to Virginia.
Trends observed at the national level vary at the state level. For example, transportation plays a
much larger role in emissions at the state level. This can be partially attributed to the fact that
the national values are an average of all state values. A high value of emissions in a particular
category for any one state (e.g. agriculture emissions from corn production in Iowa) will affect
the total national percentages, even though not all states exhibit high agriculture emissions.
The emissions information and climate changes specific to Virginia provided by this inventory
will be greatly useful to the Commission on Climate Change as they identify subsequent steps
that need to be taken to achieve the State’s emissions reduction goal.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 15
County Level
In July 2007 twelve pioneering U.S. counties representing over 17 million people, including
King County, Washington, and Fairfax County, Virginia, launched “Cool Counties,” more
formally known as “The U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Initiative.” In signing the
associated declaration, these counties committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by
80% by 2050 and helping their communities become resilient to consequent changes.
On December 5, 2007 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors signed the U.S. Cool Counties
Climate Stabilization Declaration, joining other counties across the nation who have pledged to
reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. The County plans to follow the Five Milestones set forth by
ICLEI to achieve this goal.
The ICLEI Program
The International Committee on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), commonly referred to
as “Local Governments for Sustainability,” is an international association that works with
various local governments to support sustainable development practices. Their basic premise is
that “locally designed initiatives can provide an effective and cost-efficient way to achieve local,
national, and global sustainability objectives.” ICLEI's international performance-based and
results-oriented programs currently lend support to over 1,027 cities, towns, counties and other
associations worldwide. An example of ICLEI's value in providing guidance is evident in their
“Five Milestones,” which aim to help jurisdictions achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction
goals. The Five Milestones are summarized below.
Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emission inventory
The baseline inventory will serve as a reference against which to measure future greenhouse gas
emission reductions. More specifically, a baseline analysis will reveal which activities are
causing greenhouse gas emissions, and quantify those contributions. The inventory is broken
down into 2 modules: “Community” and “Government”. The former includes residential,
commercial, transportation and industrial sectors, while the latter includes government
buildings, employee commute, public schools, and vehicle fleet. The sum of all these sector
emissions yields the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the County of Albemarle for
the year 2000, our baseline year.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 16
Milestone 2: Set a target for greenhouse gas reduction
By participating in Cool Counties, the County has pledged to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.
However, ICLEI recommends setting further interim targets to set and track more immediate
goals. The County may choose, for example, to set an interim goal for the forecast year of 2020.
Milestone 3: Establish a local action plan
An action plan including specific policies, programs and projects details how the local
government plans to reach emission reduction targets by the target year. See “Part 5. Develop
Local Action Plan” in this report for further details on the County’s planned approach for this
milestone.
Milestone 4: Implement the local action plan
This stage involves the implementation of policies, programs and projects outlined in the local
action plan. In addition to implementation, ICLEI recommends routinely updating the
greenhouse gas emissions inventory to track emission reduction progress.
Milestone 5: Assess, report, and modify local action plan
Ongoing periodic review, progress assessment and public reporting are critical to the
achievement of emission reduction goals. The local action plan should, therefore, be modified
to account for the latest changes in federal policies, latest technologies, etc.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 17
PART 3. BASELINE INVENTORY
Methodology
ICLEI’s Milestone 1, “Conduct a Baseline Inventory” involves an audit of activities known to
cause or release emissions during the baseline year. The Kyoto Protocol calls for a reduction of
emissions in developed countries by 5% relative to a baseline year of 1990. However, due to
difficulty in accessing accurate records of community and government utility use from the year
1990, the County is using a baseline year of 2000. This is consistent with the City of
Charlottesville’s, the University of Virginia's, and the State of Virginia’s baselines and should
aid any future collaboration on emission reduction measures between these organizations.
In accordance with ICLEI guidelines, an interim year was chosen to track changes in emissions
over the intervening years. The County chose 2006 as its interim year in order to assess the
impact of energy efficiency-related initiatives implemented in the Municipal sector between
2000 and 2006. Also following ICLEI guidelines, a forecast year was chosen - the year 2020 - to
project emissions based on a “business-as-usual” growth scenario. The forecast year’s data
serves as an indicator of how the County’s emissions would progress over the intervening years
in the absence of reduction measures.
The baseline inventory was tabulated using ICLEI’s “Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP)”
software. The CACP software is an important tool that helps local governments tabulate their
emissions. The software computes emissions values and provides users with a standardized
methodology to report the impact of their actions. The CACP software breaks down emission
categories into seven sectors and any corresponding subsectors. See Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: Baseline inventory sectors and subsectors.
Baseline
Residential
Commercial
Transportation
Industrial
Other
Waste
Municipal
Streetlights Employee
Commute
Vehicle
Fleet
Government
Buildings
Closed
Landfill
Agriculture
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 18
Data Collection
Residential, Commercial and Industrial Energy Use
Dominion Virginia Power and American Electric Power provided electricity consumption for
the residential, commercial and industrial sectors for the baseline year 2000 and the interim year
2006. Natural gas information was obtained from the City of Charlottesville. All other fuel
consumption (e.g. coal, light fuel oil, propane, etc.) was determined using State and County
census data. The University of Virginia was fully accounted for in the City of Charlottesville’s
inventory and therefore was excluded in the County’s inventory to avoid double-counting.
Transportation
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) reports the daily vehicle miles traveled on
all primary roads in the County of Albemarle for any given year. This information was used to
calculate vehicle miles driven by County residents annually. National average percentages for
commuting methods (e.g. personal vehicle, carpool, public transit, etc.) provided by the U.S.
Department of Transportation were used to further categorize the annual miles driven for entry
into the CACP software.
Waste
The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) provided information regarding the amount of
waste processed annually at the Ivy Transfer Station and the Allied Waste Zion Crossroads
Transfer Station. National averages for waste types (e.g. paper, food, vegetative, etc.) were used
to categorize the total waste values for entry into the software.
Other
o Closed Landfill: Keene
Necessary information for calculating emissions from waste-in-place at the Keene
Landfill, which was closed in 1990, was available from within the General Services
Department. The City of Charlottesville included the closed Ivy Landfill in its baseline
inventory, so it was excluded in the County’s inventory to avoid double-counting.
o Agriculture
Emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management were calculated using
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology. Census data at the
national, state and local levels were obtained from corresponding online databases to
tabulate methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Refer to Appendix A for
detailed agriculture emissions methodology.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 19
Municipal
o Government Buildings
Energy consumption for County office buildings, Court Square, the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Regional Jail, the Blue Ridge Detention Center and other municipal buildings
was obtained from the corresponding departments. The School Division’s Building
Services Department provided energy consumption information for all School Division
facilities. When information was not immediately available, past utility bills were
located at the County’s storage facility.
o Vehicle Fleet
The County’s Vehicle Maintenance Facility provided detailed fuel consumption for the
County’s vehicle fleet (e.g. fire trucks, school buses, etc.) for the baseline year 2000 and
interim year 2006. Vehicle and fuel classification types were used to enter fuel
consumption into the software.
o Employee Commute
The County’s Geographic Data Services (GDS) Department calculated the shortest
distance traveled by each employee to work. National average percentages for
commuting methods (e.g. personal vehicle, carpool, public transit, etc.) were used to
categorize total vehicle miles traveled by government employees for entry into the
software. Refer to Appendix B for detailed employee commute methodology.
o Streetlights
Dominion Virginia Power provided electricity consumption data for all streetlights for
which the County is responsible.
County Office Building, McIntire Road Hollymead Fire Station
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 20
Part 4. Baseline Results
Summary
Table 3: Baseline, interim and forecast year emissions data. 1 ton = 2,000 lbs.
In 2000 the County of Albemarle emitted a total
of 1,503,163 eCO2 tons. Thus, the 84,186
residents of the County emitted approximately
17.9 tons of eCO2 each.
