HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-1-07Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JANUARY 7, 2015
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1:00 P.M. – AUDITORIUM
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
Annual Organization
4. Election of Chairman.
5. Election of Vice-Chairman.
6. Appointment of Clerk and Senior Deputy Clerk.
7. Board 2015 Calendar:
a. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2015.
b. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Requested by Citizens.
8. Adoption of Rules of Procedures/Policies.
9. Adoption of Final Agenda.
10. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
11. Recognitions:
a. Scott Keim – Executive Fire Officer.
12. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
13. Consent Agenda.
2:00 p.m. - Work Sessions:
14. Water Resources Program – Level of Service. (Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive)
3:00 p.m. - Presentation:
15. Board-to-Board, School Board Chairman. (Ned Gallaway)
16. Innovation Fund Round 2. (Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive)
17. Route 29 Solutions Update. (Mark Graham, Director of Community Development)
3:45 p.m. - Action Items:
18. Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Funding Request. (Denise Lunsford, Commonwealth’s
Attorney)
19. Courts Project Update. (Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive)
20. 4:45 p.m. - Closed Meeting (2nd Floor conference room).
21. Certify Closed Meeting.
22. Boards and Commissions:
a. Board Member Committee Appointments.
b. Boards and Commissions Vacancies and Appointments.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0107/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/8/2020 7:25:47 AM]
Tentative
23. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6:00 p.m. - PUBLIC HEARINGS:
24. To solicit public input on local community development and housing needs in relation to
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for potential projects in the locality. (Ron
White, Chief of Housing)
25. FY 15 Budget Amendment. (Lori Allshouse, Director, Office of Management and Budget)
26. To receive comments on its intent to adopt an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter
12, Regulated Enterprises, Article I, False Alarms, by amending Section 12-101, Definitions, to
amend the definition of “false alarm” by deleting “activity unauthorized by the alarm system user or
activity outside the control of the alarm system user” from the list of alarms that do not constitute a
false alarm and by adding “weather-related events,” as defined in the proposed ordinance, to the list
of alarms that do not constitute a false alarm; by amending Section 12-102 to require that written
notices issued to unregistered alarm system users be mailed to the physical address of the alarm
user and to reduce the service fee for third and subsequent responses to unregistered alarm
systems from $300.00 to $150.00; by amending Section 12-104 to increase the amount of time an
individual has to pay a false alarm service fee from thirty to ninety days and to eliminate the
assessment of a delinquent payment fee; and by amending Section 12-108 to eliminate the
requirement that Police Department forms be used for appeals of false alarm notices and to
increase the amount of time alarm system users have to submit appeals from ten to thirty days.
(Greg Jenkins, Captain, Police Department)
27. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
28. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
29. Adjourn to January 13, 2015, 5:00 p.m., Auditorium.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL (action require):
13.1 Approval of Minutes: February 26, March 5, April 15, July 8 and October 30, 2014.
13.2 ACE Easement Purchases.
FOR INFORMATION (no action required):
13.3 2014 Third Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report, as prepared by the Community Development
Department.
13.4 2014 Third Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the Community Development Department.
13.5 Copy of letter dated December 8, 2014, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0107/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/8/2020 7:25:47 AM]
Tentative
Zoning Administrator, to Virginia Land Trust, c/o Greg Baldwin, re: AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD – Tax Map 79, parcel 23C (noncontiguous
portion) (Property of Virginia Land Trust) – Scottsville Magisterial District.
13.6 Copy of letter dated December 10, 2014, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy
Zoning Administrator, to Anvince Land Trust, c/o Sue A. Albrecht, Trustee, re: LOD201400015 -
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 61, Parcel 1B1 (property
of VDoT) – Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
13.7 Copy of letter dated December 11, 2014, from Sarah D. Baldwin, Senior Planner, to Cheryl
Rudduck, re: LOD201400017 - OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD – Tax
Map 119, Parcel 22 – Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
13.8 Virginia Department of Transportation, Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report,
January 2015.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0107/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/8/2020 7:25:47 AM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Ella W. Jordan, CMC, Clerk
DATE: December 22, 2014
RE: Agenda for Annual (Organizational) Meeting of January 7, 2015
Agenda Item No. 6. The Code of Virginia, in Section 15.2-1538, states that "The governing body of
every locality in this Commonwealth shall appoint a qualified person, who shall not be a member of the
governing body, to record the official actions of such governing body.” Ella W. Jordan expresses a desire
to be reappointed as Clerk, and Travis O. Morris desires to be reappointed as Senior Deputy Clerk .
These positions are reappointed annually.
__________
Agenda Item No. 7. Board 2015 Calendar:
a. Section 15.2-1416 of the Code states that "The days, times and places of regular meetings to be
held during the ensuing months shall be established at the first meeting which meeting may be
referred to as the annual or organizational meeting; however, if the governing body subsequently
prescribes any ... day or time other than that initially established, as a meeting day, place or time,
the governing body shall pass a resolution as to such future meeting day, place or time. The
governing body shall cause a copy of such resolution to be posted on the door of the courthouse
or the initial public meeting place and inserted in a newspaper having general circulation in the
county or municipality at least seven days prior to the first such meeting at such other day, place
or time...."
Should the Board wish to continue with the schedule adopted last year for its regular meetings,
the Board needs to adopt a motion to set the meeting times, dates and places for Calendar Year
2015 as follows: first Wednesday of the month - 1:00 p.m., and the second Wednesday of the
month - 6:00 p.m., with said meetings to be held in the County Office Building on McIntire Road.
It is also recommended that the meeting dates for January 2016 be January 6 – 1:00 p.m., and
January 13 – 6:00 p.m. Should the Board wish to cancel a meeting during the summer to
accommodate summer schedules and vacations, it is suggested that you cancel August 12, 2015.
____
b. Section 33.10.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Supervisors shall consider
zoning text amendment petitions by property owners at specified intervals of three months. The
dates requested for these hearings for 2015 are September 9 and December 9, 2015 and March
19, and June 8, 2016. A motion is required to set these dates which are then advertised in the
newspaper.
__________
Agenda Item No. 8. Adoption of Rules of Procedures/Policies:
a. A copy of the Board’s proposed amended Rules of Procedure are included with this agenda item
for your review.
Return to agenda
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RULES OF PROCEDURE
Adopted January ___, 2015
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Rules of Procedures
Table of Contents
Page
A. Board Members 1
B. Officers 1
C. Clerk and Deputy Clerks 1
D. Meetings
1. Annual Meeting
2. Regular Meetings
3. Special Meetings
1
1
2
2
E. Order of Business
1. Agenda
2. Adoption of Final Agenda
3. Brief Announcements by Board Members
4. Proclamations and Recognitions
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the
Agenda
6. Consent Agenda
7. General Business
8. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed
on the Agenda
9. Report from the County Executive: Report on Matters Not
Listed on the Agenda
10. Zoning Public Hearings
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
F. Travel Reimbursement 5
G. Quorum 6
H. Remote Electronic Participation 6
I. Meeting Decorum 6
J. Voting Procedures
1. Approval by Motion
2. Special Voting Requirements
3. Public Hearings
4. Motion to Amend
5. Previous Question
6. Motion to Reconsider
7. Motion to Rescind
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
K. Board Members Appointed to Boards, Committees and Commissions
1. Voting Representatives
2. Liaison Representatives
7
7
8
L. Boards and Commissions
1. Review and Creation of Boards and Commissions
2. Appointments to Boards and Commissions
8
8
8
M. Amendment of Rules of Procedure 9
N. Suspension of Rules of Procedure 9
O. Rules of Procedure 9
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
1
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
These rules of procedure are designed and adopted for the benefit and convenience of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors. Their purpose is to help the Board conduct its affairs in a timely and
efficient manner. They incorporate the general principles of parliamentary procedure found in Robert’s
Rules of Order’s Procedure in Small Boards and applicable Virginia laws. The rules of procedure do not
create substantive rights for third parties or participants in proceedings before the Board. Further, the
Board reserves the right to suspend or amend the rules of procedure whenever a majority of the Board
decides to do so or to suspend the rules by a majority plus one vote, as set forth herein . The failure of
the Board to strictly comply with the rules of procedure shall not invalidate any action of the Board.
A. Board Members
Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, all Board members have equal rights,
responsibilities, and authority. Board members will act in a collegial manner and will cooperate
and assist in preserving the decorum and order of the meetings. Changes to rules, policies, or
procedures can only be m ade at a public meeting of the Board.
A.B. Officers
1. Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chair man who, if present, shall
preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected. In
addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the head official for all the
Board’s official functions and for ceremonial purposes. The Chair man shall have a vote
but no veto. (Virginia Code §§ 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423)
2. Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if
present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chair man and shall discharge
the duties of the Chairman during the Chairman’s absence or disability. (Virginia Code §
15.2-1422)
3. Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms;
but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. (Virginia Code
§ 15.2-1422)
4. Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are
absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chair man.
B.C. Clerk and Deputy Clerks
The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks who shall
serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set forth in Virginia
Code § 15.2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from
time to time. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
C.D. Meetings
1. Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected members of
the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in January of each succeeding
year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall
establish the days, times, and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year.
(Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
2. Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days as has
been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subsequently establish different
days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in
accord with Virginia Code § 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day
falls on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next
regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
2
If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and declares
that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members t o
attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting
date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and to the press
as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previously advertised sh all be
conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required.
(Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to day or
from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular
meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
3. Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at such
times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjourned from time
to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1417)
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chair man or requested by two or
more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of the Board
and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of such call
or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chair man, shall immediately notify each
member of the Board, the County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall
be in writing and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business, or if
requested by a member of the Board, by electronic mail or facsimile. The notice shall
state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered.
No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all
members are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the
special meeting or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code
§ 15.2-1418) The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such
special meeting and the matters to be considered.
D.E. Order of Business
1. Agenda. The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in
consultation with the County Executive and the Chairman. The first two items on the
agenda for each regular meeting of the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a
moment for silent meditation.
a. At regular meetings of the Board, the order of business shall generally be as
follows:
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Proclamations and Recognitions.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda.
9. General Business.
10. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
11. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
11.12. Adjourn.
A Closed Meeting shall be held whenever necessary. Generally, a Closed
Meeting will be scheduled either at the midpoint of the agenda at day Board
meetings and or at the end of the agenda prior to adjournment at evening Board
meetings.
b. The above order of business may be modified by the Clerk of the Board to
facilitate the business of the Board.
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
3
2. Adoption of Final Agenda. The draft agenda will be provided to the Board six days prior
to the regular meeting date. The first order of business for a regular meeting of the Board
shall be to adopt a final agenda for that meeting. The Board may modify the order of
business as part of the adoption of the final agenda. In addition, any Board member may
propose to add additional items to the agend a presented by the Clerk for action if notice
of that item has been given in writing or by email to all Board members, the Clerk, and
the County Executive by 5:00 p.m. two days before the date of the meeting or upon the
unanimous consent of all Board members present. Any such item shall be added to the
end of the agenda for discussion or action unless a majority of the members of the Board
agree to consider the item earlier on the agenda. The final agenda shall be adopted by a
majority vote of the members of the Board. No matter for action not included on the final
agenda shall be considered at that meeting.
Resolutions may be proposed by a Board member requesting the Board to take a
position on an issue of importance to the Board. A Board member reques ting the Board
to adopt a resolution should give notice of the intent to request action on such resolution
on a specified meeting date and submit a draft of the proposed resolution. The Clerk will
distribute the draft resolution with background information, if available, to all Board
members. Board members may submit proposed changes to the proposed resolution to
the Clerk in a redline format. The Clerk shall forward all comments received from Board
members to the Board. The Board member requesting the resolution will then coordinate
with the Clerk to prepare a resolution for consideration by the Board. The Clerk shall poll
the Board members to determine if a majority of the Board members support adding the
resolution to the agenda for consideration. If a majority of the Board members indicate
support for considering the resolution, the resolution will be added to the proposed final
agenda. If all Board members indicate support for the resolution, the resolution may be
placed on the proposed consent agenda unless any member requests otherwise.
3. Brief Announcements by Board Members. “Brief Announcements by Board Members”
are announcements of special events or other items of interest that are not considered
committee reports and are not otherwise on the meeting agenda.
4. Proclamations and Recognitions. Proclamations are ceremonial documents or
recognitions adopted by the Board to draw public awareness to a day, week, or month to
recognize events, arts and cultural celebration s, or special occasions. Recognitions are
ceremonial acknowledgements by the Board of a person for service or achievement.
A request to place a proclamation or recognition on the agenda must be made at least
four weeks in advance of the meeting date. The request to advance a proclam ation or
recognition shall be submitted to the Clerk. If the request is made to a Board member,
the person making the request will be directed to make the request to the Clerk. The
Clerk will advise the person making the request of the process and submit tal
requirements. Upon the submittal of the request, the Clerk will review the submittal for
completeness and forward it to Board members for review. The Clerk will poll Board
members to determine if a majority of the Board supports adding the proclamation or
recognition to the agenda. The Clerk will advise the person requesting the proclamation
or recognition whether the proclamation or recognition will be considered by the Board.
5. Public Comment From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the agenda
shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, due to the number of
speakers or for other reasons, individuals will be allowed a three-minute time limit in
which to speak during the time set aside on the agenda for “From the Public: Matters Not
Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda”.
3.6. Consent Agenda. The “Consent Agenda” shall be used for matters that do not require
discussion or comment and are anticipated to have the unanimous approval of the Board.
There shall be no discussion or comment on consent agenda matters. Board members
should ask the County Executive or the staff member identified in the executive summary
any questions regarding a consent agenda item prior to the Board meeting. Any Board
member may remove an item from the consent agenda. Any item removed from the
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
4
consent agenda shall be moved to a specific time or to the end of the meeting agenda for
further discussion or action. A matter requiring only brief comment or discussion may be
considered immediately after the approval of the consent agenda. A motion to approve
the consent agenda shall approve consent agenda items identified for action and accept
consent agenda items identified for information.
7. General Business. General Business shall include public hearings, work sessions,
appointments and other actions, discussions, and presentations.
4.8. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. “From the
Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda” shall be the last order
of business for a regular meeting of the Board unless a majority of the members of the
Board agree to consider the item earlier on the agenda. It shall be limited to matters that
are not substantial enough to be considered as additional agenda items to be added to
the final agenda. Such matters are not matters to be acted upon by the Board at that
meeting. Routine committee reports and information updates by Board members shall be
presented under this agenda item.
9. Report from the County Executive. The County Executive will report on matters that the
County Executive deems should be brought to the Board’s attention and provide updates,
if necessary, to the monthly County Executive’s Report.
6.10. Zoning Public Hearings. Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the
agenda for public hearing on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed
written deferral request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the
week prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted
administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board
package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to
alert the public of the deferral. Any request received later than the Wednesday deadline
and any subsequent request for a deferral for the same application previously deferred
will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall
not be granted unless the Board determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the
likely inconvenience to the public caused by the deferral. The staff will m ake every effort
to alert the public when a deferral is granted.
It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing for a zoning matter should not be
advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by
the County and are available for public review. To achieve this preference, applicants
should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other
documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County
no later than two business days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public
hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this date by
including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a
minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing
shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be
advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public
hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the
advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial
revisions or amendments are made to the submitted materials after the public hearing
has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board to either defer action and schedule
a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to deny the
application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or
not forward the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine calendar days
prior to the date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent
changes from being made to proffers resulting from comments received from the public
or from Board members at the public hearing.
