HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-4-01Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 1 , 2015
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1:00 P.M. – AUDITORIUM
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:
a. Introduction of Dr. Denise Bonds, Health Director, Thomas Jefferson Health District.
b. Resolution Proclaiming April, 2015 as National County Government Month in
Albemarle County.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
1:45 p.m. – Action Items:
9. Stagnant Water Ordinance. (Ron Higgins, Deputy Zoning Administrator)
Work Sessions:
10. Action: Community Development Fees. (Mark Graham, Director of Community Development)
11. Transportation Priority Setting. (David Benish, Chief of Planning)
Recess
Discussion Item:
12. Photosafe Program. (Ron Lantz, Deputy Chief of Police)
Presentations:
13. Board-to-Board, April 2015, A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board
to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. (Ned Gallaway, Chairman of School Board)
14. Route 29 Solutions Update. (Mark Graham, Director of Community Development)
15. 4:45 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. - Closed Meeting.
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies and Appointments.
6:00 p.m.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0401/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/8/2020 8:47:28 AM]
Tentative
18. Recognition:
a. CustomInk as one of the 2015 Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For.
19. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Public Hearing:
20. VPSA Bonds. To receive comments on proposed issuance of general obligation school
bonds of Albemarle County in the estimated maximum principal amount of $10,000,000. The
purpose of the proposed bonds is to finance capital projects for public schools. (David Rose,
Davenport & Co., Financial Advisors)
a. Final Decision on Financing Options.
21. To receive comments on Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 2015/2016, and
Calendar Year 2015 Tax Rates.
22. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
23. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
24. Adjourn to April 7, 2015, Room 241.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL (action require):
8.1 Approval of Minutes: July 2, July 8, July 9, August 13, August 26, September 3, September
9, September 10, October 7, October 29, November 11, December 4, December 9 and December
16, 2014.
8.2 FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. (Lori Allshouse)
8.3 Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY14-15 Applicant Class. (Ches
Goodall)
8.4 Enhanced Speeding Fines in Fontana Subdivision. (Jack Kelsey)
FOR INFORMATION (no action required):
8.5 2014 Planning Commission Annual Report. (Wayne Cilimberg)
8.6 County Grant Application/Award Report. (Lori Allshouse)
08.7 VDOT Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, April 2015. (Joel DeNunzio)
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2015Files/0401/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/8/2020 8:47:28 AM]
Tentative
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/0401/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/8/2020 8:47:28 AM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2015087, #2015088, #2015089, #2015090, and
#2015091 for local government and school division
programs and projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 15 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $2,204,702.15. A budget amendment
public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the
currently adopted budget.
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:
This request involves the approval of five (5) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2015087) to appropriate $1,949,702.15 for various school division programs and
projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015088) to appropriate $250,000.00 for school division donations and miscellaneous
revenue;
One (1) appropriation (#2015089) to appropriate $3,170.90 in proffer revenue for various CIP projects. This
appropriation does not increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015090) to appropriate $5,000.00 in available fund balance for the Martha Jefferson
Health Grant; and
One (1) appropriation (#2015091) to appropriate $200,000.00 for the Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym
Addition. This appropriation does not increase the total County budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2015087, #2015088, #2015089, #2015090, and #2015091 for general
government and school division programs and projects as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Appropriation #2015087 $1,949,702.15
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $ 283,556.54
State Revenue $ 10,000.00
Federal Revenue $ 1,133,472.57
Use of Fund Balance $ 522,673.04
This request is to appropriate the School Division’s appropriation request approved by the School Board on
February 12, 2015:
McIntire Trust – This request is to appropriate $4,000.00 received from the McIntire Trust fund. This fund is
a trust fund established by Paul G. McIntire in 1929 for the Albemarle County Public Schools and is
managed by the Bank of America. Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, the School Board annually receives
the interest income from the fund to be used each year to purchase and provide a medal, as well as a cash
prize in the amount of $100.00, to each of two high school graduates based on their outstanding character
and scholarship. Interest income receipts this year exceeded the original appropriation of $10,000 by
$4,000.00. This brings the total appropriation for this year to $14,000.00.
KOVAR Corporation Grant – This request is to appropriate $19,676.00 in grant funding from the KOVAR
Corporation. KOVAR is a charitable corporation established by the Virginia Knights of Columbus in 1971,
dedicated to assisting Virginians with intellectual disabilities. These funds will be used to purchase iPad mini
devices that will be equipped with software to improve communication for students with intellectual
disabilities.
Families in Crisis Grant – This request is to re-appropriate $41,660.08 in available fund balance from the
Families in Crisis Grant. The mission of this grant is to provide an effective structure to meet the needs of
homeless students, whose families are in crisis, ensuring they receive equitable access to Division services
in support of the Division’s strategic plan. There was a balance of $41,660.08 remaining at the end of FY 14
that is requested to be re-appropriated to FY 15.
English Literacy/Civics Education Grant and Tuition – This request is to appropriate $34,004.28 for the
English Literacy/Civics Education program. There was a fund balance of $24,004.28 remaining at the end of
FY 14 that is requested to be re-appropriated to FY 15. In addition, $10,000.00 in tuition has been collected
in FY 15 and requires appropriation. The mission of the grant is to incorporate civics education into adult
English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes in which many participants are parents of
Albemarle County students. Parents participating in their own educational pursuits, especially within a
Family Literacy setting, positively affect their children’s learning in support of the Division’s strategic plan.
Community Public Charter School – This request is to appropriate $9,078.35 for the Community Public
Charter School. The mission of the Community Public Charter School is to provide an alternative and
innovative learning environment, using the arts, to help children in grades six through eight learn in ways
that match their learning styles. Seeking to serve students who have not succeeded in school, the program
is designed to close their achievement gap by offering a balance of literacy tutorials and an arts -infused
curriculum. This appropriation includes $8,000.00 in funding from the Virginia Department of Education,
$1,021.68 in donations, and the re-appropriation of $56.67 in fund balance that was remaining in the fund at
the end of FY 14.
Investing in Innovation Grant – This request is to appropriate $1,133,472.57 in grant funding for the
Investing in Innovation program. The Albemarle County, City of Charlottesville, and Fluvanna County public
schools consortium was awarded this grant by the U.S. Department of Education. Funding will continue until
December 2017 and is expected to total $2,989,541.00. Albemarle County will serve as the fiscal agent.
The Investing in Innovation program is a natural progression from the growing emphasis in education on the
“maker curriculum” in elementary, middle, and high schools. This approach emphasizes project based
learning in which students develop their creativity and critical analysis skills as well as their ability to work in
teams and communicate their findings. Grant funds will be used to purchase advanced 3D printers, laser
cutters and computers, and for professional development programs to prepare teachers for this new
instructional model. This appropriation request is for the FY 15 grant award of $1,133,472.57 . Of this grant
amount, it is anticipated that $431,434 will be spent by Albemarle County in support of the program.
This request is to appropriate the School Division appropriation request approved by the School Board on March
12, 2015:
Algebra Readiness – This request is to appropriate $2,000.00 for the Algebra Readiness program. The
program provides mathematics intervention services to middle school students who are at risk of failing.
State revenue for this program exceeds the original appropriation by $2,000.00 and requires appropriation.
E-rate Program Funds – This request is to appropriate $248,858.86 for the E-rate program. This program
is designed to ensure that all eligible schools and libraries have affordable access to modern
telecommunications and information services. The E-rate Program, which was established by the Federal
Government, provides discounts for eligible telecommunications s ervices, depending on economic need
and location (urban or rural). The level of discount is based on the percentage of students eligible for
participation in the National School Lunch Program or other federally approved alternative mechanisms.
These funds will be used to provide students and staff reliable access to technology by supporting the
construction of the school division’s wide area wireless project.
Special Revenue Fund Re-appropriations – This request is to re-appropriate funding associated with
Special Revenue Funds. The funding requested for re-appropriations has not been expended as of June
30, 2014 and is expected to occur in FY 15.
o Miscellaneous Grants – This request is to re-appropriate $120,785.58 in miscellaneous grants.
The Miscellaneous Grant fund is used to track competitive grants that are typically $5,000.00 or
less. The funds received are primarily from local organizations and occasionally from state or
federal subsidiaries.
o Teachers for a New Era (TNE) Partnership Grant – This request is to re-appropriate $10,191.38
from the TNE grant. This grant provides professional development and instructional resources for
both novice teachers and Novice Teacher Network Advisors. This includes affording novice
teachers the opportunity to visit experienced colleagues, meet with their advisors for more extended
periods of time, providing them with professional literature and reflective study groups.
o KOVAR Corporation Grant – This request is to re-appropriate $613.33 in available fund balance
from a KOVAR Corporation Grant received in the previous year.
o Carl Perkins Grant – This request is to re-appropriate $17,853.06 in available fund balance from
the Carl Perkins Grant. This grant provides funds to increase focus on the academic achievement
of career and technical education students and strengthen the connection between secondary and
post-secondary education.
o Computer Equipment Replacement Fund – This request is to re-appropriate $305,799.60 in
available fund balance for the Computer Equipment Replacement Fund.
o Special Education Local Improvement (SLIVER) Grant – This request is to re-appropriate
$1,700.56 in available fund balance from the SLIVER grant. The SLIVER Grant funds allow Special
Education teachers to increase the level of achievement of students with disabilities on SOL
content areas assessments.
o Alternative Education Grant – This request is to re-appropriate $8.50 in available fund balance
from the Alternative Education Grant.
Appropriation #2015088 $250,000.00
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $ 250,000.00
On July 11, 2012, the Board approved a streamlined appropriation process for anticipated School Fund revenue
associated with grants, donations, and School Activity Funds. In FY 15, an appropriation of $250,000.00 is needed
to cover donations and other miscellaneous revenue, such as small non-recurring grants, received to date and for
anticipated contributions through the end of the fiscal year.
This request is to appropriate an additional $250,000.00 in donation funding. Fund s will not be expended until the
revenues are actually received.
Appropriation #2015089 $0.00
This appropriation does not increase the total County budget.
Source: Proffer Revenue-Westhall 3.3 $ 3,170.90
Proffer Revenue-Westhall 1.2 $ (3,170.90)
This request is to appropriate $3,170.90 in Westhall 3.3 proffer revenue and reduce the currently appropriated
Westhall 1.2 proffer revenue for the Cory Farm Crozet Greenway Connector. Proffer revenue from Westhall 1.2
(CIP/Eastern Avenue funds) was appropriated in 2013; however, funds should have been provided from the
Westhall 3.3 proffer, which was specifically proffered for use towards the greenway bridge. This appropriation will
not increase the total County budget.
Appropriation #2015090 $5,000.00
.
