HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-07Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
DECEMBER 7, 2011
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Recognitions.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
10:00 a.m. - Public Hearings:
8. AFD-2011-00006. Addition of the following parcel(s) to the Sugar Hollow
Agricultural and Forestal District (Albemarle County Code § 3-226): Tax map 26, parcel
10G. The parcel proposed for addition is approximately 8.56 acres in size and located on Carrs
Ridge Rd approximately 0.5 miles northwest of its intersection with Sugar Ridge Road (Route 674).
The Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee recommended approval of this
addition.
9. AFD-2011-00007. Creation of the Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal District.
The parcels that would compose the proposed District are Tax Map 94, Parcels 15A1 and 15A2.
The proposed District would be approximately 257.17 acres in size and located on an un-named
private road approximately 0.75 miles beyond the end of Running Deer Dr (Route 808). The
Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee recommended approval of this
district.
10. AFD-2011-00008. Addition of the following parcel(s) to the Keswick Agricultural
and Forestal District (Albemarle County Code § 3-219): Tax map 81, parcels 74 and 79. The
parcel proposed for addition are approximately 57.27 acres in size and located on Barn Field Dr,
approximately 1 mile from its intersection with Clarks Tract Rd (Route 648). The Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee recommended approval of this addition.
11. AFD-2011-00009. Addition of the following parcel to the Blue Run Agricultural and
Forestal District (Albemarle County Code § 3-208): Tax map 22, parcel 10. The parcel
proposed for addition is approximately 28.765 acres in size and is located on Burnley Station Road,
approximately 3.3 miles west of its intersection with Stony Point Road (Route 20). The Albemarle
County Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee recommended denial of this addition.
12. AFD-2011-00010. Addition of the following parcel to the Bucks Elbow Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District (Albemarle County Code § 3-209.5): Tax map 39, parcel
1D. The parcel proposed for addition is approximately 11 acres in size and located on Bucks Elbow
Mtn Rd approximately 1.5 miles northeast of its intersection with Jarmans Gap Rd (Route 611).
The Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee recommended approval of this
addition.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111207/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:41:08 PM]
Tentative
10:30 a.m. - Action Items:
13. 10:30 a.m. - WPO-2007-00104 (Hyland Ridge Subdivision) – Request to extend deadline
for installing permanent vegetation.
14. 10:45 a.m. - Meadow Creek Parkway Resolution.
15. 11:05 a.m. - Fire Services Agreement Between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County.
16. 11:25 a.m. – Wireless Policy/Regulations Update.
17. Closed Meeting.
18. Certify Closed Meeting.
19. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
1:30 p.m. – Presentations:
20. 1:45 p.m. – JAUNT:
a. Presentation of 2011 Annual Report.
b. FY12 Supplemental Funding Request.
21. 2:15 p.m. - Cate Wyatt, President of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground.
22. 2:30 p.m. - Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan.
23. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
24. Adjourn to December 14, 2011, 4:00 p.m., Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: March 9, September 7 and September 14, 2011.
7.2 FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
7.3 WPO-2008-00079, WPO-2010-00052 and WPO-2010-00066 (Moores Creek Treatment
Plant); WPO-2008-00080 (Pavilions at Pantops Phase 3) – Request to extend deadline for installing
permanent vegetation.
7.4 Fiscal Year 2012 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government
Agreement.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.5 Board-to-Board - Albemarle County School Board Monthly Report for December 2011.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20111207/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:41:08 PM]
Tentative
7.6 FY12 First Quarter Financial Report.
7.7 VDoT Culpeper District – Albemarle County Monthly Report for December 2011.
7.8 Copy of letter dated November 22, 2011, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy
Zoning Administrator, to Dr. Joseph W. May, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 65, Parcel 14A (property of Joseph W. May) – Rivanna
Magisterial District.
7.9 Copy of letter dated November 22, 2011, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy
Zoning Administrator, to Brian S. Ray, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 88, Parcel 5 & 42A (property of David H. Bass & Nancy K.
Bass) – Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
7.10 Copy of letter dated November 22, 2011, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy
Zoning Administrator, to Virginia Land Trust, c/o Greg Baldwin, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
OF PARCEL OF RECORD – Tax Map 79, Parcel 23 (portion) (property of Virginia Land Trust)
– Scottsville 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/20111207/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/7/2020 5:41:08 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2012040, #2012041, #2012042, #2012043, and
#2012044 for various school and local government
programs and projects.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, and Davis, and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 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 2012 appropriations itemized below is $179,325.81. A budget amendment public hearing
is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of five (5) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (2) appropriations (#2012040 and #2012042) totaling $70,150.81 for various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012041) totaling $49,175.00 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2012043) amending the scope of a Police grant approved and appropriated on
October 5, 2011 as part of appropriation #2012027. This adjustment will not increase the total budget; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012044) totaling $60,000.00 for repairs to the Emergency Communication Center’s
Bi-Directional Amplifiers system.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the appropriations #2012040, #2012041, #2012042, #2012043, and #2012044.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2012040 $64,400.81
Revenue Source: Local Grants $ 1,000.00
This request is to appropriate one grant received by the School Division as approved by the School Board on October
13, 2011.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Community
Obesity Task Force. These funds will be used to hold a Health and Fitness Fair for all students during the current
school year. Items purchased will be various-size exercise balls, pedometers, and exercise bands.
Revenue Source: Grant Fund Balances $ 63,400.81
This request is to re-appropriate grant funds received by the School Division as approved by the School Board on
October 13, 2011.
The Miscellaneous Grant fund is used to track competitive grants that are typically $5,000.00 or less. The funds
received are primarily from local organizations and occasionally from state o r federal subsidiaries. Various
miscellaneous grants have an unexpended fund balance. This request is to re-appropriate $63,400.81 in available
funds for use in FY 11/12. The funds will be used for field trip expenses, staff development, guest speakers, an d to
purchase educational and recreational supplies.
Appropriation #2012041 $49,175.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 49,175.00
This request is to appropriate a $49,175.00 reimbursement from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP). SCAAP reimburses localities for compensation expenses incurred by correctional officers supervising
aliens in local and regional jail facilities. Program revenues received from the state are appropriated from the
locality’s General Fund to the correctional facility (Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail) for qualifying expenses
incurred.
Appropriation #2012042 $5.750.00
Revenue Source: Grant Fund Balances $ 3,000.00
This request is to re-appropriate grant funds received by the School Division as approved by the School Board on
November 10, 2011.
The Miscellaneous Grant fund is used to track competitive grants that are typically $5,000 or less. The funds received
by the School Division are primarily from local organizations and occasionally from state or federal subsidiaries.
Various Miscellaneous Grants have an unexpended fund balance. This agenda is to re-appropriate available funds for
FY 10/11. The funds were used for field trip expenses and to purchase educational & recreational supplies in FY
10/11. The re-appropriation request for these funds is normally requested much earlier in the fiscal year. The School
Division is submitting this request at this time due to a clerical error.
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations) $ 2,750.00
This request is to re-appropriate grant funds received by the School Division as approved by the School Board on
November 10, 2011.
Murray High School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from Don Soechiting Gutterworks and Julie Harlan,
who are local community members. The donors requested that this contribution be used to help fund any educational
needs at Murray High School.
Red Hill Elementary School received an anonymous donation from a local community member in the amount of
$2,500.00. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to fund the Red Hill Elementary School 4th and 5th
grade field trips to Jamestown/Yorktown/Williamsburg.
Attachment A
2
Appropriation #2012043 $0.00
This request is to change the scope of use for a U.S. Department of Justice grant award received by the County. On
October 5, 2011 the Board approved Appropriation #2012027, which included the reappropriation of a $25,459.00
U.S. Department of Justice grant (#2010-DJ-BX-0920) awarded to the Albemarle County Police Department in FY
10/11 to fund overtime hours for current officers working to reduce crime and improve public safety through an
increase in Community Policing.
On November 3, 2011 the Police Department received approval from the grant funding agency to change the scope
of the grant from community policing overtime activities to the pu rchase, installation, implementation and use of a
crime analysis and mapping system . This sytem will enhance problem recognition and response. It also has a
citizen access module, available through the internet, that will allow citizens to research and print maps of reported
incidents in a chosen area. In addition, this system will have some matching components from the same vendor as
the Charlottesville Police Department’s crime analysis package. This will enable faster recognition and closer
coordination of a regional response to crime problems, and contribute to the faster development of a regional
COMPSTAT system for early recognition, response, evaluation and related follow -up on regional safety issues and
threats. This change in scope will not increase the total budget.
Appropriation #2012044 $60,000.00
Revenue Source: ECC 800 MHz Fund Balance $ 60,000.00
At its meeting on November 15, 2011, the Emegency Communication Center’s (ECC) Management Board approved
an expenditure of $60,000.00 and is requesting that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC, make an
appropriation from ECC’s available fund balance. This request is for repairs to the ECC’s Bi-Directional Amplifiers
(BDA) system. The BDA In-Building System equipment has been installed in 26 public buildings to help provide a
better radio signal within the structures. Several of those devices are not working properly.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
WPO200800079, WPO201000052 and WPO201000066
(Moore’s Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant);
WPO200800080 (Pavilions at Pantops Phase 3).
Requests to extend the deadline for installing permanent
vegetation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval to extend the deadline for installing permanent
vegetation at the (1) Moores Creek Treatment Plant
Project, and (2) Pavilions at Pantops Phase 3
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
and Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
With one exception not applicable here, County Code § 17-207(B)(2) requires that permanent vegetation be installed
on all denuded areas within nine (9) months after the date the land disturbing activity commenced. For those land
disturbance permits that were issued prior to adopting this provision, such as those that are the subjects of these
requests, the 9-month period began to run when the permits were renewed. County Code § 17-207(B)(3) allows the
Program Authority to extend the deadline for up to six months and the Board to extend the deadline beyond that
period.
The Board may grant an extension under County Code § 17-207(B)(3)(b) if it finds: (1) the additional time is necessary
due to factors beyond the control of the owner; (2) the owner had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit;
and (3) the owner has plans to effectively control or has effectively controlled erosion and sedimentation on the
property during the land disturbing activity. In granting an extension, the Board must set a new time limit and may
impose other reasonable conditions.
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (“RWSA”) has requested an extension for its Moores Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plan project and the Owner of Pavilions at Pantops has requested an extension for Phase 3 of that project.
The letters requesting extensions are attached (Attachments A and B). Both requests are eligible to have an extension
and both are asking for an extension beyond what the Program Authority is authorized to grant.
DISCUSSION:
Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
The original land disturbance permit was issued in May 2009 and was renewed on May 15, 2010. The total project
area is approximately 17 acres. The condition of the property with respect to compliance with the Water Protection
Ordinance is that it has erosion and sediment control measures in place that comply with the state requirements, but
does not have permanent vegetation established in areas of recent and ongoing work.
The additional time to plant permanent vegetation is necessary because the project is not complete and additional
disturbances are planned. The RWSA has made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit by matting slopes,
closing out areas where work has moved on, and complying with all requests of the erosion control inspector. The
RWSA’s plans have effectively controlled erosion and sedimentation and will continue to do so during the land
disturbing activity. When this project was approved, which was prior to the adoption of this regulation, it was planned to
be a four year project and RW SA has diligently pursued completion of this work.
Based on staff’s analysis, it appears the necessary findings have been satisfied and the Board may approve an
extension. Staff recommends that the Board extend the deadline for installing permanent vegetation until January 31,
2013 with no other conditions.
AGENDA TITLE: WPO200800079, WPO201000052 and WPO201000066 (Moore’s Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant); WPO200800080 (Pavilions at Pantops Phase 3). Requests to extend the deadline for
installing permanent vegetation
December 7, 2011
Page 2
Pavilions at Pantops Phase 3
The original land disturbance permit was issued in April 2010 and was renewed on April 2, 2011. The total project area
is approximately 10 acres. The condition of the property with respect to compliance with the Water Protection
Ordinance is good, in that most areas are permanently vegetated, with the exception of the slope and pad area where
work is currently underway.
The additional time to plant permanent vegetation is necessary because significant time was unexpectedly needed to
remove rock to install utilities and foundations. The Owner has diligently made efforts to comply with the time limit by
vegetating most of those areas that have reached final grade. The Owner’s plans have effectively controlled erosion
and sedimentation and will continue to do so during the land disturbing activity. The last of the rock excavation is
expected to occur this fall, which should allow completion in the spring.
Based on staff’s analysis, it appears the necessary findings have been satisfied and the Board may approve an
extension, Staff recommends that the Board extend the deadline for installing permanent vegetation until April 30,
2012 with no other conditions.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None anticipated. An extension request does generate additional revenue in the form of permit extensions, but
the revenue is offset by costs for inspecting the work for this time extension.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1. Approve the RWSA’s request to extend the deadline for installing permanent vegetation for the Moores Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant project until January 31, 2013 with no other conditions.
2. Approve CEVA Contractors, Inc.’s request to extend the deadline for installing permanent vegetation for the
Pavilion at Pantops Phase 3 project until April 30, 2012 with no other conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Moores Creek WWTP: Applicant’s letter and project overview
B - Pavilions at Pantops Phase 3: Applicant’s letter and project photo
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Moores Creek WWTP ENR Upgrade
Aerial Photos
April 2009
August 2010
April 2009
August 2010
April 2009
August 2010
CEVA Contractors, Inc.
VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 8147
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22911
AREA CODE 434
TELEPHONE 977-3454
FAX 220-3302
October 3, 2011
Ella Jordan
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
401 McIntire Rd
Charlottesville VA
22902
RE: Pavilions Phase 3
CEVA Job #: 1203
Permit Extension
Ms. Jordan,
We would like to request an extension on the E & S permit for the Pavilions Phase 3
project. Due to the large scope of the project and situations out of our control, we have been
unable to complete this project in the current time limit. We have been actively working on this
site since the permit was issued. We have encountered an extremely large amount of dense rock
throughout the project. Due to restrictions on the site, we were unable to blast the majority of the
rock. We have been forced to use a drill and a large rock hammer for quite some time now to
remove the rock. This process has been is very slow going, due to the large quantity of rock
encounter and its density. Its removal has affected the schedule tremendously. In addition to the
large amount of rock, a large amount of topsoil and unsuitable soils were encountered buried in
the rear of the site. We have had to export a lot of the material truckload by truckload, which
also has affected the schedule greatly. During these unexpected delays in the completion of the
project, we have worked with all county inspectors to make sure all E & S measures are in place.
We have also stabilized all areas of the site once we finished. To help with this process, we have
phased the construction of the project to allow the first half to be stabilized, before we beginning
the second portion of the project. We plan to continue to work on the site until we reach final
completion. We hope to have the majority of the site completed by the beginning of April.
Thank you for considering this request for a permit extension, if you have any questions or
concerns please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours truly,
Charlie Hurt
Vice President
CEVA Contractors Inc.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Fiscal Year 2012 County of Albemarle & State Health
Department Local Government Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve FY12 Agreement with the State Board of
Health for the provision of public health services through
the Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, and Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 32.1-31 allows local governing bodies to enter into contracts with the State Board of Health for the
operation of local health departments. It also requires that these contracts specify the services to be provided in
addition to those required by law and contain such other provisions as the State Board and the governing body may
agree on. The County’s contract specifies both the scope and costs for the services to be provided locally.
DISCUSSION:
The Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Health, is the primary
provider of public health services and programs for Albemarle County and surrounding localities. TJHD offers specific
health programs targeted at preventing and controlling infectious diseases as we ll as initiatives aimed at improving the
health of low income women, children and infants. In addition, the Health District provides an inspection and
monitoring program to ensure the safety of food and private well/septic systems . These services are funded
cooperatively by the State, County and other neighboring jurisdictions. Non-local funding for these TJHD programs is
provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, grants and income from local fees charged to individual clients. The
localities served by TJHD provide matching local funds for the allocations made by the state and allocate resources
for Local-Only Programs such as food safety. The Virginia Department of Health requires that local governments enter
into agreements stipulating the scope of health services to be provided by the TJHD to citizens in their respective
jurisdictions. The FY12 agreement (Attachment A) has been reviewed and approved as to form by the County
Attorney’s Office. Attachment B is an attachment to the Agreement, and sets forth services to be provided by the
TJHD.
The TJHD is requesting to use previous fiscal year allocations and to reallocate current year funds to meet current
funding obligations/initiatives. The FY2011 year-end settlement process for the TJHD resulted in a $9,236 surplus for
the County. A portion of this resulted from 2010 General Assembly legislation delaying fourth quarter FY2011
employer Virginia Retirement System (VRS) contributions, retiree health credit, group life insurance and long-term
disability contributions until fiscal year 2012. The County’s share is $4,622 and the TJHD is requesting that the
County authorize the retention of these funds to cover the costs of the delayed FY2011 fourth quarter employer
benefit contributions. The TJHD is also requesting that the County agree that the remaining $4,614 can be utilized to
defray the costs associated with conducting the Albemarle County Community Health Assessment . Completing this
assessment and developing a Community Health Improvement Plan are required by the Public Health Accreditation
Board for TJHD to become an accredited local health department. Finally, the TJHD has received its FY12 final
allocation from the state and more general funds were allocated by the General Assembly than anticipated. With this
increase in state general funds, the current year local match requirement has increased by 0.971% or $5,165. To
compensate for this change, TJHD is proposing to shift the amount of the increased local match amount from local-
only funds. This is reflected in the proposed local government agreement that is attached. The reallocations do not
change the total allocation of $551,444 in the current County budget and do not impact services.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County’s original FY12 appropriation for the Thomas Jefferson Health District totaled $551,444, of which
$531,676 represented the County’s required match for Cooperative State and Local Matched Programs. The balance
AGENDA TITLE: Fiscal Year 2012 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement
December 7, 2011
Page 2
of funds from the County ($19,768) was allocated to the Local-Only (Unmatched) food inspection program and the
City/County Public Health initiative.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the vital nature of the services provided by the TJHD, staff recommends that the Board approve the Fiscal
Year 2012 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement (Attachment A) and that it
authorize the County Executive to execute that Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Health Department Agreement for FY12
B – Attachment to Agreement (services to be provided)
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Under this agreement, which is created in satisfaction of the requirements of § 32.1-31 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Virginia Department of Health, over the course of one fiscal year, will
pay an amount not to exceed $656,140, from the state general fund to support the cooperative budget in
accordance with appropriations by the General Assembly, and in like time frame, the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County will provide by appropriation and in equal quarterly payments a sum of
$536,842 local matching funds and $14,602 one-hundred percent local funds for a total of $551,444 local
funds. These joint funds will be distributed in timely installments, as services are rendered in the
operation of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department, which shall perform public health services
to the Commonwealth as indicated in Attachment A(1.), and will perform services req uired by local
ordinances as indicated in Attachment A(2.). Payments from the local government are due on the third
Monday of each fiscal quarter.
The term of this agreement begins July 1, 2011. This agreement will be automatically extended
on a state fiscal year to year renewal basis under the terms and conditions of the original agreement unless
written notice of termination is provided by either party. Such written notice shall be given at least 60 days
prior to the beginning of the fiscal year in which the termination is to be effective. Any increase or decrease
in funding allocation shall be made by an amendment to this agreement.
The parties agree that:
1. Under this agreement, as set forth in paragraphs A, B, C, and D below, the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Health shall be responsible
for providing liability insurance coverage and will provide legal defense for state
employees of the local health department for acts or occurrences arising from
performance of activities conducted pursuant to state statutes and regulations.
A. The responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health
to provide liability insurance coverage shall be limited to and governed by the
Self-Insured General Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia,
established under § 2.2-1837 of the Code of Virginia. Such insurance coverage
shall extend to the services specified in Attachments A(1.) and A(2.), unless the
locality has opted to provide coverage for the employee under the Pub lic
Officials Liability Self-Insurance Plan, established under § 2.2-1839 of the Code
or under a policy procured by the locality.
B. The Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health will be responsible
for providing legal defense for those acts or occurrences arising from the
performance of those services listed in Attachment A(1.), conducted in the
performance of this contract, as provided for under the Code of Virginia and as
provided for under the terms and conditions of the Self-Insured General
Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
LGA-Revised August 2011
C. Services listed in Attachment A(2.), any services performed pursuant to a local
ordinance, and any services authorized solely by Title 15.2 of the Code of
Virginia, when performed by a state employee, are herewith expressly excepted
from any requirements of legal defense or representation by the Attorney
General or the Commonwealth. For purposes of assuring the eligibility of a state
employee performing such services for liability coverage under the Self-Insured
General Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General
has approved, pursuant to 2.2-507 of the Code of Virginia and the Self-Insured
General Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the legal
representation of said employee by the city or county attorney, and the Board of
Albemarle County hereby expressly agrees to provide the legal defense or
representation at its sole expense in such cases by its local attorney.
D. In no event shall the Commonwealth or the Virginia Department of Health be
responsible for providing legal defense or insurance coverage for local
government employees.
2. Title to equipment purchased with funds appropriated by the local government and
transferred to the state, either as match for state dollars or as a purchase under
appropriated funds expressly allocated to support the activities of the local health
department, will be retained by the Commonwealth and will be entered into the Virginia
Fixed Asset Accounting and Control System. Local appropriations for equipment to be
locally owned and controlled should not be remitted to the Commonwealth, and the local
government's procurement procedures shall apply in the purchase. The locality assumes
the responsibility to maintain the equipment and all records thereon.
3. Amendments to or modifications of this contract must be agreed to in writing and signed
by both parties.
_____________________________
Karen Remley, MD, MBA, FAAP Local authorizing officer signature
State Health Commissioner
Virginia Department of Health
______________________________
Authorizing officer printed name
______________________________
Authorizing officer title
____________________________ ______________________________
Date Date
Approved as to form by the Office of the Attorney General on August 29, 2011.
Attachments: Local Government Agreement, Attachment A(1.)
Local Government Agreement, Attachment A(2.)
LGA-Revised August 2011
Revised 8/2011 1
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
INCOME LEVEL A IS DEFINED BY THE BOARD OF HEALTH TO BE MEDICALLY INDIGENT (32.1-11)
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
(specify
income level
if not ALL)
Childhood Immunizations
As provided for in 32.1-46
X
Sexually transmitted disease screening, diagnosis,
treatment, and surveillance
32.1-57
X
Surveillance and investigation of disease
32.1-35 and 32.1-39
X
HIV/AIDS surveillance, investigation, and sero
prevalence survey
32.1-36, 32.1-36.1, 32.1-39
X
Tuberculosis control screening,
diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance
32.1-49, 32.1-50.1, and 32.1-54
X
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Children Specialty Services; diagnosis,
treatment, follow-up, and parent teaching
32.1-77, 32.1-89 and 32.1-90
X
Screening for genetic traits and inborn errors
of metabolism, and provision of dietary
supplements
32.1-65 and 32.1-69
X
Well child care up to age (enter year)
Board of Health
X
WIC
Federal grant requirement
X
EPSDT
DMAS MOA
X
Blood lead level testing
CDC
X
Outreach
X
Community Education
32.1-11.3 and 32.1-23
X
Pre-school Physicals for school entry
22.1-270
X
Disabled disability Waiver Screenings
DMAS MOA
X
Services for Children with Special health care needs
Title V, Social Security Act
X
Child restraints in motor vehicles
46.2-1095, 46.2-1097
X
Babycare
DMAS MOA
X
Revised 8/2011 2
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
INCOME LEVEL A IS DEFINED BY THE BOARD OF HEALTH TO BE MEDICALLY INDIGENT (32.1-11)
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Prenatal and post partum care for low
risk and intermediate risk women
32.1-77, Title V, Social Security Act
X
(Louisa)
Babycare Services
DMAS MOA
X
WIC
Federal grant requirement
X
FAMILY PLANING SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Clinic services including drugs and
Contraceptive supplies
Family Planning Population Research Act of 1970,
Title X
X
Pregnancy testing and counseling
Family Planning Population Research Act of 1970,
Title X
X
Revised 8/2011 3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
The following services performed in
accordance with the provisions of the
Code of Virginia, the regulation of the
Board of Health and/or VDH agreements
with other state or federal agencies.
Ice cream/frozen desserts
MOA Agriculture
X
Investigation of communicable
diseases
32.1-35 and 32.1-39
X
Marinas
32.1-246
X
Migrant labor camps
32.1-203-32.1-211
X
Milk
3.2-5130, 3.2-5206, 3.2-5208
X
Alternative discharging sewage
systems
32.1-163, 32.1-163.2, and 32.1-
164
X
On-site sewage disposal
32.1-163
X
Rabies control
3.2-6500 et seq.