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
5
F. Travel Reimbursement
The purpose of this policy is to establish Board members will be reimbursed travel expenses
pursuant to uniform standards and procedures that will allow Board members to travel for official
County business purposes consistent with the prudent use of County funds as follows:
1. Board members may be reimbursed for the following routine travel expenses at the
County’s authorized car mileage reimbursement rate, provided there are available funds:
a. Mileage for travel by personal vehicle or other travel costs to scheduled Board
meetings and Board committee meetings for committees to which a Board
member is appointed, from home or work, if a work day, which is not part of
routine personal travel;
b. Mileage for travel by personal vehicle or other travel costs to events reasonably
necessary to prepare for matters scheduled for consideration on the Board’s
agenda which is not part of routine personal travel (i.e., site visits, informational
meetings); and
c. Parades and other community gatherings not advertised as Supervisor’s town
hall meetings to discuss County business. Travel to use the COB office between
other personal travel or meetings, shall not be covered.
2. Board members may be reimbursed for the following educational conference travel
expenses, provided there are available funds:
a. All necessary, actual and reasonable meal, travel and lodging costs (including
gratuity and excluding alcohol) of attending regional, statewide or national
meetings at which the Board member represents the County, as approved by the
Board; and
b. All necessary, actual and reasonable meal, and travel (including gratuity and
excluding alcohol) of attending legislative or congressional hearings relating to
official County business.
3. Board members will not be reimbursed for the following travel expenses:
a. Travel to events which are political in nature (i.e., campaigning or partisan
events);
b. Personal expenses incurred during travel; or
c. Other travel which is not part of the statutory governmental dut ies of the Board of
Supervisors that are not provided for in Sections A or B 1 or 2.
4. This policy will be applied and overseen in the following manner:
a. Reimbursement requests shall be made in writing on forms provided by the Clerk
of the Board and shall itemize the date, number of miles of travel expenses and
purpose of the meeting. Mileage for use of a personal vehicle shall be
reimbursed at the County’s authorized car mileage reimbursement rate. Other
reimbursements shall be for the amount of costs expended and shall be
documented by receipts for actual amounts paid.
b. The Clerk, or his/her designee, will review all travel reimbursement requests and
the Director of Finance will approve all travel reimbursement requests prior to
reimbursement. No payment will be made for incomplete submissions or
information.
c. When all allocated funds for Board reimbursements have been expended, there
will be no further reimbursement for that fiscal year unless the Board
appropriates additional funding.
d. This policy shall be distributed to each member of the Board upon taking office or
upon any changes to the policy.
E.G. Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Board. If
during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action can be taken
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
6
except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again established, the
meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1415)
A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular
or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from day
to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting.
H. Remote Electronic Participation
The Board will permit a Board member to participate in a Board meeting electronically from a
remote location, provided that:
1. On or before the day of the meeting, the member shall notify the Chair that the member is
unable to attend the meeting due to an emergency or a personal matter or that the
member is unable to attend the meeting due to a temporary or permanent disability or
other medical condition that prevents the member’s physical attendance . The member
must identify with specificity the nature of the emergency or personal matter.
2. A quorum of the Board must be physically assembled at the primary or central meeting
location. The Board members present must approve the participation; however, the
decision shall be based solely on the criteri a in Section F, without regard to the identity of
the member or matters that will be considered or voted on during the meeting. The Clerk
shall record in the Board’s minutes the specific nature of the emergency, personal matter
or disability and the remote location from which the absent member participated. If the
absent member’s remote participation is disapproved because such participation would
violate this policy, such disapproval shall be recorded in the Board’s minutes.
3. Electronic participation by the absent member due to an emergency or a personal matter
shall be limited in each calendar year to two (2) meetings.
4. The Clerk shall make arrangements for the voice of the absent member to be heard by all
persons in attendance at the meeting location. If, for any reason, the voice of the absent
member cannot reasonably be heard, the meeting may continue without the participation
of the absent member.
(Virginia Code § 2.2-3708.1)
I. Meeting Decorum
1. Meetings shall be conducted so as to provide a civil de corum. To preserve the order and
decorum of the meeting, persons will use civil language and will not be permitted to clap
or make sounds in support of or in opposition to any matter during the meeting (except
for applause during the recognitions portion of the meeting) or act in any way to disturb or
disrupt the presentation of any matter on the agenda or the conduct of any discussion,
public hearing, or public comment time. Signs shall be permitted in the meeting room so
long as they are not attached to any stick or pole and do not obstruct the view of persons
attending the meeting. Cell phones and other electronic devices shall be muted so as not
to disrupt or interrupt the meeting.
2. The Chair may ask any person whose behavior is so disruptive as to prevent the orderly
conduct of the meeting to cease such conduct. If the conduct continues, the Chair may
order the removal of that person from the meeting.
F. J. Voting Procedures
1. Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be made by
approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by
a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not
be further considered. The vote on the motion shall be by a voice v ote. The Clerk shall
record the name of each member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member
abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be
announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
7
motion voted upon. A tie vote on a motion to approve shall be deemed a denial of the
matter being proposed for approval. (Article VII, § 7, Virginia Constitution)
2. Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all elected
members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or resolution
(1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing taxes; or
(3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1428)
3. Public Hearings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board requiring a
public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may, however, at its
discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or consideration of such
matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public
hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the applicant
shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present its application. Fol lowing the
applicant’s presentation, any member of the public shall be permitted no more than three
minutes to present public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any
public hearing. Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more
than five minutes for a rebuttal presentation.
4. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly seconded,
shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on the original motion
unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the
original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before
the Board for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original
motion is again before the Board for its consideration.
5. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member moving
the “previous question”. Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vote on the
motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman
shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of
the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any
other matter.
6. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a motion
to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held on the same
day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may be made by any
member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted.
The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for
discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon.
7. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map
amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions shall only
be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by a majority vote of
all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be made by any member
of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The
effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board.
Zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be
rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking
action on such matters as if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration.
K. Board Members Appointed to Boards, Committees and Commissions
The Board appoints its members to a variety of boards, committees and commissions to
represent the interests of the Board on those entities. It is important that the Board have
confidence that its policies and positions are being reflected in that representation.
1. Voting Representatives. The Board members who are appointed to boards, committees and
commissions are required to vote on matters that come before those entities in a manner
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
8
which is consistent with the policies and positions of the Board as reflected in previously
adopted resolutions or official actions of the Board on such matters.
2. Liaison Representatives. The Board members who are appointed to boards, committees and
commissions as liaisons are to act as a resource for the board, committee and/or commission
and are to report to the Board on the activities of the board committee and/or commission.
L. Boards and Commissions
1. Review and creation of boards and commissions shall be as follows:
a. By October 1 of each year, all boards and commissions shall submit a report to
the Board to include key activities that support their mission and a summary of
their activities and attendance.
a.b. On an annual basis the list of active boards and commissions will be evaluated
and purged of all bodies not required by Federal, State, County or other
regulations, which have not met at least once during the prior twelve -month
period.
b.c. Whenever possible and appropriate, the functions and activities of boards and
commissions will be combined, rather than encouraging the creation of new
bodies.
c.d. Any newly created task force or ad hoc committee which is intended to serve for
a limited time period may be comprised of magisterial or at -large members at the
discretion of the Board. The appointment process shall follow that adopted in
Section B for other magisterial and/or at-large positions.
2. Appointments to boards and commissions shall be as follows:
a. All appointments to boards and commissions based upon magister ial district
boundaries will be made by the Board. The Board will consider and/or interview
candidates recommended by the supervisor of that district.
b. Prior to each day Board meeting, the Clerk will provide the Board a list of expired
terms and vacancies that will occur within the next sixty days. The Board will
then advise the Clerk which vacancies to advertise.
c. In an effort to reach as many citizens as possible, notice of boards and
commissions with appointment positions available may be publish ed through
available venues, such as, but not limited to, the County’s website, A -mail, public
service announcements and local newspapers. Interested citizens will be
provided a brief description of the duties and functions of each board, length of
term of the appointment, frequency of meetings, and qualifications necessary to
fill the position. An explanation of the appointment process for both magisterial
and at-large appointments will also be sent to all applicants.
d. All interested applicants will have a minimum of thirty days from the date of the
first notice to complete and return to the Clerk a detailed application, with the
understanding that such application may be released to the public, if requested.
No applications will be accepted if they are postmarked after the advertised
deadline, however, the Board, at its discretion, may extend the deadline.
e. Once the deadline for accepting applications is reached, the Clerk will distribute
all applications received to the members of the Board prior to the day meeting for
their review. For magisterial appointments, the Clerk will forward applications as
they are received to the supervisor of that district who will then recommend
his/her appointment.
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
9
f. From the pool of qualified candidates, the Board, at its discretion, may make an
appointment without conducting an interview, or may select applicants to
interview for the vacant positions. The Clerk will then schedule interviews with
applicants to be held during the next day meeting.
g. All efforts will be made to interview selected applicants and make appointments
within ninety days after the application deadline. For designated agency
appointments to boards and commissions, the agency will be asked to
recommend a person for appointment by the Board.
h. All vacancies will be filled as they occur, except that vacancies occurring in
Community Advisory Councils will be filled on an annual basis at the time regular
terms expire unless there are more than three vacancies on any Council at the
same time with more than three months remaining from the annual appointment
date.
i. All incumbents will be allowed to serve on a board or commission without their
position being readvertised unless, based on attendance and performance, the
Chair of the body or a member of the Board requests the Board to do otherwise.
j.i. As a condition of assuming office, all citizen members of boards and
commissions shall file a real estate disclosure form as set forth in the State and
Local Government Conflict of Interests Act and thereafter shall file such form
annually on or before January 15.
k.j. If a member of a board or commission does not participate in at least fifty percent
of a board’s or commission’s meetings, the Chair of the body may request the
Board terminate the appointment, if permitted by applicable law, and refill it
during the next scheduled advertising period.
GM. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next regular
meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given.
HN. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by a majority plus one vote of the Board members
present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Board.
Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to
suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Board.
Provided, however, approval of a m otion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in
violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any
other applicable law.
I O. Rules of Procedure.
Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be governed by
Robert's Rules of Order Procedure in Small Boards. Such rules provide:
1. Members are not required to obtain the floor before making motions or speaking, which
they can do while seated.
2. There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a question, and motions
to close or limit debate generally should not be entertained.
3. Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending.
4. Sometimes, when a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without
a motion having been introduced. Unless agreed to by unanimous consent, however, all
Draft: December 29, 2014
Red text incorporates existing policy
10
proposed actions of a board must be approved by vote under the same rules as in other
assemblies, except that a vote can be taken initially by a show of hands, which is often a
better method in such meetings.
5. The chair need not rise while putting questions to vote.
6. The chair can speak in discussion without rising or leaving the chair; and, subject to rule
or custom within the particular board (which should be uniformly followed regardless of
how many members are present), the chair usually can make motions and usually votes
on all questions.
* * * * *
(Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80;
1-7-81; 1-6-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87; 1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93;
1-5-94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97; 1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001; 1-9-2002; 1-8-2003; 1-7-2004; 1-5-
2005; 1-4-2006; 1-3-2007; 1-9-2008; 1-7-2009; 1-6-2010; 1-5-2011; 1-4-2012; 1-09-2013; 1-8-2014; 7-9-
2014).
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ACE Easement Purchases
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of ACE Purchases of Woodson and Stargell
Easements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg and Goodall
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 7, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On November 13, 2013, the Board approved the Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee’s request to
have the top five ranked properties from the April, 2013 applicant pool (see Attachment A) appraised. In May of 2014, the
Caldwells voluntarily withdrew their application, and in October, Mr. Campbell decided to not sell an easement to the
County, leaving only three (3) eligible properties for consideration: Henley Forest, Stargell and Woodson.
On November 5, 2014, the Board approved the recommendations of the ACE Committee and staff to: 1) accept the
Henley Forest Inc. written offer to sell a conservation easement to the County for $363,780; 2) approve the Stargell and
Woodson appraisals; and 3) authorize staff to invite Stargell and Woodson to make written offers to sell conservation
easements to the County for the amounts approved by the ACE Appraisal Review Committee (ARC).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both the
rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.
Rural Areas: Preserve the character of rural life with thriving farms and forests, traditional crossroad communities, and
protected scenic areas, historic sites, and biodiversity.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the County has $1,568,107.70 in funding available for the acquisition of eligible ACE easements ($736,954.60 in
ACE funds re-appropriated from the County’s FY 14 Budget, $640,759 of ACE funds appropriated in FY 15, of which
$120,000 is designated as grant revenue, and $310,394.10 from two Office of Farmland Preservation (OFP) grants
previously awarded and currently being held by OFP in a restricted account until the County submits a Reimbursement
Claim Form for 50% of total eligible easement acquisition costs, of which $120,000 was appropriated as part of the FY 15
Budget). With the County’s impending purchase of Henley Forest, Inc.’s easement for $363,780 and the related title
insurance cost of approximately $1,250.00, a balance of approximately $1,203,000 will still remain for the acquisition of the
Woodson and Stargell easements, both of which are eligible for the OFP grants, and all other future easements.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements would be paid for from existing funds in the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409) and grants from the Office of Farmland Preservation (OFP). If the
Woodson and Stargell easements are purchased for $72,000 and $257,000, respectively, for a total of $329,000, and title
insurance for both easements purchased for approximately $2,000 total, all of the currently available OFP grant funding
will be used, and there will be a balance of approximately $872,000 remaining in the County’s FY 15 Budget that may be
used for future qualifying ACE easement purchases. Applications for the 2014 application pool are currently being
reviewed and evaluated by staff.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The ACE Committee and staff recommend that the Board accept the Woodson and Stargell written offers to sell
conservation easements to the County for $72,000 and $257,000, respectively, for a total amount of $329,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – ACE Ranking Evaluation – 2013 Applicants
B – ACE Income Grid
C – Appraisals and Acquisition Costs of ACE Easements
D – Summary of ACE Conservation Efforts
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from April, 2013
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Tourism Points Status
Henley Forest, Inc. TM 39, Parcel 4 (254.63 acres) yes 83.98 Eligible
(White Hall) TM 39, Parcel 14 ( 5.90 acres)
TM 40, Parcel 1 (375.16 acres)
TM 40, Parcel 27A (134.70 acres)
Totals (770.39 acres)
Caldwell, Joan TM 18, Parcel 39 ( 65.93 acres) no 42.31+ Withdrawn
(Free Union) TM 19, Parcel 9 (117.66 acres)
TM 19, Parcel 11 ( 3.01 acres)
TM 19, Parcel 17A ( 1.00 acres)
Totals (187.60 acres)
Campbell, John TM 105, Parcel 1A (136.99 acres) no 26.17+ Withdrawn
(Buck Island)
Woodson, Ronnie TM 99, Parcel 52 ( 90.70 acres) no 21.38 Eligible
(North Garden)
Stargell, Janice TM 119, Parcel 7 ( 91.63 acres) no 20.04 Eligible
(Faber)
Klumpp, Kathleen TM 102, Parcel 19C ( 92.87 acres) yes 19.27 Ineligible
(Carters Bridge)
Pound, Lewis TM 75, Parcel 43 (106.75 acres) yes 11.75 Ineligible
(Red Hill)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 7 applicants 1,478.98 acres
Note: Though we no longer use tourism funds (the hotel tax), tourism value is determined by the
presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria that made a property eligible for
funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the following: contains historic
resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia scenic
highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop protection.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Henley Forest, Inc.
Property: TM 39, Parcel 4 (254.63 acres) 11 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 21 DR’s 222 acres critical slope
TM 39, Parcel 14 ( 5.90 acres) 0 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 2 DR’s 0 acres critical slope
TM 40, Parcel 1 (375.16 acres) 16 DivR’s + 11 DevR’s = 27 DR’s 250 acres critical slope
TM 40, Parcel 27A (134.70 acres) 5 DivR’s + 7 DevR’s = 12 DR’s 85 acres critical slope
Totals (770.39 acres) 32 DivR’s + 30 DevR’s = 62 DR’s 557 acres critical slope
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 17,086’ on several parcels plats/County overlay maps 36.17
Criteria A.2 770.39 acres RE Assessor’s Office 15.41
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 17 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 8.50
Criteria C.1 465 acres in Buck’s Elbow MOD County overlay maps 9.30
Criteria C.2 yes (timbering) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 no road frontage County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 no PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 >250 acres of “prime” forestland County Soil Survey 5.00
Criteria C.7 yes - SFRRR County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 Sugar Hollow Ag-Forestal County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 yes (6%) based on AGI & income grid 0.60
Point Total 83.98 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District; DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
Currently, zero (0) dwellings exist on property; the Henleys want the right to build 3 dwellings.