In comparison, the City of
Charlottesville averaged 21.7 tons of
eCO2 emissions per capita in 2000.
The transportation sector comprises 52.1% of the County's baseline emissions. Residential and
commercial are the two other significant sectors, contributing 27.0% and 11.5% respectively to
total emissions.
Figure 7: Greenhouse gas emissions for Albemarle County in 2000 as a percentage of eCO2 tons.
Residential
27.0
Commercial
11.5
Industrial
1.9
Transportation
52.1
Waste
0.1
Other
3.8
Municipal*
3.6
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector:
Albemarle County, 2000
*Municipal sector includes:
Buildings
Streetlights
Employee commutes
Vehicle fleet
Year
Energy Use
Million British Thermal Units
(MMBtu)
Total eCO2 Emissions
(Tons)
2000 13,132,671 1,503,163
2006 14,923,434 1,688,426
2020 Projection 18,424,667 2,034,650
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 21
Criteria air pollutant emissions are depicted in Figure 8. The most significant air pollutant
emissions arose from the transportation sector. Carbon monoxide (CO) is emitted as a
byproduct from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles.
Figure 8: Criteria air pollutants emissions for the year 2000 in Albemarle County. The carbon
monoxide (CO) spike in the Transportation sector represents emissions from motor vehicles.
In 2006 total County emissions increased to 1,780,476 eCO2 tons. Specific sector-related changes
are depicted on the next page in Figure 9.
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000 Pollutant Emissions (lbs)Sector
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Albemarle County, 2000
NOx (lbs)
SOx (lbs)
CO (lbs)
PM-10 (lbs)
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 22
Figure 9: Greenhouse gas emission comparisons between the baseline year (2000) and the interim year (2006) for
Albemarle County. All sectors showed an increase in GHG emissions except for the Commercial and Other sectors.
The CACP software allows for projections up to the year 2020 based on a “business-as-usual”
scenario. This scenario assumes that governments, companies or individuals will not take any
actions specifically directed at limiting greenhouse emissions. The projected emissions for 2020
in this “business as usual” scenario are 2,034,650 eCO2 tons.
By adopting the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration, the County pledged to reduce
emissions by 80% by the year 2050, or 2% per year beginning in 2010. Thus by the year 2020, the
County would have to reduce emissions by 20% from its baseline emissions, or to 1,202,530 tons of
eCO2 (Figure 10) in order to meet this target.
405,974
173,148
28,067
783,196
2,205
57,042 53,531
428,308
171,905
105,235
850,597
6,826 38,790
86,765
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
eCO2(tons)Sector
Change in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Albemarle County, 2000 vs. 2006
County of Albemarle, VA
Figure 10:
Emissions Baseline Report
Figure 10: Baseline, Interim and Forecast year emissions data.
23
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 24
Residential Sector
The residential sector is the second largest contributing sector to eCO2 emissions in the County.
27.0% of all County emissions in 2000 are attributed to residential buildings. The fuel sources of
these emissions are shown in Figure 11 below. Emission factors provided by the CACP
software were used to determine the emission levels resulting from each fuel source.
Figure 11: Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by fuel type in residential sector.
Electricity accounted for the vast majorit of residential sector emissions. Light fuel oil, natural
gas, and propane accounted for the bulk of remaining emissions.
Resulting criteria air pollutant emissions in the residential sector are shown on the next page in
Figure 12. These emissions include those generated from mining the source to refining
processes to delivery to consumption. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the burning of fossil
fuels, nitrous oxide (NOx ), carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from electric utilities, and
particulate matter (PM10) from factories all contributed to air pollution.
Electricity
87%
Natural Gas
4%
Coal
0%
Light Fuel
Oil
6%Propane
3%Fuelwood
0%
Emissions Based on Source in Residential Sector
Albemarle County, 2000
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 25
Figure 12: Criteria air pollutant emissions from residential energy consumption.
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
NOx SOx CO PM-10Pollutant Emissions (lbs)Criteria Air Pollutant
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Residential Sector
Albemarle County, 2000
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 26
Commercial Sector
The Commercial sector contributed 11.5% to total baseline emissions for the County. Over 97%
of the energy consumed in this sector was electricity (Figure 13). Natural gas trailed a distant
second, providing 3% of energy consumption.
Figure 13: Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by fuel type in Commercial sector.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 27
The two most significant criteria air pollutants emitted from the Commercial sector are sulfur
dioxide (SO2) from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions from electric
utilities (Figure 14).
Figure 14: Criteria air pollutant emissions from commercial energy consumption.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Commercial Sector
Albemarle County, 2000
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
NOx SOx CO PM-10
Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs)
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 28
Industrial Sector
The Industrial sector contributed only 1.9% to total County emissions for the year 2000. Similar
to the Commercial sector, electricity was the dominant source of energy consumed in this sector
(Figure 15). Trace quantities of propane, natural gas, light fuel oil, and coal were also
consumed.
Figure 15: Greenhouse gas emissions broken down by fuel type in Industrial sector.
Note: The emissions from this sector only take into account the energy consumption by the
facilities themselves (e.g. electricity), not any supplemental emissions from industrial processes.
It is also important to note that buildings within this sector were differentiated from the
Commercial sector based on Dominion Virginia Power’s unique classifications. Dominion
noted that some of the buildings included in the Industrial sector, for example, could actually be
large “commercial” buildings, rather than facilities generally identified with industrial
processes (e.g. an asphalt plant).
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 29
Emissions of electricity-related pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxides (NOx)
dominated this sector (Figure 16).
Figure 16: Criteria air pollutant emissions from industrial consumption.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Industrial Secto r
Albemarle County, 2000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
NOx SOx CO PM-10
Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs)
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 30
Transportation Sector
Constituting 52.1% of the County’s total greenhouse gas emissions, transportation was the
largest contributor to our baseline emissions. The Virginia Department of Transportation’s
reports were used to determine miles traveled on all primary roads within the County’s
boundaries (and outside the City of Charlottesville limits) for the year 2000. National estimates
for vehicle mode of transportation provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation were
used to break down vehicle miles traveled, as well as fuel and vehicle types used. Figure 17
depicts the resulting emissions categorized by fuel source.
Figure 17: Greenhouse gas emissions based on fuel source for the Transportation sector.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 31
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a common byproduct of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in
motor vehicles. Thus, it is the leading criteria air pollutant arising from the Transportation
sector (Figure 18). Nitrous oxides (NOx) are another significant pollutant resulting from the
combustion processes of vehicles.
Figure 18: Criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation-related energy consumption.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Transportation Sector
Albemarle County, 2000
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
NOx SOx CO PM-10
Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs)
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 32
Waste Sector
Comparatively, the waste sector produced an insignificant volume of greenhouse gas emissions
in the County in the year 2000. County residents collectively dispose of approximately 124 tons
of waste each day. Across the U.S., however, this value increases to 700,000 tons. Furthermore,
for every ton of municipal waste generated downstream, there is a corresponding 70 tons of
manufacturing waste generated upstream. So waste, in general, is not insignificant.
Greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) are emitted during the decomposition of waste. The
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) operates a transfer station in Ivy, and all waste from
that facility is transferred to a privately-owned landfill in Amelia County, VA. In addition,
RSWA contracts with Allied Waste to receive waste from the City of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County at its Zion Crossroads facility. All waste from this facility is then sent to the
Henrico County, VA landfill. The waste figures in this sector account for the waste transferred
through the Ivy Transfer Station and the Allied Waste Transfer Station for the year 2000. The
total greenhouse gas emissions from waste disposed of in 2000 were calculated and plotted
below (Figure 19).
Figure 19: Greenhouse gas emissions from waste decomposition.