X
Restaurants/eating
establishments
35.1-14
X
Sanitary surveys
X
Single home sewage discharge
32.1-164
X
Hotels/Motels
35.1.13
X
Water supply sanitation X
Wells
32.1-176.2
X
Homes for adults
DSS MOA
X
Juvenile Justice Institutions
35.1-23
X
Jail Inspections
DOC MOA
X
Daycare centers
DSS MOA
X
Radon
32.1-229
X
Summer camps/ Campgrounds
35.1-16 and 35.1-17
X
Revised 8/2011 4
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
The following services performed in accordance with
the provisions of the Code of Virginia, the regulations
of the Board of Health and/or the policies and
procedures of the State Department of Health
Medicaid Nursing Home Screening
DMAS MOA
X
Comprehensive Services Act
2.2-5201-2.2-5211
X
Vital Records (Death Certificates)
32.1-254-255, 272
X
Early Intervention Services
X
Refugee Health Screenings
X
Safe Sleep Program
X
Revised 8/2011 5
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Foreign Travel Immunizations
X
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
School health services
Sick child care
Other:
MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Funds for deliveries
Funds for special tests and drugs
Diagnosis, treatment, and referral for
gynecological problems
FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Other:
Revised 8/2011 6
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Activities of Daily Living
Community Education
X
General Clinic Services
Outreach
Occupational health services
Personal care
Pharmacy services-Alternate Drug Delivery
Site
Hypertension screening, referral, and
counseling
Respite care services
Other:
SPECIALTY CLINIC SERVICES (List)
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
WIC Clients
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Preventive Clinic Services - Children
Preventive Clinic Services - Adults
Restorative Clinic Services
Community Education
Other: Bright Smiles Program (Greene,
Louisa, Fluvanna, Nelson)
X
Revised 8/2011 7
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(2.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED
UNDER LOCAL ORDINANCE
Neither the Code of Virginia nor
Regulations of the Board of Health
requires the following services to
be provided by the local health
department
Place an X in this
column if service is
provided for locality
Local ordinance
code cite
Accident Prevention
Air Pollution
Bird Control
Employee Physicals
General Environmental
Housing - BOCA & local building
codes
Insect control
Noise
Plumbing
Radiological Health
Rodent Control
Solid Waste
Swimming facilities
Weeds
Smoking Ordinances
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Sec. 24.1-11
Sec. 7.300-310
Other environmental services (identify)
Revised 8/2011 8
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(2.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER
LOCAL ORDINANCES OR CONTRACT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
Income
A only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Employee physicals
Primary care for inmates in local
jails or correctional institutions
Other medical services (List)
Other (please list)
Board‐to‐Board
December, 2011
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Burley Bearettes Win National Grand Championship: Jackson P. Burley’s young women’s chorus, The
Bearettes, have won the “National Grand Champion” trophy from the Music Festivals, Inc. for the fourth time
in five years. The Bearettes competed this year at Rowan University in Glassboro, NJ. They also won this
national honor in 2007, 2009, and 2010. The Bearettes are directed by Craig Jennings and perform at various
venues throughout the Albemarle and Charlottesville community. The Bearettes are a self‐sustaining
organization submitting applications for grants to such organizations as the Bama Works/CACF, the RedLight,
as well as parents assisting with numerous fundraisers to supplement their travel. The 100% volunteer
ensemble rehearses nearly every morning from 8‐8:45am in the Burley Middle School Choir Room. The
Bearettes will compete at the World Choir Games which will consist of approximately 300 choruses from
around the world next summer in Cincinnati.
Take Your Legislator to School Month – Governor McDonnell designated November 2011 as “Take Your
Legislator to School Month.” ACPS welcomed Senator Creigh Deeds to Brownsville Elementary School,
Henley Middle School, and Western Albemarle High School on November 15, 2011. Senator Deeds visited
with the schools which are new to his Senatorial district due to the legislature’s recent redistricting process.
Delegate Toscano visited Meriwether Lewis Elementary School and Woodbrook Elementary School on
November 28, 2011. Woodbrook is new to Delegate Toscano’s district.
Joint Choral Concert – Albemarle County Public Schools and the City of Charlottesville Public Schools
presented a joint concert featuring their Middle and High School Honor Choirs November 10, 2011, at
Monticello High School. Will Cooke, the Choral Director at Charlottesville High School, conducted the Middle
School Honors Choir and Professor Michael Slon, Choral Director at the University of Virginia, conducted the
High School Honors Choir. The students first reviewed their music that morning, worked with music teachers
and conductors during the day, and performed the music at 5pm. This concert was the first opportunity for
choral students from the city and the county to come together and perform their music.
Albemarle High School String Ensemble Receives Honor – The Albemarle High School String Ensemble was
chosen by the Virginia Music Educators Association as the Orchestral Performing Ensemble for the
Association’s statewide conference November 18, 2011 in Norfolk, Virginia. This prestigious honor
(Albemarle’s String Ensemble was the only string orchestra to perform) was based upon audition tapes
submitted to the Association.
Redistricting Update – Albemarle County Public Schools organized a community advisory committee to
examine various proposals to alleviate overcrowding at Hollymead Elementary School and Stony Point
Elementary School. The ten‐member committee, including parents from each of the four schools which could
be affected by redistricting convened several meetings in November to receive comments from the community.
The committee, appointed by Superintendent Pam Moran, presented various options for adjusting district
boundary lines. A survey is available on the Albemarle County Public Schools website to allow community
members to offer their views about the options under consideration by the committee, to ask questions and to
offer general comments. The committee will present their final recommendations to Dr. Moran during the
week of December 12, 2011. In early January, parents will be notified of the options that will be presented by
the Superintendent to the School Board. The School Board expects to hold a public hearing in early February,
2012, and make a decision within 30 days following the public hearing.
Budget Development – The budget development cycle for the 2012‐13 budget began in August 2011 and ends
in April 2012. The process involves gathering input from the various stakeholders in the school system and
community. Superintendent Pam Moran organized a Budget Advisory Committee to review all budget
requests, align the budget requests to the Division’s strategic plan, and to prioritize requests as part of its
recommendation to the Superintendent. Phase I is currently underway to gather input from stakeholders, then
Superintendent Moran will develop a funding request to be presented to the School Board on January 19, 2012.
Upon receipt, the School Board will review the funding request during a series of work sessions and a public
hearing, and make its adjustments to the spending plan prior to presentation to the Board of Supervisors. Of
great concern is the fact that this school year’s budget includes a significant amount of one‐time funding,
including the final funding available from ARRA jobs funding. The VRS actuarial rate represents a sizeable
consideration for the School Board’s budget at over 16%, with potential costs of $8.9 million if adopted by the
General Assembly. The Board of Supervisors is aware of the School Board’s previous action to delete all CIP
request funding pending completion of the School Board’s school capacity review. Upon the findings of this
review, the School Board may require CIP projects within a 2‐5 year window.
New Learning Resources ‐ The public will have an opportunity between now and January 18, 2012, to review
new learning resources that are recommended for Albemarle County schools next year. The resources are for
classroom use in secondary world languages and high school government. The learning resources are
available for public review at the Albemarle Resource Center, 1200 Forest Street in Charlottesville, from 8am‐
4:30pm, Monday through Friday, with the exception of student holidays. At its January 26, 2012 meeting, the
School Board will consider their adoption for classroom use. The learning resources include:
Government Alive! Power, Politics, and You
Student Text and Digital Subscription
TCI Publishing
http://www.teachtci.com/programs/high/ga‐power‐politics‐you/
Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS)
For more information, including a comprehensive list of novels, student materials, and additional software,
please click on the following link:
http://www.tprstorytelling.com/
TPRS Publishing
All‐District Honors Choir ‐ 55 Albemarle County Public School High School students have been selected to
participate in the 2012 District XIII High School All‐District Honors Choir. Nearly 300 students from 15 high
schools competed for the Choir through auditions that were held at Amherst County High School on
November 12. Next stop for those students selected for the regional competition will be at Monticello High
School on February 10 and 11, 2012, when students will seek to qualify for the All‐Virginia Chorus. The
Monticello High School event concludes with a concert open to the public on Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 3
p.m.
The teachers who prepared the students for the competition in Amherst are Eric Betthauser, music teacher at
Henley Middle School and Choral Director at Western Albemarle High School, Jennifer Morris, Albemarle
High School’s Choral Director, and Janet Whitmore, Monticello High School’s Choral Director.
School Board Hosts Meeting with Legislators – In coordination with the Board of Supervisors’ meeting with
local legislators, the School Board will present its legislative agenda to legislators December 15, 2011, 10:30am
in Room 246 of the County Office Building. The School Board will share legislative priorities and discuss
issues of significance to public education.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY12 First Quarter Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
First Quarter Financial Report for the three months ending
September 30, 2011
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Walters, and Allshouse; and
Ms. Burrell
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The attached Financial Report provides information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of
September 30, 2011. The financial report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure
data with data from the previous fiscal year.
DISCUSSION:
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are estimated to total $212.364 million,
$0.540 million (-0.3%) less than appropriations of $212.904 million. Combined with the use of $2.701
million in transfers from other funds and $0.714 million in fund balance, Revenues, Transfers, and Use of
Fund Balance will total $215.779 million, $0.543 million (-0.3%) less than Budget.
Revenue estimates included in this report are preliminary and based on two months of actual receipts for
the fiscal year. For the most part, July tax receipts are based on June levies and have been accrued back
to FY11 based on generally accepted accounting principles. The revenue estimates that will be presented
with the Second Quarter Financial Report will be significant because December tax collections will be
realized.
Recent economic data reflects a very volatile economy; particularly at the international level as several
European countries struggle to meet their financial obligations. There is concern that the deterio ration of
credit markets in Europe will drag the American economy into a downward spiral. Current mixed national
economic indicators point to a cautious modest expansion. The unemployment rate decreased to 9.0
percent, yet the economy is not creating enough jobs to bring the unemployment rate down significantly.
Leading indicators rose in September, yet the index of consumer confidence plunged in October. Retail
sales increased 0.5% in October, yet the increase in real disposable income continues to increase at a
snail’s pace. The economy is in for a continued bumpy ride over the short-term but should continue to
grow in the long-term.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for FY12:
Real Estate Tax revenues are projected to be $1.185 million (-1.1%) less than Budget. The
FY12 Budget was based on a negative 0.50% reassessment rate for both the 2011 and 2012 tax
years. The final 2011 reassessment rate was a negative 1.24%. The 2012 reassessment rate is
currently estimated to be a negative 3.0%. The reassessment period is for a tax year which is
equivalent to a calendar year. Its effects are realized over two consecutive fiscal years with the
1st half received in one fiscal year and the 2nd half received in the next fiscal year. A 1.0%
change in the reassessment rate is equivalent to $1.264 million in real estate tax revenues for
the 2012 tax year.
Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.228 (-1.2%) less than Budget. New car
sales have just started to improve due to postponed demand and improved economic conditions,
but not quite at the rate anticipated during the Budget preparation process.
AGENDA TITLE: FY12 First Quarter Financial Report
December 7, 2011
Page 2
Delinquent Property Taxes and Fees are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.901 million (33.2%).
Significant revenues from 2009 real estate tax sales will be released after a mandatory two year
holdback period expires. Additional compliance enforcement through the DMV Stop and
Department of TAX Set-off Debt programs has generated additional revenues. Delinquent tax
collection fees previously implemented have also encouraged payment of delinquent taxes to
avoid additional fees. Revalidation rollback revenues are reserved and not included in General
Fund projections.
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.359 million (-3.0%) less than Budget. The economic
recovery is slowly materializing, but at less than the anticipated rate of growth. Taxpayers
continue to be cautious, but have begun to slightly increase discretionary spending as the
economy improves. Significant revenues continue to be lost to internet purchases and consumer
purchases in adjacent localities. The Business Tax Auditor has substantially completed his
analysis of current and prior sales tax accounts for proper allocation. He will continue to monitor
new business registrations and tax allocations as he shifts his emphasis to ensuring compliance
with commercial licensing and property tax assessments.
Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.400 million (7.4%).
Consumers are beginning to spend more at restaurants as they continue to minimize other types
of discretionary spending.
Other Local Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.206 million (2.1%), primarily
due to increased Circuit Court Clerk fees resulting from increased refinancing activity and fees.
Other Local Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.128 million (2.5%) due to greater
than anticipated development fees and traffic enforcement fines.
Federal Revenues are estimated to be $0.329 million (-7.0%) less than Budget due to less than
anticipated Public Assistance reimbursements.
Revenue categories with variances of less than $0.100 million from Budget have not been
analyzed for this report.
b. Expenditures:
General Fund expenditures, including transfers, are expected to total $215.394 million, a 0.4% savings of
$0.928 million from Budget. The savings projection includes salary lapse and release of the revenue
shortfall contingency offset by a potential CIP transfer.
i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $79.684 million, a 1.4% savings of $1.143
million from Budget. The savings are allocated by functional categories as follows:
Administration expenditures are expected to total $10.427 million, a 1.5% savings of
$0.163 million from Budget.
Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.851 million, a 0.6% savings of $0.024 million
from Budget.
Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $30.179 million, a 1.5% savings of $0.470
million from Budget.
Public Works expenditures are expected to total $4.264 million, a 2.9% savings of $0.127
million from Budget.
Human Services expenditures are expected to total $18.749 million, a 1.3% savings of
$0.244 million from Budget.
Parks and Culture expenditures are expected to total $6.192 million, a 0.7% savings of
$0.045 million from Budget.
Community Development expenditures are expected to total $6.022 million, a 1.2%
savings of $0.071 million from Budget.
AGENDA TITLE: FY12 First Quarter Financial Report
December 7, 2011
Page 3
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment, reserves, and
refunds are expected to total $19.813 million, a 2.3% savings of $0.459 million including
release of the revenue contingency reserve.
iii. Transfers are expected to total $115.897 million, a tentative 0.6% overage of $0.674 million:
Transfer to the School Division is expected to be $96.878 million, a 0.4% savings of $0.418
million from Budget.
Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds are expected to total $19.069 million, a tentative
overage of $1.092 million from Budget due to a potential CIP transfer anticipated as a
result of the delayed debt issuance.
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report projects that the fiscal year will end with $0.385 million of revenues in excess of expenditures.
Revenues and related transfers are projected to be $0.543 million less than Budget. Expenditures and
related transfers are expected to produce $0.928 million in savings.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
Personal Property Tax, Business License Tax, Utility Tax, Food and Beverage Tax, Other Local
Taxes, and Transfers show positive growth over FY11.
Real Estate, Sales Tax, Other Local Revenue, State Revenue, Federal Revenue, and Use of
Fund Balance show decreases from FY11.
Expenditures:
All categories show anticipated increases over FY11.
No categories show anticipated decreases from FY11.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
Has an Unaudited FY11 Undesignated Fund Balance of $31.872 million,
Appropriated $0.714 million for Budgeted FY12 Initiatives and Reappropriations,
Has a remaining June 30, 2011 Fund Balance of $31.158 million,
Anticipates a $1.092 million CIP transfer for the delayed FY11 debt issuance,
Has a Proposed June 30, 2011 Fund Balance of $30.066 million,
Has Policy required reserves of $23.652 million,
Has a Proposed additional Policy reserve of $2.628 million, and
Has Proposed Policy June 30, 2011 available funds of $3.786 million.
The $23.652 million Policy reserve consists of the 8.0% net General Government and School Operating Budget
requirement and the 1.0% Revenue Stabilization reserve established by the Board of Supervisors as part of the
FY12 Budget process. Based on the recommendations of the County’s Financial Advisors, staff is proposing an
additional 1% ($2.628 million) reserve, increasing the total Policy reserve to $26.280 million. With this adjustment,
the June 30, 2011 available Fund Balance would be $2.976 million.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial Report is based on unaudited FY11 financial data and three months of financial data for FY12.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report has been prepared for information. No action is required.
ATTACHMENTS;
A – Preliminary General Fund End-of-Year Financial Report
B – Preliminary General Fund Budget Comparison Report
C – Preliminary General Fund Balance Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
FY 10/11
Full Year
Actual (1)
09/30/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
07/01/11
Adopted (2)
09/30/11
Appropriations
09/30/11
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Appropriations
Revenue
Estimate (3)
$
Variances
Est-Approp
Variances
as % of
Appropriations
Revenues:
Real Estate Taxes, Current $111.235 $1.935 1.7%$111.396 $111.396 $1.956 1.8%$110.211 ($1.185)-1.1%
Personal Property Taxes, Current 19.073 0.184 1.0%19.628 19.628 0.217 1.1%19.400 (0.228)-1.2%
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees 3.686 0.547 14.8%2.712 2.712 0.967 35.7%3.613 0.901 33.2%
Sales Taxes 12.716 1.079 8.5%12.000 12.000 0.969 8.1%11.641 (0.359)-3.0%
Business Licenses 9.502 0.122 1.3%9.613 9.613 0.132 1.4%9.644 0.031 0.3%
Utility Taxes 8.978 1.089 12.1%9.381 9.381 0.873 9.3%9.342 (0.039)-0.4%
Food and Beverage Taxes 5.737 0.924 16.1%5.400 5.400 0.931 17.2%5.800 0.400 7.4%
Other Local Taxes 9.933 0.520 5.2%10.001 10.001 0.585 5.9%10.207 0.206 2.1%
Other Local Revenue 5.272 1.063 20.2%5.124 5.124 1.064 20.8%5.253 0.128 2.5%
State Revenue 23.088 4.755 20.6%22.952 22.952 4.654 20.3%22.887 (0.065)-0.3%
Federal Revenue 4.596 0.954 20.8%4.674 4.696 0.941 20.0%4.367 (0.329)-7.0%
Total Revenues 213.815 13.171 6.2%212.881 212.904 13.291 6.2%212.364 (0.540)-0.3%
Transfers:
Use of Other Funds 2.634 0.000 0.0%2.701 2.705 0.000 0.0%2.701 (0.004)-0.1%
Use of Fund Balance 2.899 0.022 0.7%0.000 0.714 0.082 11.5%0.714 0.000 0.0%
Subtotal Transfers 5.532 0.022 0.4%2.701 3.419 0.082 2.4%3.415 (0.004)-0.1%
Total $219.348 $13.192 6.0%$215.582 $216.322 $13.373 6.2%$215.779 (0.543)-0.3%
FY 10/11
Full Year
Actual (1)
09/30/10
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
07/01/11
Adopted (2)
09/30/11
Appropriations
09/30/11
YTD Actual
YTD Actual
as % of
Appropriations
Expenditure
Estimate (3)
$
Variances
Est-Approp
Variances
as % of
Appropriations
Expenditures:
Administration $9.950 $2.523 25.4%$10.555 $10.590 $2.653 25.1%$10.427 -$0.163 -1.5%
Judicial 3.798 0.896 23.6%3.851 3.875 0.934 24.1%3.851 -$0.024 -0.6%
Public Safety 29.401 6.655 22.6%30.548 30.649 6.996 22.8%30.179 -$0.470 -1.5%
Public Works 4.098 1.408 34.4%4.391 4.391 1.978 45.0%4.264 -$0.127 -2.9%
Human Services 17.605 3.523 20.0%18.992 18.992 3.510 18.5%18.749 -$0.244 -1.3%
Parks, Rec. & Culture 5.948 1.689 28.4%6.237 6.237 1.633 26.2%6.192 -$0.045 -0.7%
Community Development 5.968 1.589 26.6%6.018 6.093 1.582 26.0%6.022 -$0.071 -1.2%
Subtotal Operations 76.768 18.283 23.8%80.593 80.827 19.288 23.9%79.684 -$1.143 -1.4%
Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)18.790 0.070 0.4%19.925 20.273 0.231 1.1%19.813 -$0.459 -2.3%
Transfers:
Transfer to School Division 96.058 24.014 25.0%97.246 97.246 24.311 25.0%96.828 -$0.418 -0.4%
Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 17.801 9.269 52.1%17.818 17.977 10.969 61.0%19.069 $1.092 6.1%
Subtotal Transfers 113.858 33.284 29.2%115.064 115.223 35.280 30.6%115.897 $0.674 0.6%
Total $209.416 $51.637 24.7%$215.582 $216.322 $54.799 25.3%$215.394 -$0.928 -0.4%
7/1/11 > 09/30/11 = 25% of year Projected FY12 Revenues in Excess of Expenditures $0.385
(1) Full Year FY11 Transacctions
(2) July 01, 2011 Adopted General Fund FY12 Budget Policy June 30, 2011 Available Fund Balance $3.786
(3) Estimate as of August 17, 2011
Projected June 30, 2012 Available Funds $4.170
Current FY 11/12
Current FY 11/12
County of Albemarle
General Fund Financial Report
Year-To-Date for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
($ in millions)
Revenues with black variances are positive, red variances in ( ) are shortfalls.Expenditures with red variances in ( ) are positive, black variances are over expenditures
Attachment B
County of Albemarle
General Fund Budget Comparison Report
Year-to-Date for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
($ in millions)
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Services Parks, Rec &
Culture
Community
Development
Non-
departmental
Non-School
Transfers $ in millions Expenditures
10/11 Actual July 1 Adopted 11/12 Appropriations 11/12 Estimate
-
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Real Estate Tax Personal
Property Tax
Sales Tax Business
Licenses
Utility Tax Food_Beverage
Tax
Other Local &
Delinq Taxes
Other Local
Revenues
State Revenues Federal
Revenues
Transfers Other
Funds
Fund Balance $ in millions Revenues
10/11 Actual July 1 Adopted 11/12 Appropriations 11/12 Estimate
95.4
95.6
95.8
96.0
96.2
96.4
96.6
96.8
97.0
97.2
97.4
1 $ in millions Transfer to School Division
Attachment C
June 30, 2011 Unaudited Fund Balance - Preliminary October 05, 2011 $31.502
Auditor Adjustments 0.370
June 30, 2011 Unaudited Fund Balance - December 07, 2011 31.872
Less FY12 Appropriations Approved to Date:
Budgeted FY12 Local Government Initiatives (approved in budget process)0.000
General Fund Reappropriations 0.385
Sheriff Contribution reappropriated 0.006
Economic Opportunity Fund 0.150
Grant Leveraging Fund 0.100
Victim Witness Grant Adjustment -0.002
Housing Community Development Loan Fund Reappropriations 0.075
Total Approved FY12 Appropriations 0.714
June 30, 2011 Unaudited Fund Balance Available 31.158
Less Proposed FY12 Commitments:
CIP transfer anticipated for delayed debt issuance 1.092
Total Proposed FY12 Commitments 1.092
Proposed June 30, 2011 Available Fund Balance 30.066
Less Policy Reserves:
Fund Balance Reserve - 8% net Government and School FY12 Operating Budgets 21.024
Stabilization Reserve - 1% net Government and School FY12 Operating Budgets 2.628
Total Policy Reserves 23.652
Less Proposed Reserve:
Proposed staff recommendation of 1% additional reserve 2.628
Total Proposed Policy Reserves 26.280
Proposed Policy June 30, 2011 Available Fund Balance $3.786
Audited General Fund Balance Report
Year-to-Date for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2011
County of Albemarle
($ in millions)
Page 1 of 5
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
December 2011
Special Issues
Construction Significant Accomplishments (as of 11/15/11)
Georgetown Road completed on November 8.
I-64 Eastbound Shadwell Exit completed on October 19, 2011.
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 691, Jarman’s Gap
Bike lanes and sidewalk
improvement
Construction Underway Construction Complete
– September 2012 January 2011
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.4 Mi E.
of Monticello Loop Road
Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– January 2012 February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi
E. of Monticello Loop Road
Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– January 2012 February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 20
Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– January 2012 February 2013
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – January
2012 May 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 729
Survey Preliminary Design
Winter 2011/12 October 2013
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Survey Preliminary Design –
Winter 2012 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Survey Preliminary Design –
Winter 2012 December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods
Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy
Creek
Project Scoping Survey – Fall 2011 December 2014
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
Page 2 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
December 2011
Preliminary Engineering Continued:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 250, Bridge
replacement over Little Ivy
Creek
Project Kick-off Survey – Spring 2012 January 2018
Route 762, Rose Hill Church
Lane, Unpaved Road Project Scoping Environmental
Clearance Spring 2012
Route 704, Fortune Lane,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall
2011 *
Route 672, Blufton Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall
2011 *
Route 608, Happy Creek
Road, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – Fall
2011 *
Brocks Mill Road, Rural
Addition -- Project Scoping –
Spring 2012 *
Route 774, Bear Creek Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
Route 703, Pocket Lane,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST
MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge
Replacement
Construction
Underway
Construction Complete
– Summer 2012 August 2010
Construction Activities
Bridge Repairs (NFO) BRDG-967-040, N501
Scope: Bridge Repairs - District Wide (Term 2).
Next Major Milestone: Completion of Term 2 Work.
Contract Completion Date: February 7, 2012.
Plant Mix Schedule (NFO) PM7A-967-F11, P401; PM7B-967-F11, P401
Scope: Plant Mix Southern Culpeper District.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion.
Contract Completion Date: December 1, 2011.
Page 3 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
December 2011
Construction Activities Continued:
Plant Mix Schedule PM7K-967-F11, P401
Scope: Plant Mix - Secondary Routes in Albemarle, Greene, and Louisa Counties.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion.
Contract Completion Date: December 1, 2011.
Pipe Rehabilitation (NFO) BRDG-967-045, N501; BRDG-967-062, N501
Scope: Pipe Rehab in Culpeper, Louisa, Madison, Albemarle, Fauquier, Orange, and Rappahannock
Counties.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion.
Contract Completion Date: April 29, 2012.
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion.
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2012.
Georgetown Road (NFO) 0656-002-254, C501
Scope: 5’ Wide Pedestrian Facility with Crossing and Resurfacing with Refuge Islands.
Next Major Milestone: Completed November 8.
Contract Completion Date: September 23, 2011.
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path.
Next major Milestone: Provide final design revisions to Contractor for construction.