Since 72% of the property (557 acres) lies on critical slopes, this percentage of the property is nonusable for
development. This leaves 20 “usable” development rights on 28% of the land minus 3 dwellings or DR’s.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination - WITHDRAWN
Owner: Caldwell, Joan (“Longwood”)
Property: TM 18, Parcel 39 ( 65.93 acres) 2 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 7 DR’s no dwellings
TM 19, Parcel 9 (117.66 acres) 5 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 10 DR’s two dwellings
TM 19, Parcel 11 ( 3.01 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s one dwelling
TM 19, Parcel 17A ( 1.00 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s one dwelling
Totals (187.60 acres) 7 DivR’s + 12 DevR’s = 19 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,395’ on PRFA Preservation Tract plats/County overlay maps 4.79
Criteria A.2 188.75 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.78
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 15 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 7.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 2,445’ on Simmons Gap Road County tax map/plats 7.54
1,277’ on Buck Mtn. Road
1,818’ on Markwood Drive
Criteria C.4 yes – historic structures PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 185 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 3.70
Criteria C.7 yes - SFRRR County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 3,000’ on 3 streams landowner 6.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 need tax returns based on AGI & income grid ????
Point Total 42.31 points
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District; DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination - WITHDRAWN
Owner: Campbell, John
Property: TM 105, Parcel 1A (136.99 acres) 6 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 11 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 none plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 136.99 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.74
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 9 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 4.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes – timber harvesting landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 800’ on Buck Island Rd (SR 729) County tax map/plats 2.80
Criteria C.4 no PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 44 acres of “prime” forestland County Soil Survey 0.88
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 4,600’ w/ 100’ RFB’s landowner 8.25
900’ w/ 50-100’ RFB’s
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 need tax returns based on AGI & income grid ????
Point Total 26.17 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District; DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Woodson, Ronnie
Property: TM 99, Parcel 52 (90.70 acres) 4 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 6 DR’s (no dwellings)
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 <¼ mile of Jimmy Powell plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 90.70 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.81
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 4 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 100’ pipe-stem on Plank Rd. County tax map/plats 2.10
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 55 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 1.14
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 2,330’ on one side of stream landowner 2.33
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 Hardware Ag/For District County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 21.38 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road; CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Stargell, Janice
Property: TM 119, Parcel 7 (91.63 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s (no dwellings)
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 no plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 91.63 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.83
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 not in MOD County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,620’ on Green Creek Rd. County tax map/plats 3.62
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 30 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 0.60
Criteria C.7 not in drinking water watershed County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no on scenic river plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 50’ wide buffer on 4,994’ on landowner 7.49
two streams
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 not in Ag/For District County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 20.04 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = Th e Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination - INELIGIBLE
Owner: Klumpp, Kathleen
Property: TM 102, Parcel 19C (92.87 acres) 4 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 ¼ mile from Redlands plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 92.87 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.86
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 4 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.00
Criteria C.1 67 acres in Carters Mtn. MOD County overlay maps 2.99
33 acres in ridge area boundary
Criteria C.2 yes (hay and timbering) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 50’ right-of-way off SR 627 County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 yes – Southern Albemarle RHD PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 71 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 1.42
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 no stream frontage landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 yes (Carters Mtn. Bridge Ag-For) County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 yes landowner/DOF 1.00
Criteria D.1 donation based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 19.27 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District; DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination - INELIGIBLE
Owner: Pound, Lewis
Property: TM 75, Parcel 43 (106.75 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 no plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 106.75 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.14
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 10.89 acres in Dudley Mtn. MOD County overlay maps 0.22
Criteria C.2 yes (timbering) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 right-of-way off Route 29 County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 57 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 1.14
Criteria C.7 not in drinking water watershed County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 not on scenic river plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 1,750’ on 1 side of stream landowner 1.75
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 not in Ag/For District County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 11.75 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road; CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
DivR’s = 21 acre lots; DevR’s = 2 acre by-right lots
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which conservation easement
applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned as
provided below. Points shall be rounded to the first decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a
national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one
additional (1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-
quarter (1/4) mile, but not adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or
local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points.
2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of usable division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half
(1/2) point for each usable division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the
number of retained division rights from the number of division rights. A division right includes all by-
right divisions of both 2-acre lots and the 21-acre residual lots. Each right represents the right to build a
single dwelling.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain
overlay district, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. An additional one (1) point may be awarded for
each twenty (20) acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area
boundary” means the area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on
county mountain overlay district elevation maps. If the landowner elects to use these points in the
ranking criteria, the Deed of Easement shall prohibit all construction within the MOD. No far m building
or agricultural structure may be allowed unless prior written approval is obtained from each Grantee”.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one family
member’s principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3)
points if one family member has as a secondary occupation working the farm sufficient to qualify for the
land use tax program.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or
byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two
(2) points, with one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage; or the parcel
adjoins a public road: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
road frontage; or, the parcel is substantially visible from, but is not contiguous to, a public road
designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2
of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points. If the landowner elects to use points in the
ranking criteria for frontage on a Virginia scenic highway or byway, any new dwelling shall have a 250’
setback from said roadway or shall not be visible in any season of the year from the scenic road on a site
approved by the Grantee. Otherwise, one (1) point will be awarded for each one thousand (1000) feet of
road frontage.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or
state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two (2)
points if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for
Monticello and in the possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains artifacts or a site of
archaeological or architectural significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural
historian under the United States Department of Interior’s professio nal qualification standards. If the
landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria for artifacts or sites of archaeological or
architectural significance, the Deed of Easement shall require the permanent protection of these resources
as designed by Department of Historic Resources.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural heritage inventory or
a qualified biologist has submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to the
ACE Program and the Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the applicant: five (5) points; or the
parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an occurrence listed on the State Natural Heritage Inventory:
two (2) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for
agricultural lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources
conservation service classifications found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of
Albemarle County, Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of
five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris
Greene Lake Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins
the Ivy Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the Moormans River), Wards Creek
(of the Moormans River), Doyles Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna Reservoir River,
North Fork Rivanna River, Totier Creek Reservoir, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch
River (of the North Fork Rivanna River, Rivanna River, Jacob’s Run, or the Hardware River, Rockfish
River, James River, any waters designated as “Exceptional Waters” by the Virginia Water Control Board,
any public water supply reservoir or emergency water supply reservoir: one (1) point for each one
thousand (1000) feet of frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half
(1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. If the landowner elects to use these points in
the ranking criteria, any new dwelling shall not be visible from the river or require a 250’ setback from
the river so as to maintain the natural, scenic quality of the property from the river.
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to
establish or maintain vegetative forest buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those terms
are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000)
linear feet of buffer that is between thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1½) points
for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than fifty (50) feet but no t more than one
hundred (100) feet wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater
than one hundred (100) feet wide. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in
such a permanent easement, then the above-referenced points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a
county-sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points.
12. One (1) point for a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management
Plan approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry.
D. County Fund Leveraging.
1. State, federal, or private funding identified to leverage the purchase of the
conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the purchase price for which those funds
can be applied.
Sec. A.1-109. Easement terms and conditions.
Each conservation easement shall conform with the requirements of the Open-Space Land Act of
1966 (Virginia Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.) and of this appendix. The deed of easement shall be in a form
approved by the county attorney, and shall contain, at a minimum, the following provisions:
A. Restriction on division. The parcel shall be restricted from division as follows: (i) if the
parcel is less than one hundred (100) acres, it shall not be divided; (ii) if the parcel is one hundred (100)
acres or larger but less than two hundred (200) acres, it may be divided into two (2) lots; (iii) if the parcel
is two hundred (200) acres or larger, it may be divided into as many lots so as to maintain an average lot
size of at least one hundred (100) acres, plus one additional lot for any acres remaining above the required
minimum average lot size (e.g., an eight hundred fifty (850) acre parcel may be divided into as many as
nine (9) parcels, eight (8) of which maintain an average lot size of at least one hundred (100) acres, and
the ninth of which consists of the remaining acres).
B. Protection of mountain, scenic and historic resources. The deed of easement shall
include the following restrictions if the owner is eligible for points under section A.1-108 for the
resources identified therein:
1. Mountain resources. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process
under section A.1-108(C)(1) for mountain protection, the deed of easement shall prohibit establishing all
primary and accessory structures and other improvements, provided that one or more farm buildings or
agricultural structures may be permitted within the mountain overlay district with the prior written
approval from each grantee; the deed of easement also shall assure that the parcel is used and maintained
in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to mountain resources and, in
particular, the Mountain Design Standards in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Scenic highways and byways. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation
process under section A.1-108(C)(3) for adjoining a Virginia scenic highway or byway, the deed of
easement shall require that each new dwelling (a) have a two hundred fifty (250) foot setback from the
edge of the right-of-way of the scenic highway or byway or (b) if within two hundred fifty (250) feet of
the edge of the right-of-way of the scenic highway or byway, be sited in a location approved by each
grantee prior to issuance of a building permit to assure that the dwelling is not visible from the scenic
highway or byway at any time of the year.
3. Stream Buffers. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(7) for being located within a watershed named therein or adjoining a stream named
therein, the deed of easement shall require a stream buffer along any perennial stream, as that term is
defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code.
4. Scenic rivers. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process under
section A.1-108(C)(8) for adjoining a Virginia scenic river, the deed of easement shall require that each
new dwelling (a) have a two hundred fifty (250) foot setback from the top of the adjoining stream bank or
(b) if within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the top of the adjoining stream ban k, shall be sited in a
location approved by each grantee prior to issuance of a building permit to assure that the dwelling is not
visible from the scenic river at any time of the year.
5. Historic resources. If the parcel is eligible for points in the evaluation process
under section A.1-108(C)(4) for sites of archaeological or architectural significance, the deed of easement
shall require that no such site shall be razed, demolished or moved until the razing, demolition or moving
thereof is approved by each Grantee.
6. Voluntary Stream Buffers. If the owner voluntarily requested in his application
that the parcel be awarded points in the evaluation process under section A.1-108(C)(9) for a voluntary
stream buffer, the deed of easement shall require a stream buffer along any perennial or intermittent
streams, as those terms are defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code.
C. No buy-back option. The owner shall not have the option to reacquire any property rights
relinquished under the conservation easement.
D. Other restrictions. The parcel also shall be subject to standard restrictions contained in
conservation easements pertaining to uses and activities allowed on the parcel. These standard
restrictions shall be delineated in the deed of easement and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to,
restrictions pertaining to: (i) the accumulation of trash and junk; (ii) the display of billboards, signs and
advertisements; (iii) the management of forest resources; (iv) grading, blastin g or earth removal; (v) the
number and size of primary and secondary dwellings, non-residential outbuildings and farm buildings or
structures; (vi) the conduct of industrial or commercial activities on the parcel; and (vii) monitoring of the
easement.
E. Designation of easement holders. The county and one or more other public bodies, as
defined in Virginia Code § 10.1-1700, and designated by the board of supervisors shall be the easement
holders of each easement. The public body or bodies who may be des ignated by the board shall include,
but not be limited to, the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority and the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation.
Appraisals & Acquisition Costs for April, 2013 ACE Easement Applicants
Pape & Company - Appraised July, 2014
Applicant Total Appraised Value Easement Value (% FMV) ACE Payment (% EV)
Henley Forest, Inc. $1,620,000 $ 387,000 (24%) $ 363,780 (94%)
(White Hall)
Campbell, John $1,370,000 $ 274,000 (20%) $ 175,360 (64%)
(Woodridge)
Woodson, Ronnie $1,070,000 $ 72,000 (7%) $ 72,000 (100%)
(North Garden)
Stargell, Janice $ 458,200 $ 257,000 (56%) $ 257,000 (100%)
(Faber)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Totals $4,518,200 $ 990,000 $ 868,140 (88%)
Notes:
1. % FMV = easement value/total appraised value
2. % EV is the percent of easement value paid by ACE according to the income grid.
Summary of ACE Conservation Efforts since 2000:
94 applicants
acquired easements on 41 properties
protected 7,555 acres
eliminated 459 development lots
protected over 3,691 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
protected lands with over 35,000 feet along state roads
protected lands with over 21,000 feet along a scenic highway or entrance corridor
protected 523 acres of mountaintop
protected over 85,000 linear feet of streamside with buffers
28/41 properties have “tourism” value
11/41 properties in a Rural Historic Districts
25/41 properties adjoin permanently protected land
15/41 lie in the watershed of a drinking supply reservoir
30/41 are working family farms
Year Applicants Closed (Acres) DR’s Eliminated
Round 1 11 4 (1,045 ac) 88 DR’s (purchased)
Round 2 8 5 (1,157 ac) 24 DR’s (purchased)
Round 3 8 5 ( 911 ac) 62 DR’s (purchased)
Round 4 8 2 ( 647 ac) 34 DR’s (purchased)
Round 5 10 6 (1,110 ac) 66 DR’s (purchased)
Round 6 7 5 ( 583 ac) 44 DR’s (purchased)
Round 7 9 2 ( 558 ac) 26 DR’s (purchased)
Round 8 14 3 ( 472 ac) 32 DR’s (purchased)
Round 9 11 5 ( 741 ac) 59 DR’s (purchased)
Round 10 8 1 ( 331 ac) 24 DR’s (purchased)
Total 94 41 (7,555 ac) 459 DR’s
Number of easements acquired: 41 easements
Acres protected: 7,555 acres
Development lots eliminated: 459 DR’s eliminated
ACE appropriations: $ 11,547,243
Easement acquisition cost (what we paid): $ 11,050,610
Closing costs (appraisals, title insurance etc.): $ 198,304
Net easement acquisition costs: $ 11,248,914 ($1,489/acre)
Grants: $ 1,613,843 (VOF, OFP, VLCF)
Donations: $ 22,500 (PEC)
Income adjustment (from income grid): $ 1,709,720
Totals Savings $ 3,346,063 (23% of easement cost)
Total easement cost (before grants, donations & adjusted values): $ 14,594,977 ($1,932/acre)
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
Community Development Department
2014
THIRD QUARTER
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REPORT
County of Albemarle
INDEX
Information Services Division
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural
1st Quarter 91 36 166 36 57 47 92 89 32 22 95 10 104 10 38 20
2nd Quarter 132 75 52 48 52 32 111 22 69 25 108 21 260 22 72 28
3rd Quarter 104 47 57 45 168 30 76 18 52 17 215 22 81 17 77 20
4th Quarter 66 62 65 42 69 63 52 24 268 22 258 23 55 29
393 220 340 171 346 172 331 153 421 86 676 76 500 78 187 68
Chart A. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
During the third quarter of 2014, 97 certificates of occupancy were issued for 97 dwelling units. There were four permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an
exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $10,000. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
2014
Totals
58
100
Quarter 20102009 201320112007 2008 20142012
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
484518
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
97
0
613 511 255578507 752
Annual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
Dev
Area
Rural
Area
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*Dwelling UnitsAnnual Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
SF Unit Other Units*Through Third Quarter
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 3 -
3rd Quarter 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 11 7 9 0 0 0 0 1 28 29%
JACK JOUETT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
RIVANNA 16 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 24 25%
SAMUEL MILLER 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5%
SCOTTSVILLE 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 10%
WHITE HALL 26 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 29 30%
TOTAL 65 7 23 0 0 0 1 1 97 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 1 19 20%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 10 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 18%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
15 7 18 0 0 0 0 1 41 42%
CROZET COMMUNITY 20 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 23 24%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 7%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4%
29 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 34 35%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%
46 7 23 0 0 0 0 1 77 79%
RURAL AREA 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 6%
RURAL AREA 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2%
RURAL AREA 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6%
RURAL AREA 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6%
18 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 20 21%
64 7 24 0 0 0 1 1 97 100%
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 4 -
3rd Quarter 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 4 7 0 0 19%
Baker Butler 8 2 0 0 10%
Broadus Wood 3 0 0 0 3%
Brownsville 23 3 0 0 27%
Cale 1 3 0 0 4%
Crozet 1 0 0 0 1%
Greer 1 0 0 0 1%
Hollymead 1 0 0 0 1%
Meriwether Lewis 1 0 0 0 1%
Murray 3 1 0 0 4%
Red Hill 0 0 0 0 0%
Scottsville 4 0 0 0 4%
Stone Robinson 4 7 0 0 11%
Stony Point 10 0 0 1 11%
Woodbrook 1 0 0 0 2%
Yancey 0 0 0 0 0%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL #NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 28 14 3 9 54
JOUETT 1 15 3 2 21
RIVANNA 24 22 2 8 56
S. MILLER 5 27 0 1 33
SCOTTSVILLE 10 13 1 1 25
WHITE HALL 29 27 1 0 57
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the residential
component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and commercial
uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building
Report as permitting occurs.