Source: Use of Grant Fund fund Balance $ 5,000.00
This request is to appropriate $5,000.00 in available grant fund fund balance to support the increased needs of
children served by the Martha Jefferson Hospital School Community Health Partnership award. The grant is
administered by the Department of Social Services and provides funds for the e arly detection and treatment of
dental issues for low-income children enrolled in early intervention programs.
Appropriation #2015091 $0.00
This appropriation does not increase the total County budget.
Source: Borrowed Proceeds $ 105,000.00
School CIP Fund Fund Balance $ (105,000.00)
This request is to appropriate $200,000.00 in project balances from currently appropriated projects described below
to the Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition Capital Project. The currently appropriated construction budget
totals $1,672,720.00. The additional funding for this project is necessary to complete the project and will not
increase the project scope as originally bid. This funding supports the unanticipated increase in costs due to market
conditions.
Staff has worked with the BCWH Architect firm to produce a practical design for the gym addition that will benefit
the school and the community. The project was put out for bid in February 2015 and the results were returned on
March 3, 2015. Unfortunately, the bid results were not favorable. The bids ranged from $1,981,293 to $2,561,400,
with the top two bids within $6,700 of each other. There were six bidders, and the low base bid was from Artisan
Construction in the amount of $1,981,293, which is $308,573 over budget. While staff is planning to negotiate with
the low base bidder, including value engineering, to lower project costs, it is necessary to req uest the additional
funding at this time.
The currently appropriated projects to be reduced were identified by School Division staff and include the Capital
School Bus Replacement program and the School Maintenance/Replacement Program. Scheduled school bus
replacements will be reduced $95,000.00 to reflect actual replacement needs based on the condition of existing
fleet; Building Services has identified equipment replacement projects in the Capital Maintenance program that can
be deferred one more year to accommodate the need for the additional $105,000.00.
This project is scheduled to break ground in April, 2015, with project completion anticipated in January, 2016.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking
Order for FY14-15 Applicant Class
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of final ranking order and appraisal of
top five properties from FY14-15 ACE applicant pool
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg and Goodall
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to County Code §§ A.1-110(G) and A.1-110(H), the Board reviews the list of parcels ranked by the ACE
Committee and identifies on which parcels it desires to acquire conservation easements. Each conservation easement
identified by the Board for purchase is appraised by an independent appraiser chosen by the County.
On October 31, 2014, six (6) new applicants enrolled in the FY14-15 ACE applicant class. One of the applicants
(Calderwood) withdrew their application shortly thereafter. Staff recently evaluated the remaining five properties from the
applicant pool according to the ACE Ordinance ranking evaluation criteria. These objective criteria include: open space
resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources; and County fund leveraging from
outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined the eligibility of the properties and has
placed them in a ranking order (Attachments A & B). These results were presented to the ACE Committee, which
unanimously approved the proposed ranking at its February 9, 2015 committee meeting.
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:
All five (5) properties under consideration scored enough points to be eligible for ACE funding. With $922,196 of
County funding available for this class, plus another $242,948 in an unused Farmland Preservation grant (Attachment
C), the County can acquire easements on two or three of the highest ranked properties. Based on the final ranking
order and eligibility status of these properties, the ACE Committee recommends that the Board authorize staff to order
appraisals for the following properties: Sweeney, Clark, and Dollard. Although the total ACE budget for FY14-15 may
be insufficient to purchase easements on all three properties, staff and the ACE Committee believe it is prudent to
obtain appraisals on more properties than funding will allow in the event that additional funding becomes available or a
higher ranking applicant withdraws from the Program.
The acquisition of easements on the three highest ranked properties would eliminate 42 usable development rights
and result in the protection of the following resources:
696 acres
17,500 feet of common boundary with other protected lands
1/3 properties in a drinking water supply reservoir watershed
1/3 properties lie within a historic district or have historical buildings
5,400 feet of state road frontage; >1,000 feet on Route 53, a major entrance corridor
2/3 properties are working family farms
protect over 500 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
would protect 95 acres of mountaintop (Gay Mountain)
would establish a riparian buffer along 8,900 feet of the Rivanna River, a state scenic river
AGENDA TITLE: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY14-15 Applicant Class
April 1, 2015
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
After closing on three (3) ACE properties in early 2015 (Henley Forest, Stargell, and Woodson), the County has
$1,165,145 to acquire new easements from the FY14-15 class. This amount of funding reflects a combination of
County funds (new and re-appropriated) and grants from the VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation. Staff has
applied for a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) matching grant, which may yield over $400,000 in
funding, if awarded. Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements would come from the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-481020-580409-1240). See Attachment C for additional budget
information.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The ACE Committee and staff recommend that the Board:
1) Approve the final ranking order for the FY14-15 applicant pool as shown on Attachments A & B;
2) Authorize staff to order appraisals for the Sweeney, Clark, and Dollard properties
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Ranking Order of ACE Applicants for FY14-15
B – ACE Scoring Summary for FY14-15
C – ACE Budget
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from FY 14-15)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Enrollment Date: October 31st, 2014
Applicant Tax Map Acres Tourism Points Status
Mt. Eagle Farm TM 94, Parcel 17 (370.00 acres) yes 78.19 Eligible
(Milton)
Estimated Cost to Acquire: $900-950,000 (we have applied for a 50% matching grant for this property)
Clark, Nimrod TM 100, Parcel 3 (160.03 acres) yes 39.30 Eligible
(North Garden)
Estimated Cost to Acquire: $375-400,000
Dollard, Laura TM 122, Parcel 17 (159.84 acres) no 34.11 Eligible
(Scottsville) TM 122, Parcel 17C ( 6.25 acres)
Total (166.09 acres)
Estimated Cost to Acquire: $375-400,000
Ruddock, Cheryl TM 119, Parcel 22 (123.54 acres) no 29.39 Eligible
(Schuyler)
Estimated Cost to Acquire: $200-250,000
Shanklin, John TM 119, Parcel 15 ( 95.06 acres) yes 26.64 Eligible
(Esmont) TM 119, Parcel 17 ( 12.78 acres)
Total (107.84 acres)
Estimated Cost to Acquire: $175-225,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calderwood, John TM 127, Parcel 20 (243.50 acres) no 30.37 Withdrew
(Esmont) TM 127, Parcel 45B ( 1.32 acres) (11/6/14)
TM 127, Parcel 46A ( 3.00 acres)
Total (247.82 acres)
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 6 applicants 1,175.32 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: Mt. Eagle Farm (Carol Sweeney)
Property: TM 94, Parcel 17 (370.00 acres) 14 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 19 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 8,900 feet on Snow Hill, Harris plats/County overlay maps 19.80
& Limestone farms
Criteria A.2 370.00 acres RE Assessor’s Office 7.40
Criteria B.1 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.2 17 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 8.50
Criteria C.1 not in mountains County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes (farming) landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 1,000 feet on Route 53 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.69
Criteria C.4 Monticello viewshed DHR 2.00
Criteria C.5 yes (bald eagle next <1/4 mile) DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00
Criteria C.6 >250 acres of “prime” forestland County Soil Survey 5.00
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 6,900 feet on Rivanna River plat/survey/County overlay maps 3.45
Criteria C.9 6,900 feet on Rivanna River landowner 10.35
(50-100’ wide buffer)
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 50% funding from ACEP-ALE based on AGI & income grid 5.00???
Point Total 78.19
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; DHR = = Department of Historic Resources; SH = Scenic Highway; EC
= major 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
Notes: The property contains a historic home (built in 1735) and an assortment of farm buildings. Carol Sweeney wants the
right to build one additional house on the property without any division and have a 50-100 foot wide riparian buffer along the
Rivanna River that will prevent the storage of fertilizer and waster products, construction and cultivation within the buffer.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Spring Mountain Farm (Nimrod Clark)
Property: TM 100, Parcel 3 (160.03 acres) 5 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 15 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 8,600 feet on feet on Mike Hudson plats/County overlay maps 19.20
& Jimmy Powell
Criteria A.2 160.03 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.20
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 12 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 6.00
Criteria C.1 95 acres in Gay Mountain MOD County overlay maps 2.80
17 acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 yes (farming) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,260 feet on Starlight Road County tax map/plats 1.25
Criteria C.4 no DHR 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 106 acres of “prime” forestland County Soil Survey 2.12
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 1,156 feet (50-100’ wide buffer) landowner 1.73
(under CREP)
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 ???? based on AGI & income grid ????
Point Total 39.30
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
Notes: Mr. Clark wants to keep the property as one single tract of 160 acres and allow 3 dwellings to be built (one 4500 ft2
main dwelling + two 2,000 ft2 cottages). Currently, it is vacant land. The Official Determination of Developments
concluded that the tract is composed of 2 parcels separated by the RR track, each with the full complement of 2-acre by
rights. A 50-100’ wide CREP buffer was established in 2002 on 1,156 linear feet of stream on the front (roadside) parcel.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Broomfield Farm (Laura Dollard)
Property TM 122, Parcel 17 (159.84 acres) 6 DivR’s + 8 DevR’s = 14 DR’s 0 dwellings
TM 122, Parcel 17C ( 6.25 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s 1 dwelling
Total (166.09 acres) 6 DivR’s + 9 DevR’s = 15 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 < ¼ mile of easement plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 166.09 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.32
Criteria B.1 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 13 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 6.50
Criteria C.1 not in mountains County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes (farming) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,215 feet on Glendower Road County tax map/plats 5.17
1,950 feet on Blenheim Road
Criteria C.4 yes – Southern Albemarle RHD DHR 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 142 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 2.84
Criteria C.7 Totier Creek watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 850 feet (50-100’ wide buffer) landowner 1.28
Criteria C.10 underground aquifer County Engineering Department 1.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 none based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 34.11
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; DHR = Department of Historic Resources; 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
Notes: The Dollard property consists of two parcels: a small parcel with the main residence (ca. 1890) and a larger
surrounding parcel with numerous farm buildings. Mrs. Dollard is an elderly widow who lives from month to month off
social security and erratic income from selling eggs, rental income and farm (grazing) income.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Ruddock, Cheryl
Property: TM 119, Parcel 22 (123.54 acres) 5 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 11 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 none plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 123.54 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.47
Criteria B.1 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.2 9 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 4.50
Criteria C.1 not in mountains County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes (forestry/farming) landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 1,800 feet on SR 717 County tax map/plats 3.80
Criteria C.4 no (surrounded by SoARHD) DHR 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 51 acres “prime” farm/woodland County Soil Survey 1.02
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 4,800 feet on 3 woodland streams landowner 9.60
(>100’ wide buffer)
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 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 29.39 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
Notes: Cheryl’s husband died in 2007 after an illness and she has been unemployed ever since. There is currently one
dwelling on the property and she wants to be able to divide the property one time and have a total of two dwellings (1 new
and 1 existing or 2 new after replacing existing). She wants 100’ wide buffers on 3 woodland streams.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Shanklin, John
Property: TM 119, Parcel 15 ( 95.06 acres) 1 DivR’s + 16 DevR’s = 17 DR’s 1 dwellings
TM 119, Parcel 17 ( 12.78 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s 0 dwellings
Total (107.84 acres) 1 DivR’s + 21 DevR’s = 22 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 <1/4 mile from Reynolds plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 107.84 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.16
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 19 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 9.50
Criteria C.1 not in mountains County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 2,500 feet on SR 717 County tax map/plats 4.50
Criteria C.4 yes – SoARHD DHR 3.00
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 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 2,500 feet on 2 streams landowner 4.88
1,500 feet on one side of stream
(50-100’ wide buffer)
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 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 26.64 points
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; DHR = Department of Historic Resources; 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
Notes: Kind of an odd-shaped property with a narrow, angled right -of-way (old railroad bed I was told) that divides the main
parcel in half. Wants the right to have or build 3 buildings.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Calderwood, John
Property: TM 127, Parcel 20 (243.50 acres) 11 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 16 DR’s 1 dwelling
TM 127, Parcel 45B ( 1.32 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s 0 dwellings
TM 127, Parcel 46A ( 3.00 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s 0 dwellings
Total (247.82 acres) 11 DivR’s + 7 DevR’s = 18 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 none plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 247.82 acres RE Assessor’s Office 4.87
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 15 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 7.50
Criteria C.1 not in mountains County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes (forestry) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,100 feet on SR 722 County tax map/plats 3.10
Criteria C.4 yes – historic home DHR 2.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 235 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 4.70
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 5,200 feet on 3 streams landowner 5.20-10.40
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 ?????? based on AGI & income grid ????