Contract Completion: June 10, 2013.
I-64 Eastbound Shadwell Exit (FO) 0064-002-815, N501
Scope: Widen Ramps and Improve Signals.
Next Major Milestone: Completed October 19, 2011.
Contract Completion Date: December 2, 2010.
JPA Bridge Replacement U000-104-V09, C501
Scope: Replace Bridge and Approaches over Railroad.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Bridge.
Contract Completion Date: August 24, 2012.
Jarmans Gap Road (NFO) 0691-002-258, C501
Scope: Grade, Drain, Asphalt Pavement, Planting and Utilities.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Phase Two.
Contract Completion: September 21, 2012.
Route 250 Bridge over Buckingham Branch Railroad (NFO) BRDG-002-797,B644
Scope: Substructure repair and superstructure replacement.
Next major milestone: Begin Work.
Contract Completion Date: August 17, 2012.
Page 4 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
December 2011
Construction Activities—continued
Bridge Deck Repair and Polymer Overlay (NFO) 0029-002-044, N501, N502
Scope: Patch decks and epoxy overlay on the Route 29 Bypass over Route 29.
Next Major Milestone: Resume Work in the Spring after the Winter Shutdown.
Contract Completion Date: August 20, 2011.
Latex Modified Schedule (NFO) LM7A-967-F11, P401
Scope: Latex Modified on various routes in Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, Madison and Orange Counties.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Punchlist.
Contract Completion Date: October 1, 2011.
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 601 (Garth Rd) from Route 654 (Barracks Rd) to Route 601 (Free Union Rd) –
Review of roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete;
sign installation pending.
Route 614 from Route 601 (Free Union Rd) to Route 810 (Browns Gap Rd) – Review of
roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign
installation pending.
Route 676 (Owensville Rd) from Route 676 (Tilman Rd) to Route 614 (Garth Rd) – Review
of roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign
installation pending.
Route 678 (Owensville Rd) from Route 250 (Ivy Rd) to Route 676 (Tilman Rd) – Review of
roadway to determine potential for installation of “Share the Road” signs complete; sign
installation pending.
Route 601 (Garth Rd) at Route 658 (Barracks Farm Rd) – Intersection safety review study
complete. Sign installation pending.
Routes 1670 (Ashwood Blvd), 1675 (Kendalwood), 1723 (Crosstimbers), 1737 (Watercrest)
& 1720 (Timberwood Pkwy) – Crosswalk study at multiple locations; subject of citizen
request. Awaiting installation.
Route 29 from Route 1575 (Austin Dr) to Route 763 (Dickerson Dr) – Sign evaluation
complete; awaiting installation.
Route 706, Dudley Mtn Road from Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) to Route 708 (Red Hill
Rd) – Speed study complete- a 35mph speed zone. Sign installation pending.
Page 5 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
December 2011
Traffic Engineering Studies—continued
Route 866 (Greenbriar Dr) at Route 1427 (Hillsdale Dr) – Multi-way stop study. Multi-way
stop not recommended.
Route 631(E Rio Road) at Route 768 (Penn Park Rd.) – Study to review the addition of
pedestrian phasing to the traffic control signal at the intersection. Pedestrian phasing not
recommended due to lack of pedestrian facilities. Study recommends a pavement marking
adjustment for the through movement at the signal. Pavement marking installation pending.
Route 643(Proffit Rd.) and Route 649(Polo Grounds Road) Intersection safety review
complete. Awaiting sign installation.
Under Review
Route 643 (Rio Mills Road) from Route 743 (Earlysville Road) to Route 29 ( Seminole
Trail) Speed study. - In Progress.
Route 250 near Boars Head Inn Guardrail review. - In Progress.
Route 606 and Towncenter Drive Sight distance review. - In Progress.
Route 250 & I-64 Crozet Ramps Safety review. - In Progress.
Route 641 from Route 29 to Route 644 Centerline striping review. - In Progress.
Route 1438 (Hilton Heights) and Route 29 U-turn safety review. - In Progress
Maintenance Activities
Ongoing routine maintenance activities.
Completing mowing operations.
Preparing for winter weather
David Crim Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
11-03( ) Agricultural and Forestal Districts; additions to the
Blue Run, the Buck’s Elbow Mountain, the Keswick and
the Sugar Hollow AF Districts, and the creation of the Glen
Oaks AF District
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearings on an ordinance to amend Division 2,
Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of
Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the
County Code pertaining to the addition of parcels to the
Blue Run, the Buck’s Elbow Mountain, the Keswick and
the Sugar Hollow AF Districts, and the creation of the Glen
Oaks AF District
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Cilimberg, and Clark
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-4307 permits the creation of a new agricultural and forestal district (AFD) and the addition of lands
to an existing AFD upon application pursuant to the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act.
The Blue Run AFD was created in 1986 and currently includes 37 parcels with 4,183 acres. This AFD is located north
of Cash Corner and east of Stony Point Road. One owner has requested to add a 28.765 acre parcel (TMP 22-10) to
the District. The Blue Run AFD is currently on a 10-year review cycle and is scheduled to be reviewed prior to July 10,
2012.
The Buck’s Elbow Mountain AFD was created in 2009 and currently includes 16 parcels with 3,198 acres. This AFD is
located northwest of Crozet and south of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir in western Albemarle County. One owner has
requested to add an 11 acre parcel (TMP 39-1D) to the District. The Buck’s Elbow Mountain AFD is currently on a 10-
year review cycle and is scheduled to be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
The Keswick AFD was created in 1986 and currently includes 65 parcels with 6,742 acres. The AFD is located in the
area north of Keswick. One owner has requested to add two parcels (TMPs 81-74 and 81-79) totaling 57.27 acres to
the District. The Keswick AFD is currently on a 10-year review cycle and is scheduled to be reviewed prior to
November 3, 2014.
The Sugar Hollow AFD was created in 1989 and currently includes 59 parcels with 4,890 acres. The AFD is located
west and north of White Hall. One owner has requested to add an 8.56 acre parcel (TMP 26-10G) to the District. The
Sugar Hollow AFD is currently on a 10-year review cycle and is scheduled to be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
One application has been submitted requesting to create the Glen Oaks AFD. The proposed district would include two
parcels (TMPs 94-15A1 and 94-15A2) and 257.17 acres, and is located on the Rivanna River, just east of the Rivanna
Development Area.
Virginia Code §§ 15.2-4307 and 15.2-4309 require that the Board conduct a public hearing on applications to establish
an AFD or to add parcels to an existing AFD, and that they also be reviewed by both the Agricultural and Forestal
District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendations. The Advisory Committee and
the Planning Commission have reviewed these applications and recommend approval of the additions to the Buck’s
Elbow Mountain, the Keswick and the Sugar Hollow AFDs and the creation of the Glen Oaks AFD. For the reasons
explained in the Discussion below, the Advisory Committee did not recommend approval of the addition to the Blue
Run AFD, but the Planning Commission did recommend approval.
AGENDA TITLE: 11-03( ) Agricultural and Forestal Districts; additions to the Blue Run, the Buck’s Elbow Mountain,
the Keswick and the Sugar Hollow AF Districts, and the creation of the Glen Oaks AF District
December 7, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Blue Run AFD
The Blue Run AFD primarily consists of large farm and forest parcels, with a few small areas of smaller residential
lots. Twenty parcels in the District are under conservation easement. In addition to agriculture and forestry, there are
approximately 23 dwellings in the District (secondary dwellings may not appear in this count).
The parcel under consideration for addition, TMP 22-10, is located on Burnley Station Road, approximately 2.2 miles
west of its intersection with Stony Point Road (Route 20) and 1.9 miles from the nearest “core” parcel of the Blue Run
District. In the past, parcels over 1 mile from the core would not have been eligible to join a district unless they were
adjacent to a parcel that was within 1 mile of the core. However, due to an amendment to Virginia Code § 15.2-4305
effective July 1, 2011, such parcels can be added “if the board of supervisors finds, in consultation with the advisory
committee and the planning commission, that the parcel not part of the core within one mile of the boundary of the
core contains “agriculturally and forestally significant land.”
At its meeting on September 19, 2011, the Advisory Committee recommended against approval of this proposed
addition to the Blue Run District, as it felt it had insufficient information on the agricultural use of the property (see
Attachment B for Planning Commission Staff Report and November 4, 2011 Memorandum). Staff believes that this
parcel contains “agriculturally and forestally significant land.” Virginia Code § 15.2-4302 defines “agriculturally and
forestally significant land” as follows: “land that has recently or historically produced agricultural and forestal products,
is suitable for agricultural or forestal production or is considered appropriate to be retained for agricultural and forestal
production as determined by such factors as soil quality. . .” (italics added) Although the current use of the property
has not typically been a factor in past decisions on District additions, staff contacted the landowners after the Advisory
Committee meeting to gather more information on the property. The property is not now in an active agricultural use,
but has been used for stabling and boarding horses in the past and may be used for that purpose in the future. In
addition, the parcel includes soils rated as Prime (21%) and Locally Important (45%) in the Comprehensive Plan. The
same soils are rated highly for production of Black Walnut and for high-value hardwood production. Soil quality is
often used as an indicator of agricultural importance. In addition, the parcel is large enough to qualify for use-value
taxation as an agricultural or forestal use.
The proposed addition of the parcel, totaling 28.765 acres, would increase the total number of acres in the Blue Run
District to 4,211.765.
Buck’s Elbow Mountain AFD
The Buck’s Elbow Mountain AFD primarily consists of large forested parcels with a few nearby residential subdivisions.
There are no conservation easements on the land in this District. In addition to agriculture and forestry, there are
approximately 11 dwellings in the District (secondary dwellings may not appear in this count).
The parcel under consideration for addition, TMP 39-1D, is located in one of the gaps at the center of the district, on
Bucks Elbow Mountain Road. The proposed addition of the parcel, totaling 11 acres, would increase the total number
of acres in the Buck’s Elbow Mountain District to 3,209.
Keswick AFD
The Keswick AFD primarily consists of large farm parcels, as well as some smaller residential lots. Thirty-seven
parcels in the District are under conservation easement. In addition to agricultural and forestry, there are
approximately 41 dwellings in the District (secondary dwellings may not appear in this count).
The parcels under consideration for addition, TMPs 81-74 and 81-79, are located approximately .75 miles southeast of
Route 22 in Keswick. The proposed addition of the parcels, totaling 57.27 acres, would increase the total number of
acres in the Keswick District to 6,799.27. The proposed ordinance also identifies TMP 63-39B as no longer existing
(land from this parcel was distributed to other parcels in the District).
Sugar Hollow AFD
The Sugar Hollow AFD primarily consists of large farm parcels, with some large and small residential parcels. Twenty-
four parcels in the District are under conservation easement. In addition to agricultural and forestry, there are
approximately 29 dwellings in the District (secondary dwellings may not appear in this count).
AGENDA TITLE: 11-03( ) Agricultural and Forestal Districts; additions to the Blue Run, the Buck’s Elbow Mountain,
the Keswick and the Sugar Hollow AF Districts, and the creation of the Glen Oaks AF District
December 7, 2011
Page 3
The parcel under consideration for addition, TMP 26-10G, is located on Carr’s Ridge Road north of Sugar Hollow. The
proposed addition of the parcel, totaling 8.56 acres, would increase the total number of acres in the Sugar Hollow
District to 4,898.56. The proposed ordinance also identifies TMPs 40-9D (part) and 40-9E as being in the District
(these parcels were created from other parcels in the District) and TMP 26-14H as no longer existing (land from this
parcel was distributed to another parcel in the District).
Glen Oaks AFD
One application has been submitted requesting to create the Glen Oaks AFD. The proposed district would include two
parcels (TMP 94-15A1 and 94-15A2) and 257.17 acres, and is located on the Rivanna River, just east of the Rivanna
Development Area. The proposed district is characterized by wooded areas and pastures, large portions of which are
in the floodplain of the Rivanna River and Limestone Creek. The area includes farms to the north, east and south, a
rural subdivision to the north, and the Rivanna Village development area to the northwest. No parcels in the proposed
district are under conservation easement, but adjacent parcels to the northeast and east are under easement.
The proposed district is entirely designated as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in
the district and those adjacent to the parcels in the district are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses as the preferred land use and a residential density of .5 unit per acre. Protecting and preserving these properties
in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and productive farmland.
Conservation of these areas will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aid in the protection of
ground and surface water, agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After conducting public hearings on the proposed AFD additions and the creation of the proposed Glen Oaks AFD, all
of which may be held together as one public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Ordinance
B – Staff reports to the Planning Commission
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Attachment A
Draft: November 14, 2011
ORDINANCE NO. 11-03(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District
3-209.5 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District
3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District
3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District
By Adding:
3-213.5 Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 22, parcel 10; Ttax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26B1, 26C, 26D,
28A, 29, 31, 32A, 41A, 41E, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A1, 4A5, 24, 24A, 24B;
tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 41A, 41Q, 42A, 42A1, 43, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcels 13, 14.
This district, created on June 18, 1986 for not more than 8 years, since amended at its last review on July 10,
2002 to continue for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01; Ord. 02-3(3),
7-10-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 11-3(2), 7-6-11; Ord. 11-3(4), 12-7-11)
Sec. 3-209.5 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 25, parcel 1; tax map 38, parcels 4, 7, 8, 10, 20; tax map 39, parcels
1, 1D, 1F, 1F1, 1G, 2B, 8, 10A, 21Q, 21R, 21Z. This district, created on December 2, 2009 for not more than
10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 11-3(2), 7-6-11; Ord. 11-3(4), 12-7-11)
Sec. 3-213.5 Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Glen Oaks Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 94, parcels 15A1, 15A2. This district, created on December 7, 2011
for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to December 7, 2021.
(Ord. 11-3(4), 12-7-11)
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 48, parcels 30, 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E; tax map 63, parcels 39, 39A, 39B,
Attachment A
Draft: November 14, 2011
40, 42A; tax map 64, parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8A, 9, 10 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 11 12, 13, 13A, 14; tax map 65, parcels
13, 31C1, 31C3, 31D, 32; tax map 79, parcel 46; tax map 80, parcels 1, 2, 2A, 2C, 3A, 3A1, 3G, 3H, 3I, 4,
61D, 88, 114A, 115, 164, 169, 169A, 169C, 169C1, 174, 176, 176A, 182, 182A, 183, 183A, 190, 192, 194; tax
map 81, parcels 1, 8A, 15A6, 15B, 63, 74, 79. This district, created on September 3, 1986 for not more than
10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
(10-12-94; 4-12-95; 8-13-97; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(e); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04; Ord. 09-
3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 11-3(4), 12-7-11)
Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 18A, 18B, 21, 21A, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 10G, 11C, 11D, 12A, 13, 14F, 14H, 19, 40B, 40C, 41A,
52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 24A, 25, 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 13C3, 14, 15, 25, 25A;
tax map 40, parcels 1, 9, 9C, 9D (part), 9E, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 22, 22A, 27A, 46C1, 49. This district, created
on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on December 2, 2009, shall next be
reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 02-3(1), 1-9-02; Ord. 02-
3(2), 4-3-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 11-3(4), 12-7-11)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD201100006 Sugar Hollow Addition
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 15, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Proposal: Addition to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural
and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission recommend approval of the addition to the Sugar Hollow
Agricultural and Forestal District.
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Sugar Hollow District:
Sec. 3-226 Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 25, parcels 11C, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14B, 14C, 18, 18A, 18B, 21, 21A, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 10, 10B, 10D, 10F, 11C, 11D, 12A, 13, 14F, 14H, 19, 40B, 40C,
41A, 52, 52D; tax map 27, parcels 8, 8E (part), 24A, 25, 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 13C3, 14, 15,
25, 25A; tax map 40, parcels 1, 9, 9C, 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 22, 22A, 27A, 46C1, 49. This district, created
on September 6, 1989 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on December 2, 2009, shall next be
reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(11-17-93; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(q); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 02-3(1), 1-9-02;
Ord. 02-3(2), 4-3-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10)
The Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District is located west and north of White Hall (Attachment A). The
district is characterized by large forested areas, as well by some open pasturelands.
The District was created in 1989 and originally included 27 parcels and 2,546 acres. The District now includes 59
parcels and approximately 4,890 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance:
Sugar Hollow District
Prime Soils 426.5 acres (9 %)
Locally Important Soils 734.5 acres (15%)
Unique Soils 637.7 acres (13%)
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Sugar Hollow
District includes approximately 29 dwellings (secondary dwellings may not be included in this count).
Local Development Patterns: The area is largely made up of large farm parcels, with some large and small
residential parcels. Twenty-four parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment A).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Sugar Hollow District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels
adjoining the parcels in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas as well.
2
Environmental Benefits: The District includes forests and pastures. Protecting and preserving these properties in
an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and productive farm land, which the Comprehensive
Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help maintain the
environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils,
and wildlife habitat. The majority of the parcels in the District are located in the watershed of the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, while the southernmost portion drains to the Beaver Creek Reservoir.
Time Period: The Sugar Hollow District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the Sugar Hollow District, in accordance with
Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code, which allow for additions of
land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
The parcel, Tax Map 26 Parcel 10G (8.56 acres), is located on Carr’s Ridge Road north of Sugar Hollow
(Attachment A).
The parcel is zoned Rural Areas, with has agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land uses and
with a residential density of .5 unit per acre.
Advisory Committee Recommendation:
At their meeting on September 19, 2011, the Agricultural & Forestal Districts Advisory Committee unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed addition to the Sugar Hollow district.
Attachments
A. Sugar Hollow District Map
Return to agenda
CROZET
SEALVIL LE
MOUNT FAIR
WHITE HALL
DOYLESVILLE
SUGAR HOL LOW
AFD2011-00006 Sugar Hollow Addition 0 1 20.5 Miles¯
Sug a r Ho llo w AF D
Pro p os e d A dd it ion
Co ns e rv at ion Ea se m en ts
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – AFD-2011-6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 15, 2011
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2011, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room #241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield, Don Franco,
Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Calvin Morris, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for
the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Bill Fritz,
Director of Community Development; Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning;
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Zobrist, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Zobrist invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being no
comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Public Hearing Items:
A. AFD-2011-00006 Sugar Hollow Addition - Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the addition of
the following parcel(s) to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District (Albemarle County Code
§ 3-226) on November 15th, 2011, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia: Tax map 26, parcel 10G. The parcel proposed
for addition is approximately 8.56 acres in size and located on Carrs Ridge Rd approximately 0.5
miles northwest of its intersection with Sugar Ridge Road (Route 674). The Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee has recommended approval of this addition. (Scott
Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request as described.
- This is a proposal for an addition of 8.56 acres to the Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal
District. The district was established in 1989.
- At the September 19th meeting the Agricultural & Forestal Advisory Committee unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed addition to the Sugar Hollow District.
- Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed addition of the
Sugar Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hear ing and invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter before the Planning
Commission for further comment and action.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2011-00006 Sugar
Hollow Agricultural and Forestal District addition.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the Sugar Hollow Agricultural/Forestal District Addition Review would go to the
Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2011 with a recommendation for approval.
B. AFD-2011-00007 Glen Oaks Creation - Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County Planning
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – AFD-2011-6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
Commission will hold a hold a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the creation of the
Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal District on November 15th, 2011, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of
the Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The parcels that
would compose the proposed District are Tax Map 94, Parcels 15A1 and 15A2. The proposed
District would be approximately 257.17 acres in size and located on an un-named private road
approximately 0.75 miles beyond the end of Running Deer Dr ive (Route 808). The Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee has recommended approval of this district. (Scott
Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request as described.
- This is a proposal for the creation of a new district for the Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal
District.
- At the September 19th meeting the Agricultural & Forestal Advisory Committee unanimously
recommended approval of the creation of the Glen Oaks District.
- Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed creation of
the Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal District.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter before the Planning
Commission for further comment and action.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2011-000007 for
the creation of the Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal District.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the Glen Oaks Agricultural/Forestal District Review for creation would go to the
Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2011 with a recommendation for approval.
C. AFD-2011-00008 Keswick Addition - Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the addition of the
following parcel(s) to the Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District (Albemarle County Code § 3 -219)
on November 15th, 2011, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia: Tax map 81, parcels 74 and 79. The parcel proposed for
addition are approximately 57.27 acres in size and located on Barn Field Dr ive, approximately 1 mile
from its intersection with Clarks Tract Road (Route 648). The Albemarle County Agricultural and
Forestal Advisory Committee has recommended approval of this addition. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request as described above.
- This is a proposal for an addition of two parcels to the Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
- At the September 19th meeting the Agricultural & Forestal Advisory Committee unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed addition to the Keswick District.
- Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed addition of the
Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter before the Planning
Commission for further comment and action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2011-00008
Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District additions.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – AFD-2011-6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 SUBMITTED TO BOS
3
Mr. Zobrist noted that the Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District Addition Review would go to the Board of
Supervisors on December 7, 2011 with a recommendation for approval.
D. AFD-2011-00009 Blue Run Addition - Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the addition of the
following parcel to the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District (Albemarle County Code § 3-208)
on November 15th, 2011, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia: Tax map 22, parcel 10. The parcel proposed for addition is
approximately 28.765 acres in size and is located on Burnley Station Road, approximately 3.3 miles
west of its intersection with Stony Point Road (Route 20). The Albemarle County Agricultural and
Forestal Advisory Committee has recommended denial of this addition. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request as described above.
- This is a proposal for an addition to the Blue Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. The
proposed addition is a few miles to the west of the existing district. It is 28.765 acres. This is an
unusual case. As they may remember in the past any parcel that is going to be added to a
district needed to be within one mile of the core of that district. Earlier this year the State Code
authorizing these districts changed in several ways. One change was if a parcel is more than one
mile from the core of the district it can be added to the district if the board finds that it is
agriculturally or forestally significant land.
- In this case on September 19th the Advisory Committee actually recommended denial of this
district because they felt they did not have enough information about the agricultural use of the
land. Staff went about trying to find some more information about how to establish that.
- An important thing to remember in this finding is under the section of the Virginia Code about
these districts it gives some guidelines for how to find that something is or is not agriculturally
significant. The last phrase says, “It is c onsidered to be appropriate to be retained for agricultural
and forestal production as determined by such factors as soil quality.” Soil quality is typically the
approach they use to determine the value of land for production both for Agricultural Forestal
Districts, conservation easements, and several other programs. Again, this parcel is 28 acres and
about 18 acres of it are in prime soils or locally important. These are soil types designated in the
comprehensive plan as being important to production of agriculture in this area.
- Given that additional information, staff recommends that the Planning Commission both make the
finding that this is agriculturally and forestally significant land, and secondly to recommend
approval of this proposed addition to the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter before the Planning
Commission for further comment and action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2011-00009 Blue
Run Additions and to support the findings by staff that the addition contains agriculturally and forestally
significant land.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the Blue Run Additions and findings would go to the Board of Supervisors on
December 7, 2011 with a recommendation for approval.
E. AFD-2011-00010 Bucks Elbow Addition - Notice is hereby given that the Albemarle County
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the addition of
the following parcel to the Bucks Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District (Albemarle County
Code § 3-209.5) on November 15th, 2011, at 6 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Albemarle County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia: Tax map 39, parcel 1D. The parcel proposed
for addition is approximately 11 acres in size and located on Bucks Elbow Mtn Rd approximately 1.5
miles northeast of its intersection with Jarmans Gap Rd (Route 611). The Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee has recommended approval of this addition. (Scott
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –NOVEMBER 15, 2011
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – AFD-2011-6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 SUBMITTED TO BOS
4
Clark)
Mr. Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request as described above.
- This is a proposal for an addition to the Bucks Elbow Agricultural and Forestal District.
- At the September 19th meeting the Agricultural & Forestal Advisory Committee unanimously
recommended approval of the proposed addition to the Bucks Elbow District.
- Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed addition of the
Bucks Elbow Agricultural and Forestal District.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter before the Planning
Commission for further comment and action.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of AFD-2011-00010 Bucks
Elbow Addition.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the Bucks Elbow Agricultural/Forestal District Addition Review would go to the Board
of Supervisors on December 7, 2011 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD201100007 Glen Oaks District Creation
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 15, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Proposal: Creation of the Glen Oaks Agricultural and
Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the addition to the Glen Oaks
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Proposal: One application has been submitted requesting to create the Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for the creation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The proposed District would include 2 parcels
(Tax Map 94, Parcels 15A1 and 15A2) and 257.17 acres. The proposed District is located on the Rivanna River,
just east of the Rivanna Development Area (Glenmore; see Attachment A). The district is characterized by
wooded areas and pastures, large portions of which are in the floodplain of the Rivanna River and Limestone
Creek.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: The proposed district has the following important soils, as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan:
Prime 123.33 acres 47.1%
Locally Important 63.04 acres 24.1%
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: The proposed Glen Oaks District includes no dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The area includes farms to the north, east, and south, a rural subdivision to the
north, and the Rivanna Village development area to the northwest. No parcels in the proposed District are under
conservation easements, but adjacent parcels to the northeast and east are under easement (Attachment A).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The proposed Glen Oaks District is entirely designated as
Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The
parcels adjoining the parcels in the proposed District are all zoned RA Rural Areas
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre.
Environmental Benefits: The proposed District includes woodland, agricultural fields, and large floodplains.