0 0
0 0
0
65 7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Amount-$
320,000$ 6,292,000$
0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF
0 0
23 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
8,976,382$
0
65,000$
4,629,500$
0
TOTAL
Amount-$
0
0
Amount-$
970
17,289,500$
4,423,246$
558,500$
270,000$
6,031,700$
2,355,000$
0 0
4
1
TOTAL
UNITS
18
10
3
26
0
0
0
00
AA
0
0
0
7 0
0 0
0
..
100%
21 2463,650,000$ 60,066,426$
11
11
2
0
11
2,521,500$
Amount-$ Amount-$
1,097,300$
2,003,246$
0
3,965,198$
7,520,606$ 10 21,908,098$
400,000$
00
0
0
-$
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
13,098,698$
11,649,100$ 8,325,000$
0
0
1
1
1
15,000$
9,602,000$
TOTAL
8,081,022$ 900$
11826,987,722$
0 0
-$
235,000$
97
516,500$
894,460$
2,689,100$
3,828,000$
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units (Table I & Chart A)
II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Tables II, III, & IV)
III. Comparison of All Building Permits (Table V)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF Single-Family (includes modular)
SFA Single-Family Attached
SF/TH Single-Family Townhouse
SFC Single-Family Condominium
DUP Duplex
MF Multi-Family
MHC Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
AA Accessory Apartment
INDEX
Community Development Department
2014
THIRD QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
County of Albemarle
Information Services Division
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5832
- 2 -
I. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units
Table I. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2014
Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Dev Rural Totals
1st Quarter 81 64 267 57 78 49 38 20 91 24 372 26 70 25 102 26 89 30 119
2nd Quarter 101 80 232 38 86 53 71 26 65 27 58 29 310 25 110 37 83 36 119
3rd Quarter 65 67 73 67 47 47 50 30 358 23 82 37 47 28 71 41 90 48 138
.
4th Quarter 68 49 57 40 28 30 91 13 29 33 62 28 50 33 55 26 0
315 260 629 202 239 179 250 89 543 107 574 120 477 111 338 130 262 114
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Development Area and Rural Area
2014
During the third quarter of 2014, 137 building permits were issued for 138 dwelling units. There were three permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at
an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $7,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
COMP PLAN
AREA
TOTALS
Quarter
YEAR TO
DATE
TOTALS
339831 418
20132011
575
2012
376650 694 468588
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Dev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural AreaDev AreaRural Area2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*Dwelling UnitsNine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units
Other Units SF Unit*Through Third Quarter
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 3 -
3rd Quarter 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE
Table II. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
RIO 8 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 27 20%
JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
RIVANNA 21 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 32 23%
SAMUEL MILLER 13 2 4 0 0 0 5 0 24 17%
SCOTTSVILLE 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 11 8%
WHITE HALL 34 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 42 30%
TOTAL 82 8 40 0 0 0 6 2 138 100%
Table III. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH SFC DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 6 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 25 18%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 12 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 22 16%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 5%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
18 4 32 0 0 0 0 0 54 39%
CROZET COMMUNITY 24 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 30 22%
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2%
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1%
29 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 35 25%
RIVANNA VILLAGE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1%
48 6 36 0 0 0 0 0 90 65%
RURAL AREA 1 7 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 14 10%
RURAL AREA 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 7%
RURAL AREA 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 17 12%
RURAL AREA 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 6%
34 2 4 0 0 0 6 2 48 35%
82 8 40 0 0 0 6 2 138 100%
TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA
URBAN AREAS SUBTOTAL
COMMUNITIES SUBTOTAL
VILLAGE SUBTOTAL
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
- 4 -
3rd Quarter 2014
II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued)
Table IV. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
% TOTAL
SF SF/TH DUP MHC UNITS
Agnor-Hurt 6 15 0 0 18%
Baker Butler 5 0 0 0 4%
Broadus Wood 2 0 0 1 2%
Brownsville 27 4 0 0 25%
Cale 1 7 0 0 6%
Crozet 3 0 0 0 2%
Greer 0 0 0 0 0%
Hollymead 0 0 0 0 0%
Meriwether Lewis 5 0 0 0 4%
Murray 5 4 0 0 8%
Red Hill 4 0 0 2 4%
Scottsville 2 0 0 0 1%
Stone Robinson 8 10 0 0 14%
Stony Point 13 0 0 0 9%
Woodbrook 0 0 0 0 0%
Yancey 1 0 0 3 3%
TOTAL
III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Table V. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. **NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. No. No. No. No.
RIO 27 35 1 44 107
JOUETT 2 8 0 21 31
RIVANNA 32 38 1 18 89
S. MILLER 24 51 0 6 81
SCOTTSVILLE 11 17 2 6 36
WHITE HALL 41 47 0 19 107
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in the Alteration Residential category.
* Additional value of Single-Family Condominium Conversions is included in the Alteration Residential category.
0 0
0
40 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
SCHOOL
DISTRICT SFA SFC
DWELLING UNIT TYPE
MF AA
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
2
0
2,003,000$
12,286,350$
137
474,725$
2,280,940$
196
12,423,748$
3,620,627$
10,714,044$
17,391,378$
2,702,325$
15,034,742$ 467,452$
90,500$
1,236,398$ 4,055,000$
120,000$
Amount-$
1,134,026$
2,619,978$
1,750,000$
7,902,300$
14,680,900$
438,842$
0
0
-$
962,000$
-$
1,090,000$
0
Amount-$
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
5
3
34
2
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
TOTAL
UNITS
19
13
0
4
5
6
715,718$
0
0
2
11
138
0
0
0
0
* Additional value of condominium shell buildings is included in the New Non-Residential category. Additional permitting associated with the
residential component of condominium shell buildings will be necessary and reported in other tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
** Additional value of mixed use buildings is included in the New Commercial category. Mixed use buildings are comprised of residential and
commercial uses. Additional permitting associated with the residential component of mixed use buildings will be necessary and reported in other
tables of the Building Report as permitting occurs.
TOTAL
100%
114 4518,852,405$ 61,886,863$
Amount-$
104,600$
6,042,350$
6
1,431,785$
Amount-$
82 8
TOTAL 42,677,550$ 8,184,909$ 4 2,172,000$
-$
Amount-$
Prepared by the Albemarle County Community Development Dept. Information Services Division
Page 1 of 3
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
January 2015
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at Route
729
Right of Way Advertisement December 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement December 2014
Route 250, Bridge replacement over
Little Ivy Creek Preliminary Design Public Hearing January 2016
Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved
Road -- Construction State Force
Construction
Route 784 Doctors Crossing–
Unpaved Road Scoping State Force
Construction
Route 731 Keswick Road – Unpaved
Road Scoping State Force
Construction
Route 643 – Reconstruction -- Project Scoping –
2015 --
Route 606 – Dickerson Rd. over
North Fork of Rivanna River -- Project Scoping January 2020
Route 29 Solutions:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 29 and Rio Road Addendum 2 Addendum 3 February 2015
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to
Hollymeade Town Center Addendum 2 Addendum 3 February 2015
Berkmar Drive Construction Addendum 2 Addendum 3 February 2015
Adaptive Signals Construction Signal and Fiber
Optic N/A
Hillsdale Extended Public Hearing ROW
Authorization TBD
Hillsdale South CTB Approval TBD P.E. Only N/A
Hydraulic Road Grade Separated
Intersection CTB Approval TBD
P.E. Only N/A
City of Charlottesville
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE AD DATE
Best Buy Ramp Advertisement Award November 2014
Page 2 of 3
Construction Activities
Route 29 Solutions
o All Route 29 Solutions projects remain on schedule.
o The Route 29/250 Ramp Improvement Project (Best Buy Ramp) was advertised on November 10, 2014 and bids
received on December 17, 2014.
o The Project Delivery Advisory Panel held meetings on December 4th and 18th.
o RFP addendum number 2 was released on December 5, 2014 for all three design-build projects. Addendum
number 3 will be issued on December 18th and include only minor clarifications.
o For the three design-build projects, VDOT provided responses to proprietary and non-proprietary questions
(Proprietary Meeting 2) as well as final meeting minutes on December 5, 2014.
o VDOT held a second proprietary meeting for the design-build projects on November 19th and 20th.
o The adaptive signal project achieved its first milestone in November and continues on-schedule.
o The adaptive signal project continues with Phase 1 construction. Bores were recently performed at Towncenter
Drive and Timberwood Road. Loops were cut at Hilton Heights Road and Schewels under the southbound lanes.
Upcoming work includes bores at Towncenter, Timberwood, and Airport Road. Loops will be installed at Schewels,
Hilton Heights, Towncenter Drive, and Timberwood. Signal cabinet work near Fashion Square has been delayed
until after the holidays.
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250
Next Major Milestone: Opening of New Interchange to Traffic
Traffic configuration has been switched to the Phase 2B configuration with completion of work for Retaining Wall and
pavement construction for Ramp 2. Bridge deck concrete was placed prior to recent Thanksgiving Holiday. Contractor
has performed work on the Abutment B side approach for construction of fill, placement of aggregate base material and
installation of remaining drainage items. Work is progressing on the Dogwood Vietnam Memorial, as the retaining and
seat walls have been constructed and are now backfilled. Work to install landscaping items is also ongoing. New traffic
signals have been installed (but not activated) for the Park Street interchange. Water, Sewer and Gas Services are
almost complete. Access Road parking lot consisting of a permeable paver surface has been completed. Parking lot
for the C.A.R.S. facility adjacent to the Retaining Wall for Ramp 2 is under construction.
Contract Completion: July 2, 2015.
Project Construction started on March 4, 2013.
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract Renewal – 3nd term
Contract Completion: June 30, 2015
Dick Woods Road Bridge Over Ivy Creek (NFO)0637-002-284,C501
Scope: Bridge Replacement
Next Major Milestone: Preconstruction Conference December 18, 2014. Planned start date January 19, 2015.
Proposed Completion: August 4, 2015
Black Cat Road Bridge Over BRRR (NFO)0616-002-822,B674,C501
Scope: Bridge Replacement and reconstruct approaches
Next Major Milestone: Preconstruction Conference December 18, 2014. Planned start date January 12, 2015.
Proposed Completion: October 15, 2015
Route 29/US 250 Best Buy Ramp Widening
Scope: Construct retaining wall, sound wall, ramp widening, drainage and sidewalks.
Next Major Milestone: Bids received December 17, 2014
Contract Completion: May 21, 2016
ADAO-967-256,N501
Scope: Replace Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks
Next Major Milestone: Tasks TBD
Contract Completion: December 31, 2015 (Contract is Renewable)
Interstate 64 ATSMS Installation
Scope: Installation of communications conduit in median from mile marker 107 (Crozet exit) to mile marker 94.
Next Major Milestone: Completion July 2015.
Contract Completion: July 2015
Page 3 of 3
Plant Mix Schedule (NFO)PM7A-967-F14,P401
Scope: Albemarle, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Route 1720 Forest Lakes was completed on October 31, 2014. Route 1721 Forest Lakes and
Rte 250 to be completed next year.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Plant Mix Schedule PM7B-967-F14,P401
Scope: Albemarle, Greene, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: The remainder of this contract is to be complete next year. Rte 729 was completed in May. 5
Sections of Rte 631 will be completed next year.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Surface Treatment Schedule ST7A-967-F14, P401
Scope: Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Routes remaining in Albemarle County are: 600, 608, 619, 623, 640, 648, 762, and 842.
(Remaining Routes will be pushed to next year).
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 649, Proffit Road and Route 20
Intersection safety review; complete
VDOT Study Number—003-0020-20141104-007
Under Review
Route 651, Wakefield Road
Operational Analysis; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0651-20141104-026
Maintenance Activities
VDOT Area Headquarters crews completed the following activities during the past month. For specific route
activities, please contact the Charlottesville Residency Office.
Debris removal on 3 primary routes and 7 secondary routes
Machining of non-hard surface roads has been performed on 34 secondary routes
Mowing has been completed on 37 secondary routes
Drainage repairs on 4 primary routes and 18 secondary routes
Patching was performed on 2 primary routes and 11 secondary routes
Culverts replaced on 1 primary route and 5 secondary routes
Debris was removed from 5 primary routes and 7 secondary routes
Sweeping performed on 2 primary routes and 1 secondary route
Shoulders repaired along 1 primary route and 2 secondary routes
Trimming performed on 1 primary route and 4 secondary routes
Tree removal on 6 secondary routes
Trash removal on 3 primary route and 6 secondary routes
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Water Resources Program – Level of Service
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request feedback on Water Resources Funding
Advisory Committee’s recommendations pertaining
to preliminary program plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Shadman, Harper
PRESENTER (S): Greg Harper
LEGAL REVIEW:
AGENDA DATE:
January 7, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Recent Virginia mandates, including the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) and the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) Program, have led to significant increases in the cost of implementing County water resources programs. To
explore whether the Board should establish a dedicated funding mechanism to support these programs, the Board
appointed a Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee (See attached January 8, 2014 Executive Summary,
Attachment A).
The Committee is charged with providing to the Board by September 2015 a recommendation for a funding mechanism
that would best meet County needs and goals (See Committee’s Charge, Attachment B). Since September 2014, key
staff and consultant representatives have facilitated monthly Committee meetings covering topics such as major program
elements, new mandates, the condition of County streams, staff and department roles, and program gaps.
The Committee’s current task is to draft a preliminary program plan, which will enable the Committee to provide direction
and advice on the public engagement process and to estimate the total program costs to serve as the basis of subsequent
analyses and discussion regarding funding options, rate structure options, and preliminary rates and cost distributions. The
Committee will develop program and funding option recommendations to be presented to the public beginning in April
2015.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Natural Resources: “Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both
the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future generations.”
Year 1 Priority: “By October 2015, establish direction and funding for a program to improve water quality.”
DISCUSSION:
The program plan will include the various operational and capital programs that will be supported by funding sources.
Before the funding study can be conducted, it is necessary to determine whether the program plan should include
proactively managing the County’s water resources’ infrastructure and ecosystems. Infrastructure management
includes operating and maintaining stormwater management facilities and drainage conveyances (pipes and open
channels). Ecosystem management includes activities that improve the quality of County streams and other natural
resources, from stream buffer protection to stream restoration.
The County must determine what level of service (LOS) it will provide to maintain compliance with the County’s
increased MS4 permit requirements. The LOS, in turn, is relevant to evaluating the appropriate funding options.