Point Total 30.37-35.57 points
DCR = Department of Conservation & Recreation; DHR = Department of Historic Resources; 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
Notes: Last week (November 6), Mr. Calderwood called to say he wanted to withdraw his application. I think a nephew was
the one encouraging them to apply and in the end, they did not feel sure about this.
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Martin, Margaret
Property: TM 15, Parcel 27 (94.98 acres) 5 DivR’s + 4 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 7,000 feet on Phelan, trearne, LLC plats/County overlay maps 9.00
And Southern Highland, LLC
Criteria A.2 94.98 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.90
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 8 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 4.00
Criteria C.1 39 acres in Fox Mountain MOD County overlay maps 0.78
Criteria C.2 yes (forestry) landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 no state road frontage County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 no DHR 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 50 acres “prime” farm/woodland County Soil Survey 1.00
Criteria C.7 yes (SFRR watershed) County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 5,000 feet on 2 mountain streams landowner 5.00-10.00
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 no based on AGI & income grid 0.00
Point Total 27.68-32.68 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
Notes: Though I spoke to Margaret Martin’s son about the ACE program on two occasions and he said he would make sure
she got an application in on time, she mailed in a blank application (no signature or anything) that said “please keep my
property in land-use”. I would have accepted her application had she signed it and made some meaningful attempt to
complete it.
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 prorated and 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 (1) additional point for every five
hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile of, 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: zero (0) points for parcels of less than fifty (50) acres; one (1) point for
parcels of at least fifty (50) acres; one (1) additional point for each fifty (50) acres over fifty (50) acres; one (1)
additional point for each fifty (50) acres over two hundred (200) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale or other hardship: three (3) points.
2. The number of division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half (1/2) point for each
division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of retained division rights
from the number of division rights.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain overlay
district, as delineated 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. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(1) shall apply if the parcel is eligible
for points under this criterion.
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 at least one
family member has as a secondary occupation farming or foresting the parcel so that it is eligible for or subject to
land use taxation as land devoted to agriculture, horticulture or forest use under Albemarle County Code § 15-800
et seq.; one (1) additional point if the parcel is certified as a Virginia Century Farm by the Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services.
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: tw o (2) points, with one
(1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage if the parcel is subject to a deed restriction as
provided herein; otherwise, one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage; 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. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1-109(B)(2) shall apply if the parcel is eligible
for points for adjoining a Virginia scenic highway or byway.
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 a site of archaeological or architectural significance
as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian under the United States Department of
Interior’s professional qualification standards. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1 -109(B)(4) shall apply
if the parcel is eligible for points under this criterion.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the Virginia Natural Heritage Inventory or a
qualified biologist submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to the program
administrator and the Virginia Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the owner , [or it includes one of six sites
of exceptional biological value designated as a priority conservation target by the Albemarle County Biodiversity
Committee OR the parcel is located within a Priority Conservation Target area identified by the County Natu ral
Heritage Committee]: five (5) 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 classificati ons
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, the Ragged Mountain Reservoir 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), Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna River, North Fork Rivanna
River, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch River (of the North Fork Rivanna River), 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-half (1/2) 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. The deed restriction set forth in section A.1 -109(B)(3) shall apply if
the parcel is eligible for points under this criterion.
9. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in a permanent
easement that establishes or maintains buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent streams, as those terms are
defined in Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code or if the parcel is subject to such an exis ting permanent
easement: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is between at least thirty -five (35)
and fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1 ½) points for each one thousand (1,000) linear feet of buffer that is at
least fifty (50) feet but less than one hundred (100) feed wide; two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) linear
feet of buffer that is at least one hundred (100) feet wide.
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. The parcel is subject to a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management Plan
approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry: one (1) point.
D. County fund leveraging. 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.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 04-A.1(1), 10-6-04; Ord. 07-A.1(1), 12-5-07)
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 agrees to use points received under section A.1-108 for mountain, scenic or
historic resources:
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 provide that farm buildings or
structures may be constructed within the mountain overlay district only after prior written approval for the
building or structure shall have been obtained from each grantee; which approval shall assure compliance with the
Mountain Design Standards in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Comprehensive Plan
and consideration of the impact of the size, height and siting of the proposed structure on the conservation values
of the Property.
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 th e 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 stre am, 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 requi re 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 bank, 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 st reams, 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, blasting or earth removal; (v) the number and size of primary a nd
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 designated by the board shall include, but not be limited t o, the
Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
(Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 07-A.1(1), 12-5-07)
Owner Name Mt. Eagle Clark Dollard Ruddock Shanklin
Tax Map-Parcel #(s)94-17 100-3 122-17,
122-17C 119-22 119-15,
119-17
Acreage 370.00 160.03 136.99 90.70 91.63
Adjoins protected open space (A.1)19.80 19.20 2.00 2.00
Size of parcel (A.2)7.40 3.20 3.32 2.47 2.16
Threatened with hardship? (B.1)3.00 3.00 3.00
Division rights eliminated (B.2)8.50 6.00 6.50 4.50 9.50
Mountain protection (C.1)2.80
Working family farm (C.2)5.00 3.00 3.00 5.00
Designated road frontage (C.3)3.69 1.25 5.17 3.80 4.50
Historic resources (C.4)2.00 3.00 3.00
Natural heritage resources (C.5)5.00
Prime soils (C.6)5.00 2.12 2.84 1.02 0.60
Watershed or stream frontage (C.7)3.00
Designated state scenic river (C.8)3.45
Voluntary stream buffer (C.9)10.35 1.73 1.28 9.60 4.88
Sensitive groundwater recharging area (C.10)1.00
Within AFD? (C.11)
Forestry Stewardship Management Plan (C.12)
County fund leveraging (D.1)5.00
Point Totals 78.19 39.30 34.11 29.39 26.64
Current Budget
ACEP-ALE Grant (???)
Budget w/ ACE-ALE Grant (???)
Easement Cost (estimate)925,000 385,000 385,000 225,000 200,000
Notes: Without the ACEP-ALE grant, we can only afford Mt. Eagle and maybe one other lesser valued easement. With the grant, we can almost afford the first 3 easements (assuming my estimates are right).
1,166,900.00
450,000.00
1,616,900.00
2,120,000.00
Notes: Without the ACEP-ALE grant, we can only afford Mt. Eagle and maybe one other lesser valued easement. With the grant, we can almost afford the first 3 easements (assuming my estimates are right).
Attachment C
ACE Budget (2/24/2015)
Gross Net
Income
FY 14 Carryover $ 751,454.60
FY 15 New Appropriation $ 520,759.00
Total $ 1,272,213.60 $ 1,272,213.60
Costs from FY 14 Class
Appraisals (4) $ -18,000.00
Easement Acquisitions (3) $ -682,780.00
Title Insurance (3) $ -2,578.39
Advertising $ -1,087.93
Total $ -704,446.32 -$ 704,446.32
$ 567,767.28
Farmland Preservation Grants
FY 13 $ 160,715.64
FY 14 $ 149,678.46
FY 15 $ 286,983.46
Total $ 597,377.56 +$ 597,377.56
$ 1,165,144.84
Activity Date Amount
Henley Forest Inc. easement appraisal 06/14 $6,500.00
Stargell easement appraisal 07/14 $3,500.00
Woodson easement appraisal 07/14 $3,500.00
Henley Forest easement acquisition 12/14 $363,780.00
Stargell easement acquisition 01/15 $257,000.00
Woodson easement acquisition 01/15 $72,000.00
Henley Forest title insurance 12/14 $1,227.56
Stargell title insurance 01/15 $925.63
Woodson title insurance 01/15 $425.00
Total Reimbursable Costs $708,858.19
50% Matching grant from Farmland Preservation $354,429.09
Total Grants Received FY13, FY14 and FY15 $ 597,377.56
Less 50% Matching Grant (see below) - $ 354,429.09
$ 242,948.47
Beginning with a net balance after the FY14 Class of $567,767.28 and adding back 50%
reimbursements through Farmland Preservation grants ($354,429.09) provides a total of
$922,196.37. Another $242,948.47 from what is left over from the FY15 Farmland Preservation
grant provides a grand total of $1,165,144.84 to apply to the newest class of applicants who
enrolled on October 31, 2014.
Notes: Farmland Preservation grants are held by VDACS until the County applies for re-
imbursement (50% of easement acquisition and closing costs).
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Traffic Calming in Fontana Subdivision
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of a Resolution requesting VDOT to install
traffic calming measures on Fontana Drive and
Verona Drive
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry, and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): Jack Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The residents of the Fontana Subdivision have expressed concern about speeding in the subdivision since 2006. Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff and various County staff have worked with the Fontana Owners Association,
Inc. (FOAI) since 2008 in an effort to evaluate and resolve speeding issues in the subdivision. VDOT and the County have
installed measures and conducted enforcement activities to address the neighborhood concerns, but they have been
ineffective at reducing vehicle speeds to date, or the level of comfort felt by walking/biking residents who must share this
road.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan, and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and fu ture changes
andiporves the capacity to serve community needs.