Protecting and preserving these properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and
productive farm land, which the Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve.
Conservation of this area will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection
of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat..
Time Period: The proposed Glen Oaks District would be under a 10-year review cycle, and would next be
reviewed in 2021.
2
Committee Recommendation: At its meeting on September 19, 2011, the Advisory Committee unanimously
recommended approval of the creation of the Glen Oaks District.
Attachments:
A. Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal District – Map
Return to agenda
RIVANNA RIVER
CARROLL CREEK
LIMESTONE C REEK
AFD201100007 Glen Oaks AFD Creation 0 740 1,480370Feet¯
Gle n O a ks Pa rc e ls
10 0 -Ye a r F lo od p lai n
Co ns e rv at ion Ea se m en ts
De ve lo pm e n t A re a s
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD201100008 Keswick Addition
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 15, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Proposal: Addition to the Keswick Agricultural and
Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the addition to the Keswick
Agricultural and Forestal District.
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Keswick District:
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 48, parcels 30, 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E; tax map 63, parcels 39, 39A,
39B, 40, 42A; tax map 64, parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8A, 9, 10 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 11 12, 13, 13A, 14; tax map
65, parcels 13, 31C1, 31C3, 31D, 32; tax map 79, parcel 46; tax map 80, parcels 1, 2, 2A, 2C, 3A, 3A1,
3G, 3H, 3I, 4, 61D, 88, 114A, 115, 164, 169, 169A, 169C, 169C1, 174, 176, 176A, 182, 182A, 183,
183A, 190, 192, 194; tax map 81, parcels 1, 8A, 15A6, 15B, 63. This district, created on September 3,
1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to
November 3, 2014.
(10-12-94; 4-12-95; 8-13-97; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(e); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04; Ord.
09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10)
The District was created in 1986 and originally included 38 parcels and 4,622 acres. The District now includes 65
parcels and approximately 6,742 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: The district has the following important soils, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan:
Prime 1803.238 acres 26.7%
Locally Important 2198.757 acres 32.6%
Unique 698.31 acres 10.4%
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Keswick District
includes approximately 41 dwellings (secondary dwellings may not appear in this count).
Local Development Patterns: The area include many large farms, as well as some smaller residential lots . Thirty-
seven parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment A).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Keswick District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels
adjoining the parcels in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment A).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and open agricultural land. Protecting and preserving
these properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help pr otect forest and productive farm land, which
2
the Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat.
Time Period: The Keswick District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add two parcels totaling 57.27 acres to the Keswick Agricultural
and Forestal District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle
County Code, which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
The parcels (Tax Map 81, Parcels 74 and 79) are located approximately 0.75 miles southeast of Route 22 in
Keswick (Attachment A).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre.
Advisory Committee Recommendation:
At their meeting on September 19, 2011, the Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of the
proposed addition to the Keswick district.
Attachments:
A. Keswick AFD Map
Return to agenda
RUGBY
MILTON
KESWICK
CISMONT
CAMPBEL L
HACKTOWN
SH ADW ELL
AFD201100008 Keswick Addition 0 1 20.5 Miles¯
Kes wic k Dis tr ict Ad dit io n
Kes wic k A F D istr ic t
Co ns e rv at ion Ea se m en ts
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4176
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Re: AFD201100009 Blue Run Addition
Date: November 4, 2011
As stated in the attached staff report, the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee
recommended denial of this addition, as they felt they had insufficient information on the
agricultural use of the property.
Although the current use of the property has not typically been a factor in past decisions on District
additions, staff contacted the landowner to gather more information on the property. It is not now in an
active agricultural use, but it has been used for stabling and boarding horses in the past, and may be used
for that purpose in the future. The landowners expressed a desire to maintain the property intact rather
than using its five development rights.
Also, as stated in the staff report, 18.7 of the property’s 28.765 acres have soils designated as Prime or
Locally Important in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan. The same soils are rated highly for
production of Black Walnut and for high-value hardwood production. Soil quality is often used as an
indicator of agricultural importance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission (1) find that the proposed addition contains
“agriculturally and forestally significant land,” and (2) recommend approval of the proposed addition to
the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD201100009 Blue Run Addition
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 15, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Proposal: Addition to the Blue Run Agricultural and
Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee recommend approval of the addition to the Blue Run
Agricultural and Forestal District.
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Blue Run District:
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26B1, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29, 31, 32A,
41A, 41E, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A1, 4A5, 24, 24A, 24B; tax map 50,
parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 41A, 41Q, 42A, 42A1, 43, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcels 13, 14. This
district, created on June 18, 1986 for not more than 8 years, since amended at its last review on July 10,
2002 to continue for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01; Ord. 02-
3(3), 7-10-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 11-3(2), 7-6-11)
The Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District is located in the northeastern corner of the County (Attachment
A). The district is characterized by largely-deciduous forest in the higher elevations and open agricultural land
below.
The District was created in 1986 and originally included 13 parcels and 1,136 acres. The District now includes 37
parcels and 4,183 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: The district has the following important soils, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan:
Prime 1091.139 acres 26%
Locally Important 1224.415 acres 29%
Unique 491.1592 acres 12%
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Blue Run District
includes approximately 23 dwellings (secondary dwellings may not appear in this count).
Local Development Patterns: The area around the District primarily consists of large farm and forest parcels, with
a few small areas of smaller residential lots. Twenty parcels in the District are under conservation easement
(Attachment A).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Blue Run District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels
adjoining the parcels in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas as well.
3
Environmental Benefits: The District includes forested areas and open agricultural land. Protecting and preserving
these properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat.
Time Period: The Blue Run District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed prior to July 20, 2012.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
The parcel, Tax Map 22, Parcel 10 (28.765 acres), is located on Burnley Station Road, approximately 3.3 miles
west of its intersection with Stony Point Road (Route 20; see Attachment A). It is located 1.9 miles from the
nearest “core” parcel of the Blue Run district. In the past, parcels over 1 mile from the core would not have been
eligible to join a district unless they were adjacent to parcel that was within 1 mile of the core. However, due to
recent changes to the Code of Virginia, such parcels can be added “if the board of supervisors finds, in
consultation with the advisory committee and the planning commission, that the parcel not part of the core within
one (1) miles of the boundary of the core contains “agriculturally and forestally significant land.”
The parcel includes soils rated as Prime (5.9 acres, or 21 percent) and Locally Important (12.8 acres, or 45
percent) in the Comprehensive Plan. The same soils are rated highly for production of Black Walnut and for high-
value hardwood production. It is also large enough to qualify for use -value taxation as an agricultural or forestal
use. Staff therefore believes that this parcel contains “agriculturally and forestally significant land.”
The parcel is in the Rural Areas zoning district, which includes agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the
preferred land uses and permits a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these
parcel as Rural Areas; focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: At its meeting on September 19, 2011, the Advisory Committee
recommended against approval of this proposed addition to the Blue Run district, as they felt they had insufficient
information on the agricultural use of the property.
Attachments:
A. Blue Run AFD Map
Return to agenda
STONY POINT RDL O U IS A R DGORDONSVILLERD231
33
20
ORANGE COUNTY
ROSENA
COBHAM
LINDSAY
BURNLEY
WHITLOCK
STONY POINT
THREE FORKS
CASH'S CORNER
BARBOURSVILLE
BUZZ ARD HOLLOW
AFD201100009 Blue Run Addition 0 1 20.5 Miles¯
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD201100010 Bucks Elbow Addition
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
November 15, 2011
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Proposal: Addition to the Bucks Elbow Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the addition to the Bucks
Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the Bucks Elbow Mountain District:
Sec. 3-209.5 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 25, parcel 1; tax map 38, parcels 4, 7, 8, 10, 20; tax map 39,
parcels 1, 1F, 1F1, 1G, 2B, 8, 10A, 21Q, 21R, 21Z. This district, created on December 2, 2009 for not
more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 11-3(2), 7-6-11)
The Bucks Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District is located northwest of Crozet and south of the
Sugar Hollow Reservoir (Attachment A). The district is characterized by large areas of forest with some open
farmland.
The District was created in 2009 and originally included 14 parcels and 3,156 acres. The District now includes 16
parcels and 3,198 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Soils in the Buck’s Elbow Mountain district are more suited to
forestry than to agriculture. The district has the following important forestal soils, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan:
Hardwoods I 1.14 acres 0.04%
Hardwoods II 3089.24 acres 96.6%
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Bucks Elbow
Mountain District includes approximately 11 dwellings (secondary dwellings may not appear in this count).
Local Development Patterns: The area around the District primarily consists of large forest parcels, with a few
nearby residential subdivisions. The Crozet development area is to the southeast . There are no conservation
easements on the land in this district.
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Bucks Elbow Mountain District is entirely designated
as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas.
Environmental Benefits: The District includes large areas of forest. Protecting and preserving these properties in
an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and productive forestal land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
2
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The northern section of the District drains to the Sugar Hollow reservoir or
directly to the Moorman’s River, while the southern section drains to Lickinghole Creek. Both portions are in the
watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Time Period: The Bucks Elbow Mountain District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is
scheduled to be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the Bucks Elbow Mountain Agricultural and
Forestal District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County
Code, which allow for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
The proposed addition, Tax Map 39, Parcel 1D (11 acres), is located in one of the gaps at the center of the district,
on Bucks Elbow Mountain Road (Attachment A).
The parcel is in the Rural Areas zoning district, which includes agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the
preferred land uses and permits a residential density of .5 unit per acre.
Advisory Committee Recommendation:
At their meeting on September 19, 2011, the Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of the
proposed addition to the Bucks Elbow Mountain district.
Attachments:
A. Bucks Elbow Mountain AFD Map
Return to agenda
CROZET
SEALVIL LE
JARMANS GAP
SUGAR HOL LOW
AFD201100010 Bucks Elbow Mountain Addition 0 0.5 10.25 Miles¯
Pro p os e d A dd it ion
Buc k's E lb ow Mountain AFD
Co ns e rv at ion Easements
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
WPO200700104 (Hyland Ridge Subdivision) Request to
extend the deadline for installing permanent vegetation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval to extend the deadline for installing permanent
vegetation at the Hyland Ridge Subdivision
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
With one exception not applicable here, County Code § 17-207(B)(2) requires that permanent vegetation be installed
on all denuded areas within nine (9) months after the date the land disturbing activity commenced. For those land
disturbance permits that were issued prior to adopting this provision, such as the permit that is the subject of this
request, the 9-month period began to run when the permits were renewed. County Code § 17-207(B)(3) allows the
Program Authority to extend the deadline for up to six months and the Board to extend the deadline beyond that period.
The Board may grant an extension under County Code § 17-207(B)(3)(b) if it finds: (1) the additional time is necessary
due to factors beyond the control of the owner; (2) the owner had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit;
and (3) the owner has plans to effectively control or has effectively controlled erosion and sedimentation on the property
during the land disturbing activity. In granting an extension, the Board must set a new time limit and may impose other
reasonable conditions.
Having been cited for violating Section 17-207(B)(2), the Owner has requested an extension for its Hyland Ridge
Subdivision project. The landowner’s letter requesting an extension is attached (Attachment A). The Owner is asking for
an extension beyond what the Program Authority is authorized to grant.
DISCUSSION:
This project no longer appears to be moving towards completion as a residential subdivision per the approved prelim-
inary subdivision plat. The Owner has experienced difficulty in obtaining a dedicated public right of way from Fontana
Subdivision, which prevents it from being able to obtain final subdivision plat approval and to subdivide the property.
Staff is working with the Owner and with the Fontana developer to resolve the public right of way issue, which includes
abating a violation of the Subdivision Ordinance in the portion of Fontana in which the public right of way would be
located. Additionally, the Owner has not constructed a single house. After three and one-half years since work
commenced, most of the work for grading this site and establishing the stormwater utilities and roads for the first phase
has been completed, but there has been no effort to complete the work in the remaining phases. Currently, the site
appears to be primarily used as a dirt, stone and mulch stockpile area for other projects. Rock excavation and
processing occurred onsite in the past, which led to complaints from neighboring property owners that the Owner was
operating a quarry. The property also appears to be used to temporarily store construction equipment. The public right
of way issue with Fontana must be resolved before this project can proceed as planned, and staff and the Owner are
seeking an expeditious resolution.
In considering an extension to the Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, Section 17-207(13)(3)(b) provides that the
Board must make three findings. Those findings and staff’s analysis of those findings are as follows:
(i) the additional time is necessary due to factors beyond the control of the owner;
The Owner’s request indicates part of the issue has been the difficulty in obtaining a dedicated public right of way
from the adjoining property owner. While staff agrees this factor has affected the Owner’s ability to create lots and
build houses, staff does not agree that it has affected the Owner’s ability to complete grading of the project and
establish permanent vegetation. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the Owner has had unrestricted
AGENDA TITLE: WPO200700104 (Hyland Ridge Subdivision) Request to extend the deadline for installing
permanent vegetation
December 7, 2011
Page 2
access to the property, moving a large number of trucks and equipment in and out of the project, and using the
property as both an area to waste dirt and as a source of dirt for other projects.
(ii) the owner had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit; and
Staff would agree that the Owner is interested in proceeding to completion of the project; but the absence of a
dedicated public right of way to the subdivision has not kept it from proceeding to stabilize the site. Staff believes
three and one-half years is already longer than this work should require.
(iii) the owner has plans to effectively control or has effectively controlled erosion and sedimentation on the
property during the land disturbing activity.
The Owner has measures that can be implemented to control erosion and sedimentation on the property for an
extension of the land disturbing activity.
Based on the above analysis, staff concluded that the evidence supports only one of the three findings.
Finally, Section 17-207(B)(3)(b) provides that the Board is to place a time limit on an approved extension and may
include reasonable conditions as part of granting the extension. While staff does not support this extension request, if
the Board concludes that the evidence supports all three findings and determines that an extension request is justified,
staff recommends the following conditions of approval.
1. Because there are two growing seasons for grasses in this area (March to May or September to
November), staff would recommend that the time limit for an extension focus on installating permanent
vegetation at the start of a growing season. The best circumstance would be to require permanent
vegetation be completely installed no later than April 1, 2012.
2. The ongoing trucking of material to and from the site continues to generate neighborhood questions as
to whether this site is being operated as a borrow or waste area rather than being developed for a
residential subdivision. Staff believes those concerns are a result of the grading activity. Staff would
recommend a condition of approval that requires the remaining grading activity to be balanced on site,
with the possibility of importing material only where the County’s Program Authority determines there is
not suitable material onsite.
3. Because one of the Board’s considerations is that the Owner effectively control erosion and
sedimentation, a condition requiring the Owner to provide documentation as to its control may be
appropriate. Staff would recommend a condition of approval that the Owner’s Responsible Land
Disturber conduct weekly inspections and inspections within 24 hours following measurable rainfall, with
an inspection report provided to the County inspector.
4. Recognizing that the equipment noise generated over years of activity has been an ongoing
neighborhood concern, staff would recommend limiting the grading activity to between 8:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. on weekdays. This assures staff will be available to address neighborhood concerns.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The WPO requires yearly renewal fees of $100 per disturbed acre. With a current disturbance in excess of 30 acres,
denial of this request effectively reduces County revenue by over $3,000 per year.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff does not believe the owner has satisfied two of the three findings required for the Board to grant an extension.
Staff therefore recommends denial of this request.
Should the Board determine that all three of the findings required for granting an extension have been adequately
satisfied and it desires to grant an extension, staff recommends that the Board include the following conditions.
The Owner’s deadline for installing permanent vegetation in Hyland Ridge subdivision shall be extended until April 1,
2012, subject to the following conditions:
AGENDA TITLE: WPO200700104 (Hyland Ridge Subdivision) Request to extend the deadline for installing
permanent vegetation
December 7, 2011
Page 3
1. The installation of all required perm anent vegetation shall be completed by not later than April 1, 2012.
2. No grading material shall be brought to the site without prior approval by the Program Authority, upon a
demonstration by the Owner that there is insufficient suitable material onsite.
3. The Owner’s Responsible Land Disturber shall conduct weekly inspections and inspections within 24
hours following measurable precipitation. The Owner’s Responsible Land Disturber shall submit an
inspection report after each inspection to the Program Authority within seven days after each inspection.
The inspection report shall contain the information required by the Program Authority.
4. All grading on the site shall not begin before 8:00 a.m. and shall end on or before 6:00 p.m. each day,
Monday through Friday. No grading on the site shall occur on Saturdays and Sundays.
All All grading on the site shall not begin before 8:00 a.m. and shall end on or before 6:00 p.m. each day, Monday through Friday. No grading on the site shall occur on Saturdays and Sundays.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Request for extension and photos of project
Return to agenda
CEVA Contractors, Inc.
VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 8147
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22911
AREA CODE 434
TELEPHONE 977-3454
FAX 220-3302
October 4, 2011
Ella Jordan
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
401 McIntire Rd
Charlottesville VA
22902
RE: Hyland Ridge
Hurt Job #: 1181
Permit Extension
Ms. Jordan,
We would like to request an extension for the E & S permit at Hyland Ridge. Due to the
large scope of the project and situations out of our control, we have been unable to complete the
project in the current time limit. The project is very large subdivision and is a tremendous
undertaking. To develop all 104 lots we would be hard pressed to finish in the 15 month time
frame. Since the permit was issued, we have made a large dent in the project, but still have ways
to go. Currently we are on site finishing the first phase of the project and are almost ready for
pavement.
There is also an ongoing lawsuit involving the entrance to the property. This lawsuit
prevented us from working as quickly as we could. We are able to work on the site, but only in
a limited fashion. This has put us way behind the expected schedule that we started with.
During these delays, we have worked with the county inspector and corrected any
deficiencies in the erosion and sediment control plan. We have seeded all of the areas that are
complete and will continue to keep the site stabilized until final completion.
Thank you for considering this request for a permit extension, if you have any questions or
concerns please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours truly,
Charlie Hurt
Vice President
CEVA Contractors Inc.
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Opening of the County’s Portion of the Meadow Creek
Parkway
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution requesting that the County’s portion of
the Meadow Creek Parkway be opened by VDOT
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs Foley and Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Construction of the County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway was completed in October of this year. Due to the
long awaited opening of this road, the significant investment made to complete it and the positive experience citizens
had when it was opened temporarily in October of 2010 for six weeks, County citizens have been requesting that the
road be opened for public use as soon as possible. An additional consideration is that residents living near the County
terminus of the Parkway have expressed safety concerns because of the temporary measures put in place by VDOT
prior to the opening of the road.
While there has been much discussion about not opening the County’s portion of the Parkway until all three sections of
the road (the County’s portion, McIntire Extended in the City, and the planned interchange at McIntire and the 250
Bypass) are complete, this would result in a delay in opening the County portion of the road by approximately four
years. In addition to the continuing safety concerns of citizens with this delay, VDOT has also indicated that the lack of
use of the road for this period of time would likely result in surface deterioration, ultimately requiring that additional
County secondary road funds be used to resurface the road when all portions are complete. As the Board is aware,
when the County portion of the road was originally authorized to proceed, no one anticipated a four year delay to
complete the other two sections of the road.
DISCUSSION:
Beginning this past spring, Delegate Toscano initiated a series of informal meetings with County, City and VDOT
officials to discuss and help advance important regional road projects. The purpose of these meetings was to identify
and attempt to come to resolution on any outstanding issues that might delay the projects moving forward. These
informal meetings included consideration of the opening of the Meadow Creek Parkway. As was discussed at the
Board of Supervisors meeting on November 2, 2011, a study was underway to determine traffic impacts on the
immediate road network adjacent to the new intersection of the Meadow Creek Parkway and Melbourne Road and the
intersection of Melbourne Road and Park Street. VDOT had previously studied those areas and determined that the
Parkway could be safely opened. Because of questions raised by the City regarding the timing of VDOT’s previous
study and assessment of impacts, it was agreed that additional traffic counts would be made prior to further
consideration by the informal group. Because this work was underway at the time of the discussion by the Board on
November 2nd, the Board agreed to defer consideration of a resolution requesting that the Meadow Creek Parkway be
opened to December 7th.
The informal group met again on November 15, 2011 to consider the latest information jointly developed by the City
and VDOT. Based on this additional study, it was determined that, while the traffic counts were slightly higher (~10%),
it did not change VDOT’s conclusions regarding the safety of opening the Parkway. While VDOT agrees that
improvements identified in its original analysis are needed to improve traffic conditions, these are improvements that
have been needed for some time and do not necessitate a delay in the opening of the Parkway because of any
Parkway-caused safety concerns. City representatives at the meeting felt that these improvements should be made
prior to opening the County’s portion of the Parkway. During the meeting, VDOT agreed to work with the City to help
advance the identified improvements. This matter is scheduled to be before City Council on December 5, 2011 for it to
reconsider its previous position that no portion of the Parkway should be opened until all sections are complete. This
discussion will include consideration of the latest information from City staff and VDOT regarding the improvements
identified to address traffic flow.
AGENDA TITLE: Opening of the County’s Portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway
December 7, 2011
Page 2
VDOT has indicated that it would open the County’s portion of the Parkway upon the request of the County and
VDOT’s determination that it is safe to do so.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Failure to open the County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway over the next four years could result in the need to
resurface the road, requiring the allocation of additional County secondary road funds that would otherwise be spent
on current or future road projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The attached resolution is provided for the Board’s consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution
Return to agenda
RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE OPENING OF
THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the construction of the County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway has
been completed at a cost of approximately thirty-two million dollars ($32,000,000), and is ready
to be opened for the benefit of the traveling public; and
WHEREAS, this road has been identified as a priority project in the County for over forty
years and is a key element of a successfully functioning road network for the greater
community; and
WHEREAS, the current temporary traffic signal at the entrance to Dunlora necessitated
by the closure of Meadow Creek Parkway is causing both inconvenience and a potential safety
hazard by creating a traffic backup during peak travel times; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the Treesdale apartments and other planned and current
development along Rio Road will continue to exacerbate this traffic congestion; and
WHEREAS, opening the parkway will provide local residents with access to the forty
acre park and pedestrian/bike trail system linking the City and the County which are valuable
and important amenities that are currently not able to be utilized; and
WHEREAS, leaving the road dormant for additional time now that it is complete will lead
to its deterioration over time resulting in the need for additional maintenance and repair at
taxpayer expense; and
WHEREAS, the timely opening of this needed road will be in the best interest of the
public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby request that the Virginia Department of Transportation open the
County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway to the public as soon as it is safe to travel.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
____to____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on __________.
_____________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Snow ____ ____
Mr. Thomas ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Fire Services Agreement Between the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Termination of Fire Services Agreement effective June 30,
2013
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Eggleston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In May of 2000, the County entered into an agreement with the City of Charlottesville for the provision of fire and
emergency services for defined response areas of the County. The fire services agreement was not intended to be a long
term solution for the County, but rather to provide coverage while the County developed its fire rescue system to more
effectively address current and future service needs. The agreement was for an initial term of 10 years beginning July 1,
2000 and expiring June 30, 2010. In 2008, the agreement was amended to allow the County to extend the term of the
agreement for up to three additional terms expiring June 30, 2013. The County has extended the agreement under
existing terms twice, most recently in December of 2010 when the agreement was extended through June 30, 2012. In
2010, the agreement was again amended to allow the extension of the agreement for an additional five year term. If the
agreement is extended beyond June 30, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the amended agreement, it would end on June
30, 2018 unless terminated by the City or County with two years advance notice.
The need to provide fire rescue services to the County urban areas around the City, including the Ivy area, was originally
identified in a 1994 report to the Board (commonly referred to as the “Deatley report”). Over the years, priority was given
to open the Monticello and Hollymead stations with the Ivy and Pantops stations being delayed , mainly due to economic
conditions.
During last year’s budget work session, the Board became aware that the City’s response times to the Ivy area would
significantly increase (it is estimated that the response time to Neighborhood 6 would increase to 8:54 minutes) once the
City relocates its fire station from Ivy Road in the County to Fontaine Avenue in the City. Given the planned relocation of
the City’s fire station and the critical need to provide protection to Ivy and the surrounding development areas, the Board
directed staff to prepare to end the fire service agreement and redirect the related funding to construct and staff the East
Ivy Fire Rescue station.
DISCUSSION:
Fire Services Agreement Overview
In general, the fire services agreement allows for up to two City fire engine companies to respond to County fire and
emergency incidents in certain predetermined areas of the County. During FY11, the City responded to approximately
1,800 calls for service in the County, with the highest concentration of calls generated from the County’s development
areas surrounding the City.
The cost for services is basically determined by adding a base annual payment plus a per call charge. Both the base
annual payment and the per call charge are increased by 5% annually. The chart below illustrates the call load and net
cost/budgeted amount since the agreement was approved in 2000:
FY01 FY12
FY16
(estimate if contract were
extended)
Net Call load 2,425 1,800 1,800
Net Cost/Budgeted Amount $644,427 $845,638 $1,027,878
AGENDA TITLE: Fire Services Agreement Between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
December 7, 2011
Page 2
Evolution of Albemarle County Fire Rescue System
The County’s Fire Rescue system has evolved significantly over the last 14 years pursuant to a plan to improve the
system to meet current and future service needs. The 1997 Deatley report indicated that there were approximately 500
fire and rescue volunteers serving from seven volunteer fire stations and three volunteer rescue stations at that time. By
2000, when the fire services agreement was initially negotiated, daytime career staff (12 personnel) h ad been hired to
supplement volunteer forces in three of the fire stations, but rescue stations had yet to request assistance. The County’s
fire rescue system still lacked the resources needed to provide primary fire rescue coverage, particularly in the contiguous
development areas around the City and extending north on Seminole Trail to the Hollymead area. One fire station, the
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, was located within those development areas. The lack of basic fire station
coverage required the establishment of the fire services agreement, signed in 2000.