The Committee, at its December 11, 2014 meeting, considered various questions regarding the LOS of the preliminary
program plan. Those questions and the Committee’s responses are summarized in Attachment C. Staff is requesting
the Board’s feedback on the Committee’s positions and any additional thoughts or concerns regarding the preliminary
program plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The information provided by the Board will simply inform the water resources funding study and will not affect the
budget at this time.
AGENDA TITLE: Water Resources Program – Level of Service
January 7, 2015
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board provide feedback regarding the Advisory Committee’s recommendations regarding
the preliminary program plan and, in particular, whether the Committee should continue to examine a level of service
that includes the proactive management of the County’s water resources’ infrastructure and ecosystems .
ATTACHMENTS:
A – January 8, 2014 Executive Summary
B – Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee Charge
C – Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee Preliminary Program Plan Preferences
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Water Resources Funding
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Evaluate alternatives for funding of water resource
programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Shadman,
Harper, Brooks
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 8, 2014
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Recent state mandates have significantly increased the scope and costs of County water resource programs. The Board
will receive a separate executive summary at this January 8th meeting regarding a proposed comprehensive revision to the
Water Protection Ordinance that addresses compliance with changes to the Virginia Stormwater Management Program
(VSMP). Additionally, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is imposing new requirements and
standards for the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit that are anticipated to significantly
increase funding demands beginning in FY15.
In recent months, the Board has been presented information regarding both the VSMP and MS4 requirements
(Attachments A and B). With this information, the Board considered strategic initiatives within the County’s Five Year
Financial Plan to implement these requirements. In December 2013, the Board determined that the Five Year Financial
Plan should include new funding for both programs. The VSMP costs in the Community Development Department are
proposed to be offset by development applications fees. The MS4 costs in the General Services Department, which
includes both operational and capital costs, requires an additional revenue source for funding. The purpose of today’s
work session is to evaluate the funding needed and possible sources of revenue.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4. Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management policies
DISCUSSION:
For the water resources program, the Five Year Financial Plan identifies the total program cost will escalate from $414
Thousand in FY15 to $1.23 Million in FY19, which equates to approximately $1 Million per year for the Five Year
Financial Plan. This amount is based on assumptions for estimated costs and levels of service and may change during
implementation. In order to create a balanced budget, a new revenue source is needed for this funding. Staff has
identified three potential revenue sources to address this funding need.
1. General Fund – The County has the option to continue to fund the expenses from this Fund as
historically done. At the current real estate tax assessments, the additional $1Million required per year
equates to approximately two-thirds of a cent on the real estate tax rate. Most MS4 counties in Virginia
are currently funding their water resources programs through general fund revenues.
2. Service District – Virginia enables localities to create special tax districts called service districts for
dedicated funding. Taxes are assessed in the same way as property taxes. One county has been
identified as using a Service District and another a sanitary district, which is a form of a service
district.
3. Stormwater Utility – Virginia enables localities to create stormwater utilities. Rather than rely on the
assessed property value, a stormwater utility measures impacts (runoff) and assesses fees based on
that impact. This is typically done in terms of $”X” per 1,000 square feet of impervious cover or some
similar measure. Stormwater utilities have been a preferred revenue source for MS4 cities in Virginia.
To assist the Board in understanding the advantages and disadvantages of the three revenue sources, a table is
provided as Attachment C comparing the three alternatives. In the table, a green color indicates the stronger of the
revenue sources for the specific factor. In one case, an additional light green is provided to indicate that a possibility
exists but must still be confirmed. A short description of each factor in the table is provided:
AGENDA TITLE: Water Resources Funding
January 8, 2014
Page 2
Implementation Costs and Complexity: This factor indicates the relative complexity of establishing this
funding source. Funding water resources programs through the General Fund has no implementation
costs and requires the Board to set the tax rate by resolution, using assessed values of property
already in place. A Service District would have to be established by ordinance, but staff believes that
the process would be fairly simple. The Service District tax rate, also using assessed values of
property already in place, could be either set in the ordinance or established by resolution. Funding
through a Stormwater Utility, once established by ordinance, would come from fees based on each
parcel’s measured impacts from stormwater runoff, rather than assessed property values. The fee
would be based on a dollar amount per a defined square footage of impervious cover, or some similar
measure. Staff believes that a Stormwater Utility would require additional costs and more time to
implement.
Administration Costs and Complexity: This factor indicates the relative complexity of maintaining this
funding source. Once again, the General Fund and Service District are the easiest to administer
because they continue the established process of levying and collecting real property taxes already in
place. The Stormwater Utility requires a separate case-by-case evaluation as property is developed or
changed. In addition, under a Stormwater Utility, the County may reduce fees to any public or private
entity that implements or participates in strategies, techniques or programs that reduce stormwater
flow or pollutant loadings, or decrease the cost of maintaining public stormwater management
systems. Although this incentive program certainly has merit, staff is concerned that it would be
difficult to administer.
Dedicated Funding Source: This factor indicates whether the funding source would be ongoing. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEQ have strongly encouraged localities to establish
dedicated funding. Both the Service District and Stormwater Utility accomplish this.
Correlation between Impacts and Costs for Property: A stormwater utility establishes fees based on
the measured impact, making it a more equitable charge. Because the General Fund and Service
District tax is based on property values, they have little direct correlation to impacts.
Incentives for Reducing Impacts: The Stormwater Utility has the advantage of allowing the County to
fully or partially waive fees for onsite measures taken to reduce stormwater impacts. These can
include things such as rain barrels or rain gardens.
Complexity of Public Explanation: The concept of property taxes is well understood, which gives an
advantage to the General Fund and Service District. The Stormwater Utility will be considerably more
difficult to explain, as many explanations include qualifiers that confuse the public or make them
suspicious of intentions. For example, it will be difficult to explain that a stormwater utility charge is
based on impervious cover except where the impervious cover is disconnected from channelized
runoff and the runoff is diverted to stormwater management facilities.
60/40 Revenue Split: The County has maintained a policy of a 60/40 split of new real estate tax
revenue between the School Division and the County Local Government unless the Board, in a
particular case, elects to dedicate an increase in revenue for a specific County or School purpose.
The revenues generated by a Service District or Stormwater Utility would fall outside of that policy
because they are required by law to be a dedicated funding source for water resources programs.
Itemized Expense on Income Taxes: Individuals who itemize expenses with their income tax can
deduct general property taxes. This is not possible with Stormwater Utility fees, which are treated the
same as any other utility bill for tax purposes. There remains some question as to whether taxes
imposed by a Service District are entitled to the same tax deduction as general property taxes. Staff
notes that Fairfax County uses a Stormwater Service District and advises its property owners the tax
deduction is allowed based on how its program is designed.
Tax Exempt Properties: Tax exempt properties would not pay property taxes or Service District taxes
if imposed for stormwater programs. All properties would pay a utility fee unless subject to a separate
MS4 permit.
After considering the advantages and disadvantages, staff believes a Service District provides the best balance of
these factors. The General Fund was found to lack the dedicated funding source the regulators are encouraging with
the MS4 permit and, if the Board elected to adhere to the County’s 60/40 funding policy, a substantial tax increase
would be required, which may be difficult to garner public support. The Stormwater Utility is considered to be too
expensive to implement and administer for the amount of funding needed, plus the fee cannot be an itemized
deduction on individual income taxes. Staff also notes that based on other localities, it is anticipated that a Stormwater
Utility would take two years to fully implement, while the revenue source is needed beginning in FY 15. Thus, at least
AGENDA TITLE: Water Resources Funding
January 8, 2014
Page 3
for the next five years, the Service District appears to be the best funding option. If the 2018 reissued MS4 permit
continues to increase the County’s program costs, staff believes a utility should be reconsidered at that time.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The estimated expense of $1 Million per year for the next five years represents the cost of continuing the existing MS4
permit program and addressing the costs with the new mandate. It should be noted this cost does not include any
additional measures the Board may wish to consider for improving local streams and rivers , and could be subject to
change as the program is implemented. Funding for such an expanded program could also be addressed with a
Service District. If a Service District is established effective July 1, 2014, revenue would be collected in December of
2014 and June of 2015, providing full funding for stormwater programs in FY15.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to schedule a public hearing for the adoption of an ordinance to establish
a Service District to be effective July 1, 2014 to ensure that the County’s stormwater program can be implemented with
tax revenue to be collected for all of FY15. If the Board concurs, staff will include this as part of the FY15 proposed
budget
ATTACHMENTS:
A – September 4, 2013 Executive Summary – Virginia Stormwater Management Program
B – October 2, 2013 Executive Summary – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program and Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
C – Comparison of Funding Sources
Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee – Preliminary Program Plan Preferences Page 1
Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee
Preliminary Program Plan Preferences
A summary of Committee responses to questions poised at the December 11, 2014 meeting.
Should the County adopt and proactively maintain conveyance infrastructure which meets certain
criteria (i.e., over a given size or receiving runoff from public properties) on private properties but not
within public easements?
Consensus was to map and assess all private conveyance infrastructure regardless of whether it
is in a public easement. It is important to understand the extent and nature of the entire
system.
Regarding conveyance infrastructure on private property and within a public easement, the
County needs to budget for adequately maintaining that infrastructure once the extent is
determined.
Regarding conveyance infrastructure on private property and not within a public easement, the
BOS should make decisions about maintenance responsibility after the extent of the issue is
known. The committee discussed three possible options:
o decide not to expand the scope of the County’s service
o institute some kind of cost-share with private owners when the infrastructure fails or is
in need of maintenance
o assume responsibility for maintenance
The selection of a policy option should consider the type and structure of any fee or tax
implemented to pay for the County’s stormwater program.
If so, how aggressively should the County inspect and maintain the system?
Consensus was to conduct an assessment of the entire system (age and conditions) within at
least the next five years and to immediately begin setting aside funds sufficient to cover 1%
system rehabilitation/replacement annually.
The 1% figure is considered a minimum assuming a 100-year lifespan for concrete pipe. The
actual percentage will need to be revisited after completion of the assessment.
Should the County adopt and proactively maintain private BMPs?
Consensus was that the advisory committee is not yet ready to recommend that maintenance
shift from the private owner/operator to the County.
This issue should be kept at the forefront and revisited within the next five years. The County
must more rigorously enforce maintenance agreements under VSMP/MS4. If the current
system is not working, the BOS may want to consider alternative models, including but not
limited to the County assuming maintenance responsibility.
Similar to conveyance infrastructure maintenance, the selection of a policy option should
consider the type and structure of any fee or tax.
Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee – Preliminary Program Plan Preferences Page 2
Should County programs address impaired streams and other waters beyond State requirements –
impairments outside the regulated area and impairments within the regulated area but not currently
under MS4 mandate?
Consensus was to conduct necessary watershed planning to identify and prioritize projects and
programs to address these impaired streams and to set aside annual funding now to ensure that
implementation can occur in a timely manner after plans are completed.
Staff was requested to determine the funding needed to ensure a reasonable pace of
implementation.
Should stream buffer requirements be more proactively implemented and enforced?
Consensus was to hire the necessary staff to proactively enforce the buffer area requirement.
While County staff reported relatively infrequent buffer encroachment complaints, TJSWCD
noted that they get a lot of complaints about buffer violations from callers who initially
contacted the County but were told that there are no staff resources for enforcement.
Board-to-Board
January, 2015
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Long Range Planning Recommendations—At the December meeting, the Board considered the
recommendation of the Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee to undertake a comprehensive,
division wide redistricting committee to convene in the spring. The Board decided to take action at the
January business meeting, pending additional information from staff on school capacity and the scope of
the redistricting committee’s work.
State Funding Update—Governor McAuliffe released his recommended changes to the adopted FY16
budget on December 17. Despite cutting more than $272 million from the state’s adopted spending plan
to account for reduced revenue estimates, the Governor’s recommendations did not take any additional
funding from K-12 education. The Governor is also requesting that an additional $150 million
contribution be made to the teacher’s liability pool of the Virginia Retirement System. The Board will
monitor state funding and other legislation when the General Assembly session begins in January.
Henley Gymnasium Addition—The Board approved the construction plan for the Henley Gymnasium
Addition. Currently, due to space limitations, the 800-student school must conduct some of their
physical education classes outdoors. During inclement weather, those classes move inside to add to the
overcrowding. The addition, included in the 2014-2015 Capital Improvement budget, provides a
multipurpose space, fitness center, and support spaces in a design that promotes lifelong healthy lifestyle
skills. The new gym will be complete by winter of 2015.
Resolution Passed—The Board passed a resolution, drafted by the Virginia Association of School
Superintendents and the Virginia School Board Association, which requests that the General Assembly
increase the state’s share of funding for public education to the levels necessary to meet the Standards of
Quality. The resolution has been signed by school divisions across the state and presented to legislators
before the General Assembly begins.
Innovation in Education—Students, teachers, and staff from across the division had the opportunity to
showcase some of the innovative practices going on in our classrooms at an event held December 12 at
the I-Lab at the University of Virginia. The event, sponsored by the Public Education Fund (PEF) of
Charlottesville-Albemarle, brought together Albemarle County and Charlottesville City schools to
highlight programs and activities in each division that demonstrate teaching and learning in the 21st
century. The PEF supports innovative efforts in each school division through its grant making activities.
Magna Award—The media center at Monticello High School has received the Magna Award from the
National School Board Association. The Magna award is a national recognition of best practices in
school district leadership. The “Learning Commons”, as the media center is now called, provides
flexible spaces to facilitate active instruction and learning that isn’t possible in a traditional classroom,
including spaces for student collaboration and project based learning, Two years ago, the division was
recognized for its M-Cubed program (Math, Men, and Mission) as an exemplary mentoring and
academic support program.
Virginia Impact Award-- Becky Fisher, the Director of Educational Technology for the school division,
has received the VASCD’s statewide 2014 Impact Award for her leadership in best practices for
educational technology and professional development programs. VASCD is the Virginia Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development and includes thousands of education professionals
throughout the Commonwealth. Fisher was recognized for leadership in the transformation of learning
environments, including reimagining school libraries as contemporary learning centers.
School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Innovation Fund Round 2
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on Round 2 of the County’s Innovation Fund
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Catlin, Wyatt
PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 7, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board established the County’s Innovation Fund in the FY 14 Budget, dedicating $166,500 in one-time money to
support the start-up of organizational initiatives that reduce costs and improve customer service and productivity. The first
round of the Innovation Fund was completed in April, 2014, with nine projects selected for funding in the total amount of
$86,989.51. The remaining $79,510.49 in FY 14 funding was reappropriated to the current fiscal year, and an additional
$50,000 was allocated to the Innovation Fund in the FY 15 Budget, bringing the total available funding to $129,510.49.
Round 2 of the Innovation Fund was completed in November 2014, with eight projects selected for funding in the total
amount of $78,829.87. An appropriation request (Appropriation #2015070) is included as part of the January 7, 2015
FY15 Amendment and Appropriations Executive Summary to fund seven of the awarded projects in the total amount of
$54,442.87. This executive summary provides an overview of the approved Round 2 projects.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The Innovation Fund supports the County’s value of innovation.
DISCUSSION:
A cross-functional team of County employees came together to create the Innovation Fund Program following
adoption of the FY 14 Budget, which made Innovation Fund Program funding available. Program guidelines were
developed as outlined below, along with eligibility criteria and an application and review process. The Innovation
Fund program encourages a spirit of entrepreneurship and creativity exemplified by the fact that one of the Round 1
projects, Technology Training Anytime, won 1st place in the Information Technology (IT) as Efficiency Driver –
Government to Government category at the 17th annual Commonwealth of Virginia Innovation Technology
Symposium (COVITS) last fall.