Methane (CH4) is the primary greenhouse gas produced in the decomposition of paper products
and food waste. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is consumed in the decomposition of plant debris and
other wood materials. Thus, CO2 is actually removed from the atmosphere as these latter two
products degrade over time, causing eCO2 emissions to be negative in these categories.
Emissions Based on Source in Waste Sector
Albemarle County, 2000
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Paper Products Food Waste Plant Debris Wood/Textiles
Waste TypeeCO2 (metric tons)
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 33
“Other” Sector
This sector accounts for emitters of greenhouse gases or pollutants not accounted for in any
other sector. Agricultural emissions and waste-in-place emissions from the closed Keene
Landfill are included in this sector. Overall, this sector accounts for 3.8% of total baseline
emissions for the County. Note: The City of Charlottesville included emissions from the closed
Ivy Landfill in their baseline, so this was left out of the County’s baseline to avoid double-
counting.
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) methodology guidelines were used to
calculate agricultural emissions. These emissions account for enteric fermentation (animal
digestive processes) and manure management processes. For specific, detailed methodology,
refer to Appendix A.
Although the Keene Landfill was closed in 1990, existing waste in the closed landfill continues
to decompose and generate greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions account for the
remaining 37% of emissions in the “Other” sector (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural processes and the closed Keene Landfill.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 34
Municipal Sector
Due to readily-available information, the Municipal sector’s energy consumption can be
categorized into four subsectors: government buildings, employee commute, vehicle fleet, and
streetlights. The breakdown of emissions among these subsectors is shown in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Emissions broken down by subsectors within the Municipal sector.
Government buildings comprise almost half of Municipal emissions. These include all
government-owned-and-operated buildings such as schools, county office buildings, fire
stations, etc.
Note: The Blue Ridge Detention Center is wholly accounted for in the County’s baseline and
interim year emissions even though it is used by other municipalities as well.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 35
Employee commuting accounts for 38% of the emissions from the Municipal sector. This
subsector includes emissions associated with travel to and from work by County employees.
Using home and work addresses catalogued, the Geographic Data Services (GDS) Department
calculated the shortest distance traveled by each employee from their home to their work
address. The remaining 15% of this sector’s emissions arise from vehicle fleet use. These
include all government-owned vehicles such as school buses, fire trucks, and County fleet
vehicles. Information regarding the vehicle, fuel types and amount of fuel consumed were
provided by the Vehicle Maintenance Facility for entry into the software.
A small fraction of these emissions can be attributed to streetlights. Streetlight electricity
consumption was calculated by compiling utility bills from Dominion Virginia Power.
Figure 22: Criteria air pollutant emissions from the Municipal sector.
Government building and government transportation emissions mainly include carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrous oxides (NOx) (Figure 22). The majority of
emissions come from CO, since more than half of the emissions in this sector arise from fossil
fuel combustion in motor vehicles.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions in Municipal Sector
Albemarle County, 2000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
NOx SOx CO PM-10
Criteria Air PollutantPollutant Emissions (lbs)
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 36
Trends
Interim Year Emissions: 2006
Figure 23: 2006 interim year emissions.
An interim year of 2006 was chosen to track emissions growth since the baseline year 2000.
Residential emissions increased by about 3.4%, while the industrial sector increased by nearly
275%.
Emissions from the Transportation sector increased from 783,196 tons in 2000 to 850,597 tons in
2006. Although this sector experienced an absolute increase, in 2006 it accounted for only 50.4%
of total emissions. This indicates that overall County emissions rose more rapidly than
Transportation sector emissions.
The Municipal sector also increased its total emissions in 2006 primarily because of the
increased number of buildings that fell under the County’s jurisdiction between 2000 and 2006.
The County assumed greater overhead energy consumption with the opening of the 5th Street
County Office Building and the Monticello Fire Station. In addition, the Charlottesville-UVa-
Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center (ECC/911) was wholly accounted for in
this sector for the year 2006, since the City of Charlottesville included it in their baseline
emission calculations but exempted it from their interim year calculations.
Residential
25.4
Commercial
10.2
Industrial
6.2
Transportation
50.4
Waste
0.4
Other
2.3
Municipal*
5.1
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector:
Albemarle County, 2006
*Municipal sector includes:
Buildings
Streetlights
Employee commutes
Vehicle fleet
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 37
Forecast Year Emissions: Year 2020
A forecast year of 2020 was chosen in order to be consistent with the City of Charlottesville’s
future projections. The CACP software estimates that emissions will increase to 2,034,650 tons
of eCO2 under the “business-as-usual” scenario. However, this estimation most likely
underestimates what the actual emissions would be, since other institutions will likely fall
under the County’s jurisdiction by 2020. Most notably, in the Community sector, Martha
Jefferson Hospital (which is now accounted for in the City of Charlottesville’s emissions) will
move into the County’s emissions calculations from the year 2012 onwards. Another example is
the new Hollymead Fire Station, which will increase Municipal sector emissions.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 38
PART 5. LOCAL CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING PROCESS
Because the forecasted 2020 projection is lower than our baseline emissions, and much lower
than our “business as usual” projection, it is important to realize that without aggressively
implementing climate protection measures, we will not be able to meet our overall target of 80%
emissions reduction by the year 2050. This is indicated in Figure 10, wherein from 2000 to 2006
we observed constant increase in emissions and we predicted further increase under a
“business as usual” scenario.
Therefore, the next necessary step is to engage in a Local Climate Action Planning Process. The
Board of Supervisors and County staff, along with officials from the City of Charlottesville and
the University of Virginia, have expressed a keen interest in collaborating on such a process. In
January 2009 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council
unanimously passed resolutions in support of the County, City and University working
together to address energy efficiency and climate change (see Appendix E for Board of
Supervisors Resolution).
On a Collaborative Approach
In December 2007 Governor Kaine established the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change
to address global warming and its impacts on Virginia. The Commission was comprised of
over 40 citizens who were “broadly expert and philosophically diverse.” Their final report,
published in December 2008, includes many useful recommendations that will inform public
policy and legislation in the short and long-term. Governor Kaine understood that emissions
causing climate change are linked to fossil fuel energy use, and this use encompasses topics as
diverse as land use planning, transportation, the built environment, industry, waste
management, and renewable energy.
The use of a Steering Committee and Focus Groups is typically considered “best practice” to
build community consensus and involvement with respect to a complicated issue. As is evident
in this baseline report, the majority of the County’s emissions result from the residential,
transportation, and commercial sectors of our community (as opposed to industry or
agriculture). To address them, we will have to garner the support and participation of the
public in programs and initiatives proposed. Not only will the Steering Committee and Focus
Groups provide insight into stakeholder positions, they will also vet proposals and strategies,
and help communicate outcomes to the community at large. The Steering Committee’s
composition of influential representatives from the County, City, and UVa – coupled with the
participation of well-respected members of our community – will help ensure that
recommendations for strategies and programs are relevant, practical, and will serve to further
the collective good.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 39
While staff cannot predict the details of the final Local Climate Action Plan at this stage, our
goal is to find ways to work collaboratively on issues that affect us all, and in doing so pool our
resources and maximize impact. One example of an issue that affects us all is energy efficiency.
Is it possible for our area to develop a large-scale, self-funded energy efficiency program similar
to the Cambridge Energy Alliance (CEA) developed in Cambridge, Massachusetts? Such a
program would help lower the community’s carbon footprint, save participants money, and
provide exciting educational and outreach opportunities to UVa faculty and students. With
respect to a Local Climate Action Plan, it is expected that each organization will continue to
focus on issues particular to their budget, administration, and goals, while also exploring
synergistic ways to work together. Lastly, this approach will give us all the opportunity to
better understand each entity’s strengths and limitations when it comes to addressing climate
change in our community.