Today the fire and rescue system in Albemarle County has matured considerably. Primary service is provided by more
than 700 volunteers and 80 career personnel. The County has constructed two additional fire rescue stations within the
development areas: Monticello Fire Rescue in 2003 and Hollymead Fire Rescue in 2008. With the addition of the East Ivy
Station in 2013, four stations will be located within the contiguous development areas around the City and north on
Seminole Trail, up from only one in 2000. At the request of volunteer stations, the County has hired additional career staff
for one additional fire station and two rescue stations to provide supplemental daylight staffing. In addition, day shifts for
career staff in all stations were extended to ensure coverage from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. five days per week, covering
more daytime hours in volunteer stations.
Financially, the County has invested a significant amount of operational and capital funding in the fire rescue system.
Since 2000, the County has funded the basic operating costs for volunteer stations, hired 62 career personnel for staffing
and administrative duties and invested over $16 million in capital funds to replace fire and rescue apparatus. Because of
the evolving nature and needs of this system, Fire Rescue’s operating budget has increased from $2.4 million in FY00 to
$8.7 million in FY12.
Comparison
Albemarle County Fire Rescue System 2000 2013
Fire and Rescue Stations 10 13
Fire Stations in Contiguous Development Areas around City 1 4
Stations with Career Staff 3 9
Fire and Rescue Volunteers1 500 Over 700
Fire Rescue Career Personnel (operations & administration) 17 87 2
Operating budget $2.4 million $8.7 million 3
Notes
1 – Total volunteers in year 2000 derived from 1994 Deatley Report – unclear if number included operational and
administrative volunteers; 2013 volunteers include both operational and administrative personnel
2 - Includes 8 FTEs for Ivy staff
3 – Budget in FY12
Transition to an Automatic Aid Relationship with the City
County and City fire rescue staff have met on a number of occasions to discuss the concept of transitioning to an
automatic aide arrangement between the City and County departments. Under an automatic aid agreement, County and
City units would respond to first alarm assignments in the County/City under predetermined conditions and at no cost.
Augusta County and the City of Waynesboro have recently entered into an automatic aide agreement.
The key to establishing a mutually beneficial automatic aide agreement is to balance the workload so that no one
jurisdiction is unfairly burdened. During 2011, the City responded to 1,800 unit calls for service in the County and the
County responded to approximately 100 unit calls for service in the City. Of the 1,800 unit calls for service in the County,
approximately 900 calls were EMS related and about 75 calls were to a report of a building fire.
Staff believes there are opportunities to balance the County/City workload by modifying dispatch procedures and shifting
lower priority calls currently covered by the City under the fire services agreement to existing County stations while
retaining procedures to send the maximum resources for higher priority calls such as building fires. If the Board chooses
to terminate the current fire services agreement, staff will continue to work with City fire staff to plan and implement an
automatic aid agreement.
AGENDA TITLE: Fire Services Agreement Between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
December 7, 2011
Page 3
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY12 budgeted amount for the fire services agreement is $845,638.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board give notice to the City to extend the fire services agreement through June 30, 2013 and
to terminate the fire services agreement effective at midnight on June 30, 2013 and direct staff to work with City fire staff
to plan and implement an automatic aid agreement to be effective upon termination of the fire services agreement.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Wireless Policy / Regulations Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Evaluating the need to update the wireless policy and/or
regulations, and establish a process for any needed
update
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, and Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The deployment of infrastructure for wireless technology first became a significant issue for the County in the 1990’s.
By the late 1990’s approximately 25% of all special use permit applications were for antennas to provide cellular
phone service (“wireless facilities”). In December 2000, the Board adopted the Personal Wireless Services Facilities
Policy to address this growing industry (Attachment A). This policy was a major undertaking involving the use of an
outside consultant and numerous public roundtables and worksessions with the Planning Commission and the Board.
The policy was used to develop ordinance amendments resulting in the County’s current method of reviewing wireless
facilities. In staff’s opinion, the policy and ordinance amendments were extremely successful in reducing review
times, increasing predictability in review and minimizing the adverse visual impacts that can be associated with
wireless facilities.
DISCUSSION:
As wireless systems have matured, the use of wireless technology has rapidly expanded. With changes in technology
(smart phones), the citizens of the County began to use wireless services in ways not fully envisioned in the current
policy, which has significantly increased the demand for wireless facilities. The wireless industry is again expanding
in a manner similar to the growth seen in the 1990s. However, the County has not undertaken any significant review
of the policy or the ordinance since their original adoption. Several members of the wireless industry have provided
comments indicating that the County’s existing policy and regulations are unnecessarily impeding the deployment of
new technology, and that some of the County’s processes may be inconsistent with recent FCC rulings pertaining to
timing action on wireless applications. These comments from the wireless industry are very similar to those received
in the 1990s. The current policy has functioned well for the County for 10 years, however, with the changes in
technology and the way that wireless is used, it is staff’s opinion that revisiting the County’s policy and regulations for
wireless facilities is warranted.
In revisiting the policy and regulations, staff recommends that the County undertake the following proposed steps:
1. Consider updating the policy and regulations to reflect changes in technology, and to incorporate any relevant
and applicable FCC rulings. Staff believes this is a fairly narrow and technical review that could be
accomplished within a few months by staff with the assistance of a qualified consultant, and without an
extensive public engagement process.
2. Consider revising the policy and regulations to address any changes in the desire of the community for the
regulation of wireless facilities. Staff believes this would require a much broader review to address whether
the community’s perception of wireless facilities has changed since the original policy was adopted.
Following the process from the original policy development, staff antici pates that this would require a
significant public engagement effort.
3. Consider revising the existing tiered review system to reflect and incorporate the proposed changes identified
in steps 1 and 2 above. The extent of this work would depend on the outcome of the preceding two steps.
Most of the effort would be associated with preparing materials for the Planning Commission and the Board,
and addressing the direction they provide.
AGENDA TITLE: Wireless Policy / Regulations Update
December 7, 2011
Page 2
These three steps are the same steps undertaken by the County when it first developed the wireless policy and
regulations. The first step is to understand the current and expected near future state of wireless technology. Once
this is understood, the County can participate in a meaningful discussion with the industry and the public to ascertain
the goals of all parties. Staff believes that the industry and the public want reliable wireless services in all parts of the
County without sacrificing those unique features of Albemarle County that make it such a special place.
Next, the need for review of the wireless policy and regulations would need to be prioritized against other Community
Development initiatives. Community Development reviews its work program with the Board annually to establish
priorities, and there is currently a backlog of priority initiatives awaiting staff resources (e.g. critical slopes, Rural Areas
churches). The work program was last updated in September 2011 (Attachment B), and the next annual Board
review is planned for February 2012. Staff notes that all available resources are currently working on changes to the
development review processes and the Comprehensive Plan update and it will likely be February or March before a
concerted effort on the wireless policy could begin without putting those efforts aside. The current policy and
ordinance does provide a means to address the industry’s needs and the application workload has not become
overwhelming as it had in the 1990’s. Staff’s perspective is that this initiative would likely provide significant benefits
by updating the policy and streamlining the review process , but that there is not a crisis. Because staff views this
effort as important, but not critical, staff recommends that the Board weigh the importance of this initiative against
other priorities. As the annual Community Development work program review is scheduled for February, sta ff would
incorporate any guidance provided today into a recommended work program.
During the development of the wireless policy, it was known that at some point technology was going to change and a
review of the wireless policy and the corresponding regulations would be required. In response to this, the closing
statement of the wireless policy is “Please remember that planning for Albemarle County is a work in progress.
County officials and staff invite you to send your comments and suggestions for this Wireless Policy…”
BUDGET IMPACT:
The services of a consultant to advise the Board and staff on policy and technical issues would be needed for this
initiative. Staff has initiated discussions with the consultant who assisted in the development of the original policy
to develop an estimate of likely costs. (Attachment C). From this, it is anticipated that a review of the technical
and legal issues (1& 2, draft proposal) would require approximately $20,000, and that expanded public input for
policy and regulatory changes (3, 4 & 5, draft proposal) would require approximately $30,000, allowing for one
site visit by the consultant for each phase of this work. Staff notes that while this draft proposal helped define the
anticipated cost, the public procurement process must be followed and an appropriation would be needed prior to
contracting this service. Staff recommends this effort be funded through the Board reserves if the Board wishes
to pursue this initiative in FY 12. If the Board wishes to pursue this initiative in a future fiscal year, staff would
recommend including this funding as part of that fiscal year’s proposed budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide guidance to staff on the appropriate priority for this initiative relative to other
initiatives currently in the Community Development work program.
1. As noted in the discussion, it is anticipated that work on this initiative could begin as early as February or
March without impacting current efforts. Staff will include the Board’s prioritization as part of the Community
Development work program annual review in February.
2. If the Board is interested in proceeding with this initiative as soon as possible, the Board should direct
staff to proceed with soliciting consultant services and to bring forth an appropriation request to the
Board from its reserve fund once a proposed contract has been developed. The Board will also need to
determine what items in the work program should be delayed.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Current Personal Wireless Facilities Policy
B -- September 2011 Community Development work program update
C – Draft Proposal for Consultant Services
Return to agenda
Personal Wireless Service Facilities PolicyAlbemarle County Department of Planning and Community DevelopmentKreines & Kreines, Inc.December, 2000
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page iTable of ContentsTable of Contents___________________________________________________________________________iAcknowledgments _______________________________________________________________________ iiIntroduction ____________________________________________________________________________ 1The Situation in 2000 _____________________________________________________________________ 6Definitions_____________________________________________________________________________ 12Location ______________________________________________________________________________ 23Siting__________________________________________________________________________________ 31Design ________________________________________________________________________________ 43Visibility_______________________________________________________________________________ 56Mitigations_____________________________________________________________________________ 60Regulatory Concepts for Applications _____________________________________________________ 67Closing__________________________________________________________________________________72
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page iiAcknowledgmentsThe staff who produced the personal wireless service facilities policy would like to thank all the citizens and agencieswho have participated in its preparation. We would also like to acknowledge the various County officials and staff whohave contributed to this document.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page iiiAlbemarle County Board of SupervisorsCharles Martin (Chairman 1999-2000 &Vice-Chair 1998)Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (Chairman 1998)Sally Thomas (Vice-Chairman 1999-2000)Charlotte HumphrisDavid P. BowermanLindsay S. Dorrier, Jr.Walter PerkinsAlbemarle County Planning CommissionWilliam W. Finley (Chairman 1999-2000)Hilda Lee-Washington (Vice-Chairman 1998-1999)C. Jared Loewenstein (Chairman 1996-1998)Dennis S. Rooker (Vice-Chairman 2000)Rodney S. ThomasTracey Christine HopperWilliam “Pete” CraddockWilliam D. RieleyWilliam NitchmanAlbemarle County StaffV. Wayne Cilimberg (Director of Planning andCommunity Development)David B. Benish (Chief of Planning and CommunityDevelopment)Larry Davis (County Attorney)Greg Kamptner (Assistant County Attorney)William D. Fritz (Development Process Manager)Margaret Maliszewski (Design Planner)Jan Sprinkle (Chief of Zoning Administration)Dan Mahon (Landscape Planner)Albemarle County StaffKenneth Weaver (Manager, Office of Mapping, Graphicsand Information Resources)Gus Colom (GIS Coordinator)ConsultantTed Kreines, AICPKreines & Kreines, Inc.58 Paseo MirasolTiburon, CA 94920(415) 435-9214
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 1IntroductionThis Policy for personal wireless service facilities is based on the following:•The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves Albemarle County’s zoningauthority to regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wirelessservice facilities (“cell towers”).• Albemarle County has significant natural, scenic and historical resources. ThomasJefferson chose Albemarle County for his homesite and as the site for the University ofVirginia. The reason for those choices is why many others have come to revere thisplace … and why County residents must be stewards of the land.• Personal wireless service facilities are not well understood by some. This Policy isintended to help the County, the public, and the wireless industry understandplanning and zoning for personal wireless service facilities.There are reasonable and feasible options to highly visible personal wireless servicefacilities and Albemarle County will require them.
IntroductionPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 2Albemarle County …• Land of magnificent vistas.• Place of rich history.• Maintained through private stewardship.Governed by a tradition of planning and zoning.“The Rocks” Mountain at I-64 at Ivy Interchange.
IntroductionPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 3Purpose, Principles & Intended AchievementsThe purpose of the personal wireless service facilities policy is to establish policies and guidelines and to recommendstandards and approaches for Albemarle County to use in the review of personal wireless service facility applications.Wireless carriers are encouraged to follow the ideas in this Policy in preparing applications for personal wireless servicefacilities. Planning Commissioners, Supervisors and staff should follow this Policy when evaluating personal wirelessservice facilities applications.• This Policy is intended to allow for the provision of personal wireless service facilities.Regulations based on the following principles are recommended:• The most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities in Albemarle County is visibility.Albemarle County should require that sufficient information be submitted with the application to enable the Countyto measure the visibility of a facility. The less a personal wireless service facility can be seen, the more likely it is thatit will be approved.• Personal wireless service facilities should not be located in Avoidance Areas.• Applications for personal wireless service facilities in Avoidance Areas should be denied unless mitigated, sited,located and designed so as to minimize visibility.• Personal wireless service facilities should be located in Opportunity Sites.• Applications for personal wireless service facilities sites outside of, but nearby, Opportunity Sites should demonstratewhy they couldn’t be located in an Opportunity Site.• Siting and design standards can be used anytime, but they are particularly useful for reviewing personal wirelessservice facility sites when they are not in or near an Opportunity Site and not in an Avoidance Area.A successful personal wireless service facilities policy will achieve the following:• Protection of Albemarle County resources.• A predictable outcome for personal wireless service facility applicants.• Equal evaluation and review for all applicants.• The development of standards to be used as findings for decisions on personal wireless service facility applications.
IntroductionPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 4SUMMARY OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES POLICYThis Policy allows for the location of personal wireless service facilities throughout the County. The Policy encouragesthe construction of facilities that have limited visual impact on the community.- Visibility is the primary focus in the review of personal wireless service facilities. Facilities with limited visibility areencouraged.- Personal wireless service facilities should not be located on ridgetops or along the ridgeline and they should beprovided with an adequate backdrop so that they are not skylined.- Personal wireless service facilities should not adversely impact resources identified in the Open Space Plan ordesignated as Avoidance Areas.- Personal wireless service facilities should utilize existing structures where possible.- Personal wireless service facilities, if appropriately sited and designed, may be appropriate in any zoning district.- Ground based equipment should be limited in size and be designed in keeping with the character of the area.- Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting structure and be designed to minimize visibility.- The personal wireless service facilities policy is primarily intended to address facilities providing personal wirelessservice. Other types of wireless facilities are encouraged to adhere to this policy to the extent possible.
IntroductionPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 5Summary of Proposed Regulatory ConceptsTo enhance the implementation of this Policy, the following review concepts are proposed:- Tier One Review. Administrative approval of personal wireless service facilities located within an existing structureand having no exterior visibility.- Tier Two Review. Planning Commission approval of personal wireless service facilities attached to an existingstructure or a “Treetop Tower”.- Tier Three Review. Special Use Permit review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of anythingother than a Tier One or a Tier Two facility.The following regulatory changes are also recommended:- At the time of preparation of this Policy each Zoning District contains minimum setbacks for all structures that canonly be varied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This Policy recommends that the Planning Commission be authorizedto modify the setbacks for personal wireless service facility structures.- At the time of preparation of this Policy, the Zoning Ordinance requires that towers be setback from the property linea distance equal to the height of the tower unless a modification is granted by the Planning Commission. This Policyrecommends that service providers be able to acquire easements around the tower a distance equal to the height of thestructure. If this easement is acquired no modification of the setback will be needed. If the easement is not obtained,the wireless service provider would need to request that the Planning Commission grant a modification of the setback.- Minimum submittal standards are recommended.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 6The Situation in the Year 2000Shown below are two photographs (one long shot and the other mid-range) of a “treetop tower”. This is an example ofthe type of facility supported by the County.Invisible personal wireless service facilitysite on U.S. 29 south (long shot).Close up of the same personal wireless service facilitysite. Even though it is short, it works and, mostimportantly, it was approved.Monopole ishidden intrees.Antennas ontop ofmonopole.
The Situation in the Year 2000Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 7The County supports co-location of personal wireless service facilities provided that it has no or negligible adverse visualimpact. The site below, while skylined and much taller than adjacent buildings and trees, does allow for the use of anexisting facility. Skylining of new facilities should be avoided.The monopole in the middle of these vertical poles is at 5th Street and supports two dual-polarizedantenna arrays.Carrier ACarrier B
The Situation in the Year 2000Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 8Below is an example of the type of facility not supported by the County.This is a tri-location of personal wireless service facilities near Boyd Tavern on a lattice tower. Themicrowave relay can be used for backhaul by both Cellular and PCS carriers, which also use wireline(telephone) for backhaul when it is readily available.Carrier AElectric power lines notassociated with latticetower.Carrier BMicrowave relay
The Situation in the Year 2000Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 9Some wireless carriers want to serve County residents with tall towers.The taller the wireless facilities are, the fewer the carriers have to build. The lattice tower in thispicture in Crozet is a photosimulation.
The Situation in the Year 2000Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 10When personal wireless service facility sites are smaller, they aren’t as easily seen, even though there may be more ofthem. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and State Law give localities the choice.There are five different personal wireless service facility sites in this photosimulation.Although there may never be any sites in this area, they have been photosimulated toshow how they can blend with the landscape. Albemarle County requires less visibleand less intrusive solutions such as those shown here.
The Situation in the Year 2000Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 11This Policy shows wireless carriers how to deploy wireless facilities in a manner that respects the Albemarle Countyenvironment and the community’s values. Albemarle County will approve those applications that comply with adoptedpolicies, plans, ordinances and this Policy and Albemarle County will deny those that do not comply.Telecommunications facilities in the Pantops area have been successfully blended into thebuilt environment.
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 12DefinitionsAnalog – In radio telephony, a process where voice messages are electronically replicated and amplified as they arecarried from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna.Antenna – A whip (omni-directional antenna), panel (directional antenna), disc (parabolic antenna) or similar device usedfor transmission and/or reception of radio frequency signals. Panel antennas are used by both Cellular and PCS carriers.Avoidance Area – Locations in Albemarle County where visible personal wireless service facilities should not be located.An avoidance area is not a “prohibited area,” since there are conditions under which personal wireless service facilitiesmight be located in an avoidance area.Backhaul – A method for relaying signals from one wireless facility to another and from the wireless facility to a commoncarrier. Methods of backhaul include microwave relay and wireline.Camouflage – A way of painting and mounting a personal wireless service facility that requires minimal changes to thehost structure in order to accommodate the facility.Cellular – A mobile telephone service operating in the 800 MHz spectrum.Co-location (Collocation) – The use of a common personal wireless service facility or common site by two or morewireless license holders or by one wireless license holder for more than one type of communications technology and/orplacement of two or more personal wireless service facilities on adjacent properties.Comprehensive Plan – The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan establishes governmental policy to help guide publicand private activities as they relate to land use and resource utilization.Concealment – To enclose a personal wireless service facility within a natural or man-made feature resulting in the facilitybeing either invisible or made part of the feature enclosing it.Design – The appearance of personal wireless service facilities such as their materials, colors and shape.
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 13Digital – Digital technology converts voice messages into digits (zeros and ones) that represent sound intensities. Becausenatural pauses in the conversation are eliminated, more call capacity is realized than with analog and background noise isminimized. Digital is not the same as PCS, since Cellular can be digital also. Siting and design approaches recommendedin this Policy are equally available to both Analog and Digital technologies.Disguise – A personal wireless service facility designed to appear to be something other than a personal wireless servicefacility.Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radios (ESMR) - Private land mobile radio with telephone services. In the year 2000, Nextelis the only ESMR carrier.Entrance Corridor Overlay District – Section 30.6 of Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Albemarle County Code establishes anoverlay district that regulates certain outdoor uses along significant tourist access routes and requires architectural reviewfor consistency with design guidelines.Equipment Cabinet (Shelter, Shed) – An enclosed structure at the base of the mount within which is housed theequipment for the personal wireless service facility such as batteries and electrical equipment.Guy Wires – Strategically placed cables from a tower to anchors in the ground in order to secure a tower and to keep itfrom shifting position.Guyed Tower – A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by guy wires.Lattice Tower – A type of mount that is self-supporting with multiple legs and cross-bracing of structural steel.Location – The area where a personal wireless service facility is located or proposed to be located.Mast – A type of mount that is thinner and shorter than a monopole.Mitigation – The reduction or elimination of visual impacts by the use of one or more methods:• Concealment.• Camouflage.
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 14• Disguise.Monopole – The shape of mount that is self-supporting with a single shaft of wood, steel or concrete and antennas at thetop. Monopoles are often called “towers” but they are different in that monopoles are a single shaft of material withoutany other support structure.Open Space Plan – A component of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan that consolidates all currently availableinformation regarding natural, scenic, historic, and agricultural/forestal resources in the County in order to identify themost important areas to preserve or to conserve as open space.Opportunity Sites – Areas within properties where placement of personal wireless service facilities is encouraged byAlbemarle County.Paging – Text messaging (and sometimes one-way voice messaging) that is sent to small receivers (e.g., beepers) from onetall mount. Paging messages are not handed off from one cell to another cell as in the case of Cellular, PersonalCommunications Services and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio.Personal Communications Services (PCS) – A form of mobile telephony provided in the 1900 MHz frequencies.Personal Wireless Service - Any personal wireless service defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act which includesFederal Communications Commission (FCC) licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services includingcellular, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio(ESMR), as well as unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services.Personal Wireless Service Facility – A facility for the provision of personal wireless services, as defined by Section 704 ofthe Telecommunications Act of 1996.Platform – Physically, any base upon which elements, such as antennas, are placed. Technologically, the systemarchitecture around which a design is based.Prohibited Areas – Many cities and counties prohibit personal wireless service facilities in some areas, such as residentialzoning districts. In Albemarle County, personal wireless service facilities are permitted in all areas. There are no areas
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 15where personal wireless service facilities are prohibited and no areas where personal wireless service facilities will beautomatically denied.Radome Shield – A plastic housing within which antennas are placed. The fiberglass-like plastic material is signal-transparent, thereby allowing antennas that are concealed to operate.RF Isolator – A steel mesh screen that is radio frequency signal-opaque. They stop signals rather than reflect them. Theyare used to keep one transmitter from affecting another. Use of an RF Isolator can allow for multiple transmitters on asingle pole or tower. A photo of an RF Isolator is shown on page 22.Site - That portion of a subject property where a personal wireless service facility is to be placed. An acceptable locationmay have several potential sites within it.Siting - The method and form of placement of personal wireless service facilities on a specific area of a subject property.Skylining – Locating a personal wireless service facility in such a way that the backdrop of the facility is the sky.Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) - A form of data transmission, dispatch or two-way communication used by companiesthat rent space or time from the high mount of a SMR carrier. Used primarily for sending information, delivery vans,truckers or taxis within a small, definable geographic area, the signal is not “handed off” to another cell as in Cellular,PCS or ESMR.Stealth – A wireless industry term for “hidden” or “undetectable.”Tower – In telecommunications, any tall structure used for the mounting of antennas is a tower.Treetop Tower – A mount for personal wireless service facilities no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25feet of the proposed mount.
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 16This is not a diagram of a “tower”, it is a monopole.The entire facility is called a “personal wireless service facility.” Albemarle County is engaged in regulating the locationof personal wireless service facilities. It is not engaged in “antenna siting.” The County’s land use policies andregulations deal with more than just “antennas” and regulation is concerned with more than just “siting.”These are the equipmentshelters or cabinetsThese are the antennas
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 17Here are three commonly confused terms:It is possible to have a well-designed personal wireless service facility that is perfectly sited but in a poor location. This iswhy location, siting and design should be distinguished from each other. This Policy addresses all three concepts.“Siting” refers to a specialpoint on a property where apersonal wireless servicefacility is to be constructed,such as in the trees, or on theroof.X“Location” refers to aproperty or general areawhere a personal wirelessservice facility is to be placed.“Design” refers to what thepersonal wireless servicefacility will look like.
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 18It is the intent of Albemarle County to require the use of the least intrusive means possible to provide coverage.Photosimulation of a monopole with dual-polarization in the Blue Ridge Mountainarea of Western Albemarle County.The personal wireless servicefacility should not be sitedalong the ridgelineThe personal wirelessservice facility should notbe sited at a ridgetopThe carriershoulddesignpersonalwirelessservicefacilitieswith dual-polarizedantennas ora lessvisibleantennasystem.The carriershouldlocate thepersonalwirelessservicefacility hereand sitepersonalwirelessservicefacilitieswithintrees.