The “Inventing Albemarle” Innovation Fund supports projects that:
yield a return on investment, may be measured in new ideas or relationships as well as new dollars
support an “innovation culture” in the organization
reduce operating costs/create capacity by freeing up employee time for more productive work
increase process efficiency, quality, and services that impact staff and/or customers
leverage technology, including automating/standardizing routine processes
improve customer experience – both internal and external
establish a competitive edge
Accountability/Monitoring
The applicants of the projects selected for funding were required to 1) provide a cost/benefit analysis, including
expected return on investment (ROI)); 2) identify savings and/or avoided costs, as well as a means of measuring
accountability and performance; and 3) provide an analysis of how the proposed project fits into the mission, values
and strategic plan goals of the County and how it supports the County’s “ONE organization committed to excellence”
philosophy. Quarterly progress reports are required for all funded projects to ensure that goals are being met. A full
report on the status of Round 1 projects, including return on investment, will be provided during budget work sessions
in February.
AGENDA TITLE: Innovation Fund Round 2
January 7, 2015
Page 2
Round 2 Summary
Twenty applications were submitted to the Innovation Fund for consideration in Round 2. Of those applications, the
team approved eight for funding (list provided below) and determined that five did not meet the criteria for funding,
three could be implemented without funding, and four were of interest but were not yet ready for funding. Full details
on the approved projects are provided in Attachment A. Board approval of Appropriation #2015070 is being
requested on January 7th to fund seven projects, and the remaining project is still being finalized for appropriation.
Diversity/Recruitment Video—Police Department
“What to Expect During Construction”—Office of Facilities Development
Digital Fire Simulator—Fire/Rescue
Paperless Plan Review Pilot—Community Development
Citizen Online Computer Station—Police Department
Automated Check-In—Social Services
Rapid Response Outreach—Social Services
Agenda Management System —Board of Supervisors (still being finalized for appropriation)
BUDGET IMPACT:
Total available funding for the Innovation Fund is $129,510.49. Awards for Round 2 of the Innovation Fund total
$78,829.87, which will leave a balance of $50,680.62 in the Innovation Fund.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This Executive Summary is for information only and no action is required by the Board.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Innovation Fund Round 2 Summary of Approved Projects
Return to agenda
Project Dept
Estimated
$ Amount Description
Diversity /
Recruitment
Video
Police
Department
$15,000 Diversity recruitment video to assist County departments to seek out diverse candidates who would reflect
county demographics. The police department particularly has struggled for many years in attracting minority
applicants to the agency and its current strategies have had a minimal impact in this area.
What to Expect
During
Construction
Office of Facilities
Development
$2,625 "Hand-out” document on thick stock paper to improve communication between County staff and citizens that
are working in or near a facility where construction work is taking place. This will support the BOS goal of a
more transparent local government by letting customers know what to expect during construction.
Digital Fire
Training Simulator
Fire/Rescue Dept.
$19,426 Innovative training tool designed to allow for realistic fire training with minimal resources, allowing for high
repetition of core skills. Fire Rescue has long struggled with providing realistic training for suppression
personnel. This new technology provides a realistic, portable, and cost effective manner in which to simulate a
real fire.
Paperless Plan
Review Pilot
Community
Development
Dept.
$4,872 Pilot program that will enable the Community Development Department to move toward a more efficient and
better integrated records management system by taking steps to phase out paper plans from the review
stream. The pilot will make use of a number of software programs and technology platforms to facilitate the
exchange of information internally within the County and between the County and the applicant. These
technologies will enable staff in various County divisions to annotate plans, share mark ups and review
comments, compare revisions, and track an application’s review status, resulting in better coordination
throughout the review process and improved customer service.
Citizen Online
Computer Station
Police
Department
TBD Increase customer service by providing a public access computer and work station for the purpose of making an
online police report. The ACPD has a need to provide quicker assistance to citizens who come to the Police
Department to report minor incidents. The ability to report online is currently only available to persons with
internet and their own computer. By adding a public access terminal the department can provide better
customer service by allowing citizens to complete an online report themselves without having to wait for a
patrol officer to drive in from out in the county. This also keeps officers on the street patrolling and responding
to needs of the community.
Innovation Fund – Round 2 Approved Projects
Agenda
Management
System
Board of
Supervisors
TBD Streamline the Board of Supervisors meeting agenda preparation, online posting and archiving processes by
using a comprehensive software platform. The platform allows users to create agenda items, assign them to the
appropriate agenda, send items through a work flow process for approvals and create a final agenda product
that is ready to go online or to be uploaded to Board member ipads. This streamlined process will allow
multiple users to work on the agenda simultaneously and will save a significant amount of time for Board Clerk
staff and others throughout the organization. The software platform will also allow more sophisticated
searching and retrieval of past items by both staff and the public, and will increase transparency and access to
Board materials for the public.
Automated
Check-In
Social Services
Dept.
$1,820 New technology to better control the flow of customers in the Social Services lobby. Wait times can be
significant due to the number of customers and other meetings. An electronic check in system will improve
wait times, provide for better privacy when having to interact with DSS specialists, and increased efficiency. This
system will help support the department by using human resources more effectively and therefore improving
the customer experience.
Rapid Response
Outreach for
Social Services
Social Services
Dept.
$7,600 Rapid response outreach capacity and capability to enable the Department to relate to its customers and
stakeholders in new ways. Will increase visibility with under-served and hard-to-reach clients, many of whom
are not aware of all the services that are available to them.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Courts Project Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the Courts Committee and approval of interim
temporary solutions for space relief and security
improvements in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry
PRESENTER (S): Bill Letteri, Trevor Henry
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 7, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 1, 2014, the Board of Supervisors and City Council held a joint meeting to discuss mutual issues between the
jurisdictions, including the pending courts project. The outcome of this joint meeting was the formation of a special
committee that includes representation from the Board of Supervisors, City Council, and Courts Stakeholders to evaluate
the challenges and opportunities associated with the expansion of the courts downtown (downtown development option),
including the possibility of co-locating the general district court operations and finding reasonable parking solutions.
On July 2, 2014, the Board directed staff to work with City staff on a Committee charge and to schedule a series of
meetings for the Committee. On August 11, 2014, an organizational meeting of the Courts Committee was held. It was
agreed that the formal members of the Committee would be Board Members Jane Dittmar and Ann Mallek, Mayor
Satyendra Huja, City Councilor Robert Fenwick, County Executive Tom Foley, Deputy County Executive Bill Letteri, City
Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer Aubrey Watts, City Manager Maurice Jones, Judge Downer, and
Charlottesville Albemarle Bar Association Representative Paige Williams. Other potential participants, to include
representatives of the Sheriff’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s and Clerk’s Offices,
and the Circuit Court Judge, would be invited for their input. The following purpose statement was approved by the
Committee: “To explore and resolve questions related to challenges, opportunities and collaboration associated with
expanding the County’s courts in downtown Charlottesville. The Committee, to include elected officials from both
jurisdictions, will engage in a series of discussions in an attempt to reach agreement on proposed terms and conditions
under which the downtown court option might proceed. The Committee will make recommendations to the jurisdictions’
elected bodies for final consideration.”
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County Government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
DISCUSSION:
Past studies and findings were reviewed by the Courts Comm ittee in order to gain a general knowledge and under-
standing of the project history, current conditions of the courts, case load trends and projected future needs. The
Committee also met with Courts Stakeholders to obtain their input and perspective on the Courts project. There was
strong Stakeholder support for courts adjacency or co-location, as they believe the citizens benefit from courts and
offices that are closer together.
There was a consensus among the Courts Committee members to focus on the downtown option for the County, and
to further study the potential of co-locating the City and County General District Courts at the existing Levy Building
site, which is co-owned by the County and the City. The co-location concept would involve a cost sharing agreement
between the County and the City. This concept was reviewed conceptually at the last Committee meeting. The Levy
Building site, if selected, would include a shared, secure entrance, co-located and split General District Court Clerk’s
offices, four court rooms (one for the City, two for the County and one for expansion), and the County’s
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office space. The City indicated support for accommodating short-term parking needs
and to study longer-term needs and solutions.
On December 15, 2014, the City Council: 1) voted to support the continuation of the due diligence effort currently
underway for co-locating the General District Courts at the Levy Building and further investigating interim solutions to
AGENDA TITLE: Courts Project Update
January 7, 2015
Page 2
provide immediate parking space relief to the courts operations; 2) adopted a Resolution appropriating $7,435.00 in
the City’s Capital Improvement Program Contingency for one-half of the cost of the update of the General District
Courts Feasibility Study; and 3) directed City staff to proceed to develop a short and long term parking availability
study for the downtown courts area.
County staff is preparing to contract with an Architect to update the 2010 Levy Building study to include validation of
caseload assumptions, two building design concepts with massing models, and revised cost and schedule estimates.
The Capital Improvement Project request for the Courts Project has been revised in this year’s CIP cycle to allow more
time in the process to determine the potential of the co-location option and for a more realistic public engagement and
approval process, pushing the start of construction out two years from the adopted CIP plan to July 2018. Due to the
delay, it is staff’s recommendation to fund, in the interim, a modest expansion of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s
Office within the footprint of the existing Courts Annex building, and a limited reconfiguration of select, existing rooms
within the footprint of the current office space from the existing project funding. The proposed space modifications are
essential to maintain necessary staff support to the County’s judicial system by positioning key staff at strategic
locations to better secure the offices as well as providing suitable office space for administrative staff and ensuring
efficient placement of key courts files. The funding would also cover additional courts’ requests for interim storage and
sound system upgrades while the larger Courts Project is being designed and executed. Staff will work closely with
Courts Stakeholders to develop a plan that meets their interim needs but minimizes costs.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total amount included in the approved CIP plan for the Courts Project is approximately $43 million over a 7-year
period and is based on the Downtown Renovation/Expansion option. As stated above, the Court’s project has been
revised in this year’s CIP cycle, pushing the start of construction out two years from the adopted CIP plan to July 2018.
The total budget impact will be dependent upon which option the Board ultimately chooses to pursue and any revisions
to those options, such as the co-location of the General District Courts. The City has identified $6.5 million in its CIP
for its potential share of a relocated General District Court.
The project currently has $2,462,683 appropriated. A separate appropriation request included as part of the FY15
Amendment and Appropriations Executive Summary (Appropriation #2015072) on the January 7th agenda seeks
Board approval to re-allocate $150,000 of this existing funding towards the necessary security and office renovations
needed to allow the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office to continue to support the Courts function, improve their
existing entrance security, and cover future costs of storage for the Clerk’s office and a sound system upgrade for the
Circuit Court.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) support the continuation of the Committee’s due diligence effort currently
underway for co-locating the General District Courts at the Levy Building; and 2) approve the interim, temporary
solutions to provide immediate space relief to the courts operations funded by Appropriation #2015072 included in the
January 7, 2015 FY15 Amendment and Appropriations Executive Summary.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5843 Fax (434) 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: December 2, 2014
RE: Board Member Committee Appointments
Listed below are the names of Board member appointed committees that need appointments made at this
time.
Acquisitions of Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ann Mallek
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ann Mallek
Audit Committee: Two appointments
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Jane Dittmar and Liz Palmer
Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council (PACC): Two appointments
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Diantha McKeel and Brad Sheffield
CIP Oversight Committee: Two appointments
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ann Mallek and Liz Palmer
2
Crozet Community Advisory Council – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ann Mallek
Darden Towe Park Memorial Committee: Two appointments
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ken Boyd and Brad Sheffield
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ken Boyd
Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ken Boyd
Historic Preservation Committee – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ann Mallek
High Growth Coalition: Two appointments
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ann Mallek and Brad Sheffield
Jail Authority Board
Term expires December 31, 2017
Currently serving: Ken Boyd
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Liz Palmer
Pantops Community Advisory Council – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ken Boyd
Piedmont Workforce Network Council
Designee in absence of Chair – term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ann Mallek
3
Places 29 Community Advisory Council – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ken Boyd and Brad Sheffield
Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Diantha McKeel
Property Committee: Two appointments
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ken Boyd and Brad Sheffield
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Jane Dittmar
Water Resources Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Term expires: December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Ann Mallek
Workforce Investment Board – Board Liaison
Term expires December 31, 2015
Currently serving: Jane Dittmar
1
BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT TERMS
Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE) – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Audit Committee
Annual appointment
Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council: Two members
Annual appointment
CIP Oversight Committee: Two members
Annual appointment
Crozet Community Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Darden Towe Park Memorial Committee: Two members
Annual appointment
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee
Annual appointment
Historic Preservation Committee – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
High Growth Coalition: Two members
Annual appointment
Jail Authority
Three year term (Boyd filling unexpired term of Dumler which ends December 31, 2014)
*eligible to serve three full three year terms*
2
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): Two members
Term runs coincident with elected term of office or such shorter time as determined by
Board
Pantops Community Advisory Council – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Piedmont Workforce Network Council
Board Chair
Designee in absence of Chair – Annual appointment
Places 29 Community Advisory Council – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Property Committee: Two members
Annual appointment
Rivanna River Basin Commission: Two members
Term runs coincident with elected term of office or such shorter time as determined by
Board
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
Term runs coincident with elected term of office (Boyd term ends December 31, 2015)
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Term runs coincident with elected term of office (Boyd term ends December 31, 2015)
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC): Two members
Term runs coincident with elected term of office or such shorter time as determined by
Board
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee – Board Liaison
3
Annual appointment
Workforce Investment Board – Board Liaison
Annual appointment
For information only – The following non-profits are not appointed by the BOS; they are
appointed by the non- profits:
LEAP Governance Board
Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Board
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2014
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
For information only please find attached an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through
December 18, 2014.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee.
Listed below are the names of individuals who wish to be appointed the respective committees:
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee: Appointments (Three vancancies)
Esther Volkan
Frances Lee-Vandell
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 YES
ACE Appraisal Review Committee Jean Lorber 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 waiting for response
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Robin Mellen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Following applications received: Frances Lee-VandellEsther Volkan
JAUNT Board Clifford Buys 9/30/2014 9/30/2017 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Brian Morse 9/30/2013 9/30/2017 waiting for response
Pantops Community Advisory Council Rita Krenz 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Pantops Community Advisory Council Amy Preddy 6/30/2014 Resigned
Places 29 Community Advisory Council George Larie 1/31/2016 Resigned Advertised, 2 applications recv'd
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Following applications received:
David Slutzky
Fred Hudson
Revised 12/18/2014
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program
(CDBG)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on availability of CDBG program funding
and to receive input on community development and
housing needs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, and White
PRESENTER (S): Ron White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 7, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) is a federally-funded grant program administered by the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Since 1982, the DHCD has provided funding to
eligible units of local government (non-entitlement communities only) for projects that address critical community needs
including housing, infrastructure and economic development. Albemarle County has received numerous grants in previous
years to support housing and community improvement initiatives.
The VCDBG application process requires that two local public hearings be conducted. The purpose of the first public
hearing is to provide information on eligible activities that may be funded by CDBG, the amount of funding estimated to be
available and past activities undertaken with CDBG funds, and to receive public comment on this information and potential
community development and housing needs. The follow-up public hearing is held in order to consider proposed project
applications and must take place prior to the application due date in March 2012. Applications are to be submitted by the
County to DHCD; however, the proposed activities may be undertaken by other agencies.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County Government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
DISCUSSION:
Albemarle County, as a non-entitlement community, is eligible to apply to DHCD for up to $1.8 million in CDBG funding
for projects that benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevent slums and blight, or address urgent community
needs. Eligible activities include economic development, housing rehabilitation, housing production, community
facilities and community service facilities. Community development projects can receive varying levels of funding,
depending on the nature of the activity, or by combining multiple activities. DHCD estimates that approximately $9.8
million will be available for competitive grants in 2015 and $5,550,000 will be available for open submission
applications.
Over the years, Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CDBG grant awards. The most
recent grant was awarded in 2012 to fund the rehabilitation of twenty-four (24) homes in the Orchard Acres subdivision
located in Crozet. Prior grants funded the installation of a sanitary sewer system and connection to 54 housing units in
the Oak Hill Subdivision just south of the City off of 5th Street and the preservation and development of 134 affordable
rental units, 38 of which are restricted to seniors at Crozet Meadows. Over the past 30 years, the County has received
numerous CDBG grants to rehabilitate owner-occupied houses.