DISCUSSION:
The April 9, 2014 Enhanced Speeding Fines executive summary (Attachment A) described the history of traffic issues
and pedestrian conflicts in the Fontana subdivision and summarized the results of the speed studies that were
conducted. Staff from VDOT, the Office of Facilities Development, and the Police Department acknowledged that the
traffic/pedestrian conflicts experienced by the Fontana neighborhood were the result of vehicle speed and the lack of
pedestrian facilities along the streets.
In response to the pedestrian safety concerns VDOT installed an “all way stop” at the Fontana Drive/Verona
Drive/Fontana Court intersection; painted crosswalks at the pedestrian trail crossings; improved pedestrian crossing
and warning signage; and installed an additional speed limit sign on Fontana Drive. At the request of the Board of
Supervisor’s, VDOT also installed signs to establish an additional maximum $200 fine for exceeding the established
speed limit on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and Olympia Drive pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-878. In the fall of
2014, the effectiveness of the measures were evaluated by conducting new speed studies and reviewing the data, and
by collecting resident observations. Staff found that the installed measures had marginal or no effect on reducing
vehicle speeds or the comfort level of pedestrians.
In December 2014, staff recommended that VDOT consider installing additional “all way stops” as suggested in the
McCormick Taylor report prepared for VDOT’s Traffic Division. VDOT did not support the recommendation; however,
in a subsequent meeting, VDOT recommended that additional traffic measures, including but not limited to, speed
pillows, be installed at strategic locations along Fontana Drive and Verona Drive (Attachment B). Speed pillows are a
traditional traffic calming measure that function in a similar manner as speed humps, but have gaps that allow
emergency response vehicles (with wider wheel-base) to navigate through with little delay to response time
(Attachment C). Although only Fontana Drive meets the VDOT criteria for traffic calming, VDOT is willing to install
temporary traffic calming measures on Verona Drive that VDOT will maintain until such time that a sidewalk is
constructed along Fontana Drive due to the resident testimonies and observations that have indicated an issue with
pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. The “Sidewalk Construction Program - Project List”, maintained by the Chief of Planning,
includes a Fontana Neighborhood Sidewalk project, which is currently unfunded.
To implement these traffic calming measures, the Board must adopt a Resolution requesting VDOT to install traffic
calming measures on Fontana Drive and to install the temporary measures on Verona Drive. VDOT staff will meet
with emergency services staff and HOA representatives to determine the exact type and location for traffic calming
measures.
AGENDA TITLE: Traffic Calming in Fontana Subdivision
April 1, 2015
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
VDOT will fund the traffic calming measures with secondary road construction funds and will maintain the measures
as part of the State road maintenance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) requesting that VDOT install traffic
calming measures on Fontana Drive and that VDOT install and maintain temporary traffic calming measures on
Verona Drive until such time that a sidewalk is constructed along Verona Drive.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – April 9, 2014 Enhanced Speeding Fines Executive Summary
B – Fontana Street Map
C – Speed Pillow Exhibit
D – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Enhanced Speeding Fines in Fontana Subdivision
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of Resolution requesting VDOT to install signs to
establish maximum penalty for exceeding posted speed
limit on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and Olympia Drive
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Henry, and Kelsey
PRESENTER (S): Jack Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 9, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The residents of the Fontana Subdivision have expressed concern about speeding in the subdivision since 2006.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff and various County staff have worked with Fontana Owners
Association, Inc. (FOAI) since 2008 in an effort to evaluate and resolve speeding issues in the subdivision, and have
recently established a list of actions to pursue, including requesting that VDOT install signs on Fontana Drive (Route
1765), Verona Drive (Route 1771) and Olympia Drive (Route 1770) alerting motorists that there will be a fine of up to
$200 for exceeding the established speed limit pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-878.2.
Virginia Code § 46.2-878.2 (see Attachment A) provides that “Operation of any motor vehicle in excess of a maximum
speed limit established for a highway in a residence district of a county, city, or town, when indicated by appropriately
placed signs displaying the maximum speed limit and the penalty for violations, shall be unlawful and constitute a traffic
infraction punishable by a fine of $200, in addition to other penalties provided by law.”
It is the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s policy (Attachment A) that VDOT, upon a formal request from the local
governing body, will install signs on local residential streets, collector streets, and minor arterial streets with a posted
speed limit of 35 miles per hour or lower advising motorists of a maximum punishment of $200, in addition to other
penalties provided by law, for exceeding the speed limit in certain residence districts.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
5. Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
The history of traffic issues and pedestrian conflicts in Fontana dates back to July 2006. The roads were designed
and built as “rural” sections, with shoulders and ditches, and no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. The roads have a speed
limit of 25 m.p.h. and were intended to be “shared space” with bicycles and pedestrians. Staff from VDOT and the
Albemarle County Police Department (PD) and Planning Department worked with FOAI between 2008 and 2011, and
the PD conducted speed studies in 2009 and 2010. The results indicated speeds exceeding the 25 m .p.h. speed limit
and 85th percentile speeds of at least 30 m.p.h., but average speeds did not exceed the VDOT threshold of 30 m.p.h.
(5 m.p.h. over the speed limit) required to be eligible for traffic calming. In 2013 staff from VDOT, the County’s PD and
Office of Facilities Development (OFD) became re-involved and have been working with FOAI. Speed studies were
conducted by the PD in July 2013 and by VDOT in November 2013 to evaluate whether the roads would qualify for
VDOT’s “traffic calming” and/or “residential cut-through traffic” measures. The studies indicated speeds exceeding the
25 m.p.h. speed limit and 85th percentile speeds of at least 30 m.p.h., but based on VDOT’s criteria, only Fontana
Drive was eligible for traffic calming.
At the conclusion of a February 2014 FOAI meeting, VDOT, PD and OFD staff acknowledged that the traffic issues
experienced by the Fontana Subdivision residents are a result of a combination of vehicle speeds and the lack of
pedestrian facilities along the neighborhood streets, and agreed to pursue the following solutions:
1. Resident Administrator of VDOT will work with VDOT Traffic Engineering Division to find traffic control
options that VDOT can implement to address the issue of pedestrian safety.
AGENDA TITLE: Enhanced Speeding Fines in Fontana Subdivision
April 9, 2014
Page 2
2. OFD staff will coordinate a request to VDOT to install signs alerting motorists that exceeding the
speed limit constitutes a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of $200 on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive
and Olympia Drive.
3. OFD staff will coordinate the development and implementation of a traffic calming plan for Fontana
Drive.
4. OFD staff will coordinate a request to VDOT to allow a through-truck restriction on Verona Drive and
Olympia Drive.
The VDOT Resident Administrator and Traffic Engineering Division have now developed a Step 1 plan to provide
traffic controls to address pedestrian safety. VDOT is currently formalizing the plan and will provide a copy to the
Board and to County staff upon completion. VDOT advised that some of the other options may also be pursued by the
County concurrently, but care must be taken to not implement so much that staff cannot determine whether any
measures are ineffective and should be removed.
County staff concurs with FOAI’s request to install signs establishing an additional fine of $200 for exceeding the
established speed limit on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive and Olympia Drive as shown on the attached map
(Attachment B).
To qualify for sign installation, a highway must meet the following criteria:
1. Meet the definition of local residential, collector, or minor arterial street as defined by VDOT (see
Attachment A); and
2. Have a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or lower.
Staff believes that the above criteria have been met. To initiate this procedure, the County must request, by Resolution
of the Board, that VDOT install the appropriate signs as required by Virginia Code § 46.2-878. The Resolution
(Attachment C) and the following supporting data would then be submitted to VDOT:
1. Identification of the neighborhood and specific highway(s) where the signs are requested to be installed;
2. Confirmation that the highway(s) meet the definitions of local residential, collector, or minor arterial
streets as defined by VDOT; and
3. Notification that a speeding problem exists and that the increased penalty has community support.
The requested signs would be installed within 60 days of VDOT’s approval.
BUDGET IMPACT:
VDOT will pay for providing and installing the signs. The PD will be responsible for enforcement, and PD staff
estimates that this will have no impact on PD’s staffing or budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) requesting that VDOT install signs to
establish an additional maximum $200 fine for exceeding the established speed limit on Fontana Drive, Verona Drive
and Olympia Drive pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-878.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – VDOT Policy
B – Subdivision Map
C – Resolution
= SCHOOL BUS STOP LOCATIONSATTACHMENT BFONTANA SUBDIVISION: TRAFFIC CALMINGFOR FONTANA DRIVE AND VERONA DRIVE
RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES IN FONTANA SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the residents of the Fontana Subdivision have expressed concerns about
speeding and pedestrian safety in the subdivision since 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Albemarle
County Police Department have conducted multiple speed studies on Fontana Drive (Rte 1765),
Verona Drive (Rte 1771) and Olympia Drive (Rte 1770), which demonstrated that Fontana Drive
meets the criteria for traffic calming per VDOT’s policy; and
WHEREAS, staff from VDOT, the Office of Facilities Development, and the Police
Department have acknowledged that the traffic and pedestrian conflicts experienced by the
Fontana Subdivision residents have been the result of vehicle speed and the lack of pedestrian
facilities along the streets; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a
Resolution to request an additional maximum $200 fine for speeding in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, VDOT and the County have installed measures and conducted enforcement
activities to address the neighborhood concerns, but these measures have been ineffective at
reducing vehicle speeds and the comfort level of walking and biking residents who must share
the road; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that a speeding problem continues to exist
on Fontana Drive (Rte 1765) and Verona Drive (Rte 1771), and that it continues to create a
potential hazard for pedestrians and residents in the Fontana Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, VDOT has recommended that additional traffic calming measures be
installed at strategic locations along Fontana Drive, and that temporary traffic calming measures
be installed and maintained at strategic locations along Verona Drive until such time that a
sidewalk is constructed along Verona Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation install traffic
calming measures on Fontana Drive and install and maintain temporary traffic calming
measures on Verona Drive until such time that a sidewalk is constructed along Verona Drive.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
_____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _______________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Grant Application/Award Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary of grant applications submitted and awarded
during the time period of February 14, 2015 through
March 13, 2015.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Allshouse, L., and
Shifflett, K.
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to the County’s Grant Policy and associated procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the
County’s application for and use of grants.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Grant awards provide funding to support a variety of projects supporting the Board’s Aspirations statements and the
County’s Mission to enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level
of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of two grant applications made during the time period of
February 14, 2015 through March 13, 2015.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only.
ATTACHMENTS:
Grant Report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY – February 14, 2015 through March 13, 2015
Applications were made for the following grants:
Granting Entity Grant Type Amount
Requested
Match
Required
Match Source Department Purpose
Virginia
Department of
Fire Programs
FY15 Regional Fire
Services Training
Facilities Grant
State $47,555 0 N/A Fire Rescue This grant will be used to provide funds for
Fire Rescue to purchase a vehicle prop,
which is a training aid designed for realistic
vehicle fire and hazard response training for
front line personnel in controlled
conditions.