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 19These are personal wireless services, according to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.Cellular, PCS, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio, Specialized Mobile Radio and Paging are considered “functionallyequivalent services” by the Federal Communications Commission. Before it was clarified by a court, this meant thatwhatever zoning requires of any one of the functionally equivalent services, it must require of the others. However, afederal appellate court found that paging was neither functionally equivalent with the others from a pricing point of viewnor from the distance the signal must travel. (Aegerter v. City of Delafield, 174 F. 3d 886 (7th Cir. 1999))CommercialMobile RadioServicesUnlicensedWirelessServicesCommon CarrierWireless ExchangeCellularPCSEnhancedSpecializedMobile RadioSpecializedMobile RadioPagingPersonal Wireless Services
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 20Personal wireless services do not include other services, such as broadcasting or ham radio.Personal wireless service facilities can go within trees. Leaves, particularly pine needles, tend to diffuse the signal, andthereby attenuate it. Signals from antennas within trees work, they just don’t go as far.Top of monopoleAlbemarle Countyhas approvednumerous personalwireless servicefacilities in trees.PCS on a wood monopole in Bellair, alongU.S. 250 bypass.Why place personal wirelessservice facilities in trees?The reason is visibility. Apersonal wireless service facilitysite in trees is less visible than afacility that is above the trees.Visibility is not the same asaesthetics.
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 21Co-locationTwo vertical co-locations in Gainesville,Florida. Increased height and number ofpositions make these very visible.Horizontal co-location at Carters Mountain, AlbemarleCounty. This results in what many people call an “antennafarm” or “tower farm.”Co-location which results in adverse visual impact is notconsistent with the goals of Albemarle County.From a visibility perspective, co-location should bediscouraged.Horizontal co-location is severalmounts in the same area.Vertical co-locationis several carriers onthe same mount.
DefinitionsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 22 Below are examples of RF Isolators and how they are used to shield antenna from other antenna.
LocationPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 23LocationAlbemarle County developed within and around its mountain resources. Mountain resource areas, as designated in theAlbemarle County Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, should be avoided when locating personal wireless servicefacilities.Crozet with Bucks Elbow Mountain in the background.
LocationPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 24Avoidance Areas have been identified by Albemarle County. These are areas that have resources of significance to theCounty and where the unwise siting of Personal Wireless Service Facilities could result in adverse impacts. See the mapon page 26.Albemarle County has identified those resources that are important areas to preserve or conserve as open space. Theseresources are identified in the Open Space Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Open SpacePlan’s stated objectives include protecting “the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources in the Rural and GrowthAreas,” preserving and managing “the County’s natural resources in order to protect the environment and to conserveresources for future use,” and preserving “the County’s scenic resources as being essential to the County’s rural character,economic vitality, and quality of life.” The placement, construction and/or modification of personal wireless servicefacilities should be reviewed for compliance with the Goals and Objectives of the Open Space Plan. The preciseboundaries of resources identified in the Open Space Plan are less important than areas where a personal wireless servicefacility could compromise the identified resources.Photosimulation of a lattice tower located outside of the Southwest Mountains National Rural Historic District. TheSouthwest Mountains contain multiple identified resources that are characteristic of Avoidance Areas.
LocationPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 25Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, contains additional resources which arenot identified in the Open Space Plan. Among those resources are historical, mountain and scenic resources. Impact onany identified resource must be evaluated for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Many historical features withinthe County, while not having National or State designation, are of significant local importance.Boyd Tavern, shown above, is an example of a structure with significant local importance.
LocationPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 26Agricultural/Forestal Districts and landin Conservation Districts should also beconsidered Avoidance Areas. Inreference to Agricultural/ForestalDistricts, the Comprehensive Plan states,in part, “Albemarle County agrees, whenpossible, to protect those lands fromintrusive land uses which threaten thecontinued agricultural or forestry use ofthose lands ‘for the production of foodand other agricultural and forestalproducts,’ and ‘as valued natural andecological resources which provideessential open space for clean air sheds,watershed protection, wildlife habitat, aswell as for aesthetic purposes.’ (§15.2-4301 Virginia Code).”The map on this page shows the locationof Avoidance Areas, which include StateScenic Highways, Scenic Rivers, VirginiaBy Ways, National Forests, HistoricDistricts, Agricultural/Forestal Districtsand Conservation Easements.Avoidance Areas may be modified asAgricultural/Forestal Districts and ConservationEasements are established or amended.N8 milesMap courtesy of the Piedmont Environmental Council
LocationPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 27The built environment of Albemarle County contains many potential Opportunity Sites, or man-made sites for personalwireless service facilities such as rooftops and utility poles.Opportunity Sites include those locations where existing structures provide siting for Personal Wireless Service Facilities.The placement, construction and/or modification of personal wireless service facilities within an Opportunity Site isencouraged.Above is an example of an Opportunity Site. A personal wireless service facility islocated in the steeple of the St. Paul Church in Ivy.
LocationPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 28Electric transmission towers are another type of Opportunity Site.Pictured is an antenna array on top of a transmission toweralong Barracks Road. While this represents use of anopportunity site, the resulting design has visibility impacts thatcould have been reduced or eliminated by using alternativetypes of equipment and mounting techniques. Attachment toexisting structures should complement - not overwhelm - thestructureThere are many more opportunities ontransmission towers in Albemarle Countysuch as this example along Barracks Road.
LocationPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 29 Power line corridors and utility easements have cut up some ridgelines in Albemarle County.If a personal wireless service facility must be located on a ridgeline, as well as in a Mountain ResourceArea, then it should be placed on an available transmission tower (such as that seen here from Crozet)or a location consistent with the Mountain Section Guidelines. The Mountain Resource Area is a sectionof Albemarle County that is mapped in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan.Point where an existingpower line has alreadycut the ridgeline.
LocationPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 30Existing structures provide Opportunity Sites.• Structures that puncture low ridgelines are idealplatforms for personal wireless service facilities. Anexample is this Albemarle County Service AuthorityWater Tank in Crozet. The antennas can be located onthe top or sides of the tank with the equipmentcabinets hidden by the vegetation.Buildings located on ridgelines may also be idealplatforms for personal wireless service facilities suchas these structures in Ednam. The antennas could bemounted on the roof.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 31SitingA personal wireless service facility need not be located only in an Opportunity Site if it is properly sited.This monopole in Nix, although located on a high point of land, is virtually invisiblebecause it is sited in the trees.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 32Careful siting may allow a facility to be located in multiple Avoidance Areas. The site shown below is located in aMountain Resource area and within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This photo is taken from a scenic overlook onI-64. Use of an existing road reduced the amount of activity needed to construct the facility. The use of the mountain andtrees as a backdrop for the top of the facility eliminates skylining of the facility. Use of a backdrop can significantlyreduce the visibility of the site as is evident below.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 33The antennas on this facility comply with the design guidelines on page 50. This further reduces the visibility of the site.Wooded areas may be considered to be Opportunity Sites. However, wooded areas may also be within Avoidance Areas,which may reduce the appropriateness of such an Opportunity Site.A viewer may detect the photosimulated lattice tower on Brown’s Mountain; however, thephotosimulated monopole in the trees in the right foreground takes advantage of anOpportunity Site with limited impact. Facilities within wooded areas should be the same coloras the trees. This photosimulation uses black to increase visibility.Monticello (Historic Site):an Avoidance Area.Mountain Resource Area:an Avoidance Area.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 34Roof-mounts are personal wireless service facilities mounted on the roof of a structure. When the facilities are kept inscale and color with the roof, their visibility is reduced.Two carriers are located on this roof in University Village. From a distance, the facilities arebarely visible.Antennas that arepainted white.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 35Siting a personal wireless service facility on a roof is not always a good idea.This personal wireless service facility in Florida looks like a monopole, but it isn’t. Guy wireshold up the lattice mount. It is a guyed tower on the roof of a hospital.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 36This building under construction may be ill-suited for an ordinary personal wireless service facility. However, if thefacility is properly designed to reduce visibility it may be a candidate for at least one roof mounted facility.As discussed in the next chapter on Design, this building in Pantops has simple andunbroken lines. Such a building is ill-suited for ordinary roof mounts. Camouflage,concealment or disguise may be required.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 37Water tanks are considered Opportunity Sites.This co-location on a water tank in Illinois hasantennas on the top and on the side. The side of thetank is better from a visibility perspective. (Photocourtesy of Specialty Constructors Coatings, Inc.)AntennasThe Albemarle County Service Authority water tank in Crozet may be more suitablefor side-mounted antennas rather than whips or panels placed on the top.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 38The most important guideline for siting personal wireless service facilities in Albemarle County is visibility.• The definition of a well-sited personal wireless service facility is that it would be virtually invisible to most viewers.Such a facility would be an improvement over a facility that is in the open and very visible.• A poorly-sited personal wireless service facility is one that has visual impact.• The degree to which a personal wireless service facility can be made invisible or the degree to which it has visualimpact is often the most important standard by which it can be evaluated.Visibility is objective because visibility can be measured. Aesthetics is not suggested as a standard and should not beused to evaluate personal wireless service facilities. Aesthetics is subjective and cannot be measured uniformly amongstall viewers.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 39Utility poles are considered Opportunity Sites.Answer:The personal wireless service facility could beplaced in the wooded area across the intersectionshown in the photograph at left.Even better would be to place personal wirelessservice facilities on utility poles already found inthe right-of-way.Question:How can personal wireless service facilities beplaced in an open field, residential environmentlike this area in Crozet?Personal wireless service facilities couldbe mounted on top of these utility poles.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 40Personal wireless service facilities can be placed on utility poles in rights-of-way. The use of dual-polarized (polarizationdiversity) technology is available to both Cellular and PCS carriers.Installing a personal wireless service facility on a utility pole may requirethat the pole be changed from wood to steel. This photograph is from ClydeHill, Washington, courtesy of Kirk Wines.Personal wireless service facilities on utility poles in rights-of-way are almost invisible. This photograph is from ClydeHill, Washington, courtesy of Kirk Wines.Same dual-polarizedantenna as shown atleft.Dual-polarized antenna.As can be seen in these photographs the use ofexisting utility corridors may require replacement ofthe existing utility poles.
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 41Method For Addressing Setbacks Due To HeightProvisions in the Zoning Ordinance require structures to be set back from the property line a distance equal to the heightof the structure unless a modification is granted by the Planning Commission. The siting of facilities should not create ahazard to adjacent property or cause the over-development of property that results in an undue intrusion onto adjacentproperty. In order to protect property abutting personal wireless service facilities, this Personal Wireless Service FacilitiesPolicy recommends that an easement be obtained on all property extending in all directions from the facility for a distanceequal to the height. This easement will acknowledge that the tower or its components may fall within the easement area.(It is noted that failure of towers is extremely rare.) This easement will also allow for the falling of debris, particularly ice,and equipment used during maintenance, installation and updating of the equipment. If an easement is not obtained, amodification request for setback must be reviewed by the Planning Commission.Easement radiusEquals heightof towerHeightSetback
SitingPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 42Method for Addressing Setbacks Due To The Zoning District RequirementsThe Zoning Ordinance requires minimum setbacks from property lines for all types of structures. It is recommended thatthe Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow the Planning Commission to modify the setbacks from the property lines.Currently, only the Board of Zoning Appeals can reduce the required yard setbacks upon a finding that application of thesetback would create an undue hardship, a hardship not shared by other properties zoned similarly and that the variancewould not create a substantial detriment to adjacent property. These criteria limit the Board of Zoning Appeals’ ability toapprove variances. Also, the criteria do not allow board members to consider benefits which may be achieved byreducing the minimum setback. By allowing the Planning Commission to modify the setback, it may be possible toachieve improved siting of personal wireless service facilities.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 43DesignOnce a personal wireless service facility is properly located and properly sited, it must still be well designed.This is a microcell. It is well designed because it is small. Itcould be located anywhere and sited almost anywhere.Carriers would need several microcells to do the same job asone tall tower.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 44This is a “treetop tower.” Thistype of facility has beensuccessfully located throughoutAlbemarle County. A typicaltreetop tower is designed so thatno portion of the facility is morethan 10 feet taller than the tallesttree within 25 feet. Typically, alltrees within 200 feet must beretained except for thoseidentified for removal during theinitial review of the application.This type of facility, due to itslimited visibility, has beensuccessfully deployed in areasdesignated as Avoidance Areas.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 45 Due to their high visibility, these are examples of facilities that generally do not meet the County’s policy.Lattice towers may be acceptable ifappropriately sited.Guyed towers are commonly usedin more remote locations wherebackhaul is not available. The dishon the guyed tower at right is toprovide backhaul because wirelineis not available to do so. The use ofland based wirelines for backhaul ispreferred.Lattice towers are capable ofgreat height, but they arehighly visible.Guyed towers, capable of even greaterheights, require large expanses of landfor guy wire anchors.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 46Ground-mounted monopoles and masts are acceptable for personal wireless service facilities.MonopoleMonopoles are acceptable, particularlythose where the antennas do not protrudefar from the pole. Because monopoles areshorter than guyed towers or latticetowers, the wireless carriers will requiremore of them.Masts are preferable, because they areshorter and more slender than monopolesand the dual-polarized antennas can bekept close to the pole (and the equipmentcan be buried). Because masts are shorterthan monopoles, the wireless carriers willrequire more of them.Both examples shown are for dual-polarized antennas, which arecommercially available for both Cellularand PCS applications.Mast
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 47Roof-mounted personal wireless service facilities are acceptable.Roof-mounted facilities do not need toproject up. They can be flush-mounted onthe parapet or flush-mounted on apenthouse as shown on this office buildingin Arizona.Panel antennas should be located so thatthey do not peak above the roofline andshould be positioned below the parapet, asshown in this drawing from GEZArchitects Engineers.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 48Antenna arrays are how the antennas are combined on a mount.This antenna array on Barracks Road is sometimescalled a “reindeer hat” or “top hat” array. Thesetypes of antennas can be found on transmissiontowers, lattice towers and monopoles.These antenna arrays are provided for “spatialdiversity”, but they are highly visible and arediscouraged. These antenna arrays do not complywith the design guidelines contained on page 50.This is a dual-polarized or cross-polarized antennaon 5th Street. It can provide for polarizationdiversity and can do everything that the “top hat”array can do. Dual polarization eliminates the needfor “spatial diversity”.Dual-polarized antennas cannot be placed as highand, therefore, more sites will be required.However, they do comply with the designguidelines contained on page 50.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 49Whip or omnidirectional antennas are acceptable. These antennas have the least visual impact when they are placed at adistance. As a viewer moves closer to whip antennas, they become more visible and more intrusive.Two whip antennas at a Cellular site inCalifornia.PCS site in suburban Seattle, Washington.The antennas shown on the left do not meet themounting guidelines contained on page 50.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 50Siting on utility poles requires guidelines. Shown below is polarization diversity, which allows the antenna to be close-mounted or flush against the pole. Both Cellular and PCS can use these dual-polarized antennas.Protrusions from the face of the poleshould be no greater than one-half thediameter of the pole itself and in no casesgreater than 12 inches. The pole shouldbe no wider than the minimum necessaryto support the proposed equipmentIf antennas are enclosed in a radomeshield on top of the pole, the shieldshould have a maximum overhang of 4inches. The pole should be no wider thanthe minimum necessary to support theproposed equipment.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 51Personal wireless service facilities are composed of antennas and equipment. The equipment is housed in equipmentshelters, cabinets and areas that should be small and designed to blend with the surrounding environment or buriedunderground. The County recognizes that differences exist between Cellular Analog, Cellular Digital and PCS equipment.Each system should use the smallest equipment available and use sites and designs that minimize the equipment’simpact.These two equipment shelters inMillbrae, California, on the crest of a hillare for cellular. They are disguised asgarages. The equipment cabinet (atarrow) on a concrete slab in theforeground is for PCS.PCS equipment shelters, cabinets and areas (includingboxes, bollards, slabs, grille work and back-up powersupply) should not displace more than a girth (height pluswidth plus depth) of ten times (in inches) the height of themast of pole (in feet). A 50-foot mast or pole should nothave an equipment area with a girth of over 500 inches.This photograph is an example of equipment on 5th Street.Equipment cabinet
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 52Equipment shelters, cabinets and maintenance areas are where most of the cost of a personal wireless service facility isplaced.Equipment is often placed in small, pre-fabricatedshelters or buildings. These two shelters forcellular facilities in Sonoma County, Californiamust be air-conditioned. These types of facilitiesmay not be acceptable in some locations due tovisibility or other impacts on the adjacent areas.These two PCS equipment cabinets in Gainesville,Florida are smaller and lighter than cellularshelters. They do not need air conditioning.While less visible than facilities for cellularfacilities, their visibility may be inappropriate inor near Avoidance Areas.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 53When an equipment shelter can’t be buried or placed in a vault, it can be landscaped and disguised as a mini-shed.This equipment shelter in Clyde Hill,Washington, is almost totally below theground. Photograph courtesy of KirkWinesThis equipment shelter, to be built in NewEngland, will be camouflaged as a NewEngland Cottage with clapboards, shakesand sash.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 54Equipment generally should not be allowed within a side yard or rear yard. With careful siting, buried equipment maybe appropriate within side yards or rear yards or in areas of high visibility.A back-up diesel generator in suburban Seattle approvedto go in the equipment shelter ended up in the side yardon a trailer.When the equipment area is large,or exposed, it should be buried in anunderground vault. Thisphotograph is an example of acellular equipment shelter near afreeway in California. Only themaintenance cabinet is above grade.
DesignPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 55Access roads should be designed with care.An access road to a personal wirelessservice facility site through open countryin Sonoma County, California.A power line swath that looks like anaccess road to a hilltop setting atMonticello. An access road should not cuta large swath through a wooded area.
VisibilityPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 56VisibilityPersonal wireless service facilities that are perfectly located can still be highly visible, although a poorly-located site willtend to be even more visible.Personal wireless service facilities that are properly sited will almost always be less visible, but siting does not guaranteeinvisibility.Personal wireless service facilities that are well-designed should ideally call less attention to themselves, but it is possibleto design a site and still have it highly visible.The personal wireless service facilities policy proposes a guideline of visibility so that each application for a personalwireless service facility can be measured by its ability to be seen.
VisibilityPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 57The location, siting and design of a site with limited visibility has the least potential for impacts. In order to minimizevisibility the backdrop of the facility must be considered. Facilities located on a ridge will be skylined and therefore willbe visible. Facilities located with a backdrop of trees such as the facility shown below have limited visibility and thereforelimited impacts.
VisibilityPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 58One measure of visibility is enhancement.This photosimulation of a site in New Hampshireshows a tri-location on a lattice tower that might beproposed anywhere in the AppalachianMountains.This is an example of what this Policy considersunacceptable.This photosimulation shows a personal wirelessservice facility disguised as a flag pole (minus aflag) instead of a lattice tower. While this is not aperfect solution, it is better than the proposalabove.Because the flag pole is less visible than the latticetower, it is considered an enhancement over thelattice tower.
VisibilityPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 59Another measure of visibility is visual impact. Personal wireless service facility sites have visual impact more often thanthey enhance the surroundings. There are three measures of adverse visual impact:Obtrusive. The personalwireless service facilityoverwhelms itssurroundings as shown inthis photograph fromGainesville, Florida.Intrusive. The personalwireless service facilityintrudes into itssurroundings as shownin this photograph fromPortsmouth, NewHampshire.Incompatible. The personalwireless service facility is out ofcontext with its surroundings asshown in this photograph fromHyannis, Massachusetts.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 60MitigationsA personal wireless service facility that scores highly on the visibility scale need not be rejected. Visual impact can bemitigated in one of the following ways:• Camouflage. This requires minimal changes to the host structure or the personal wireless service facility site’ssetting to accommodate the personal wireless service facility. Treetop towers are a form of camouflage.• Concealment. The complete enclosure of a personal wireless service facility so it can’t be seen is consideredconcealment.• Disguise. Changing the appearance of a personal wireless service facility to appear to be something it isn’t isconsidered disguise.The most important rule in mitigating visual impact is to avoid creating even more visual impact through an attemptedmitigation. For example, some rural communities use farm silos to house a personal wireless service facility. If the silo isalready existing, it could be an excellent example of camouflage or concealment. If a new silo were built only as adisguise for mounting a personal wireless service facility, it would probably not be an acceptable solution in AlbemarleCounty.Reducing the height or bulk of a personal wireless service facility could be considered a mitigation. However, to achievea true reduction in visibility, a substantial reduction in height and/or bulk would be necessary.
MitigationsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 61An example of disguise.This is a single userpersonal wirelessservice facilitydisguised as anobelisk in Irvine,California.If the obelisk werealready there, thiswould be an exampleof concealment. Tobuild such astructure, solely forthe purpose of hidinga personal wirelessservice facility is anexample of disguise.The equipment is underthe planting bed.The total cost of thisfacility wasapproximately$1,000,000.This type of disguisemay go too far forAlbemarle County.
MitigationsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 62Examples of camouflage. Camouflage requires forethought. The host structure should not be overwhelmed by thepersonal wireless service facility.This personal wireless service facility iscamouflaged as part of these signs on ahighway in Arizona.This omnidirectional antenna is part of a personal wirelessservice facility that is camouflaged as part of the GTEHeadquarters in Irving, Texas. It could also be considereddisguised as a flagpole, but it does not function as a flagpole.
MitigationsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 63Below are unacceptable forms of camouflage. Antennas that are placed on light standards should emphasize the fact thatit is a light standard. These are more like monopoles with the lights attached as an afterthought. Attachments to existingstructures should not increase the height or bulk of the structure.This is a “top hat” style personal wirelessservice facility on a stadium light in suburbanDetroit.This personal wireless service facility has twodual-polarized antennas with a single floodlight.Top hatantennaarray
MitigationsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 64Camouflage is successful when the host structure is predominant as shown in these photographs.This photograph shows a conventional side-mountedpersonal wireless service facility on the parapet of anoffice building.This photosimulation shows a “chameleon” personalwireless service facility on the same office building.Both photographs courtesy of GEC-Marconi Hazeltine.
MitigationsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 65Concealing personal wireless service facilities on historic sites may be acceptable as long as the historic site is notthreatened.This is a proposed tri-location of personal wirelessservice facilities on a landmark church inCenterport, New York. Proposed design courtesy ofGEC–Marconi Hazeltine.Personal wireless service facilities can be concealed inexisting structures. The cupola of this church housesa personal wireless service facility. The originalwood slats were removed and replaced with signal-transparent material.
MitigationsPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 66Example of how a concealed personal wireless service facility is constructed. (The height of the antenna shown in thephotographs below is 30 feet above grade.)Dual-polarized personal wireless service facility being installedon the second floor of a motel in Marin County, CaliforniaThe same personal wireless service facilityafter it has been concealed behind a signal-transparent shield.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 67Regulatory Concepts for ApplicationsTiered Approval SystemTier One - Personal Wireless Service Facilities located within existing structures.Tier Two – Personal Wireless Service Facilities attached to an existing conforming structure or Personal Wireless ServiceFacilities attached to a new structure no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet of the proposedstructure.Tier Three - Personal Wireless Service Facilities attached to a structure other than described in Tier One or Tier Two.Zoning Text Amendments would be required to implement these Regulatory Concepts and the review processes for eachTier.
Regulatory ConceptPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 68Tiered Approval Process.This Policy proposes three tiers of review based on the type of facility proposed.During the review of any type of facility, staff should conduct a field visit and document existing conditions. Anyconditions established during the approval process should be enforceable.Tier OneTier One facilities would require only the submission of an application for a building permit. Exterior renovations wouldbe limited to the replacement of existing materials with new materials that do not interfere with radio wave propagation.New material should be substantially the same in appearance. If exterior renovations are required and the site is locatedwithin an Entrance Corridor Overlay District, a Certificate of Appropriateness will be required from the ArchitecturalReview Board.Tier TwoTier Two facilities would require Planning Commission approval. Procedures for processing applications will need to bedeveloped as part of the zoning text amendment establishing the applicable zoning regulations. At a minimum, thezoning text amendment should include the regulations that a Tier Two facility must satisfy and a procedure for notifyingabutting property owners. The regulations would be consistent with this Policy. If the site were located within anEntrance Corridor Overlay District or an Agricultural Forestal District, the application also would be subject to review bythe Architectural Review Board or the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee, respectively. The Commission couldreceive input from any other committees or individuals during the review of an application.The Planning Commission’s action on an application would be ministerial, i.e., the Commission’s review would belimited to whether the proposed facility complies with the zoning regulations adopted for Tier Two facilities. If theapplication was determined to be in compliance with all applicable regulations, the application would be approved and,with the issuance of the appropriate Building Permits, the facility could be constructed. An applicant whose applicationwas denied could appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors.
Regulatory ConceptPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 69Tier ThreeTier Three facilities would require the submission of a special use permit application. The application would be subject topublic hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in the same manner as all other special usepermit applications. The application would be reviewed for compliance with the provisions of the Personal WirelessService Facilities Policy and Chapter 18, Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Code.