The Office of Housing is currently working with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) for a possible
application for competitive CDBG funding for a housing rehabilitation project in southern Albemarle County. The
Office is also working with the Albemarle County Service Authority to apply for open submission funding for a
construction-ready sewer project for an additional twenty (20) units in the Oak Hill subdivision.
AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
January 7, 2015
Page 2
For any project to be considered by the County for CDBG funding, the applicant must notify the Office of Housing no
later than January 26, 2015. This notice shall include a brief description of the project, the proposed use of CDBG
funds and a description of the beneficiaries of the proposed activity. A completed application that includes the
proposed budget shall be submitted to the Office of Housing electronically by February 13, 2015, and the entire
application, along with attachments, must be received by February 27, 2015.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budgetary impact until an application is made to DHCD and approved for a funded project. Projects
approved by CDBG generally require some level of local funding support, which may include funding provided by
the project sponsor.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board receive information on available CDBG funding and eligible uses and hold the public
hearing to receive input from the public on potential community development and housing needs. Staff also
recomm ends that the Board set a public hearing on Wednesday, March 4, 2015 for the second required public hearing
to review and approve the submission of any proposed applications.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2015 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $4,497,519.56 and
approval of Budget Amendment and #2015063,
#2015065, #2015066, #2015067, #2015068,
#2015069, #2015070, #2015072 & #2015073 for
local government and school division programs and
projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L
PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 7, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The cumulative total of the FY 2015 appropriations itemized below is $4,497,519.56. Because the cumulative amount of
the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed increase of this FY 2015 Budget Amendment totals $4,497,519.55. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 600,399.83
Special Revenue Funds $ 621,687.03
School Fund $ 50,000.00
School Special Revenue Funds $ 1,022,860.25
ECC $ 91,774.56
Capital Improvements Funds $ 2,010,797.89
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 4,497,519.56
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue $ (747,272.67)
State Revenue $ 644,129.80
Federal Revenue $ 2,514,948.46
Bond Proceeds $ 16,364.75
Proffer Revenue $ 233,000.00
General Fund Balance $ 574,024.64
Other Fund Balances $ 1,162,324.58
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 4,497,519.56
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
January 7, 2015
Page 2
The budget amendment is comprised of thirty-eight (38) separate appropriations as follows, twenty-nine (29) of which
have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved October 1, 2014:
One (1) appropriation (#2015035) to re-appropriate $572,090.82 for various General Fund projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015036) to re-appropriate $404,200.54 for various internal service funds, grants,
donations, and seized asset accounts;
One (1) appropriation (#2015037) to appropriate $119,002.92 for various school division programs and
projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015038) to re-appropriate $170,748.46 for various Capital Improvement Program
projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015039) to appropriate $25,358.00 from the Training Pool to various departments for
training and professional development. This appropriation did not increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015040) to appropriate $94,478.00 for a Fire/Rescue Prevention and Training grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2015041) to appropriate $172,187.00 to a Capital Improvement project from the
Department of Environmental Quality. This appropriation did not increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015042) to appropriate $583,897.95 in funding for various General Government
Capital Improvement Program projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015043) to reduce the appropriation of funding for two School Division Capital
Improvement Program projects ($53,126.52);
One (1) appropriation (#2015044) to appropriate $53,467.00 for various Police Department grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2015045) to appropriate $5,000.00 in donations to the Fire Rescue Department; and
One (1) appropriation (#2015046) to re-appropriate $7,489.00 for the Emergency Communications Center.
Approved November 5, 2014:
Two (2) appropriations (#2015047 and #2015053) to appropriate $113,513.24 for various Capital Improvement
Program projects; of which $83,513.24 did not increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015048) to appropriate $365,806.43 for various school division programs and
projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015049) to appropriate $2,000.00 in donations to the Fire Rescue Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2015050) to appropriate $25,452.00 in Federal revenue to the Emergency
Communications Center;
One (1) appropriation (#2015051) to appropriate $10,000.00 in State revenue and $6,745.00 in Federal
revenue to the Sheriff’s Office;
One (1) appropriation (#2015052) to re-appropriate $7,351.49 in Federal revenue to Fire Rescue Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2015054) to appropriate $2,309.00 in Federal revenue to the Department of Social
Services;
One (1) appropriation (#2015055) to appropriate $2,535.00 in State revenue to the Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2015055) to appropriate $144,700.00 received from VDOT as compensation for the
taking of a portion of the CATEC property to a special reserve account in the CIP for a one-time CATEC
capital or capital maintenance project as requested by the joint CATEC Board.
Approved December 10, 2014:
One (1) appropriation (#2015056) to appropriate $55,235.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to
Community Development for a Transportation Planner position. This appropriation did not increase the total
County budget.
One (1) appropriation (#2015058) to appropriate $533,050.90 for various school division programs and
projects.
One (1) appropriation (#2015059) to appropriate $6,700.00 from the Training pool account to various
departments for training and professional development. This appropriation did not increase the total County
budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015060) to appropriate $42,910.00 from the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management to the Police Department for law enforcement equipment and personal protective equipment.
One (1) appropriation (#2015061) to appropriate $5,000.00 from proffer revenue for roadside historical
markers;
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
January 7, 2015
Page 3
One (1) appropriation (#2015062) to appropriate $14,000.00 to the Finance Department to expand the
Purchasing Card program; and
One (1) appropriation (#2015064) to appropriate $7,500.00 for a Local Emergency Management
Performance Grant to the Emergency Communications Center.
The nine (9) appropriations requested for Board approval on January 7, 2015 are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2015063) to appropriate $1,134,578.00 for the Regional Firearms Training Center;
One (1) appropriation (#2015065) to appropriate $51,333.56 to the Emergency Communications Center;
One (1) appropriation (#2015066) to appropriate $5,000.00 for various school division programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015067) to appropriate $50,000.00 for anticipated school division donations;
One (1) appropriation (#2015068) to properly identify the revenue source within the School Fund budget
pursuant to the School Fund fund balance policy;
One (1) appropriation (#2015069) to properly identify the revenue source for the Police Department’s Crisis
Intervention Team (CIT);
One (1) appropriation (#2015070) to appropriate $54,442.87 from the Innovation Fund to various departments
for Innovation Fund projects. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget;
Two (2) appropriations (#2015072 & #2015073) to appropriate $100,000.00 for various capital improvement
projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2015 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$4,497,519.56 and approval of #2015063, #2015065, #2015066, #2015067, #2015068, #2015069, #2015070,
#2015072 and #2015073 for local government and school division programs and projects as described in
Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to agenda
1
Appropriation #2015063 $1,134,578.00
Source: Local Non-Tax ($ 848,306.00)
Federal $ 1,942,334.00
Borrowed Proceeds $ 40,550.00
As a result of the Board’s December 10, 2014 approval of the Regional Firearms Training Center Operational
Agreement and the Ground Lease, this request is to appropriate a total of $1,134,578.00 from the following
revenue sources to support the Regional Firearms Training Center project : (a) $40,550.00 in borrowed proceeds for
a portion of the County’s share, and (b) $1,942,334.00 in federal revenue from the Abott Labs asset forfeiture funds
received by the City and UVA. Additionally, this request is to reduce the currently appropriated partner shares from
the City and UVA by $848,306.00 for a net appropriation of $1,094,028.00 in total partner shares from the City of
Charlottesville and UVA. The shares are based on the funding formula and other capital considerations set forth in
the Operational Agreement. This appropriation would increase the total amount of funding apropriated for this
project from $4,865,422 to $6,000,000 pursuant to the Board’s approval on December 10th.
The original cost of the project was based upon the conceptual work scope and totaled $4.9 million. On August 15,
2014, at an executive meeting with the fiscal management staff from the County, the City, and UVA , an agreement
was reached to establish a not to exceed (NTE) total project budget of $6 Million.
Appropriation #2015065 $ 51,333.56
Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 51,333.56
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC,
appropriate:
$39,174.00 from the ECC fund balance for a one-time 6-month extension of the current maintenance
agreement covering license, hardware, and software of the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. The
extension is from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015. The ECC Management Board has approved this
one-time payment out of fund balance. The July 2015 through December 2015 maintenance agreement
costs will be added to the FY 16 ECC operational budget.
$12,159.56 from the ECC fund balance to increase the salary for the Assistant Emergency Management
Coordinator position from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015. The ECC Management Board has
approved this position being moved from a 20-hour part-time position to a 40-hour full-time position
effective January 1, 2015. These additional one-time costs in FY 15 have been approved by the ECC
Management Board and this increase will be included in the FY 16 Emerg ency Management budget.
Appropriation #2015066 $5.000.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 5,000.00
This request is to appropriate the School Division appropriation request approved by the School Board on
November 6, 2014:
Carl Perkins Grant – This request is to appropriate $5,000.00 in increased Carl Perkins Grant funding that
was received by the School Division in FY 15. This grant provides funds to increase focus on the academic
achievement of career and technical education students and strengthen the c onnection between secondary
and post-secondary education.
Appropriation #2015067 $50.000.00
Source: Local Revenue (Donations) $ 50,000.00
On July 11, 2012, the Board approved streamlining the appropriation process for anticipated FY 13 School Fund
revenue for grants, donations, and School Division Activity Funds. In FY 15, the School Division included an initial
appropriation of $166,411.00 in anticipated donations. As of November 24, 2014, the School Division has received
over $130,000.00 in donations and anticipates there will be additional donations through the remainder of the school
year.
This request is to appropriate an additional $50,000.00 in donation funding. Funds will not be expended until the
revenues are actually received.
2
Appropriation #2015068 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: School Fund Fund Balance ($ 211,237.00)
Transfer from GF School Reserve Fund $ 211,237.00
This appropriation is to properly identify a revenue source within the School Fund budget. During the County’s audit
process, the Finance Department determined that a correction was necessary to properly identify the revenue
source for the School Division Reserve Fund pursuant to the adopted School Divison Fund Balance policy. Instead
of budgeting the use of School Fund fund balance revenues directly in the School Fund, the fund balance funding
should be appropriated to the School Fund from the School Reserve Fund.
On March 13, 2013, the Board of Supervisors adopted a School Division Fund Balance policy. This policy states
that “at the close of each fiscal year before the County’s audit is complete, all non -appropriated School Operating
Fund fund balance will be transferred into the General Fund -School Reserve Fund. The Board of Supervisors will
maintain in the General Fund-School Reserve Fund an amount not greater than 2% of the current year’s School
Division adopted operating budget. These funds will be available for School Division purposes subject to
appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors will transfer any funds in excess of that 2% to
the CIP on an annual basis unless otherwise determined by the Board of Supervisors.”
In order to properly reflect this policy in the County’s Resolution of Appro priations, this request is to appropriate a
transfer totaling $211,237.00 from the General Fund’s School Reserve Fund to the School Fund and to reduce the
budgeted use of “School Fund” fund balance by $211,237.00. This is a change in protocol and does not affect the
use of fund balance monies by the School Division.
Appropriation #2015069 $0.00
Source: State ($ 275,858.90)
Federal 275,858.90
Tthe County sometimes receives federal funding as pass-through funding from the State. This appropriation request
is to change the identification of the revenue source of Asset Forfeiture funding awarded to the Police Department
from “State” revenue to “Federal” revenue to correctly identify this funding source in the County’s financial records.
This appropriation request would properly identify the revenue source for the funding that was originally budgeted in
#2014084 on April 2, 2014 for the enhancement of the Police Department’s Crisis Intervention Team (CIT). The
award has been received and the balance of the award was budgeted in the Police CIT fund. As a result of this
adjustment, this decreases the current budgeted fund balance a nd expenditures by $275,858.90 in the Police
Department’s State Asset Forfeiture Fund and appropriates the $275,858.90 fund balance revenues and
expenditures into the Police Department’s Federal CIT Fund.
The award supports “Train the Trainer” training, crisis negotiations training, travel for training, tasers, Crisis
Intervention and Crisis Negotiations Teams’ cell phone consoles and a crisis negotiations response vehicle. This
supports the Police Department’s ability to obtain training for the County’s officer’s in Crisis Intervention, provide
tasers for officers in the field that do not currently have a taser, and provide enhanced capabilities of the Crisis
Interventions and Negotiations Teams through cell phone consoles and a Team response vehicle.
Appropriation #2015070 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Innovation Fund $ 54,442.87
This request is to appropriate a transfer of $54,442.87 from the Innovation Fund to various department operating
budgets for the following Innovation Fund-sponsored projects:
Police – Diversity/Recruitment Video
Police – Citizen Online Computer Station
Fire/Rescue – Digital Fire Training Simulator
Social Services – Automated Check-In
Social Services – Information Delivery and Community Engagement
Community Development – Paperless Plan Review Project
Facilities Development – “What to Expect During Construction” citizen hand-out document
The current balance in the Innovation Fund is $129,510.49. After this appropriation, $75,067.62 will remain in the
3
fund for future projects.
Appropriation #2015072 $.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Court Facilities Addition/Renovation $ 150,000.00
This request is to appropriate $150,000.00 in General Government Capital Fund fund balance and to equally reduce
borrowed proceeds currently budgeted from the Court Facilities Additio n/Renovation Project to provide interim,
temporary solutions (both design and construction) for immediate space relief and improved security to the courts
operations.
These interim measures are necessary due to the delay in the Court's capital project t o accommodate more time in
the process to confirm the City’s commitment to the downtown location option and for a more realistic public
engagement and approval process. The Courts Project has been revised in this year’s CIP cycle to push the start of
construction out two years from the adopted CIP plan date of July 2016 to July 2018.
The funding will provide for a modest expansion of the Commonwealth ’s Attorney’s Office within the footprint of the
existing Courts Annex building, and limited reconfiguration of select, existing rooms within the footprint of the
current office space. The proposed space modifications are essential to maintain necessary staff support to the
County’s judicial system by positioning key staff at strategic locations to better secu re the offices as well as
providing suitable office space for administrative staff and ensuring efficient placement of key courts files. Funding
will also cover additional courts’ requests for interim storage and sound system upgrades while the larger Courts
Project is being designed for execution once funding is available. Upon approval of this appropriation, the process
to procure an architectural firm to provide design services will commence and the project is estimated to be
completed in eight months.
Appropriation #2015073 $100,000.00
Source: Proffer Revenue $ 100,000.00
This request is to appropriate a total of $100,000.00 to the Crozet Elementary School Sidewalk and Crossing
Improvements Project.
$52,586.96 of this appropriation would be provided by the various proffer revenues listed below:
Liberty Hall $25,657.28
Wickham Pond $ 9,000.00
Wickham Pond II $13,500.00
Grayrock $ 946.98
Haden Place $ 2,430.98
Grayrock West $ 1,051.72
This request is also to appropriate $47,413.04 in Avinity proffer revenue to the Rio Road - Avon Street - US Route
250 West project and to appropriate the equivalent amount of funding currently appropriated in the Rio Road – Avon
Street – US 250 West project to to the Crozet Elementary School Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Sidewalk and
Crossing Improvements Project so that the sidewalk project will be fully funded.
The following is provided for background information on this project:
The Crozet Elementary School SRTS Sidewalk and Crossing Improvements Project is an active project currently
supported by a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) awarded Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant. The
County initially bid the project in October 2013, however a "No Award" letter was issued in December 2013 because
the low bid exceeded available funds primarily due to a significant and unanticipated waterline relocation. The low
bid also exceeded the engineer's estimate by 10%, so VDOT required the project to be redesigned and rebid. The
plans were redesigned so that the waterline relocation was avoided and other substantial cost saving changes
suggested by the bidders were incorporated, then proffer revenues were appropriated to support the project.
The project was re-advertised and bids opened in November 2014. The apparent low bid was $268,750 and
exceeds available funds. The revised total project budget estimate based on the apparent low bid is $393,000.