Department of
Homeland
Security
2014 FEMA SAFER
Retention and
Recruitment Grant
Federal $407,000 0 N/A Fire Rescue This grant will be used to provide funds for
Fire Rescue for a full volunteer recruitment
marketing campaign and a volunteer
retention project. This is for a four year
grant period.
This grant will not provide funding for
staffing, nor will it require on-going funding
after the grant ends.
Awards were received for the following grants:
None at this time.
Page 1 of 4
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
April 2015
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Advertisement Award 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 January 2018
Route 606 – Dickerson Rd. over
North Fork of Rivanna River -- Preliminary Design January 2020
Route 29 Solutions:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT
MILESTONE
AD/AWARD
DATE
Route 29 and Rio Road Review of 30%
plans
Review of 60%
Plans
February 2015
CTB Award
Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to
Hollymeade Town Center Notice to Proceed Review of 30%
Plans
February 2015
CTB Award
Berkmar Drive Construction Notice to Proceed Review of 30%
Plans
February 2015
CTB Award
Adaptive Signals Signal and Fiber
Installation
Controller
Change-outs N/A
Hillsdale Extended ROW Authorization Field Inspection December 2015
Hillsdale South CTB Approval TBD P.E. Only N/A
Hydraulic Road Grade Separated
Intersection CTB Approval TBD
P.E. Only N/A
Page 2 of 4
Construction Activities
Route 29 Solutions
All Route 29 Solutions projects remain on schedule. The Rio Road 30% Roadway and Bridge Plans were submitted
nearly six weeks ahead of schedule.
All phase I utility easements for the Rio Road GSI will be in place by the end of March. Utility relocation to begin late
April, early May for Rio Road GSI.
The Route 29/250 Ramp Improvement Project (Best Buy Ramp) construction is proceeding on schedule. Upcoming work
includes stormwater management basin construction, ramp re-alignment, retaining wall construction along ramp, and
widening in the median of Route 29.
The Project Delivery Advisory Panel held meetings on March 5th and 19th.
The adaptive signal project continues with Phase 1 construction. Detector loops and signal communications have been
installed. Controller change-outs and cabinet upgrades will be completed by late spring/early summer.
Route 29/US 250 Best Buy Ramp Widening
Scope: Construct retaining wall, sound wall, ramp widening, drainage and sidewalks.
Next Major Milestone: Installation of traffic barrier along SB/WB ramp and clearing for retaining wall construction
Contract Completion: May 21, 2016
McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101
Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte. 250
Next Major Milestone: Completion of Project
Traffic continues in final, Phase 3 configuration, as Contractor continues work on remaining items of work to complete
project. Contractor is removing temporary pavement, placed on Ramps 1, 3 and 4 as part of the planned MOT, to
construct curb and pavement for final configuration. Work is also being pur sued in construction of the Dogwood Vietnam
Memorial, constructing the concrete plaza and other decorative work. All utility installations are complete, with exception
being the sanitary sewer connection of new to existing lines at Harris Street. Subcont ractor performing bridge painting
started work on the new bridge girders recently. Remaining landscaping work is tentatively scheduled to resume week of
March 23, 2015.
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: Road is closed. Complete new bridge construction.
Proposed Completion: August 4, 2015
Black Cat Road Bridge Over BBRR (NFO) 0616-002-822,B674,C501
Scope: Bridge Replacement and reconstruct approaches
Next Major Milestone: Road is closed. Complete new bridge and approach construction.
Proposed Completion: October 15, 2015
Broomely Road Bridge Over BBRR (NFO) 0677-002-823,C501,B646
Scope: Bridge replacement and reconstruct approaches
Next Major Milestone: Contract Award and Execution (approximately March 30, 2015).
Contract Completion: November 16, 2015
Route 53 Milton Road Turn Lane Project (NFO)0053-002-S33,C501
Scope: Construct Turn Lane.
Next Major Milestone: Re-advertise
Contract Completion: (To be revised)
I-64 Bridge Over Route 637 (NFO)0064-002-899,B602
Scope: Latex Overlay.
Next Major Milestone: Bid Opening (Scheduled for March 25, 2015).
Contract Completion: October 8, 2015
GR-9 Replacement Contract (FO) 0000-967-265,C501
Scope: Replace unapproved GR-9 End Sections.
Next Major Milestone: Receive Bids March 25, 2015
Contract Completion:
Page 3 of 4
Incidental Concrete Replacement ADAO-967-256, N501
Scope: Replace Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks
Next Major Milestone: Replace roll top curb and gutter in Forest Lakes
Contract Completion: December 31, 2015 (Contract is Renewable)
Bridge Maintenance Contract (NFO)BRDG-967-240,N501
Scope: Renewable On-call Bridge Maintenance
Next Major Milestone: Contract Award and Execution; approx. April 25, 2015
Contract Completion: August 31, 2016
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 September 2015.
Contract Completion: September 2015
Plant Mix Asphalt Schedule (NFO)PM7A-967-F14,P401
Scope: Albemarle, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Has not yet re-started. Route 1721 Forest Lakes and Rte. 250 to be completed this year.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Plant Mix Asphalt Schedule PM7B-967-F14, P401
Scope: Albemarle, Greene, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Has not yet re-started. 5 Sections of Rte. 631 will be completed this year.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Surface Treatment Schedule ST7A-967-F14, P401
Scope: Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Eradication complete. Re-start Paving June 15, 2015 simultaneously with F15 Project. Routes
remaining in Albemarle County are: 600, 608, 619, 623, 640, 648, 762, and 842.
Contract Completion: November 1, 2015
Plant Mix Asphalt Schedule (NFO)PM7A-967-F15,P401
Scope: Culpeper, Albemarle, and Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Preconstruction Conference tentatively set for March 30, 2015.
Contract Completion: December 4, 2015
Latex Modified Emulsion Treatment (NFO)LM7A-967-F15,P401
Scope: Albemarle, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Complete Rte. 6 RPM Removal. Microsurfacing 3-26-15 (Rte. 6).
Contract Completion: October 30, 2015
Surface Treatment Schedule ST7A-967-F15, P401
Scope: Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa Counties
Next Major Milestone: Notice to Proceed May 18, 2015.
Contract Completion: October 30, 2015
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed Under Review
Route 22 @ 250, Louisa Road Route 1140, Peter Jefferson Parkway
Operational Analysis; complete Operational Analysis; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0022-20150126-026 VDOT Study Number—003-1140-201412114-026
Route 240, Three Notch’d Road Route 1140, Peter Jefferson Parkway
Safety Study; pending Crosswalk study; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-0240-20150206-007 VDOT Study Number—003-1140-20150206-020
Route 1641 Route 1250
Safety Study; complete Sight distance review; pending
VDOT Study Number—003-1641-20150219-007 VDOT Study Number—003-1250-20150213-008
Page 4 of 4
Maintenance Activities
VDOT Area Headquarters crews completed the following activities during the past month. For specific route activities,
please contact the Charlottesville Residency Office.
Debris removal on 1 primary route and 3 secondary routes
Machining of non-hard surface roads has been performed on 37 secondary routes
Patching was performed on 4 primary routes and 18 secondary routes
Shoulders repaired along 2 primary routes and 1 secondary route
Sink hole repairs made on 2 secondary routes
Tree removal on 1 primary route and 1 secondary route
Crews responded to 6 winter weather events
Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Stagnant Water Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion of possible ordinance to regulate nuisances
caused by standing or stagnant water
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Herrick, Graham, McCulley,
Higgins
PRESENTER(S): Ron Higgins
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-901 enables localities to adopt ordinances regulating nuisances. Under this authority, in 2009,
the County adopted an ordinance to regulate uncontrolled vegetation on certain vacant or undeveloped properties
outside the Rural Areas. The existing ordinance allows County staff, after providing notice to property owners , to
remove uncontrolled vegetation from certain properties and to charge the owners for the cost of removal. Though the
state enabling authority has recently been expanded to allow removal of uncontrolled vegetation from occupied
properties as well, the current County ordinance continues to apply only to uncontrolled vegetation on certain vacant or
undeveloped properties.
The Board has asked staff to provide information regarding a possible stagnant water ordinance. Virginia Code
§ 15.2-901 enables a county to regulate nuisances caused by “dangerous or unhealthy substances which have…been
allowed to accumulate in or on any place…”. The County currently receives very few complaints regarding standing
water on private property, although County staff sometimes discovers stagnant or standing water when investigating a
complaint regarding a “junk yard”.
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:
Staff surveyed several localities with stagnant water regulations regarding their enforcement methods and the number
of violations each year, among other things. Though a locality’s staff is usually tasked with local ordinance
enforcement, many localities reported working in partnership with their local Health Departments, who often provide
public education toward voluntary compliance. The attached table (Attachment A) summarizes the findings.
County staff also met with Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD) staff in February 2015. TJHD staff indicated
receiving only five or fewer mosquito/stagnant water complaints each year in the entire five-county area it serves. Like
Health Departments elsewhere, the TJHD currently responds to complaints by educating property owners and seeking
voluntary abatement of stagnant waters. However, without an ordinance, the County currently cannot compel the
removal of stagnant waters if/when a property owner does not do so voluntarily.
Staff has prepared a draft Nuisance Ordinance (Attachment B) for the Board’s consideration. The Ordinance would
treat and enforce stagnant water as another type of nuisance, much as uncontrolled vegetation is handled currently.
Specifically, the proposed amended Ordinance would:
1) Make it unlawful for any property owner or occupant to allow any stagnant water to remain or
accumulate in any swimming pool, hot tub, or other container;
2) Provide that, after having given reasonable notice to the owner, the County could remove any
stagnant water and bill the owner for the cost of such removal, and that such cost would be added to
and collected in the same manner as the real estate tax on such property, with a lien being recorded in
the Circuit Court Clerk’s office if such amount remained unpaid for sixty days; and
AGENDA TITLE: Stagnant Water Ordinance
April 1, 2015
Page 2
3) Provide that such violations be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of $50 for the first violation, and
$200 for each subsequent violation, not to exceed $3,000 in a twelve month period.
Code Compliance Officers in the Department of Community Development would enforce the proposed ordinance in
much the same manner as the existing uncontrolled vegetation ordinance, in response to citizen complaints.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Based on the low volume of complaints currently received by TJHD, the adoption of the proposed ordinance is not
expected to have a sustained impact on the budget or staff workloads. However, if there are a large number of
complaints, there is currently limited staff capacity to administer the additional enforcement responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for the Board’s information in considering whether to adopt a stagnant water ordinance. If
the Board is interested in adopting such an ordinance, staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing for
the attached draft Nuisance Ordinance (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Table summary of phone survey of other localities
Attachment B -- Draft Ordinance
Return to agenda
Attachment A
Jurisdiction Regulations/Type? Number of violations/year Staffing?