Regulatory ConceptPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 70Minimum Submittal StandardsMINIMUM SUBMITTAL STANDARDS FOR PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES (TIERS TWO AND THREEONLY)The following minimum information must be submitted with any application for a personal wireless service facility inorder for it to be reviewed on schedule.1. A completed application form.2. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for a personal wireless service facility. If there is norecorded plat or boundary survey in existence, a copy of the legal description of the property and the deed book andpage number shall be provided.3. Ownership information shall be provided. Easement holders shall also be identified and, if necessary, a documentacceptable to the County must be submitted containing the easement holder’s written consent. In the event that theownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, thename of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or a fictitious name, a documentacceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing the special use permit application hasthe authority to do so.4. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing theowner’s written consent to the application.5. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence ofthe existence and scope of the agency.6. Each applicant requesting approval of a personal wireless service facility shall submit a scaled plan and a scaledelevation view and other supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation, signed and sealed byappropriate licensed professionals. The plans shall show the location and dimensions of all improvements,including information concerning topography, radio frequency coverage, tower height requirements, setbacks,drives, parking, fencing, landscaping and adjacent uses. The County may require other information to be submittedin order to assess compliance with the ordinance and personal wireless service facilities policy. Additionally,
Regulatory ConceptPersonal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 71applicant shall provide actual photographs of the site taken from the site toward the nearest residence and publicroad as well as from public roads or properties toward the site.7. The height of all trees within 50 feet of the facility.8. Maximum height above ground of the proposed facility. This shall also indicate the maximum height above sealevel for the highest point of the facility.9. Location of all residential structures and residential districts or rural area boundaries within 2000 feet of theproposed facility.10. Written or graphic description of the nature of the uses on properties within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. Thisdescription shall include, but not be limited to, the nature and extent of tree coverage and foliage.11. Surrounding topography within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. Such topographic information shall be at a scaleof not less than 1 inch equals 100 feet and the contour interval shall not be greater than 10 feet.12. Design of the facility, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing oreliminating visual obtrusiveness. The specific type of support structure shall be provided. Design, type, location,height and configuration of all antennas proposed shall be provided. Future antenna additions shall be noted asshall the design, type, location, height and configuration of all potential future antenna.13. Proposed ingress and egress location and design.14. Proximity to commercial or private airports.15. Where site conditions permit the applicant shall conduct a balloon test within two weeks of application submittal.This test shall consist of raising balloons to a height equal to the proposed tower. The balloons should be of a coloror material that provides maximum visibility. The applicant shall inform the Planning Department of the time of theballoon test at least two days before the test is to occur to allow staff to conduct field visits during the test.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy - Albemarle County - Page 72ClosingPlease remember that planning for Albemarle County is a work in progress. County officials and staff invite you to sendyour comments, ideas and suggestions for this Wireless Policy to:Albemarle County Department ofPlanning and Community Development401 McIntire RoadCharlottesville, VA 22902-4596Voice: (804) 296-5823Fax: (804) 972-4035
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Work Program – midyear
update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the current status of items in Community
Development’s Work Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg,
Fritz, and Ms. McCulley.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 7, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This report provides the Board an update on Community Development’s progress on its 2011 work program. This
work program was presented to the Board in February, 2011, and includes changes to reflect the Board’s direction to
prioritize additional work items, such as Critical Slopes and Rural Area Churches. Additionally, the Board directed
staff to consider the Interstate Interchange Policy review with the Comprehensive Plan Update so that the targeted
industry study may first be completed.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment 1 is the work program as presented to the Board in February, 2011. Attachment 2 presents the work
program status as of August, 2011. Staff notes the following highlights:
1. Work completed since February, 2011 includes Places 29 Master Plan, Redistricting, Zoning Fees, Phase 2
of W inery changes, and Phases 1 and 2 of Light Industrial zoning changes.
2. As a result of work on the LI zoning changes, staff is investigating the need for a third phase beyond what
was previously anticipated. This third phase would consider the broadening of uses allowed in the Light
Industrial zoning category.
3. Staff estimates the Comprehensive Plan update has been delayed approximately 2 months due to the need to
obtain Board concurrence with the Consortium Agreement and the inability to move forward until that
agreement was approved.
4. The ministerial and legislative changes remain on schedule, with the ministerial changes anticipated to reach
the Board in the fourth quarter of 2011 and the legislative changes anticipated to reach the Board in the first
quarter of 2012.
5. Work on the Critical Slopes amendment is anticipated to restart as the ministerial changes are finalized.
Work on the Rural Areas churches has been delayed until 2012 pursuant to the Board’s direction at the April
2011 work session.
6. Finally, work on possible amendments to the sign ordinance have been delayed approximately six months,
but are now proceeding to public hearing, and it is anticipated to be presented to the Board in the fourth
quarter of 2011.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff anticipates there will be no budget impact resulting from this executive summary.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only and no action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – 2011 Work Program
Attachment B – 2011 Work Program, mid year status
1
Proposal to Albemarle County
Options for the Revision of the Albemarle County Wireless Policy and Ordinance
November 14, 2011
Albemarle County staff has asked Kreines & Kreines, Inc. to provide the potential cost
of undertaking any or all of several options relating to the Albemarle County Wireless
Policy and Ordinance (which is based on the Policy).
I have expanded the staff’s four options into five options and provided a brief outline of
each option and the potential costs.
1. Review Existing Wireless Policy and Ordinance. (This needs to be done before the
County considers updating the County’s Policy and Ordinance to address changes
in technology, court decisions and FCC rulings)
Review the Wireless Policy on a conceptual basis:
• Situation on the ground.
• Location, siting and design.
• Visibility.
• Mitigations.
• Regulation (Tier One, Tier Two and Tier Three).
Perform a line-by-line review of the Ordinance:
• Chapter 18, Section 3.
• Chapter 18, Section 5.
• Supplementary Regulations.
• Other sections that may apply (e.g., Section 31, Administration and Enforcement
and Section 32, Site Plan.
Review examples of how the policy and ordinance are being applied today, e.g.:
• SP 2011-07.
2
• SP 2011-08.
• Review several other cases to get a broad sample.
Prepare report to the County on the review of the above.
Product: Report on Review of Existing Wireless Policy and Ordinance.
Cost for this Task: $8,000. This cost includes one draft of the report and no meetings in
Albemarle County.
2. How Changes in Wireless Will Impact the Regulation of Deployment by the
County
Describe how technology is changing deployment, e.g.:
• 4G, which is a term of art masquerading as a hard and fast definition of
capability, based primarily on speed.
• LTE, a more definable term requiring many more cell sites, most of them smaller
than towers.
• Backhaul, the primary reason why networks are congested.
• Spectrum shortage and why more spectrum will mean more cell sites.
Describe the court decisions that are influencing the regulating of deployment and why,
e.g.:
• Fairfax County, Virginia.
• Anacortes, Washington.
• Cranston, Rhode Island.
• Weisenberg Township, New Jersey.
Describe the FCC notices, programs and policy initiatives that may impact regulation of
deployment and why, e.g.:
• Shot clock.
• National Broadband Plan.
• Definitions (e.g., wireless internet services are not personal wireless services).
3
• Attempt to allow entry into rights-of-way without a local discretionary process.
Describe how changes in wireless will impact regulation of deployment:
• Generally, the decreasing importance of studying alternative sites and the rising
importance of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Specifically, describe how Albemarle County’s policy should change and list
those sections the County Code that need to be revised on the basis of
technology, court cases and the recent FCC rulings.
Prepare report to the County on the above.
Product: Report to County how changes in wireless will impact the regulation of
deployment by the County.
Cost for this Task: $9,000. This cost includes one draft of the report and no meetings in
Albemarle County.
3. Changes in Desire of the Community for Regulation of Wireless Facilities
There are two ways of assessing Community “desires”:
• Meetings, workshops, roundtables, charrettes, etc.
• Literature review of recent (last two to three years) of statements by
stakeholders.
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. proposes the second approach, since assessing live groups
would be expensive and unfocused. Many people will talk about topics that would not
be productive in learning how the community wants to revise the County’s regulations.
Many people will want to talk about the possibility that radio frequency radiation
causes cancer, or about banning wireless antennas totally or about providing service
from satellites. While these are important topics, they won’t provide any assistance to
the County in determining how to review its regulations.
Content analysis of materials sent to Kreines & Kreines, Inc. by Albemarle County will
be much more effective and less expensive.
Identify stakeholders, e.g.:
• Carriers and their representatives.
• Business groups, e.g., Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce.
4
• Environmental groups, e.g., PEC.
• Public-at-large, e.g., citizens impacted by individual proposals.
Review existing positions, depending upon material sent by Albemarle County to
Kreines & Kreines, Inc., such as:
• Carriers’ representations at recent meetings.
• Public statements, e.g., Timothy Hulbert’s Op-Ed piece in the 10/16/11 issue of
the Daily Progress.
• Positions offered at recent meetings by groups or individual parties.
Prepare report that describes:
• Positions of those who do not believe the existing Policy and Ordinance provide
balance.
• Positions of those who believe that Policy and Ordinance are out of date or don’t
go far enough or need to be reviewed on the basis of specific issues, such as
structural strength or generators, etc.
Product: Report to County changes in desire of the community for regulation of
wireless facilities.
Cost for this Task: $9,000. This cost includes one draft report and no meetings in
Albemarle County.
4. How Can the Tier Review System Better Reflect Changes from Tasks 1, 2 and 3
Above
What was the basis for Tier One? These are examples:
• Smaller cell sites.
• Less visible cell sites.
• Minor modifications rather than wholesale expansions or extensions.
What was the basis for Tier Two? Any new construction that doesn’t involve a tall
tower.
What was the basis for Tier Three? Tall towers.
5
Will needs and acceptance of various tier types be changing?
• Because of technology: yes, because smaller cell sites are now the trend.
• Because of court cases: maybe.
• Because of FCC rulings: maybe.
Will community desires be:
• More satisfied with Tier One facilities?
• More or less interested in encouraging (or redefining) Tier Two facilities?
• Less concerned with height and bulk and therefore permissive of Tier Three?
How would redesigned Tiers treat:
• Co-location?
• Utility pole mounts?
• Faux trees?
Prepare a report to the County that recommends:
• Redesign of the Tier system, or alternatively …
• Rescinding the Tier system.
Product: Report to County to Possible Recommendations for Changes in the Tier
System.
Cost for this Task: $8,000. This cost includes one draft of the report and no meetings in
Albemarle County.
5. Revision of Wireless Policy and Ordinance . (Process for Achieving
Recommendations from Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4)
Preparing the four reports from Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4 will not change Albemarle County’s
Wireless Policy and Ordinance. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. will need data. The reports
need to be read, reacted to and supplemented from various points of view. Adoption of
precise language will require public hearings before the Albemarle County Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors. This task explains how that will be done by
Kreines & Kreines, Inc., in partnership with Albemarle County staff.
6
First, there should be a significant effort in data gathering by the County and providing
the following types of data to Kreines & Kreines, Inc.:
• Past individual project files including site plans, RF propagation plots,
narratives, etc.
• Photographs of existing sites.
• Submitted statements, studies and opinion papers.
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. reports will be made available to the public on the Internet in
Word format by the Albemarle County Information Technology staff:
• All interested parties may download, edit and post their own versions or
comments on the website made available by the Albemarle County Information
Technology staff.
• There will be no final version of any report because they are not the focus of this
effort.
This is a version of the Wikipedia style of editing.
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. will prepare reports serially (one after another) for submission
to County staff. If all reports in Tasks 1 through 4 are prepared:
• The Task 2 report may cast a different light on Task One reviews. Kreines &
Kreines, Inc. is not going to revise the reports but readers should have the
opportunity to offer their opinions and perspectives.
• The Task 3 report may cast a different light on the Task Two Findings. After
reading three reports, each reader may have his/her point of view and the
opportunity to express those points of view.
• The Task 4 report may alter the Task 3 conclusions.
• The Task 5 report will reflect an integration and synthesis of the previous
reports.
County staff, on the basis of reading reports, and Wiki reactions to them will direct
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. to prepare specific language to revise the following:
• The Wireless Policy.
• The Albemarle County Code.
7
Ted Kreines, AICP will introduce proposed revisions to the Wireless Policy and the
County Code to the Albemarle County Planning Commission.
• This is the process for revising the zoning ordinance as set out in the Albemarle
County Code, Chapter 2, Section 406.F.
• Ted Kreines, AICP would meet with staff once prior to the Albemarle County
Planning Commission Meeting.
• Ted Kreines, AICP would meet with staff the day after the Albemarle County
Planning Commission Meeting.
Following the first meeting before the Planning Commission and continuing to
adoption by the Board of Supervisors, the process would be an Albemarle County staff
function. Ted Kreines, AICP, would be available for conference calls, draft revisions or
trips as additional tasks for an additional cost.
Kreines & Kreines, Inc. will prepare revisions of the Wireless Policy and Zoning
Ordinance for first meeting of Albemarle County Planning Commission.
Product: Presentation of first draft of revisions to Albemarle County Wireless Policy
and Zoning Ordinance to the Albemarle county Planning Commission.
Cost for this Task: $15,000. This cost includes one draft of the proposed revised
Wireless Policy and Ordinance and one trip to Albemarle County for presentation to
Planning Commission and meetings with County staff.
Cost for all Tasks
If all five tasks were contracted for, the total cost would be reduced to $48,000.
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: December 7, 2011
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions
through December 2011 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Board of Building Code Appeals: One vacancy, Architect.
No applications received.
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART): One
vacancy.
Susan Bell Friedman
David Mitchell
Timothy O’Brien
Crozet Community Advisory Council: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals: Two vacancies.
No applications received.
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy, business representative.
No applications received.
Pantops Community Advisory Council: One vacancy.
Ronald Cottrell
Richard McGrain
Places 29 Community Advisory Council: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Region Ten Community Services Board: One vacancy.
To be advertised.
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: One vacancy, joint
City/County Chair.
No applications received.
The following District reappointments require action by the Board:
Albemarle County Service Authority:
James Colbaugh (Scottsville)
Bill Kittrell (White Hall)
Clarence Roberts (Rivanna)
Equalization Board:
District appointments (member list attached)
Planning Commission:
Duane Zobrist (At-large)
Linda Porterfield (Scottsville)
Calvin Morris (Rivanna)
Tom Loach (White Hall)
Social Services Board:
Lincoln Lewis (Rivanna)
Wanda Kucera (Scottsville)
Claude Foster (White Hall)
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Joseph Samuels 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Ineligible No Action Required
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible No Action Required
ACSA James Colbaugh 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)Advertised, No applications recv'd
ACSA Bill Kittrell 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required
ACSA Clarence Roberts 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna) No Action Required
Board of Building Code Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011 11/21/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
CHART Brad Sheffield 4/3/2014 Resigned Advertised, 3 applications recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Commission on Children and Families Carolyn Lawlor 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Commission on Children and Families Janette Martin 6/30/2011 6/30/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Commission on Children and Families Amy Skilnick 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 No To be advertised
Equalization Board Alan Collier 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required
Equalization Board David Cooke II 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Jack Jouett)No Action Required
Equalization Board Virginia Gardner 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required
Equalization Board Rosa Hudson 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Scottsville) Advertised, No applications recv'd
Equalization Board William Rich 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Rio) No Action Required
Equalization Board John C. Lowry 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 Eligible, (Samuel Miller)No Action Required
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011 11/21/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Christopher Dumler 11/21/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Housing Committee Valerie L'Herrou 12/31/2011 12/31/2014 Ineligible To be advertised
Housing Committee David Oakland 12/31/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Housing Committee Sarah Collie 12/31/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Housing Committee Kurt Keesecker 12/31/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Amber Capron 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No To be advertised
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No To be advertised
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No To be advertised
Natural Heritage Committee Mike Erwin 9/30/2013 Resigned To be advertised
Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned To be advertised
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned To be advertised
Pantops Community Advisory Council Richard Jennings 6/30/2011 6/30/2013 No Advertised, 2 applications recv'd
Places29 Communite Advisory Council Joseph Barnes 1/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Planning Commission Duane Zobrist 12/31/2011 12/31/2013 Eligible, (At-large)No Action Required
Planning Commission Linda Porterfield 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Scottsville)Advertised, No applications recv'd
Planning Commission Calvin Morris 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required
Planning Commission Tom Locah 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required
Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Carol Rasmussen 3/5/2012 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
PRFA A. Bruce Dotson 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
PRFA Joseph Henley 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Region Ten Community Services Board Christopher Dumler 6/30/2012 Resigned To be advertised
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Social Services Board Lincoln Lewis 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (Rivanna)No Action Required
Social Services Board Wanda Kucera 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 No, (Scottsville)Advertised, No applications recv'd
Social Services Board Claude Foster 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 Eligible, (White Hall)No Action Required
Revised 12/01/11
From: sue_friedman@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 6:17 PM
To: Ella W. Jordan
Cc: Meagan Hoy
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Application Information
Date of this
Application:
11/09/2011
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory
Committee (CHART)
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation: Albemarle County resident
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Applicant Name: Susan Bell Friedman
Address: 2544 Brandermill Place
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Home Telephone: (434) 964-0878
Email Address: sue_friedman@hotmail.com
Employer: Alzheimer''s Association CWVA
Business Address: 1160 Pepsi Place
Suite 306
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Work Telephone: (434) 973-6122
Occupation/Title: President/CEO
Date of Employment: 02/2007
Years Resident in
Albemarle County: 12
Previous Residence: Austin, TX Dublin, GA Beaufort, SC Alexandria, VA Vincennes, IN
Spouse: Frank
Number of Children: 01
Education: B.A. Purdue University, Political Science, 1975 M.S. Indiana State
University, Agency Counseling, 1981
Memberships: Alemarle County Rotary Club
I Have A Dream Foundation Board
Page 1 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\Friedman.htm
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
___________________________________________________________
Susan Bell Friedman
DATE SIGNED:________________________
Leadership Charlottesville Class of 2000
Charlottesville-Albemarle League of Women Voters
Women United in Philanthropy Steering Committee Co-Chair
Forest Lakes Community Association Board 3 years)
Interests: Martin Luther King, Jr., Community and University Celebration Planning
Committee, 2011 and 2012
Elected to Albemarle County School Board and served 2003-2007, Chair
2006 and 2007
Member of the Northern Terminus Western Bypass Committee 2011
Community Advisory Committee for Dominion Hollymead Electrical
Transmission expansion
former Business Assistance Director for the Thomas Jefferson Partnership
for Economic Development 1999-2007).
Reason to Serve: Transportation has been a challenging issue for this region for many
years, certainly for the 12 years I have lived here
Having served on the Northern Terminus Western Bypass Committee this
fall and through my work with the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for
Economic Development, I understand the environmental and economic
needs of our region. And, I believe there are ways to effectively address
both.
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum sent me the information.
Page 2 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\Friedman.htm
From: Meagan Hoy
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:38 AM
To: Ella W. Jordan
Subject: FW: Board/Commission/Committee Application
From: david@Southern-Classic.com [mailto:david@Southern-Classic.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 6:42 PM
To: Ella W. Jordan
Cc: Meagan Hoy
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Application Information
Date of this
Application:
11/10/2011
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory
Committee (CHART)
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation:
Member of Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Owner in
County Southern Classic, Inc) Small Business Owner in City
Bounce-n-Play of Charlottesville)
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett
Applicant Name: David Mitchell
Address: 186 Terrell Road East
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Home Telephone: (434) 295-7812
Email Address: david@Southern-Classic.com
Employer: Southern Classic, Inc
Business Address: P.O. Box 248
Crozet, VA 22932
Work Telephone: (434) 566-8299
Occupation/Title: President/Owner
Date of Employment: 09/1999
Years Resident in
Albemarle County: 5
Previous Residence: Henrico County Va
Spouse: Forrest Mitchell
Number of Children: 4
Education: Dinwiddie High School - Advanced Diploma - 1991 Virginia Military
Institute VMI) - BS Degree in Civil Engineering 1995
Page 1 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\Mitchell.htm
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
___________________________________________________________
David Mitchell
DATE SIGNED:________________________
Memberships: Meadows Presbitarian Church VMI Alumni Accociation & Keydet Club
Interests: Member of Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Chamber of Commerce
Leadership Charlottesville Class of 2010 MacIntire Little League Coach
Reason to Serve: To help improve the long-range planning for transportation needs in our
community and spend the few dollars we have in an effective way for
current and expected growth. We also need to improve our coordination
with the City and surrounding counties. I believe my engineering and
construction background will also be of value to CHART
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
This vacancy was posted with the Nov 2, 2011 Agenda
Page 2 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\Mitchell.htm
From: ejordan@albemarle.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 6:24 PM
To: Ella W. Jordan
Cc: Meagan Hoy
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Application Information
Date of this
Application:
11/09/2011
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for:
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory
Committee (CHART)
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation: This Information Not Available
Magisterial District: White Hall
Applicant Name: Timothy O''Brien
Address: 1514 Wickham Pond Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Home Telephone: (434) 823-2343
Email Address: EMail address not provided
Employer: Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development
Business Address: 2211 Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Work Telephone: (434) 979-5610
Occupation/Title: Vice-President
Date of Employment: 07/2010
Years Resident in
Albemarle County: 1
Previous Residence: 166 Brookwood Drive, Charlottesville
Spouse: Anne
Number of Children: 0
Education: PhD., Virginia Commonwealth University Expected 2012)
Masters of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, 2005
B.A. Political Science, St. Edward''s University, 2001
Memberships: International Game Fish Association, International Representative
Page 1 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\OBrien.htm
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
___________________________________________________________
Timothy O''Brien
DATE SIGNED:________________________
Virginia Economic Developers Association
Widow''s Sons Masonic Lodge
Interests: Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce-Economic and
Government Affairs Committee
Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Council-Vice-Chairman
Virginia Festival of the Book Advisory Committee
Reason to Serve: I believe we all have a duty to help make our community a better place
to live.
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Website
Page 2 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\OBrien.htm
From: ejordan@albemarle.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:38 PM
To: Ella W. Jordan
Cc: Meagan Hoy
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Application Information
Date of this
Application:
11/30/2011
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for: Pantops Community Advisory Council
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation: Business Community Member
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Applicant Name: Ronald Cottrell
Address: 3304 Heathcote Lane
Keswick, VA 22947
Home Telephone: (434) 244-5021
Email Address: EMail address not provided
Employer: Martha Jefferson Hospital
Business Address: 500 Martha Jefferson Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Work Telephone: (434) 654-7306
Occupation/Title: Vice President, Planning, Marketing and Corporate Development
Date of Employment: 06/1989
Years Resident in
Albemarle County: 22
Previous Residence: North Carolina
Spouse: No response to this question
Number of Children: No response to this question
Education: Masters in Business Administration Bachelor Degree in Business
Administration
Memberships: Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development
Interests: Church of Incarnation
Reason to Serve: Represent interest of Martha Jefferson Hospital
Page 1 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\Cottrell.htm
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
___________________________________________________________
Ronald Cottrell
DATE SIGNED:________________________
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Ken Boyd
Page 2 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\Cottrell.htm
From: Meagan Hoy
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:37 AM
To: Ella W. Jordan
Subject: FW: Board/Commission/Committee Application
From: rmcgrain@gmail.com [mailto:rmcgrain@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 4:40 PM
To: Ella W. Jordan
Cc: Meagan Hoy
Subject: Board/Commission/Committee Application
Application Information
Date of this
Application:
06/19/2011
Board/Commission/
Committee Applied
for: Pantops Community Advisory Council
Board/Commission/
Committee
Affiliation: N/A
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Applicant Name: Richard McGrain
Address: 1526 Montessori Terrace
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
Home Telephone: (434) 293-3009
Email Address: rmcgrain@gmail.com
Employer:
Business Address:
Work Telephone:
Occupation/Title:
Date of Employment:
Years Resident in
Albemarle County: 2
Previous Residence: 34 Northwood Drive Depew, NY 14043
Spouse: No response to this question
Number of Children: No response to this question
Education: St. Andrew''s Seminary liberal arts 1961)
Page 1 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\Mcgrain.htm
SIGNATURE REQUIRED:
___________________________________________________________
Richard McGrain
DATE SIGNED:________________________
Memberships: none
Interests: active member in Organizing for America
Reason to Serve: I moved here 2 1/2 years ago, am a concerned citizen, and want to be
active in the decisions and or suggestions that concern the quality of life
here.