The difference between the 3 lowest bids was less than 1%, so the bids are represen tative of the current bidding
climate and further redesign will not provide any substantial cost savings. Based on this information , a request has
been submitted to VDOT to allow an "intent to award," even though the low bid was 10% higher than the
construction estimate, and VDOT has approved the request.
The Board's appropriation of the required additional funding is necessary to proceed with construction of the project
4
and to maintain the grant funding. If approved, an “intent to award” will be issued to the low bidder and the project
will be constructed during the winter or early spring , depending on weather conditions.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend the County Code False Alarms
Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter
12, Article I, False Alarms
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Blair, Sellers, Jenkins,
Wagner
PRESENTER (S): Greg Jenkins
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 7, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On August 3, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted the current False Alarms Ordinance. After three years of
administering this Ordinance, the Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD) is recommending amendments to the
Ordinance as set forth below.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment A) to amend County Code Chapter 12, Regulated Enterprises,
Article I, False alarms. The proposed ordinance would:
Amend the definition of “False alarm” in § 12-101. Currently the definition of “false alarm” states that “False
alarms shall not include any alarms determined…to have been triggered by…activity unauthorized by the
alarm system user or activity outside the control of the alarm system user.” The ACPD receives a number of
appeals from homeowners who cite weather or high winds as “activity unauthorized by the alarm system user
or activity outside the control of the alarm system user.” The ACPD recommends amending the definition of
“false alarm” by deleting the language “activity unauthorized by the alarm system user or activity outside the
control of the alarm system user” from the list of alarms that do not constitute a false alarm due to the
ambiguity of the terms. However, the ACPD recommends amending the definition to provide that weather-
related events triggering an alarm do not constitute a false alarm. A weather-related event is defined as “an
event caused by weather conditions that results in either a) a disruption of electrical service to the building for
four (4) consecutive hours or longer; or (b) damage to the building that would activate the alarm. The four-hour
threshold is based on the typical time that a back-up battery provides electricity, preventing a false alarm from
being triggered.
Amend § 12-102 to require that written notices issued by the ACPD to unregistered alarm system users be
mailed to the physical address of the dwelling where the alarm system is located and to the address of the
owner listed in the real estate tax assessment records of the County unless the physical address and the
owner’s address listed in the tax assessment records are the same. This would establish a notice procedure
for incidents in which the alarm system user is not present to receive the notice at the site of the call.
Amend § 12-102 to eliminate the $300.00 service fee for third and subsequent responses to an unregistered
alarm system. Over the past three years, the ACPD has not found the higher fee for third and subsequent
responses to be a deterrent. Because the false alarms ordinance is meant to be an enforcement tool rather
than a revenue enhancement mechanism, the ACPD recommends charging a $150.00 service fee for all
unregistered alarm responses, including second and subsequent responses.
AGENDA TITLE: Proposed Ordinance to amend the County Code False Alarms Ordinance
January 7, 2015
Page 2
Amend § 12-104 to increase the amount of time that an individual has to pay a false alarm service fee from
thirty to ninety days. The ACPD often responds to false alarms in which the alarm system owner is out of town
for an extended period of time. Allowing the alarm system user more time to pay the service fee would make
the process more efficient. It would result in more alarm system users making their payments timely,
eliminating the need for staff to follow up with those system users.
Amend § 12-104 to eliminate the assessment of a delinquent payment fee equal to the original fee of a false
alarm when a service fee is not paid on time. The ACPD has found that the delinquent payment fee has not
been a deterrent to subsequent false alarms.
Amend § 12-108 to eliminate the requirement that an appeal of a false alarm notice be on a form provided by
the ACPD. The ACPD receives a number of such appeals, and those appeals have been processed as a
courtesy to the citizens. This would clarify the current process of the ACPD and provide a simpler process for
citizens to note appeals.
Amend § 12-108 to increase the amount of time an alarm system user has to submit an appeal to the chief of
police, the fire and rescue chief and the county executive from ten days to thirty days. This would provide
more time for citizens to decide whether to file an appeal.
The Department of Fire Rescue (FR) rarely responds to false fire alarms and has never issued a notice. FR staff have
reviewed this Executive Summary and the draft ordinance and agree with the recommendations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Please see the chart below for the budget impact if the Board adopts the attached ordinance based on FY14 false
alarm fees collected:
Fees Collected County’s Revenue (78.5% of fees collected)
3rd,
subse-
quent
non-reg
fees
Delin-
quent
fees
Total of
both
fees
Total of
all fees
3rd,
subse-
quent
non-reg
fees
Delinquent
fees
Total of
both fees
Total of
all fees
FY14 $8,100 $38,705 $46,805 $177,007 $6,358.50 $30,383.43 $36,741.93 $138,950
FY14 w/
changes $4,050 -0- $ 4,050 $134,252 $3,179.25 -0- $ 3,179.25 $105,387
$ Reduction $4,050 $38,705 $42,755 $ 42,755 $3,179.25 $30,383.43 $33,562.68 $ 33,563
% Reduction 50% 100% 24.15% 50% 100% 24.15%
The County retains a private vendor to collect false alarm fees and pays the vendor 21.5% of the fees collected by it.
If the Board adopts the attached ordinance, based on the FY14 false alarm fees collected, there would be a
$33,563.00 reduction in overall County revenues generated by false alarm fees per year, or a 24.15% reduction.
However, staff believes these changes will significantly improve the process and reduce staff time spent enforcing the
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached proposed Ordinance (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
A—Draft ordinance
Return to agenda
Draft: December 16, 2014
1
ORDINANCE NO. 14-12(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 12, REGULATED ENTERPRISES, ARTICLE I, FALSE
ALARMS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 12,
Regulated Enterprises, Article I, False Alarms, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 12-101 Definitions
Sec. 12-102 Registration of alarm systems designed to seek a police response
Sec. 12-104 False alarms prohibited; service fees
Sec. 12-108 Appeals
CHAPTER 12. REGULATED ENTERPRISES
ARTICLE I. FALSE ALARMS
Sec. 12-100 Purpose.
The board hereby finds that malfunctioning alarm systems, and the false alarms associated with
them, constitute a hazard to public safety personnel and to the public in general. The regulation of alarm
systems and false alarms is necessary to promote the health, safety and welfare of county citizens. False
alerts of intrusions or robberies increase the county’s public safety costs, divert public safety resources
from other critical areas of work, and burden the Charlottesville-U.Va.-Albemarle Emergency
Communications Center. In order to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the c ounty’s police and fire
and rescue emergency services, those who utilize automatic alarm systems must be required to maintain
those systems in good working order and to promptly repair any defects which may cause those systems
to trigger false alarms.
Sec. 12-101 Definitions.
For the purposes of this article and, unless otherwise required by the context, the following words
and terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Alarm system means an assembly of equipment and devices arranged to signal the presence of a
hazard requiring urgent attention and to which a police or fire and rescue response is expected.
Alarm system user means: (1) any person or entity owning or leasing an alarm system; or (2) any
person or entity owning or leasing the premises on which such alarm system is maintained. An “alarm
system user” shall not include the United States, the Commonwealth of Virginia, or their respective
agencies or political subdivisions.
Automatic dialing device means any device, system or equipment that automatically transmits
over telephone lines, by direct connection or otherwise, a prerecorded voice message or coded signal
indicating the existence of an emergency situation to which a police, fire, or emergency medical services
response is expected.
Emergency communications center means the regional 911 center known as the Charlottesville-
U.Va.-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center.
False alarm means an alarm that causes a police or fire and rescue response when there is no
actual or threatened criminal activity, fire, or other emergency requiring an immediate police or fire and
rescue response. False alarms shall include, but not be limited to: negligently or accidentally activated
signals; signals which are the result of faulty, malfunctioning or improperly installed or maintained
equipment; signals which are purposefully activated to summon a police or fire and rescue response in
nonemergency situations; and alarms for which the actual cause is not determined. False alarms shall not
include any alarms caused by failure of the equipment at the emergency communications center, or any
alarms determined by the responding police or fire and rescue officer to have been triggered by criminal
Draft: December 16, 2014
2
activity, activity unauthorized by the alarm system user, or activity outside the control of the alarm system
user or any alarms caused by a weather-related event. “Weather-related event” shall mean an event
caused by weather conditions that results in either a) a disruption of electrical service to the building for
four (4) consecutive hours or longer; or b) damage to the building that would activate the alarm.
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; § 12-100)
State law reference--Va. Code §15.2-911
Sec. 12-102 Registration of alarm systems designed to seek a police response.
A. General Requirements. Prior to installing, using or maintaining on any premises within
the county an alarm system which is designed to seek a police response, an alarm system user shall
register such alarm system by providing the following information, using forms provided by the county,
to the chief of police or his designee:
1. The street address of the premises at which the alarm system is to be installed or
used (the “premises”); the name, mailing address and telephone number of the owner and lessee, if any, of
such premises; and the name and mailing address of an individual (alarm user or designee of the alarm
user) to whom notices regarding the alarm system may be sent; and
2. The names, street addresses and telephone numbers of at least two (2) individuals
who will have day-to-day responsibility for the premises and alarm system, who will be immediately
available to be contacted in the event an alarm is activated, and who are authorized and able to deactivate
the alarm system; and
3. A description of the specific type of alarm system, manufacturer’s name, and the
name and telephone number of the alarm company monitoring, responding to or maintaining the alarm
system; and
4. If registering an alarm system that has been disconnected or disabled following a
notice to disconnect or disabled issued pursuant to §12-103, documentation that the alarm system has
been repaired or passed inspection by an individual or entity qualified to repair or inspect alarm systems.
B. Changes in Alarm System Registration Information. Whenever any registration
information provided by an alarm system user pursuant to subsection A changes, the alarm system user
shall provide correct, updated information to the chief of police or his designee within ten (10) business
days of the change. When an individual or entity takes possession of premises equipped with an activated
alarm system, the individual or entity must provide updated registration information within ten (10)
business days of taking possession as required by subsection A.
C. Failure to Register Alarm System. Upon the first police response to an unregistered
alarm system in response to a signal issued by the alarm system, the chief of police or his designee shall
issue a written notice to the alarm system user that the alarm system must be registered. This notice shall
be mailed to the physical address of the dwelling where the alarm system is located and to the address of
the owner listed in the real estate tax assessment records of the County. If the physical address of the
alarm system user is the same as the address of the owner listed in the real estate tax assessment records
of the County, then only one notice shall be mailed. The alarm system user shall be assessed a service fee
in the amount of $150.00. The fee for the first offense may be waived if the alarm system user files an
appeal pursuant to section 12-108, and presents satisfactory evidence that the alarm system has been
registered. Upon the second or subsequent police response caused by an unregistered alarm system, the
alarm system user shall be assessed a service fee in the amount of $150. On the third or subsequent such
response, the alarm system user shall be assessed a service fee in the amount of $300.
D. Registration of an alarm system shall not create a contract, duty or obligation, either
express or implied, for police to respond. Any and all liability and consequential damage resulting from
the failure to respond to a notification from an alarm system is hereby disclaimed. By registering an
alarm system, the alarm system user acknowledges that police responses may be based on factors such as
Draft: December 16, 2014
3
the availability of responding units, staffing levels, priority of pending requests for services, weather
conditions, traffic conditions and other emergency conditions.
Sec. 12-103 Maintenance of alarm systems required; disconnection of alarm systems.
A. Maintenance of alarm systems. Alarm system users shall maintain their alarm systems in
good working order. Because alarm systems that generate multiple false alarms within a short period of
time may be malfunctioning, the chief of police or his designee and the fire and rescue chief or his
designee shall have the discretion to suspend responses to an alarm system after the second false alarm
generated within a twenty-four (24) hour period; such suspension shall last for the remainder of the
twenty-four hour period.
B. Disconnection of alarm systems. An alarm system user shall disconnect or disable any
alarm system upon a written determination and notice by the chief of police or his designee or by the fire
and rescue chief or his designee that the installation, use, operation and/or maintenance of the alarm
system would constitute an unreasonable burden on police or fire and rescue resources. Any alarm
system which generates eight (8) or more false alarms within any four (4) day period shall be deemed an
unreasonable burden on police or fire and rescue resources. An alarm system user required to disconnect
or disable an alarm system shall be entitled to register a new or repaired alarm system at any time in
accordance with §12-102.
Sec. 12-104 False alarms prohibited; service fees.
A. Prohibition. No alarm system user or other person shall send or activate a false alarm that
causes a police or fire-and rescue response where there is no actual or threatened crime, fire, or other
emergency requiring an immediate police or fire and rescue response. Violations of this section shall
result in the assessment of service fees as provided below.
B. Service fee amounts. Alarm system users shall pay a service fee for false alarms within
thirty (30) ninety (90) days of billing. The service fee shall be assessed for each false alarm during any
twelve (12) month period as follows:
1. First false alarm: No charge
2. Second false alarm: No charge
3. Third false alarm: $100
4. Fourth false alarm: $150
5. Fifth false alarm: $200
6. Sixth and subsequent false alarms: $300
C. Service fee assessments. The county shall cause alarm system users to be billed for false
alarms in accordance with the above schedule of service fees. All fees shall be paid within thirty (30)
ninety (90) days of billing. Failure to pay a service fee within thirty (30) ninety (90) days of billing shall
result in the assessment of a delinquent payment fee in an amount equal to the original f ee and the
initiation of civil action, as necessary, for the recovery of the unpaid fee.
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 12-101)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-911.
Sec. 12-105 Deliberate false alarms a criminal offense.
It shall be a class 1 misdemeanor for any person to knowingly and without just cause to activate
an alarm system to summon a police or fire and rescue response where there is no actual or threatened
criminal activity, fire, or other emergency that required an immediate police or fire and rescue response.
Draft: December 16, 2014
4
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 12-102)
State law reference--Va. Code § 27-97; false alarms,§18.2-212, 18.2-461
Sec. 12-106 Automatic dialing devices prohibited; penalty.
No person or entity shall install, use, or maintain on any premises within the county any
automatic dialing device which delivers, or causes to be delivered, any prerecorded voice message or
coded signal to the emergency communications center or any department of the county. Violations of this
section shall constitute a class 4 misdemeanor.
Sec. 12-107 Administration.
The chief of police, the fire and rescue chief, in coordination with the director of finance, shall
have joint responsibility for administering this article under the supervision of the county executive.
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-5; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 12-104)
Sec. 12-108 Appeals.
A. Appeals for Alarms Requiring a Police Response. Any fee imposed by the police
department pursuant to this article or notice to disconnect or disable an alarm system may be appealed in
writing to the chief of police, using forms provided by the police department, within ten (10) thirty (30)
days of the date of notice of such fee or decision. Upon receipt of such appeal, the chief of police or his
designee may grant relief from the fee or notice or affirm the fee or notice. Should the fee or notice be
affirmed, the alarm system user may appeal the decision of the chief of police or his designee to the
county executive by filing a written appeal within ten (10) thirty (30) days of the date of the decision.
Upon receipt of such appeal, the county executive or his designee may grant relief fro m the fee or notice,
or affirm the fee or notice. The decision of the county executive or his designee is final.
B. Appeals for Alarms Requiring a Fire and Rescue Response. Any fee imposed by the
county department of fire and rescue pursuant to this article may be appealed in writing to the fire and
rescue chief, using forms provided by the department, within ten (10) thirty (30) days of the date of notice
of such fee. Upon receipt of such appeal, the chief or his designee may grant relief from the fee, or affirm
the fee. Should the fee be affirmed, the alarm system user may appeal the decision of the chief or his
designee to the county executive by filing a written appeal within ten (10) thirty (30) days of the date of
the decision. Upon receipt of such appeal, the county executive or his designee may grant relief from the
fee or affirm the fee. The decision of the county executive or his designee is final.
(Ord. of 4-17-91; Code 1988, § 2.2-6; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 12-105)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____