Botetourt Co. Yes/Nuisance 1/year None**
Clark Co. Yes/Nuisance 2-3/year None**
Fauquier Co. Yes/Nuisance <5/year, 0 in 2014-15 None**
Montgomery Co. Yes/Nuisance 12-15/year (mostly on
foreclosed properties w/pools)
One Sheriff’s Deputy as
part of other duties
Prince William Co.
Yes/Special “Gypsy
Moth/Mosquito Control
Dist.”
150-200/year as “mosquito
complaints” which includes
some standing water issues
Five in Environment
Services Division with other
duties also
Spotsylvania Co. Yes/Nuisance
20-30 cases /summer when
West Nile was issue, now 1-
2/year
None**
Warren Co. Yes/Nuisance <10/year, often with another
complaint None**
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Charlottesville* Yes/Blighted Property <5/year for just standing
water*
Property Maintenance
Code Compliance staff of
three
* Charlottesville operates under different enabling legislation reserved only for cities (Virginia Code § 15.2-
1115). Like many others, trash & junk complaints usually include water standing in containers and tires.
Draft: March 18, 2015
1
ORDINANCE NO. 15-7(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, 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 7,
Health and Safety, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
ARTICLE V. UNCONTROLLED VEGETATION
Sec. 7-501 Definitions
Sec. 7-503 Exemptions
By Adding:
Sec. 7-505 Removal of stagnant water and unwholesome substances
By Amending and Renumbering:
Sec. 7-505 Lien against property to Sec. 7-506 Lien against property
Sec. 7-506 Civil penalty to Sec. 7-507 Civil penalty
By Renumbering:
Sec. 7-507 Criminal penalty.
CHAPTER 7
HEALTH AND SAFETY
ARTICLE V. UNCONTROLLED VEGATATION NUISANCES
DIVISION 1. UNCONTROLLED VEGETATION
Sec. 7-501. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article division, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them by this section:
(1) Developed. The term “developed” means any real property where improvements have been
made to change it from its natural state.
(2) Improvements. The term “improvements” means permanent changes or additions to real
property that enhance its value or utility or adapt it for new or further purposes.
(3) Natural landscaping. The term “natural landscaping” means a managed area specifically set
aside by a land owner for conservation purposes, using native plants, which aims to blend residential or
commercial property into the natural surroundings. Natural landscaping shall:
(i) not encroach within a minimum of five (5) feet from any developed areas, roads, or
buildings;
(ii) include a plan to identify and manage native plant material as well as a plan to
manage and eliminate noxious weeds; and
(iii) include and maintain at least eighty percent (80%) native plants (by area coverage).
Draft: March 18, 2015
2
(4) Owner. The term "owner," applied to a building or land, shall include any part owner, joint
owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or a
part of such building or land.
(5) Undeveloped. The term “undeveloped” means any real property that remains unimproved.
(6) Vacant. The term “vacant” means any real property, with or without improvements, that is
not occupied.
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-502. Grass, weeds, brush and other uncontrolled vegetation.
A. Except as provided in section 7-503, no owner of any vacant developed or undeveloped
property, including property upon which buildings or other improvements are located, shall permit to
remain thereon, any grass, weeds, brush or other uncontrolled vegetation in excess of twelve (12) inc hes
in height where such vegetation is located:
(i) on any vacant developed property, or
(ii) on that portion of any undeveloped property that is within seventy-five (75) feet
of any public right-of-way or developed property under separate ownership.
B. Upon remedying any such unlawful condition, the owner shall dispose of such vegetation
in a lawful manner that eliminates any potential fire hazard.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(A)(3).
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-503. Exemptions.
Notwithstanding section 7-502, this article division shall not have any force and effect within
a) the corporate limits of the Town of Scottsville;
b) the Monticello Historic District;
c) the Rural Areas District;
d) areas used for pastures, under cultivation, forested, or subject to utility transmission
easements;
e) areas where the vegetative growth is regulated under state or federal laws or programs;
f) any stream buffer required by County ordinance or protected under permanent
conservation easement;
g) areas under an approved plan of natural landscaping;
h) property designated through an approved zoning or subdivision plat as open space, green
space, conservation or preservation area and that is intended to remain in its natural state;
i) public park lands; or
j) stormwater management facilities such as detention ponds.
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-504. Enforcement.
A. Whenever the County Executive or his designee has determined by reports, inspections or
otherwise, that any such unlawful condition exists, he shall notify the owner of the land upon which the
violation exists to cut or cause to be cut the grass, weeds, br ush or other uncontrolled vegetation within
Draft: March 18, 2015
3
such reasonable time as is specified in the notice. Such notice shall be in writing, shall be delivered by
hand or mailed to the last known address of the owner and shall be complied with by the owner.
B. If such grass, weeds, brush or other uncontrolled vegetation is not cut within the required
time, the County Executive or his designee may cause them to be cut and the costs and expenses thereof,
including an administrative handling charge of one hundred dollars ($100.00), shall be billed to the
property owner, and if not paid, shall be added to and collected in the same manner as the real estate tax
on such property. The County Executive or his designee shall certify the costs and expenses to the
Director of Finance of the county, who shall collect such amount; and if such amount shall remain unpaid
for a period of sixty (60) days, then the Director of Finance shall certify such charges as being unpaid to
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, who shall maintain a record book of such delinquent costs and
expenses in the records of the clerk's office.
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
DIVISION 2. UNSANITARY ACCUMULATIONS
Sec. 7-505. Removal of stagnant water.
It shall be unlawful for any owner or occupant of any lot in the county to allow any stagnant
water to remain or accumulate in any swimming pool, hot tub, or any other container or man-made vessel
thereon. After having given reasonable notice to the owner or occupant of such lot to remove such
stagnant water, the County Executive or his designee may remove such stagnant water. The cost of such
removal shall be billed to the property owner, and if not paid, shall be added to and collected in the same
manner as the real estate tax on such property. The County Executive or his designee shall certify the
costs and expenses to the Director of Finance of the county, who shall collect such amount; and if such
amount shall remain unpaid for a period of sixty (60) days, then the Director of Finance shall certify such
charges as being unpaid to the clerk of the circuit court of the county, who shall maintain a record book of
such delinquent costs and expenses in the records of the clerk's office.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(A).
DIVISION 3. PENALTIES
Sec. 7-5056. Lien Against Property.
Every charge authorized by this section article with which the owner of any such property shall
have been assessed and which remains unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property ranking on a
parity with liens for unpaid local taxes and enforceable in the same manner as provided in Articles 3 (§
58.1-3940 et seq.) and 4 (§ 58.1-3965 et seq.) of Chapter 39 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. The
County may waive such liens in order to facilitate the sale of the property. Such liens may be waived only
as to a purchaser who is unrelated by blood or marriage to the owner and who has no business association
with the owner. All such liens shall remain a personal obligation of the owner of the property at the time
the liens were imposed.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(B).
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-5067. Civil Penalty.
Violations of this section article shall be subject to a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50) for the
first violation, or violations arising from the same set of operative facts. The civil penalty for subsequent
violations not arising from the same set of operative facts within twelve (12) months of the first violation
Draft: March 18, 2015
4
shall be two hundred dollars ($200). Each business day during which the same violation is found to have
existed shall constitute a separate offense. In no event shall a series of specified violations arising from
the same set of operative facts result in civil penalties that exceed a total of three thousand dollars
($3,000) in a twelve (12) month period.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(C).
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-5078. Criminal Penalty.
In the event three civil penalties have previously been imposed on the same defendant for the
same or similar violation, not arising from the same set of operative facts, within a twenty-four (24)
month period, such violations shall be a Class 3 misdemeanor. Classifying such subsequent violations as
criminal offenses shall preclude the imposition of civil penalties for the same violation.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(D).
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Fees
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider increasing existing fees and establishing new
fees for County services provided under the Building
Regulations and the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg,
McCulley, Schlothauer
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In December 2007, the Board reviewed a comprehensive fee study presented by Community Development, and directed
staff to implement fee increases and establish a policy for regular future fee adjustments (Attachment A). In August 2008,
the Board adopted an ordinance to increase the fees for the Water Protection and Building Regulations Ordinances
(Attachment B). At the same time, the Board also adopted a policy for biennial fee adjustments using the County’s salary
percentage increase as a basis for the adjusted fees. As stated in that executive summary, this was done in recognition
that over 80% of the County’s cost related to applications was associated with staff salaries. In May 2009, the Board
adopted fee increases to the Subdivision Ordinance (Attachment C). On August 4, 2010, the Board adopted fee increases
to the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment D). The Building Regulations fees have captured the majority of the direct costs
associated with that program while maintaining alignment with fees in similar localities. The Water Protection, Subdivision,
and Zoning Ordinance fees, although in line with fees in similar localities, capture only part of the program costs, varying
between 10% and 50% of the County’s costs. The Board’s interest when deciding on fee amounts was to maintain
alignment with similar localities.
When the biennial fee adjustment policy was adopted in 2008, neither staff nor the Board envisioned the County would
experience years with no salary increases or 1% salary increases. Staff delayed consideration of fee adjustments until the
combined merit increases would result in at least a 5% change in fees due to the fact that the costs associated with
revising the ordinances, updating the information and forms, and educating the customers could exceed the potential
revenue increase from a small fee increase. As shown in Attachment E, that threshold was reached in Fiscal Year 2015.
Although staff included updating the fees in Community Development’s 2014 Work Program, staff was unable to bring this
to the Board until now due to their workload.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities
DISCUSSION:
Staff notes that using salary increases as a basis for future fee adjustments greatly simplifies the process of regular
fee adjustments. In considering the policy in 2007 and 2008, the Board recognized that the last comprehensive fee
adjustment had occurred in 1991, 16 years earlier. It was recognized that the primary reason for that long delay was,
without a simplified approach to fees, the level of effort required to update fees made this a lower priority.
Staff Analysis of Fee Increases
As outlined in Attachment E, the cumulative salary increases since adoption of all three ordinances reached a 5%
increase in July 2014. If the Board is interested in including the proposed 2.3% FY16 merit increase in this fee
adjustment, the recommended increase would go from 5% to 7.5%. Staff has reviewed the fee increases and
determined that a 7.5% increase in advance of the FY16 salary increases would not result in fees exceeding costs.
Therefore, staff recommends that the fees be adjusted by 7.5% in anticipation of the FY16 merit increase.