How did you Hear
About Vacancy:
Board member Kirk Bowers
Page 2 of 2
12/1/2011file://I:\BOS\Agenda Files\2011\1207\Mcgrain.htm
EQUALIZATION BOARD*
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
APPOINTED
TERM EXPIRES
CITY/COUNTY Alan Collier
7000 Monroe Court
Charlottesville, VA 22911-9118
03/03/04
11/3/04
12/7/05
11/01/06
12/12/07
01/07/09
01/06/10
12/1/10
12/31/04
12/31/05
12/31/06
12/31/07
12/31/08
12/31/09
12/31/10
12/31/11
Rivanna
(Replaced Micciche)
David Cooke II
1501 Old Oaks Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
12/03/03
11/3/04
12/7/05
12/6/06
12/12/07
01/07/09
01/06/10
12/1/10
12/31/04
12/31/05
12/31/06
12/31/07
12/31/08
12/31/09
12/31/10
12/31/11
Jack Jouett
(Replaced Larie)
Virginia Gardner
3450 Bleak House Road
Earlysville, VA 22936
(W) 951-5125 (C) 981-0871
06/04/08
01/07/09
01/06/10
12/1/10
12/31/08
12/31/09
12/31/10
12/31/11
White Hall (Replaced
Sandridge)
Rosa Hudson
220 Hartmans Mill Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(H) 293-9243
06/14/06
11/01/06
12/12/07
01/07/09
01/06/10
12/1/10
12/31/06
12/31/07
12/31/08
12/31/09
12/31/10
12/31/11
Scottsville
(Replace Ward)
William Rich
104 Dover Court
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(H) (434) 978-1290
wsrichjr@comcast.net
06/1/11
12/31/11
Rio (Replaced Rash)
John C. Lowry
3475 Red Hill School Rd.
North Garden, VA 22959
(H) 296-4695 (C) 906-8108
(W) 977-1550
Email: alowry@mindspring.com
04/07/10
12/1/10
12/31/10
12/31/11
Samuel Miller
(replaced Nye Fitch)
Revised: 12/1/2011
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: December 7, 2011
RE: Board Member Representation on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find a listing of the various Boards and Commissions that Board
Members are currently serving on.
1
Board Members on Committees
Board Member: Term Began:
Ken Boyd:
Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee 1/07/04
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee 2/01/06
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 5/06/09
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 1/06/10
Lindsay Dorrier:
Audit Committee 1/05/00
CIP Oversight Committee
Jail Authority 1/04/06
Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee 2/01/06
Rivanna River Basin Commission 9/13/06
*Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Board 1/07/04
Ann Mallek:
ACE 1/09/08
Building Committee 1/09/08
Piedmont Workforce Network Council 1/09/08
TJPDC 1/09/08
Rivanna River Basin Commission 1/06/10
C’Ville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council Policy Committee 1/06/10
**LEAP Governance Board 2010
Dennis Rooker:
Audit Committee 2/01/06
C’Ville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council Policy Committee 2/01/02
High Growth Coalition 1/09/08
TJPDC 1/06/10
Duane Snow:
Building Committee 1/06/10
High Growth Coalition 1/06/10
Historic Preservation Committee 1/06/10
CIP Oversight Committee 1/06/10
MPO 1/05/11
Rodney Thomas:
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee 1/06/10
Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee 1/06/10
Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee 1/06/10
MPO 1/06/10
Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board 1/06/10
*Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Board 1/13/10
2
*(Lewis and Clark Board request BOS Members.)
** (LEAP’s organizational documents stipulate that the LEAP Board shall include the Chairman
of the BOS or his/her designee. This requires no action by the BOS.)
Updated 01/11/11
JAUNT in Albemarle County
FY11
Number of Trips
FY09 FY10 FY11
Public Demand-Response
Medical 23,782 28,055 28,358
Work 16,061 14,379 12,911
Adult Day Care 1,285 569 325
Miscellaneous 26,670 28,698 30,782
Public Routes
Scottsville 6,443 6,964 8,005
Crozet 4,087 5,190 4,831
Misc. Routes 4,907 4,393 3,709
JABA Routes 4,089 3,379 3,958
Total Public Service 87,324 91,627 92,879
Human Service Agency 14,885 10,096 7,637
GRAND TOTAL 102,209 101,723 100,516
Children 2%
Adults 50%
Seniors 48%
People with Disabilities (all ages) 86%
Highlights of the Year in Albemarle County
Public ridership in the County increased 1% after four consecutive years
of 5 to 10% increases.
Ridership on the JABA routes rose 17%, but probably represents recovery
from last year’s numbers that were lower due to the snowy winter.
Ridership on the Scottsville route increased by 15%, following last year’s
27% growth.
The largest increase in demand-response service was for miscellaneous
trips, which includes people traveling to grocery stores, church, schools
and programs such as Region Ten, the Arc and the Senior Center.
In our annual passenger survey, 100% of Albemarle riders said that they
receive prompt, courteous service, 100% said the drivers drive safely and
94% feel the service is reasonably priced.
Annual Report FY10-11
Cel ebrati ng 35 years of serving Central Virginia!
JAUNT’S VISION
Central Virginians get where they need to go safely, effi ciently and
aff ordably while respecti ng the environment.
JAUNT’S MISSION
JAUNT safely, courteously and promptly provides public and
specialized services to meet community mobility needs.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS FY10ͳ11
Juandiego Wade, President, Albemarle
Katherine Pickett , Vice President, Charlott esville
Robert Burke, Secretary, Albemarle
Bill Watt erson, Treasurer, Charlott esville
Cliff ord Buys, Albemarle
Karl Carter, Buckingham
Ray East, Albemarle
David Feisner, Fluvanna
Willie Gentry, Louisa
Ray Heron, Charlott esville
Janice Jackson, Nelson
Philip Jones, Charlott esville
Catherine Palmer, Fluvanna
P.T. Spencer, Louisa
FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AND THE PRESIDENT
We had another year of record-breaking ridership, a super safety
record, new services and improvements to our already stellar on-
ti me performance. Public ridership in each of our six jurisdicti ons
increased as more people took advantage of the wonderful service
that we provide.
On the downside, fuel prices rose beyond our predicti ons and other
expenses rose despite our fl at budget, presenti ng some signifi cant
fi nancial challenges.
One of the highlights of the year was the new shopping service for
seniors throughout Planning District Ten that was funded by a state
grant as well as matching funds from JABA. We were also delighted
to have one of our drivers win the state Roadeo and to achieve
our goal of raising $3500 for JAUNT Friends to celebrate our 35th
Anniversary.
The local, state and federal governments are our partners in this
remarkable growth and we are very grateful for their support.
Despite the tough economy, we’ve been able to increase services
thanks to their dedicati on to supporti ng transit. We added a
new partner this year with the Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional
Commission providing funding for service for medical trips from
Culpeper and Madison and enjoyed increased support from
Wintergreen to help their employees get to work.
We’d love to see you on the bus so you can see just how important
our services are, so give us a call!
Juan Wade, President
Donna Shaunesey,
Executi ve Director
Our nonprofi t, JAUNT
Friends, distributed
over 980 ti ckets to
people in need!
JAUNT IN BRIEF
JAUNT, Inc. is a regional transportati on system providing service
to Charlott esville, Albemarle, Louisa, Nelson, Fluvanna and
Buckingham. The 69 vehicle fl eet carries the general public, agency
clients, senior citi zens and people with disabiliti es throughout
Central Virginia; most of the fl eet is lift -equipped. Organized in 1975,
JAUNT maintains an exemplary record of safety, cost effi ciency, and
high quality service, and is recognized both statewide and nati onally
for its performance record. In FY11 we provided over 300,000 trips
to work, agency programs, doctors’ offi ces, and retail businesses.
JAUNT is owned by the local governments that it serves and uses
federal, state, and local funding to supplement fares and agency
payments.
Charlott esville
Albemarle
Nelson
Buckingham
Fluvanna
Louisa
HIGHLIGHTS
Charlott esville
Ridership increased 6%, with more people using JAUNT to get to grocery
stores, school and other non-medical desti nati ons. The route from
Charlott esville to Wintergreen saw a major increase in ridership, too.
Albemarle
Public ridership increased 1%, led by a 15% increase in riders on the
Scott sville route.
Nelson
The Lovingston commuter route got so popular (a 23% increase) that
we had to add a bigger vehicle; overall public ridership rose 16% and
we were excited to start a once-a-month service to help folks get to the
Food Pantry with a grant from the Nelson Community Foundati on.
Fluvanna
Overall ridership increased 10%, led by a 58% increase in midday route
ridership, followed closely by an increase of 29% on the Fluvanna
Express. We did see a decline in commuter route ridership as a result of
fare increases.
Louisa
Thanks to an infusion of funds from the Board of Supervisors, we were
able to add a second bus to the overcrowded midday route, leading
to a 28% increase in ridership and signifi cantly shorter ride ti mes.
Intracounty service also increased 11%, for an overall increase in public
service of 12%.
Buckingham
We were very grateful to receive mid-year supplementary funding to
allow us to conti nue the popular later commuter route year-round,
leading to a 16% increase in ridership. The earlier commuter route also
increased 6%.
318,814 trips –
highest ever!
JAUNT achieved a
Net Promoter Score
of 70% based on
our fall passenger
survey.
TOTAL ANNUAL RIDERSHIP
FY10ͳ11 RIDERSHIP
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
“ Great, courteous,
kind, caring service!”
from 2010
Passenger Survey
TRIP CATEGORIES
Medical 81,128
Elderly and Disabled 98,122
Children & Youth 7,872
Senior Meal Programs 19,021
Rural Routes 93,819
Other 18,852
TOTAL 318,814
PASSENGER ORIGIN
Charlott esville 131,508
Albemarle 100,516
Nelson 16,068
Fluvanna 21,676
Louisa 32,909
Buckingham 12,856
Other 3,281
TOTAL 318,814
EXPENSES
Administrati on $997,803
Operati ons $4,091,961
Special Projects $118,088
TOTAL $5,207,852
REVENUE
Local $2,025,873
State $673,964
Federal $1,470,517
Agency $459,228
Fares $465,600
TOTAL $5,095,182
Operati ons 79%
Special
Projects 2%Administrati on 19%
Agency 9%
Fares 9%
State
13%
Federal
29%
Local 40%
OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY
(unaudited fi gures)
This document was printed on recycled paper.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
JAUNT FY12 Supplemental Funding Request
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Additional County Funds for JAUNT in FY12 to offset
Rising Fuel Costs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott and Davis, and Ms. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board’s adopted FY2012 budget included $922,025 of funding to JAUNT for operation of its public transportation
services in the County. During public work sessions held on the County’s FY2012 budget, the Board considered the
impact of rising fuel prices on JAUNT’s operation. Based on input from JAUNT, the Board considered whether to
request JAUNT’s Board to raise rates for rural customers by $1.00 each way and institute a $0.50 charge for
transportation to Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) facilities to offset rising fuel costs over and above the
requested $922,025.
Because fuel prices had decreased somewhat by the time the Board adopted its budget, fare changes and reduced
services were not implemented by JAUNT; however, this agency acknowledged t hat it might have to approach the
County during FY2012 to request supplemental funding and/or reconsider fare and service changes should fuel prices
escalate. In June 2011, JAUNT forwarded a letter to the County indicating that since fuel prices had once again
started to increase, it anticipated a $250,000 shortfall in its FY2012 budget and indicated that the County’s share of
this amount would be $71,000. JAUNT forwarded this letter to its five other member jurisdictions, and all but
Albemarle and Charlottesville increased funding or fares and/or reduced service frequency to offset anticipated fuel
increases to effectively reduce the overall shortfall by $135,000. Charlottesville and Albemarle did not take action on
the request and instead advised JAUNT to monitor its fuel prices in the first quarter of the fiscal year.
In October 2011, JAUNT provided the City and County with updated information indicating that fuel prices continued
to exceed what was expected in its budget, creating an anticipated shortfall of $120,000. The County’s expected
share of this shortfall is $58,000. The City has agreed to fund its $61,000 share of the anticipated shortfall.
DISCUSSION:
In developing its FY12 budget, JAUNT assumed its cost of fuel to be $2.54/gallon. Throughout the first four (4)
months of this fiscal year, JAUNT’s cost of fuel has averaged approximately $2.90/gallon – a variance of $0.46 per
gallon on average. JAUNT consumes approximately 270,000 gallons of fuel each year for its operations. The
variance in price factored by usage yields the expected $120,000 shortfall.
In FY2011, JAUNT experienced a $240,000 budget shortfall requiring its Board to utilize its fund balance to offset this
shortage, leaving approximately $555,000 in reserves to provide adequate cash flow and to address contingencies.
At this level of fund balance the JAUNT Board maintains approximately ten (10) percent in reserves, which is
reasonable and appropriate for a fund balance reserve.
Albemarle County rural area fares have not been increased since 1994 while other rural counties have agreed to
either fare increases and/or service reductions during this 17-year period. JAUNT estimates that if rural area fares
were increased by $1.00 and a $0.50 per trip charge to JABA sites instituted, an additional $24,000/year in revenue
would be generated to offset the increasing cost of fuel.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Should the Board of Supervisors authorize supplemental funding for JAUNT in FY2012 to offset the rising cost of
fuel, funding will have to be appropriated from the Board’s “Reserve for Contingencies” fund. Currently, a balance
of $723,631 exists in this account.
AGENDA TITLE: JAUNT FY12 Supplemental Funding Request
December 7, 2011
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the appropriation of $58,000 from its Reserve for Contingencies Fund to
supplement its FY2012 funding to JAUNT by approving the attached budget amendment (Attachment A) in the
amount of $58,000.00 and approving Appropriation #2012045. This appropriation is for the anticipated County share
of JAUNT’s budget shortfall in the current year due to escalating fuel costs. Staff further recommends that the Board
request that JAUNT build its FY2013 funding request based upon increasing fares in the rural area by $1.00 and
instituting a charge of $0.50 per trip to JABA sites.
Attachment A – Appropriation #201245
Return to agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2012045 $0.00
Source: Allocation from Reserve for Contingencies $ 58,000.00
This appropriation provides $58,000.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies included in the FY 11/12 Adopt ed
Budget to supplement its FY 11/12 funding to JAUNT. This appropriation will fund the anticipated County share of
JAUNT’s anticipated shortfall in the current year due to escalating fuel costs. Because th is appropriation is from
existing funding, it will not increase the total County budget.
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
December 7, 2011
The Journey Through
Hallowed Ground National
Heritage Area
Board of Trustees Board of Advisors
Chair: David Williams, Partner,
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Jim Moorman, Esquire
Jim Campi, Civil War Trust
Gayle DeLashmutt, Oak Hill Farm
Scot Faulkner, Dreyfuss Initiative
General John Douglas
Norris Flowers, President Gettysburg CVB
Monte Gingery, Gingery Development
Gil Grosvenor, Chair: National Geographic
Scott Kasprowicz, Chair, Nuride
Kathleen Kilpatrick, SHPO VA
Charles Ledsinger, Chair, SunBridge
Capital
Chris Miller, President: PEC
Rob Nieweg, NTHP
Don Pongrace, Partner: Akin Gump
Ann Taylor, VP Thomas Jefferson
Foundation
Bill Backer
Leslie Greene Bowman
David Collins
Susan Eisenhower
John Glynn
Jim Johnson
Cornelia Flagg Keller
Nick & Mary Lynn Kotz
Jacqueline Mars
Ron Maxwell
Ed McMahon
Stephanie Meeks
John Nau
Kristin Pauley
Frederick Prince
Gordon Rainey
Every Community~ a Sampling
Virginia
Albemarle Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville Town Council
Commonwealth of Virginia General Assembly
Culpeper Board of Supervisors
Culpeper Town Council
Fauquier County Board of Supervisors
Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors
Green County Board of Supervisors
Leesburg Town Council
Loudoun County Board of Supervisors
Hamilton Town Council
Hillsboro Town Council
Madison Board of Supervisors
Middleburg Town Council
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange Town Council
Manassas City Council
Prince William Board of Supervisors
Purcellville Town Council
Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors
Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors
Standardsville Town Council
Warrenton Town Council
Waterford Foundation
Pennsylvania
•Adams County Board of Commissioners
•Borough of Gettysburg
Cumberland Township
Freedom Township
•Gettysburg National Military Park
Gettysburg –Adams County Chamber of
Commerce
•Main Street Gettysburg
Straban Township
Maryland
•Brunswick City Council
Brunswick Main Street
Carroll County Board of Commissioners
•Downtown Frederick Partnership
•Emmitsburg Business and Professional Ass
Mt. Airy Main Street
•Mt. Airy Town Council
•Maryland State Highway Administration
•Scenic Maryland
Thurmont Town Council
Thurmont First
•Town of Burkittsville
Washington County Board of Commissioners
West Virginia
Harpers Ferry Town Council
Harpers Ferry Main Street Community
Standing Committees
• Destination Marketing Committee
•Leadership Council (Elected Officials)
•Education Committee
•National Scenic Byway Oversight
Committee
•Living Legacy Tree Planting Committee
•Audit Committee
6
NPS Superintendent
Committee
What is At Stake?
A future which erases our
American heritage…
and the most important
economic engine in
this four state region
Impact of Domestic and
International Travel
•Domestic and international traveler
expenditures in the U.S. = $739.4 billion in
2007.
•For the JTHG Partnership, this translates
into more $3 billion in revenue every year.
•Accounts for 54,364 jobs in the 15
counties/4 states that comprise the Journey
Through Hallowed Ground National
Heritage Area
9
First Lady’s Foundation’s
Hall of Fame Award:
for Economic Development
Lecture Series:
Leslie Greene Bowman
in Hanover, PA
Annual Fall Bike Classic
13
Edna Lewis
Dinner
February 24, 2011
Leni Sorenson
14
Edna Lewis Dinner ~ Carla Hall
Journey Through
Hallowed Ground
Partnership
Journey Through
Hallowed Ground
Partnership
Journey Through
Hallowed Ground
Partnership
Journey Through
Hallowed Ground
National Heritage Area
Designated
by Congress
2008
Recognitions
Journey Through
Hallowed Ground
National Scenic Byway
Updates
Congratulations
•Won $1.3 million U.S. Department of
Transportation Grant for Wayfinding
•What does this mean?
Support for the 54,000 jobs within the
JTHG tied to tourism
What Are We Implementing?
•Wayfinding Strategy Along the
JTHG National Scenic Byway
–Gateways
–Directional Signage
–Smartphone App
–Brochures
JTHG National Scenic
Byway Haymarket Area
Gateway Concept 1
How the Project Breaks Down
Next Steps
•Produce Final Master Plan
–Gateway & Signage Design
–Sign Location & Sign Removal Plans
–Mobile App
–Brochure Design
–RFP for Design/Build Next Year
Living Legacy Tree
Memorial Program
•Issued RFP
•Interviewed 4 Firms
•Selected an Outstanding Team
Lead: Rhodeside & Harwell (Alexandria, VA)
Sub: Louis Berger (Washington, DC)
Sub: Paul Cowie & Associates (New Jersey)
Living Legacy Tree
Memorial Program
Next Steps
•VDOT Pre-Award Audit Concluded
•Have Raised $500,000 to begin the
planning and initial planting program
Living Legacy Tree
Memorial Program
•Issued RFP
•Interviewed 4 Firms
•Selected an Outstanding Team
Lead: Rhodeside & Harwell (Alexandria, VA)
Sub: Louis Berger (Washington, DC)
Sub: Paul Cowie & Associates (New Jersey)
National Heritage Area
2010 Annual Meeting
Darden School and Monticello
National Heritage Area
2010 Annual Meeting
Unveiled 6 months of
work with Sutherland
Middle School
“Of the Student, By the
Student, For the Student”
National Heritage Area
2011 Annual Meeting
History Channel Founder
Dr. Libby O’Connor
“Of By For” Unveiling
Manassas National Military
Park
2011 Annual Meeting
Warner Brothers
Partnership
Journey
Special Feature
and Premiere
Website and Sweepstakes
SWEEPSTAKES
Login
Registration
Confirmation / Tell A Friend Thank You
10,000 new Visitors
Grand Prize
The Journey of a Lifetime trip for two. Trip package
includes:
•Round trip air transportation for two (2) to The
Journey Through Hallowed Ground National
Heritage Area (Nicely the winner resides in
Maryland)
•Tours of the battlefields, historic sites, and
historic districts
•Two (2) passes to attend the 150th
Commemorative Ceremony at Gettysburg
JTHG Mille ~ Classic
Car Rally
October 2013
Tentative Schedule
Day One: Check in & Opening Dinner in Leesburg
Day Two: President’s Day
(Charlottesville, Monticello & Montpelier)
Day Three: Battle Day
(Gettysburg, Harpers Ferry, Antietam & Waterford)
Day Four: Scenic Day & Closing Lunch
(Little Washington & Middleburg)
Sesquicentennial Update
Manassas CW150
Manassas Civil War 150th
JTHG Events July 21 – 24, 2011
Destination Village
Manassas Civil War
150th Events
July 21 – 24, 2011 Destination Village
1.Charlottesville Albemarle Convention & Visitors Bureau
2.Discover Lynchburg Regional Convention & Visitors Bureau
3.Discover Prince William & Manassas
4.Fauquier County Department of Economic Development
5.Gettysburg Convention & Visitors Bureau
6.Jefferson County Convention & Visitors Bureau
7.Journey Through Hallowed Ground
8.Louisa County Tourism
9.Orange County Convention & Visitors Bureau
10.Rappahannock Tourism
11.Smithfield & Isle of Wight Convention & Visitors Bureau
12.Spotsylvania County Department of Economic Development
13.Visit Loudoun
14.Visit Norfolk
15.Washington-Hagerstown Convention & Visitors Bureau
Merchandise & Map Requests
Educational Programs
Of the Student, By the
Student, For the Student
Harpers Ferry
Monticello
Manassas
Balls Bluff
Antietam
Sheppard Foundation
The Richard Reynolds Foundation
Engaging 6th
Grade Students
in sharing our
History,
through their
perspectives
Of the Student, By the
Student, For the Student
Fall 2011
Antietam
E. Russell Hicks Middle School; Washington County, MD
Kick Off September 29, 2011
Immersion Day October 14, 2011
Harper’s Ferry
Harper’s Ferry Middle; Harper’s Ferry, WV
Kick Off September 27, 28 and 30, 2011
Monocacy
2011-2012
Monocacy National Battlefield
Frederick, MD
In the planning stages to identify schools
and timeframe.
Spring 2012
C&O Canal
Springfield Middle School; Williamsport, MD
Dates TBD
2nd Battle of Manassas
Stonewall Middle School; Manassas, VA
Dates TBD
Extreme Summer Camps
2011 JTHG Extreme Summer Camp
6th Year withAlbemarle County
“I can’t wait to do this again next year!”
2012 JTHG Extreme Summer Camp,
Albemarle County
•22 Student Campers
•2 Junior Counselors
•Countless Memories
2011 JTHG Extreme Summer Camp
What was the best part
of this camp?
“Is that a trick
question?
I loved it all!”
Teach America History
August 14-19, 2011
34 Virginia Beach Elementary School Teachers
Teach America History
August 14-19, 2011
“I appreciate the wealth of information
provided and the opportunity to interact
with historians and history educators
embedded in the historic sites/community.”
“This was a great, educational trip. Thank you!”
“Thanks for everything. This has truly opened my eyes and
igniting several sparks in history for me. (ie archeology,
presidential characteristics in leadership). You all are
awesome!!”
Media Update
National Lifestyle and
Education
Business Coverage
National Newspaper
Coverage
JTHG Social Media
•2,000 Followers, a 400% increase
–Averaging 1000+ impressions/Post
–Facebook.com/VisitTheJourney
•200 Twitter followers
– @TakeJourney
“400 Years on One Tank of Gas”
Media Campaign Update
Expenses
Media Buy
Leverage/Add-on
$110,000
$ 247,000
Partners
JTHG
VTC
Discover PWC
Gettysburg CVB
Frederick
Visit Loudoun
Spotsylvania
Mickey Schaefer & Assoc.
$ 29,000
$ 25,000
$ 20,000
$ 10,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 2,500
$ 1,500
Journey Through Hallowed Ground
Supplemental Survey Questions
Survey of American Opinions on
International Leisure Travel
Q: Which of the three television commercials do you think
would provide travelers like yourself with the most
compelling reasons to visit The Journey Through Hallowed
Ground?
Base: All survey respondents. N=1,026 completed surveys.
The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Survey Supplement
Next Steps
Leadership Council Meeting January
Destination Marketing Committee Meeting
Living Legacy Tree Planting Program
Wayfinding Plan Review
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Five-Year Financial Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Five-Year Financial Plan Work Session
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs Foley, and Davis and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
December 7, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Five-Year Financial Plan process began with a Board of Supervisor Work Session on November 9, 2011.
During this work session, the Board received information regarding the development process, revenue and
expenditure assumptions, and two scenarios for consideration. Staff presented one scenario for a balanced Five-Year
Financial plan at the current real estate tax rate and a second scenario for a balanced Five-Year Financial plan at the
estimated equalized tax rate. The equalized rate would result in the same tax bill for the average home owner as they
currently have.
On November 10, 2011, the Board and School Board held a joint work session at which School staff presented School
Division revenue and expenditure assumptions and other potential impacts that may affect the School Division’s
budget during the next five years.
The purpose of these work sessions is for the Board to receive long-range financial and budgetary information, to
provide direction on future priorities for funding, and to approve a desired framework within which the next fiscal year’s
budget development will take place.
DISCUSSION:
The Board’s third Five-Year Financial Plan Work Session will be held on December 7, 2011. Staff will provide a brief
review of the information presented to date and will seek the Board’s direction moving forward. The Board will be
asked to further consider the scenarios presented on November 9, 2011 and to approve one of those scenarios, or an
amended scenario. The direction to be provided by the Board is necessary for staff to begin to develop the FY 12/13
recommended budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The five-year financial planning process informs thinking on future fiscal year planning and the priorities of the Board
and provides a framework for the annual budget process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide direction regarding the Five Year Financial Plan at the December 7, 2011
Work Session. An additional Work Session is scheduled for December 14, 2011, if needed.