Our goal is to establish a Steering Committee in early 2009 and quickly begin the Local Climate
Action Planning Process. It is anticipated that outcomes from this process will shape public
policies and programs as we individually and collectively look to reduce our contribution to the
world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Steering Committee will ultimately issue a report
outlining strategies that are particular to each organization, as well as those that present shared
opportunities. In the end, each participating entity will have to determine what is appropriate
for implementation and how that implementation will take place. However, the expectation is
that in those areas where cooperation and synergy are needed, Charlottesville, UVa, and
Albemarle will share an approach.
Figure 24 below is a graph depicting a combined baseline inventory (year 2000) for the City and
the County. This figure underscores the need to work together in order to maximize our
impact, and also illustrates the necessity of involving representatives from all sectors at the
beginning of this process. Furthermore, since many residents’ lives cross City-County lines
multiple times a day, and staff who work at UVa are also members of our greater community, it
makes sense that this issue be addressed collaboratively.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 40
Figure 24: Combined regional emissions for the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. The University
of Virginia was included within the commercial sector of the City of Charlottesville’s baseline emissions.
"Much more likely than not, global warming is upon us. We should expect weather patterns to
continue to change and the seas continue to rise, in an ever worsening pattern, in our lifetimes
and on into our grandchildren's. The question has graduated from the scientific community:
climate change is a major social, economic, and political issue. Nearly everyone in the world will
need to adjust."
Spencer R. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming
Residential
23.9%
Commercial
27.0%
Industrial
1.4%
Transporation
39.0%
Waste
0.9%
Agriculture &
Other
4.1%Municipal
3.6%
Regional (City & County) Emissions:
2000 eCO2 Baseline
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 41
GLOSSARY
Baseline Year – A specific year of emissions against which future emissions and emission
targets are measured against; the year itself is typically 1990 or 2000 depending on the
institution’s availability of resources.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – The most common greenhouse gas, consisting of a single carbon atom
and two oxygen atoms. CO2 is released by respiration, the burning of fossil fuels, and is
removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis in green plants. During pre-industrial times,
the CO2 concentration was measured to be approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In 1990,
this value increased by 25% to 353 ppm. Current values of CO2 are the highest they have been
in the last 160,000 years. CO2 concentrations are increasing at an annual rate of 0.5% (or 1.8
ppm) due to anthropogenic emissions.
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent – See “eCO2.”
eCO2 – Also known as “carbon dioxide equivalent”, a common unit for combining emissions of
greenhouse gases with different levels of impact on climate change. It is based on the global
warming potential of each greenhouse gas. For carbon dioxide itself, emissions in tons of CO2
and tons of eCO2 are the same, whereas for nitrous oxide and methane, stronger greenhouse
gases, one ton of emissions are equal to 310 tons and 21 tons of eCO2 respectively.
Emission Factors – These factors denote the ratio of emissions of a particular pollutant (e.g.,
carbon dioxide) to the quantity of the fuel used.
Emissions Inventory – The quantification of all emission-related activities within a
jurisdiction’s boundaries during a particular year.
Enteric Fermentation – Enteric fermentation occurs when methane (CH4) is produced in the
rumen of animals such as cattle, as microbial fermentation takes place. Most of the CH4
byproduct is belched by the animal; however, a small percentage of CH4 is also produced in the
large intestine and passed out as gas.
Forecast Year – Any future year in which predictions are estimated for through growth
multipliers applied to the base year.
Greenhouse Effect – A naturally occurring process whereby the lower atmosphere and the
earth’s surface is heated because infrared energy emitted by the earth is reflected back towards
the earth by greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) – Gases which reflect part of the earth’s emitted infrared radiation.
Includes CO2, H2O, CH4, N2O, SF6, PFCs, HFCs, etc.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 42
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – GHGs used primarily as refrigerants; composed of hydrogen,
fluorine, and carbon.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – An organization established jointly by
the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988
to assess information in the scientific and technical literature related to all significant issues
relating to climate change. IPCC publications provide a technical analysis of the science behind
climate change and guidance on quantification procedures for GHG emissions.
Interim Year – Any year for which an emissions inventory is completed that falls between the
baseline year and the target year. Completing an emissions inventory for an interim year is
useful in determining a jurisdiction’s progress towards meeting their emission reduction goals.
Kilowatt Hour (KWh) – The electrical energy unit of measure equal to one thousand watts of
power supplied to, or taken from, an electric circuit steadily for one hour. (A Watt is the unit of
electrical power equal to a current of one ampere under a potential difference of one volt, or
1/746 horsepower.)
Local Action Plan – A comprehensive plan for a community that includes an emissions
analysis, emissions reduction target, emissions reduction strategy, and emissions reduction
implementation strategy.
Methane (CH4) – A GHG resulting from the anaerobic decomposition of vegetative materials in
wetlands, urban landfills, and rice paddies, the production and distribution of natural gas and
petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion. The principle constituent of
natural gas, methane is a single carbon atom linked to four hydrogen atoms.
Methane Recovery Factor – A measurement of the percentage of methane produced that is
being captured at a landfill. For example, a landfill that is capped, lined, and has a methane
extraction system that effectively captures all released methane would have a Methane
Recovery Factor of 100.
Metric Ton(ne) – Common international measurement for the quantity of GHG emissions,
equivalent to 1000 kilograms, or about 2,204.6 pounds or 1.1 short tons.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) – A potent GHG produced in relatively small quantities. It is composed
of a two nitrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom and is typically generated as a result of soil
cultivation practices, particularly during commercial and organic fertilizer use, fossil fuel
combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 43
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) – A class of GHGs consisting of carbon and fluorine compounds.
Originally introduced as alternatives to ozone depleting substances, they are typically emitted
as by-products of industrial and manufacturing processes.
Sectors – Within CACP, records are organized into sectors that contain similar related activities
or emissions sources. The sectors for the community module include: Residential, Commercial,
Industrial, Transportation, Waste, and Other. The sectors in the municipal module include:
Buildings, Vehicle Fleet, Employee Commute, Streetlights, Sewage, Waste, and Other.
Sink – Any process, activity or mechanism that results in the net removal of greenhouse gases
from the atmosphere.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) – a GHG consisting of a single sulfur atom and six fluoride atoms.
Primarily used in electrical transmission and distribution systems.
Target Year – The year by which the emissions reduction target should be achieved. Often also
used as a “Forecast Year.”
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – An international
environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The UNFCCC provides an overall framework for
international efforts to mitigate climate change. The Kyoto Protocol is a revised version of the
UNFCCC.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – Annual vehicle miles traveled in an area. Distance traveled
on roads is routinely calculated by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 44
REFERENCES
Bryant Jr., L. P. (Honorable). 2008. Final Report: A Climate Change Action Plan. Governor’s
Commission on Climate Change. Accessed online at
<http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/info/documents/climate/CCC_Final_Rep
ort-Final_12152008.pdf>.
Clean Air-Cool Planet. 2008. Campus Action Toolkit. Accessed online at <http://www.cleanair-
coolplanet.org/toolkit/>.
Energy Information Administration. 2008. Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy.
Brochure #L DOE/EIA-X012. Accessed online at
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm>.
Environment California Research & Policy Center. 2007. When It Rains, It Pours: Global
Warming and the Rising Frequency of Extreme Precipitation in the United States. Accessed
online at <http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming-
reports2/when-it-rains-it-pours-global-warming-and-the-rising-frequency-of-extreme-
precipitation-in-the-united-states>.
EPA. 2006. High GWP Gases and Climate Change. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed
online at <http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html>.
EPA (2007 a). Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. National Center
for Environmental Publications, pp 393.
EPA. 2008. Executive Summary. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2006. Accessed online at
<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html>.
Governor’s Commission on Climate Change. 2008. Final Report. Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality. Accessed online at
<http://www.deq.virginia.gov/info/climatechange.html>.