New Fees
Staff is recommending several new fees for consideration. These include a fee for Special Exception requests, which
are a process put into place after the Zoning fees were last adjusted, and new fees associated with wireless facilities in
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Fees
April 1, 2015
Page 2
response to changes mandated by the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) regulations. With respect to
Special Exceptions, staff recommends this fee be the same as that currently imposed for Variations under County
Code § 14-207 H of the Subdivision Ordinance, as the work is very similar. With respect to wireless facility fees, staff
will determine what fees it recommends following the Board public hearing on the zoning text amendment for the FCC
mandated changes, which is scheduled for the April 8th Board meeting. Staff plans to include fees that capture the
County’s anticipated cost of processing the new wireless applications, but will also include a recommendation that
would align the fees with other Zoning Ordinance applications. The Board can then consider if reductions from the
advertised fees are appropriate.
Rounding
With a percentage increase, staff recommends the fees be rounded to the nearest dollar to simplify forms and
administration of the fees.
Process
While the proposed fee increases follow current Board policy to recover costs, it has been several years since fee
increases have been introduced. Staff plans to hold one public roundtable discussion for all three proposed
ordinances prior to the public hearings. Following the roundtable, staff will summarize the public comments and will
present them to the Board at the public hearing. The Building Regulations Ordinance does not require a Planning
Commission public hearing, but the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances will require a Planning Commission public
hearing prior to Board consideration. Staff plans to hold the public hearings for both ordinance amendments at the
same Planning Commission meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Assuming the Board adopts a 7.5% fee adjustment effective July 1, 2015, fee revenue is anticipated to increase in
FY16 as follows:
Building Ordinance – Approximately $90,000/yr
Subdivision Ordinance – Approximately $6,000/yr
Zoning Ordinance – Approximately $10,000/yr
Cumulatively, this is anticipated to increase Community Development Department (CDD) revenues by $106,000 in FY
16. Since the development of the FY16 budget preceded the revised fee proposal, the projected additional revenue
was not considered as part of FY16 budget process. No additional expenses are anticipated as a result of the fee
changes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1. Direct staff to prepare ordinance amendments that include a 7.5% increase for all fees in the Building
Regulations, Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances with an effective date of July 1, 2015 or the date of
Board adoption, whichever is later, and provide at least one opportunity for public discussion
(roundtable) prior to the public hearing;
2. Authorize staff to advertise the Building Regulations Ordinance Amendment for a Board public
hearing; and
3. Adopt the attached Resolutions of Intent to amend the fees in the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
(Attachments F and G).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Executive Summary, Community Development Fee Policy, December 5, 2007
Attachment B - Executive Summary, Water Protection & Building Regulations Ordinance Fees, August 6, 2008
Attachment C - Executive Summary, Subdivision Ordinance Fees, May 13, 2009
Attachment D - Executive Summary, Zoning Ordinance Fees, August 4, 2010
Attachment E - Summary of Salary Increases – FY 2010 through FY 2016 (FY16 not yet adopted)
Attachment F- Resolutions of Intent, Amend Subdivision Ordinance Fees
Attachment G – Resolution of Intent, Amend Zoning Ordinance Fees
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Fee Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Establish County Policy for Development Related
Fees
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Schlothauer
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AG ENDA DATE:
December 5, 2007
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to review the findings of a Community Development Fee Study and to receive Board direction
on the development of a County policy for cost recovery with these fee based programs. Recognizing the Board’s interest
in having development review and inspection fees recover all or part of the costs associated with those programs, the
County contracted a study with The PFM Group (PFM) to evaluate Community Development’s fee based programs.
(Attachment A) PFM will present its report to the Board at this meeting. (Attachment B) Following that presentation, staff
will discuss PFM’s recommendations and provide a recommendation on phasing in fee increases over time. Based on
Board input and discussion, staff will follow up at a future meeting with a final policy and proposed ordinance amendments
regarding cost recovery.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Effectively Manage Growth and Development
DISCUSSION:
While the PFM study provides a significant amount of detailed information with respect to program costs and revenues, it
will be difficult to effectively utilize this information without establishing a policy for cost recovery through development fees.
PFM has provided six policy recommendations, which start on page 4 of their report. Staff’s perspective on those
recommendations is provided below.
1. Improve data quality for fees. Specifically, PFM indicates the complexity of the current fee structure makes it difficult
to use, suggesting a need to create unique identifiers for each permit. Staff concurs with this recommendation and believes
this can be accomplished as part of consideration of ordinance amendments to revise fees.
2. Reduce the number of fee titles in the schedule. PFM provided a consolidated fee schedule with their report (Table
ES-4 starting on page 38). Staff concurs with the need to reduce the number of fee titles and believes this can be
accomplished as part of amending the fees in the ordinances.
3. Develop a Board Approved Cost Recovery Policy. PFM has recommended the County implement a policy for cost
recovery that 1) identifies the County’s costs; 2) establishes the portion of costs to be recovered through associated fees;
3) establishes the frequency with which such fees would be reviewed; and 4) establishes the process for obtaining public
input related to fees. In reviewing the minutes of past Board meetings, it appears there was considerable discussion on a
fee policy in 1991, but no clear policy was established. (Attachments C & D) Following the 1991 discussions, there has
only been one comprehensive fee adjustment, but no further policy consideration. As a result, County fees have not
maintained the relationship to costs anticipated in 1991. Staff concurs with the PFM recommendation and believes this
policy can assure fees are being implemented in a fair and consistent manner. Within other parts of this discussion, staff
is providing recommendations for the issues of identifying the County’s costs and the frequency of reviewing the fees. As
part of a cost recovery policy with development fees, the Board will also need to consider the following two issues:
Establishing the portion of the costs to be recovered through fees. In general, staff supports the concept of
full cost recovery through fees, but notes there are some services with community benefits that may justify
reduced fees and there are other services where full cost recovery would require fees that are significantly higher
than any of the comparison localities. For example, the fee associated with an Official Determination of
Development Rights is currently $40, the highest comparable fee was $100, and the County’s cost associated with
this determination is estimated at $2,560. (Fee Study, ID #52, pages 11 & 20). The Board may feel this letter
provides a significant community benefit that justifies a lower fee when the determination is done for property being
placed in a conservation easement, but might consider a lower fee inconsistent with the County’s goals when the
letter is used to market the development potential of a Rural Area property. Staff proposes a policy that assumes
full cost recovery where fees would be comparable to similar localities, but recognizes the Board may need to
provide guidance for the remaining services. Staff will develop further information on this in the future. Finally,
recognizing fees have not kept in step with cost increases since 1991, staff believes it is appropriate to phase in
some fee increases.
Establishing the process for consideration of fee revisions. As the fees are established in County ordinances,
the formal process for revising the fees requires public hearings. Beyond this, staff believes that some fee
changes could prove controversial and it is desirable to have all concerns with fees identified prior to consideration
by the Planning Commission or Board. Staff recommends the process for fee changes include opportunities for
public comment before the ordinance amendments are drafted.
4. Adjust fees based on budget growth each year. PFM has recommended an annual adjustment based on a two step
process of reviewing work changes and inflation. While staff agrees the fees should be regularly adjusted, staff notes the
fee changes require amending ordinances and reprinting of guidance and documents to reflect the new fees. Given the
cost / benefit associated with the fee adjustments, staff recommends the policy have fees adjusted every other year, rather
than every year, and the adjustment be based on a simple-to-implement inflation factor.
5. Actual time spent providing the services related to each fee should be captured. PFM is recommending
Community Development implement a time keeping system to accurately track work time associated with each fee. If fees
are to be set at or near full cost recovery, staff agrees this is important. It must be noted that development and
implementation of this time keeping system will be a major undertaking. If it is the Board’s desire to set fees at or near
costs, staff recommends implementation of a fee specific time keeping system as part of Community Development’s work
program next year. Staff has already started investigating how this may be done and will need to further discuss with the
Board the impact of this type of system on the work program .
6. A time period should be established for comprehensive review of development related fees. PFM has
recommended this review occur every four or five years with implementation of a time keeping system. Assuming a time
keeping system is implemented in FY 08-09, staff recommends the next comprehensive review should be planned for FY
11-12 and the interval for future comprehensive reviews should be established as part of that first review.
BUDGET IMPACT:
A cost recovery policy allows the County to establish the expectation for development funding versus County funding of
County administered permits. This provides for fair and consistent treatment of permits and simplifies budget preparation.
It is noted that there are costs associated with implementing and operating a time keeping system, but those cost can be
largely recovered as part of the fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached ‘Implementation Plan for Development Fee Policy’ (Attachment E)
as the general direction for moving forward in implementing fee increases. In addition, staff recommends the Board
provide direction regarding the points discussed above that can be used in the development of a policy for consideration at
a future meeting. Both of these issues will be covered in greater detail through a presentation at Wednesday’s Board
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A- Albemarle County Development Fee Study 2007
Attachment B – PFM Presentation Outline
Attachment C – June 12, 1991 Board Minutes on Development Ordinance’s Fee Schedules
Attachment D - August 14, 1991 Board Minutes on Development Ordinance’s Fee Schedules
Attachment E – Implementation Plan for Development Fee Policy
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Building Regulations Ordinance Amendment,
BRTA 2008-1, and
Water Protection Ordinance Amendment,
WPTA 2008-2
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend fees in Building Regulations and Water
Protection ordinances
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Schlothauer,
and Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 6, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In December 2007, staff presented a comprehensive fee study for Community Development to the Board.
(Attachment A) The study considered all fees currently collected by Community Development and tasks related to
reviews and inspections where the County has never collected fees but had the opportunity to charge fees to recover
costs. As part of that presentation, staff included a recommendation that fees generally be set to recover the County’s
cost for providing the service and regular adjustments to fees be established to assure the fees maintained parity with
the County’s costs over time. The Board was supportive of the recommendation and indicated a desire to implement
revised fees, but expressed an interest in comparing costs to nearby localities as well as the comparison localities
used in the fee study.
Following this direction from the December 2007 worksession, Community Development staff presented the Board
recommended fee changes for the Building Regulations and Water Protection chapters of the County Code in April
2008, along with listings of comparable fees in neighboring localities. (Attachment B) Based on this report, the Board
directed staff to bring back ordinance amendments that incorporated the recommended fee changes to these two
ordinances.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance amendments are provided as Attachments C and D. Staff notes one change from the fee
recommendation presented to the Board in April. The April report neglected to include revised fees for Zoning
inspections under Section 5-207 of the Building Regulations Ordinance. Two fee amounts in this Section are
recommended to be increased from $10 to $15 in the proposed ordinance amendment. The other changes in the
Building Regulations Ordinance are housekeeping items that eliminate an outdated reference to the National Building
Code, change the department name from “building code and zoning services” to “community development,” and revise
the residential use group to reflect “R-5” rather than “R-4,” in keeping with the current building code.