ICLEI. 2008. About ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. Accessed online at
<http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-about-iclei>.
IPCC. 2006. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed online at
<http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html>.
Ireland, C. 2008. Gore: Universities have important role in sustainability. Harvard News Office.
Accessed online at <http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/10.23/99-gore.html>.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. 2006. Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change.
Bloomsbury Publishing. 225 p.
Miller-Rushing, A.J. et al. 2008. Bird migration times, climate change, and changing population
sizes. Global Change Biology 14:1959–1972.
National Assessment Synthesis Team. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. US Global Change Research
Program, Washington DC, 2000. Accessed online at
<http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overview.htm>.
Personal Communication: Vivian Thomson. EVSC 230: Introduction to Environmental
Policymaking Class Notes.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 45
Pew Commission (2008). Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in
America: A report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. The Pew
Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. 2008. Presentations/Reports. Accessed online at
<http://www.rivanna.org/documents/rswafiles/report_annualfinancial_fy2008.pdf>.
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006). Livestock’s Long
Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations: Rome, Italy.
U.S. Cool Counties. 2007. What is the Cool Counties Initiative? King County. Accessed online at
<http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/coolcounties.aspx>.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 46
APPENDIX A: AGRICULTURE METHODOLOGY
The Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software breaks down greenhouse gas emissions
by source into six major sectors (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). A seventh sector
was added labeled “Other” to account for emissions not already included by the remaining
sectors. Agricultural emissions from the County of Albemarle’s livestock and related waste
were included under this seventh sector.
The CACP software does not include an agriculture section in the software most likely due to data
unavailability and the complexity of calculations. Furthermore, currently, most of the communities that
conduct GHG inventories are urban so there has been little need for them to streamline calculation of
agriculture emissions (Sonoma County GHG).
Agricultural activities contribute directly to emissions of greenhouse gases through a variety of
processes (EPA 2008). Animals produce greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide
during the digestion process. Other greenhouse gases, primarily nitrous oxide, arise from the
microbial degradation of manure. Additional emissions result from degradation processes in
uncovered waste lagoons and anaerobic digesters (Pew Center 2008). Refer to Table 1 below for
additional breakdowns of contributing agricultural activities.
Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the primary greenhouse gases emitted by agricultural
activities. CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management represent about 23% and
7% of total CH4 emissions from anthropogenic activities, respectively. Of all domestic animal types, beef
and dairy cattle are by far the largest emitters of CH4. Rice cultivation and field burning of agricultural
residues are minor sources of CH4. Agricultural soil management activities such as fertilizer application
and other cropping practices were the largest source of U.S. N2O emissions, accounting for 72%. Manure
management and field burning of agricultural residues were also small sources of N2O emissions (EPA
2008).
Table 4. Primary greenhouse gas emissions broken down by agricultural activities.
CH4 N2O
Enteric Fermentation Ö
Manure Management Ö Ö
Rice Cultivation Ö
Agricultural Soil
Management
Ö
Field Burning of
Agricultural Residues
Ö Ö
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 47
Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from all livestock operations account for 18% of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding those from the transportation sector (Steinfeld et. al., 2006). In the
United States, agriculture accounts for 7.4% of the total US release of greenhouse gases (EPA 2007a).
At the county level, agriculture emissions account for approximately 1.5% of the County of Albemarle’s
baseline emissions.
CH4 Emissions
Enteric Fermentation
Background
Enteric fermentation is a normal digestive process in animals (EPA 2008). Carbohydrates are
broken down by micro-organisms into simple molecules which the animals’ bodies can use
more readily (IPCC 2006). CH4 is released as a by-product of this process through either
exhalation or eructation1 by the animal. The amount of CH4 released is a function of the animal
characteristics (i.e., age, weight, type of digestive tract) and feed characteristics (i.e., quantity
and quality). For example, cattle emit more CH4 than swine on a per-animal basis because the
former digest coarse plant material in their large “fore-stomach” while the latter digest food in
their large intestines (EPA 2008).
Methodology
The IPCC has outlined three approaches to calculating CH4 emissions from enteric
fermentation: Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. These tiers increase in complexity and require more
detailed data as they progress from Tiers 1 to 3. Due to the lack of detail in animal population
characteristics, the Tier 1 approach was used to determine emissions from enteric fermentation.
The steps taken to calculate the emissions are detailed below:
Step 1: Determine Animal Population Data
Animal population data for the years 20002 and 20063 for the County of Albemarle were
determined using the United States Department of Interior’s Census of Agriculture4. The
animal populations were broken down into: dairy cattle5, non-dairy cattle, swine6, horses,
sheep, and goats.
1 Act of belching.
2 The census is taken at 5-year intervals: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, so on. The average of the 1997 and 2002
population data was calculated to estimate the size of the animal populations for 2000, our baseline year.
3 2007 animal population data was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the 2006 animal data.
4 which was accessed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/
5 Also known as milk cows
6 Also known as hogs and pigs
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 48
Step 2: Determine Emission Factors
Due to lack of state-specific emission factors, countrywide emission factors provided by the
IPCC were used.
Step 3: Calculate Emissions for Each Livestock Category
The emissions for each livestock category were calculated by using Equation 10.19 in the IPCC
methodology:
EQUATION 10.19
ENTERIC FERMENTATION EMISSIONS FROM A LIVESTOCK CATEGORY
Emissions = EF(T)*(N(T))
Where:
Emissions = Methane emissions from Enteric Fermentation, Gg C H4 yr-1
EF(T) = Emission factor for the defined livestock population, kg CH4 head-1 yr-1
N(T) = The number of head of livestock species / category T in the county (in millions)
T = Species/category of livestock (e.g., swine or dairy cattle)
Step 4: Calculate Total Emissions
To estimate total emission, the emissions for each livestock category from above were summed
together.
EQUATION 10.20
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK ENTERIC FERMENTATION
Total CH4,Enteric = ∑Ei
Where:
Total CH4Enteric = Total methane emissions from Enteric Fermentation, Gg CH4 yr-1
Ei = Emissions for the ith livestock categories and subcategories
Table 2 below summarizes the enteric fermentation emissions from livestock contributing to the
County of Albemarle’s baseline emissions.
Table 5. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation of livestock broken down by categories.
Animal Type
2000
Estimated
Census
Emissions Factor
(Kg CH4/head/yr)
Enteric Emissions
(Gg CH4/yr)
Milk Cows 658 121 0.079618
Non-dairy cattle 26283 53 1.392999
Hogs and pigs aka swine 235 1.5 0.0003525
Horses and ponies 2669 18 0.048033
Sheep and lambs 2013 8 0.0161
Goats 240 5 0.0011975
Total CH4 Enteric
Fermentation Emissions 1.5383
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 49
Manure Management
Background
Decomposition of manure7 under anaerobic8 conditions, during storage and treatment,
produces CH4. These anaerobic conditions occur most readily when large numbers of animals
are managed in a confined area (e.g., beef feedlots, swine farms, etc.), and where manure is
disposed of in liquid-based systems. This section of the methodology accounts for CH4
emissions related to manure handling and storage. Similar to enteric fermentation emissions,
there are three tiers or approaches to accounting methane emissions from manure management
practices. Unlike the previous agricultural activity, there were sufficient data available to use
the Tier 2 approach in calculating these emissions. This new approach required the calculation
of County of Albemarle specific emission factors through a modified version of Step 2 from the
previous section. Thus, a combination of IPCC equations and Virginia-specific emission factors
were used to tally methane emissions from manure management.
Methodology
Tier 2
A more complex method for estimating CH4 emissions from manure management should be used where a
particular livestock species/category represents a significant share of a country’s emissions. This method
requires detailed information on animal characteristics and manure management practices, which is used
to develop emission factors specific to the conditions of the country (IPCC 2006).
Step 1: Determine Animal Population Data
Animal population data for the years 20009 and 200610 for the County of Albemarle were
determined using the United States Department of Interior’s Census of Agriculture11. The
animal populations were broken down into: dairy cattle12, non-dairy cattle, swine13, horses,
sheep, and goats.
Step 2: Calculate Emission Factors for Each Livestock Category
Equation 10.23 in the IPCC methodology was used to calculate specific manure management
methane emission factors for the County of Albemarle. Due to incompatible units, default VS
values provided by IPCC were used. US-specific Bo values were used as listed in the US
Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks (EPA 2008). Virginia-specific manure distribution and
7 ‘Manure’ means both dung and urine (solid and liquid) produced by livestock (IPCC).
8 In the absence of oxygen
9 The census is taken at 5-year intervals: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, so on. The average of the 1997 and 2002
population data was calculated to estimate the size of the animal populations for 2000, our baseline year.
10 2007 animal population data was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the 2006 animal data.
11 which was accessed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/
12 Also known as milk cows
13 Also known as hogs and pigs
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 50
corresponding methane conversion factors listed in the EPA’s report were used to determine
each manure management system’s MS and MCF values.
EQUATION 10.23
METHANE EMISSION FACTOR FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
EF(T)=(VS (T)*365)*[Bo(T)*0.67 kg/m3*∑MCFS,k/100*MS(T,S,k)
Where:
EF(T) = Annual methane emission factor for livestock category T, kg CH4/animal/year
VS (T) = Daily volatile solid excreted by livestock category T, kg dry matter/animal/day
365 = Basis for calculating annual VS production, days/yr
Bo(T) = Maximum methane producing capacity for manure produced by livestock category T, m3
CH4/kg of VS excreted
0.67 kg/m3 = Conversion factor of m3 CH4 to kilograms CH4
∑MCFS,k= Methane conversion factors for each manure management system S by climate region
k, %
MS(T,S,k) = Fraction of livestock category T’s manure handled using manure management system
S in climate region k, dimensionless
Step 3: Calculate Emissions for Each Livestock Category
Each livestock category emissions factors were multiplied by their corresponding population
sizes to estimate subcategory emissions. Refer to Equation 10.22a below and in the IPCC
methodology:
EQUATION 10.22a
MANURE MANAGEMENT METHANE EMISSIONS FROM A LIVESTOCK CATEGORY
Emissions = EF(T)*(N(T))
Where:
Emissions = Methane emissions from Enteric Fermentation, Gg C H4 yr-1
EF(T) = Emission factor for the defined livestock population, kg CH4 head-1 yr-1
N(T) = The number of head of livestock species / category T in the county (in millions)
T = Species/category of livestock (e.g., swine or dairy cattle)
Step 4: Calculate Total Emissions
To estimate total emissions, the emissions for each livestock category from above were summed
together.
EQUATION 10.22b
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK MANURE MANAGEMENT
Total CH4,Manure = ∑Ei/106
Where:
Total CH4,Manure = Total methane emissions from Enteric Fermentation, Gg CH4 yr-1
Ei = Emissions for the ith livestock categories and subcategories
106 = Conversion factor for methane emissions from kg to Gg.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 51
Table 3 below summarizes methane emissions from manure management systems that
contributed to the County of Albemarle’s baseline emissions.
Table 6. Methane emissions from manure management of livestock broken down by categories.
Animal Type
2000
Estimated
Census
Emissions Factor
(Kg CH4/head/yr)
Methane
Emissions (Gg
CH4/yr)
Milk Cows 654.6 21.37738716 0.013993638
Non-dairy cattle 25443.2 1.892817 0.048159321
Hogs and pigs aka
marketing swine 208.2 16.49339107 0.003433924
Horses and ponies 2686 0.085947098 0.000230888
Sheep and lambs 2061 0.0176076 3.62857E-05
Goats 215 0.006236025 1.33825E-06
Total CH4 Manure
Management Emissions 0.065855395
Agricultural activities such as rice cultivation and field burning of agricultural field residues are
not widely practiced in the County of Albemarle and thus, were not included in the calculations of
baseline emissions.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 52
N2O Emissions
Agricultural Soil Management
Due to lack of detailed information on the types of fertilizers and the locations of their
applications within the County of Albemarle, N2O emissions due to agricultural soil
management were not calculated.
Manure Management
Nitrous oxide emissions from manure management can be emitted through both direct and
indirect measures. These two methods are further explained below.
Direct Emissions
Background
Direct N2O emissions occur via combined nitrification and denitrification of nitrogen contained
in the manure. N2O emissions from manure during storage and treatment depend on the
nitrogen and carbon content of manure, and on the duration of the storage and type of
treatment. Nitrification (the oxidation of ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen) is a necessary
prerequisite for the emission of N2O from stored animal manures. Nitrification is likely to occur
in stored animal manures provided there is a sufficient supply of oxygen.
Methodology
Step 1: Determine Animal Population Data
Animal population data for the years 200014 and 200615 for the County of Albemarle were
determined using the United States Department of Interior’s Census of Agriculture16. The
animal populations were broken down into: dairy cattle17, non-dairy cattle, swine18, horses,
sheep, and goats.
Step 2: Determine Emission Factors
Due to lack of state-specific emission factors, countrywide emission factors provided by the
IPCC were used.
Step 3: Calculate Emissions for Each Livestock Category
Each livestock category’s emissions factors were multiplied by their corresponding population
sizes and average nitrogen excretion rates to estimate subcategory emissions. Equation 10.25a
in the IPCC methodology was used to calculate specific manure management N2O emission
factors for the County of Albemarle. Virginia-specific manure distribution values and nitrogen
14 The census is taken at 5-year intervals: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, so on. The average of the 1997 and 2002
population data was calculated to estimate the size of the animal populations for 2000, our baseline year.
15 2007 animal population data was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the 2006 animal data.
16 which was accessed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/
17 Also known as milk cows
18 Also known as hogs and pigs
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 53
excretion rates listed in the EPA’s annual US Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks were used to
determine each manure management system’s MS and livestock’s Nex values.
EQUATION 10.25a
DIRECT NITROUS OXIDE EMISSION FACTOR FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
E(mm)=∑(N(T)*Nex(T)*MS(T,S))*EF(S)
Where:
E(mm) = Direct N2O emission from manure management, kg N2O yr-1
N(T) = Number of head of livestock species/category T in the County
Nex(T) = Annual average N excretion per head of species/category T in the country, kg
N/animal/year
MS(T,S) = Fraction of total annual nitrogen excretion for each livestock species/category T that is
managed in manure management system S in the country, dimensionless
EF(S) = Emissions factor for direct N2O emissions from manure management system S in the
country, kg N2O-N/kg N in manure management system S
Step 4: Calculate Total Emissions
To estimate total emissions, the emissions for each livestock category from above were summed
together. The conversion factor, 106, converts methane emissions from kilograms to gigrams
(Gg).
EQUATION 10.25b
TOTAL EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK MANURE MANAGEMENT
N2OD(mm) = ∑Ei*44/28
Where:
N2OD(mm) = Total nitrous oxide direct emissions from manure management, kg N2O yr-1
Ei = Emissions for the ith livestock categories and subcategories
44/28 = Conversion of (N2O-N)(mm) emissions to N2O(mm) emissions
Indirect Emissions
Background
Indirect emissions result from volatile nitrogen losses that occur primarily in the forms of
ammonia and NOx. The fraction of excreted organic nitrogen that is mineralized to ammonia
nitrogen during manure collection and storage depends primarily on time, and to a lesser
degree temperature. Simple forms of organic nitrogen such as urea (mammals) and uric acid
(poultry) are rapidly mineralized to ammonia nitrogen, which is highly volatile and easily
diffused into the surrounding air (Asman et al., 1998; Monteny and Erisman, 1998). Nitrogen
losses begin at the point of excretion in houses and other animal production areas (e.g., milk
parlors) and continue through on-site management in storage and treatment systems (i.e.,
manure management systems). Nitrogen is also lost through runoff and leaching into soils
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 54
from the solid storage of manure at outdoor areas, in feedlots and where animals are grazing in
pastures.
Methodology
Step 1: Determine Animal Population Data
Animal population data for the years 200019 and 200620 for the County of Albemarle were
determined using the United States Department of Interior’s Census of Agriculture21. The
animal populations were broken down into: dairy cattle22, non-dairy cattle, swine23, horses,
sheep, and goats.
Step 2: Determine Emission Factors
Due to lack of state-specific emission factors, countrywide emission factors provided by the
IPCC were used.
Step 3: Calculate Emissions for Each Livestock Category
Each livestock category emissions factors were multiplied by their corresponding population
sizes and average nitrogen excretion rates to estimate subcategory emissions. These values
were then summed across each livestock category, T and each manure management system, S.
Equation 10.28 in the IPCC methodology was used to calculate specific manure management
N2O emission factors for the County of Albemarle. Virginia-specific manure distribution values
and nitrogen excretion rates listed in the EPA’s annual US Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks
were used to determine each manure management system’s MS and livestock’s Nex values.
IPCC default values listed in Table 10.23 for percentage of managed manure nitrogen losses for
each livestock category were used (Fracleach,MS).
EQUATION 10.28
N LOSSES DUE TO LEACHING FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Nleaching-MMS=∑S[∑T[(N(T)*Nex(T)*MS(T,S))*(Fracleach,MS/100)(T,S)]]
Where:
Nleaching-MMS= Amount of manure nitrogen that leached from manure management systems, kg
N/yr
N(T) = Number of head of livestock species/category T in the County
Nex(T) = Annual average N excretion per head of species/category T in the country, kg
N/animal/year
MS(T,S) = Fraction of total annual nitrogen excretion for each livestock species/category T that is
managed in manure management system S in the country, dimensionless
19 The census is taken at 5-year intervals: 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, so on. The average of the 1997 and 2002
population data was calculated to estimate the size of the animal populations for 2000, our baseline year.
20 2007 animal population data was assumed to be roughly equivalent to the 2006 animal data.
21 which was accessed online at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/
22 Also known as milk cows
23 Also known as hogs and pigs
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 55
(Fracleach,MS/100)(T,S) = Percent of managed manure nitrogen losses for livestock category T due to
runoff and leaching during solid and liquid storage of manure (typical range 1-20%)
Step 4: Calculate Total Emissions
Total indirect N2O emissions from leaching and runoff of nitrogen were estimated using
Equation 10.29 from the IPCC methodology. The default EF value listed was used.
EQUATION 10.29
INDIRECT N2O EMISSIONS DUE TO LEACHING FROM MANURE MANAGEMENT
N2OL(mm) = Nleaching-MMS *EF*44/28
Where:
N2OL(mm) = Indirect N2O emissions due to leaching and runoff from Manure Management in the
county, kg N2O/yr
Nleaching-MMS= Amount of manure nitrogen that leached from manure management systems, kg
N/yr
EF = Emission factor for N2O emissions from nitrogen leaching and runoff, kg N2O-N/kg N
leached and runoff; default value 0.0075 kg N2O-N (kg N leaching/runoff)-1
44/28 = Conversion of (N2O-N)(mm) emissions to N2O(mm) emissions
Table 4 below summarizes nitrous oxide emissions from manure management systems that
contributed to the County of Albemarle’s baseline emissions. The sum of direct and indirect
emissions yields total N2O emissions from manure management in the County of Albemarle.
Table 7. Nitrous oxide emissions from manure management of livestock broken down by categories.
Animal Type
Direct N2O
Emissions (kg
N2O/yr)
Indirect N2O
Emissions
N2O Emissions
(kg N2O/yr)
Milk Cows 0.470713509 0.528873783 0.999587292
Non-dairy cattle 248.5091865 37.18341943 285.6926059
Hogs and pigs aka
marketing swine 0.23634864 0.61938459 0.85573323
Horses and ponies 0 0.781404348 0.781404348
Sheep and lambs 0 0.781404348 0.781404348
Goats 0 0.781404348 0.781404348
Total N2O Manure
Management Emissions 289.8921395
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 56
APPENDIX B: EMPLOYEE COMMUTE METHODOLOGY
Background
The employee commute sector calculates emissions associated with travel to and from the work
by employees of the government. The employee sector has the same inputs as other
transportation-related sectors (i.e., vehicle fleet). The number of total miles traveled by
government employees for work each year was calculated for input into the software.
Methodology
Many institutions have conducted surveys amongst a select portion of their employees to
estimate the number of miles traveled by all employees. However, many County of Albemarle
employees travel varying distances to work; for example, the average distance traveled by a
COB McIntire employee is not the same as the average distance traveled by a school teacher. So
the County of Albemarle chose to use GIS software, instead, to better approximate employee
commuting distance.
A list of employee’s home addresses and corresponding work addresses was obtained from the
Human Resources Department. Each employee was assigned a unique ID for reference rather
than their names to maintain confidentiality.
Once data was obtained, each address was assigned its geographic x-y coordinates through GIS
and mapped. ince GIS recognizes only a limited range of abbreviations, certain addresses had
to be modified for recognition by the software. For example, “T.J.” was reentered as “Thomas
Jefferson” in the database. Some addresses consisting of P.O. Box and route numbers were
filtered out since GIS was unable to assign them to specific geographic coordinates. Employees’
unique IDs were used to track the changes made to their addresses through the years.
The “Network Analyst” tool was used to calculate the shortest distance on roads for each home
address to every potential work address. Every route except the listed home address and
corresponding actual work address was then filtered out by Microsoft Access. The remaining
entries yielded the number of miles traveled by each employee during a one-way trip to their
workplace24. This number was then doubled to reflect a round-trip and multiplied by the
number of workdays in a year: 230.
The average number of miles driven by an Albemarle County employee for work: 10 miles.
Certain employees worked at varying locations throughout the week. In these circumstances,
the worst-case scenario or the furthest work address was chosen to best reflect their emissions.
24 For some employees who no longer worked for the county, HR had updated their past home addresses to their
current ones. Thus, certain routes yielded a daily commute of more than 100 miles for a single round-trip. To limit
the effect of these addresses on total commute, we assumed that no County employee traveled more than 150 miles
on any given day to/from their work place.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 57
APPENDIX C: CORRECTIONS TO THE BASELINE
Background
Finding error with the prior calculation method for residential heating fuel use, we developed a
new technique25 for estimating associated eCO2 emissions. The previous method, using
Charlottesville gas data on natural gas consumption in the County and EIA data on total
natural gas usage in the state of Virginia, found the proportion of natural gas consumption that
Albemarle County accounted for in the state for both 2000 and 2006. This proportion of
Albemarle consumption to VA state consumption for natural gas was assumed to be applicable
to other fuel types, and Albemarle values were inferred from state values provided by EIA. It is
easy to imagine the County using fuels in different relative amounts when compared to state-
wide aggregate data. This inference method is likely flawed as there is a fair amount of
conflicting data. For example, the Census household heating fuel data suggests that electricity
is the most common heating method for the County, followed by natural gas, propane, and oil,
whereas the old method places natural gas behind oil and propane.
Modified Methodology
Using data on fuel consumption and household numbers, we calculated a figure representing
typical energy usage per household. We used the natural gas consumption by County residents
in 2006 of 334,863 thousand cubic feet (Mcf), from Charlottesville gas data, and the 5,334
households using natural gas in 2006, from 2006 Census data. We assumed a one-to-one
conversion factor between Mcf and MMBtu for natural gas. Dividing total natural gas
consumption by the number of households using natural gas yields energy usage of 62.779
MMBtu per household26.
Using this energy consumption per household figure coupled with the number of households
using different fuel types from census data, we found the total energy consumption for each
fuel. We assumed that, regardless of fuel type, households would have similar energy demands
for heating (62.779 MMBtu). For example, in 2006 3,757 households used propane for heating;
multiplying by 62.779 MMBtu/household yields 235,861 MMBtu. These energy consumption by
fuel type figures were then input into the CACP software to determine eCO2 emissions for each
fuel. The sum of these emissions is the new value for residential emissions due to residential
heating fuel consumption.
25 Credit to Andrew Greene, Sustainability Planner in the Office of the Architect for the University of Virginia, for
recognizing the error and developing the new calculation method
26 For independent comparison, the EIA reports that in 2001 for the South Atlantic census region, residential natural
gas use is 61.2 MMBtu per household (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001_ce/ce1-
11c_so_region2001.html).
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 58
APPENDIX D: 2008 UPDATE
The 2000 baseline inventory was the first of the ICLEI milestones. Establishing a goal of 20%
emission reductions by 2020 represented the second milestone. The County has been working
collaboratively with the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia to develop the
local climate action plan, a milestone nearing completion in 2010. The Steering Committee was
established, and focus groups have been responsible for various elements of the plan including
embodied energy, energy sourcing, energy and mobility, energy conservation, and carbon
sequestration. The Steering Committee will ultimately issue a report outlining strategies that
are particular to each entity, as well as those that present shared opportunities. Once these
recommendations are in place, each participating entity will have to determine what is
appropriate for the specifics of implementation.
The 2008 data was analyzed using the Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software
developed by ICLEI. According to the software, the County emitted a total of 1,645,134 tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (eCO2) in the year 2008. Specific breakdowns across sectors
(transportation, commercial, residential, etc.) are presented below. In 2008, the 94,908 residents
of the County each emitted approximately 17.3 tons of eCO2.
Residential
28%
Commercial
16%
Industrial
1%
Transporation
48%
Waste
0%
Agriculture & Other
2%
Municipal
5%
2008 Albemarle County eCO2 GHG Emissions
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 59
Emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents rose in the residential, commercial, and waste sectors
between 2006 and 2008. The industrial, transportation, agricultural, and municipal sectors all
showed decreases in emissions over this same time period. With regard to the 2000 baseline,
residential, commercial, transportation, waste, and municipal sectors showed increases in eCO2
emissions. The industrial sector shows lower emissions in 2008 than in 2000. In total, 2008
eCO2 emissions represented 97% of 2006 emissions or 109% of baseline 2000 emissions.
In adopting the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration, the County pledged to reduce
emissions by 80% of 2000 baseline levels by 2050. This corresponds to an average decrease of
2% per year beginning in 2010. To meet this target, the County must reduce emissions by 20%
from its baseline emissions, or to 1,202,530 tons of eCO2 by 2020.
The CACP software forecasts projections up to the year 2020 for a business-as-usual scenario;
that is, the model assumes that governments, businesses, and individuals will not take any
actions specifically aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under these assumptions, the
projected emissions for 2020 are 2,034,649 eCO2 tons. The figure below depicts the County’s
current real progress toward this goal compared to 2000 baseline levels, the business-as-usual
projection, and an average 2% annual decrease from the 2000 baseline.
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 60
1,503,163
1,645,134
2,034,649
1,202,530
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
1,500,000
1,600,000
1,700,000
1,800,000
1,900,000
2,000,000
2,100,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020eCO2 (tons)Year
GHG Emissions Projections and Progress:
Albemarle County
2000 Baseline 2000-2006 2008 Progress
Business as Usual Projection Goal: 2% Annual Decrease
County of Albemarle, VA Emissions Baseline Report 61
APPENDIX E: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION
Administrative Policy AP-9
ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION
Purpose:
This policy is intended to support the reduction of energy consumption in Albemarle County office
buildings, sustain the County’s commitment to environmental improvement, and ensure a successful
partnership with ENERGY STAR®. Guidelines are provided in this policy concerning practices aimed at
lowering energy consumption, as well as effective use and procurement of energy-consuming equipment.
Through implementation of this policy, a positive environmental impact and cost savings for the County
should result.
Applicability:
This policy applies to the County of Albemarle local government buildings and employees.
Authority
This policy is provided under the authority of the County of Albemarle County Executive’s Office.
Scope
A. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
1. During occupied hours, the buildings will be cooled or heated to a pre-determined
temperature range based on the 2004 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Thermal Comfort Standard (ASHRAE 55-2004):
• Heating Season – 68o F to 75o F
• Cooling Season – 73o F to 79o F
2. During unoccupied building hours (weekday evenings, weekends, and holidays), the
temperature will be set back to the following temperatures to allow the County to efficiently
and economically conserve energy:
• Heating Season – 63 o F
• Cooling Season – 84 o F
3. Cooling and heating for scheduled meetings/events outside of routine business hours will be
provided based on need and/or a scheduled request. Each Department should provide
General Services with a list of individuals authorized to request off-hour/holiday heating or
cooling. General Services must be notified with the dates, times and location of special
events at least 48 hours in advance. These requests should be kept to a minimum to assure
the most efficient and economical operation of facilities.
4. Building occupants and staff are requested to keep windows and outside doors closed while
the air conditioning and heating are on.
5. Personal space heaters are prohibited. These heaters use an inordinate amount of energy,
can be a fire hazard, and also work against the pre-settings of the thermostat. Employees are
encouraged to dress for their personal thermal comfort. Exceptions may be granted by the
General Services Department for employees with a medical condition or some extenuating
circumstance.
6. Timers will be installed on hot water heaters to ensure they are turned off when not in use.
Heat traps and insulation may be installed on hot water heaters, as feasible, in order to
conserve energy.
B. Lighting
1. Lights are to be turned off in unused areas, with the exception of emergency lighting.
• When an employee leaves his/her office, he/she should turn all lights off.
• Custodial staff will turn off lights in the building after cleaning is completed each
afternoon/evening.
2. Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) are to be used in desk lamps, in place of halogen or
incandescent bulbs.
3. Occupancy sensors are to be installed where logistically feasible, and shall be specified in all
construction and renovation projects.
4. All renovation and construction projects that involve lighting must be approved by General
Services Environmental Compliance Manager and Chief of Public Works to ensure that light
levels and equipment types meet certain industry standards for energy efficiency. (e.g. T-8
bulbs and electronic ballasts should be used as they provide the most efficiency)
C. Electronic Equipment
1. Computers, printers, and copiers shall be turned off at the end of each work day. It is
acceptable to leave fax machines on if a fax is expected overnight, but otherwise, fax
machines should be turned off as well.
2. During work hours, all capable PCs should be programmed for the highest energy saving
mode appropriate for the particular PCs using the power options feature.
D. Procurement
1. To the extent legally permissible, products carrying the ENERGY STAR® label (e.g.
appliances, electronic equipment, roofing, etc.) shall be given procurement preference.
2. If ENERGY STAR® labeled products are not available, the purchase of energy efficient
equipment should be pursued.
E. Building Envelope
1. Window, door, roofing and other insulation materials will be periodically inspected for
efficiency (e.g. air-tightness, etc.) by the General Services Department (or certified
contractor) in order to evaluate any need for replacement or updating.
F. Periodic Internal Audits
1. To ensure this policy is successfully implemented, internal audits will be conducted
periodically by the County’s Energy Management Team, or designee(s).
2. Audits will cover all sections of this procedure, and all County government facilities.
3. Audit results will be documented and retained by the Environmental Compliance Manager.
4. Audit findings will be addressed by the County’s Energy Management Team.
Issued:
February 27, 2008
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Date
County Executive