The amendment to the Water Protection Ordinance also proposes to add and amend several definitions and provides
for variances to plans. Variances are allowed under the State Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations for the
purpose of modifying measures to fit particular site conditions, but the Water Protection Ordinance has never
implemented fees to capture the cost of variance reviews. To address this, a new definition was added and sections
17-204 and 17-208 were revised to recognize variances. Next, the definitions for an amendment to a plan and
reinspection were revised to remove uncertainty as to when the County charges the fee. A definition for a plan review
AGENDA TITLE: Building Regulations Ordinance Amendment, BRTA 2008-1, and
Water Protection Ordinance Amendment, WPTA 2008-2
August 6, 2008
Page 2
was also added as the fee for plan reviews will be charged per review. Finally, the definition of a stormwater
management/BMP plan was revised to reflect variances and mitigation plans.
Staff notes that with approval of the two ordinances, we will proceed to work on revising the fees in the Subdivision
and Zoning ordinances to be brought back to the Board at an upcoming meeting. A Board worksession on the
Subdivision ordinance will be the first step.
Staff anticipates immediately implementing the proposed fees and has already advised the public of the changes. If
the Board desires to modify any of the proposed fees, staff recommends deferring the implementation of the ordinance
amendments to September 1, 2008. This will provide staff time to adjust applications and advise the public.
Alternative ordinance language with a deferred implementation date will be available for the Board at the meeting, if
needed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As noted in the April 9th Executive Summary, the proposed fee changes are anticipated to increase County revenues
by $380,000 in FY 08/09, which assumes permit fees will be at 80% of an average year. In the future, it is anticipated
the proposed fees would increase to $480,000 per year in an average year. Based on previous review of these
proposed fee increases, the Board authorized and staff proceeded with filling two additional staff positions that were
previously frozen due to the overall budget shortfall.
Staff also intends to implement biennial fee adjustments, using the County’s merit pool rate increase as the basis for
fee adjustments. The fee study noted that approximately 80% of the County’s costs for reviews and inspections are
associated with salaries. .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends:
1. The Board adopt the Building Regulations Ordinance as provided in Attachment C.
2. The Board adopt the Water Protection Ordinance as provided in Attachment D.
3. The Board direct staff to process biennial fee adjustments using the County’s merit pool percentages for the
two years as a basis for adjusting fees.
ATTACHMENTS
A – December 5, 2007 Executive Summary
B – April 9,2008 Executive Summary
C – Building Regulations Ordinance Amendment
D – Water Protection Ordinance Amendment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Subdivision Ordinance Fees: STA 2009-002
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider amending fees associated with
applications and reviews required by the Subdivision
Ordinance
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Fritz,
and McCulley.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 13, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the December 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff presented a Community Development Fee Study and a
recommendation for a fee policy. Subsequent to that study, staff proposed changes to the fees in the Building
Regulations and Water Protection Ordinances, which were approved by the Board in August 2008. Staff then
presented a recommendation for Subdivision Ordinance fees to the Board in September 2008. The Board directed
staff to present that recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission to return a
recommendation to the Board. The Planning Commission held worksessions in October 2008 and January 2009. The
Planning Commission then held a public hearing on the text amendment in March 2009, resulting in a
recommendation to the Board for fees set at 75% of cost recovery, except for family subdivisions where the fee was
recommended at 50% of cost recovery. The Board held a worksession on April 8th and directed staff to advertise fees
at 50% of cost recovery.
Staff has assumed it was not necessary to attach all of the previous executive summaries to this report. For those
interested in those materials, they are attached to the April 8th Executive Summary available on-line.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider adopting an ordinance to amend the fees in the Subdivision
Ordinance (Attachment A). This text amendment has undergone an extensive review process. Staff has approached
the fee recommendation based on earlier guidance from the Board that focuses on balancing two considerations.
Namely, fees should recover the County’s cost for assuring compliance with ordinance requirements while maintaining
reasonable consistency with the fees in other localities.
With respect to the Subdivision Ordinance fees, the main point of consideration has been how much of the review cost
should be the responsibility of the applicant and how much should be the responsibility of the County. Staff has
recommended a 50% cost recovery recognizing much of the cost is related to providing opportunities for public
participation rather than the technical review of ordinance requirements. Basically, staff is assuming the cost of public
participation should remain with the County while the applicant is responsible for the cost of technical review by County
staff. Staff notes that this approach provides reasonable consistency with fees in other localities, although there is a
wide range in fees among the localities.
Next, in finalizing this text amendment for adoption, staff has gone back and reviewed all of the fees as well as
considered comments and concerns that have been raised. Based on that analysis, staff is recommending two
changes to the advertised fees that reduce certain fees. This is further detailed in Attachment B and summarized
below:
AGENDA TITLE: Subdivision Ordinance Fees: STA 2009-002
May 13, 2009
Page 2
1. Under subsection 14-203(C), staff recognized that lumping a boundary line adjustment with other reviews
has skewed that fee. A boundary line adjustment is a simpler review than that required for a subdivision
that creates an additional lot. As a result of this analysis, staff recommends splitting subsection 14-203(C)
into two separate fees and recommends a fee of $200 for a boundary line adjustment. This change is
incorporated into Attachment A.
2. Under subsection 14-203(D), staff recognized that it reviews easement plats that are occasionally required
with a site plan and concluded that fees for such easement plats should be separated from the fees for
other easement plats. Staff recommends adding a third fee class to subsection 14-203(D) for easement
plats required with a site plan and recommends a fee of $200 for that plat. This change is incorporated
into Attachment A.
3. Staff notes a question was raised with respect to post-construction easement plats. As a result of field
changes during construction, it is often necessary for developers to obtain easements before roads can be
accepted into the state-maintained system. Those easements are often across lots that that have already
been sold. For convenience in dealing with the new property owners, the developer will often create a
separate easement plat for each lot rather than have one easement plat for the entire easement. When
multiple plats are submitted together for review, staff has historically treated them as a single easement
and charged a single fee. The proposed text amendment has been revised in Attachment A to expressly
codify this longstanding practice.
Finally, staff notes there is a need to establish an effective date for the new and amended fees. Staff normally
recommends a minimum of 30 days from adoption to give time to publish notices and assure that applicants are aware
of the change. In this case, staff recommends the effective date be established as July 1, 2009. Setting the effective
date at the start of the fiscal year will simplify administration of the fees.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County currently collects approximately $145,000 from subdivision fees in an average year. Under the attached
draft text amendment, the revenue would increase to approximately $476,000, increasing County revenues by
approximately $331,000 in an average year. Due to the building downturn, staff anticipates applications will be one-
half of an average year for FY 09 -10. Assuming the text amendment is adopted with the recommended July 1
effective date, staff anticipates a revenue increase of approximately $90,000 in FY 09 -10.
No significant drop in the number of applications is anticipated as a result of the new and increased fees. While the
increase is significant in many circumstances, the fees remain very small in comparison to the value of the
subdivided property.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt STA 2009-002 with an effective date of July
1, 2009.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – STA 2009-002
Attachment B – Staff memo detailing recommended fee changes
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance Fees (ZTA2009-017)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work session to consider additional information on
proposed changes to Zoning Ordinance fees
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 4, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this work session is to consider additional information regarding the cost of services related to fees in
the Zoning Ordinance, determine if there is Board interest in adopting new fees at this time, and provide guidance to
staff on any fees that should be changed from the previously submitted proposed amendment.
The following is a brief summary of the recent history related to proposed Zoning Ordinance fees:
On August 5, 2009, staff presented a recommendation for fee changes to the Board. By consensus, the
Board directed staff to proceed as proposed. (Attachment A, Agenda Item 22)
On November 10, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval (4-1) of the ordinance amendment
for the staff recommended fees with 3 changes. (Attachment B)
On December 5, 2009, the Board conducted a public hearing to consider the fees as recommended by the
Planning Commission. After hearing public comment, the Board unanimously agreed to defer this item until
February 3, 2010 so the newly elected Board members could participate in the decision. (Attachment C)
On February 3, 2010, the Board again received public comment on this ordinance amendment. After
receiving public comment, a motion was made to adopt the proposed fees, but failed (2-4). The Board then
agreed to defer this item until staff provided additional information, but did not specify what information staff
was to provide. (Attachment D)
Staff has included the December 5, 2009 Executive Summary, with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment that
incorporates the Planning Commission recommendation for the Board’s reference. (Attachment E)
DISCUSSION:
While the Board was not specific in what information staff was to provide, a review of the minutes (including public
comments), discussions with several Board members, and past efforts at process improvements all suggest that the
Board’s primary focus was to understand the costs associated with legislative applications, such as rezoning and
special use permits. Staff did not note a similar concern with any other fees. Staff believes that the Board’s interest
was to understand the time typically spent on each part of the application process by each staff member involved with
the project. This type of detailed historical data does not exist, and is the reason a consultant was contracted to
conduct the 2007 Community Development Fee Study. Using its experience with other local governments, the
consultant balanced staff’s time estimates against the departmental costs, then compared this with fees of other local
governments to define an appropriate fee. It is noted that one of the consultant’s recommendations was that the
County improve data collection with reviews. Staff is currently testing a computer application for project timekeeping,
but it will be several years before this is refined and several more years before there is enough data to provide a
reliable data set. Staff also notes that based on polling of other local governments in Virginia, no other localities are
collecting this type of detailed data. Instead, all appear to rely on the same type of analysis as was used by the
County’s consultant in the 2007 study.
Recognizing this limitation, staff approached this question from a different perspective. Recognizing that fees need to
be based on reasonable costs, instead of asking what the real cost of a rezoning application is, staff asked what the
cost of an ideal rezoning application would be. Staff’s estimate is provided in Attachments F and G. Recognizing that
there have been presumptions that staff review costs are driving the application fee, it is noted that Attachment F
shows that staff review accounts for approximately 39% of the application cost. Furthermore, even if the staff review
were cut in half, the cost would drop by only 20% and the remaining cost is still much higher than the proposed zoning
fee for this application. This analysis also illustrates that there is little flexibility with much of the remaining costs. For
example, a high quality staff report is required to clearly communicate the issue to the Board and the public, the
County is required to have a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board, advertisements for those
AGENDA TITLE: Zoning Ordinance Fees (ZTA2009-017)
August 4, 2010
Page 2
public hearings are a legal requirement, there is an expectation that staff will take the time to respond to public and
applicant questions, and accurate records of the process are a legal requirement. The costs of those requirements
remain, in addition to staff review.
Once staff had determined the cost of an ideal application, this was compared to the historical performance of
rezonings to understand how the real cost of applications were different than the ideal. Attachment H illustrates the
total time rezoning applications take from submission to Board approval in the last five years. Staff’s analysis noted
the following. First, there is a trend toward shorter review times, suggesting that either rezonings are becoming simpler
or that the process is improving, or both. Second, within the last several years, there are a significant number of
applications that were approved close to the ideal application time, showing that it is possible for an applicant to
receive a quick approval, and that it is already possible for an applicant and the County to keep their costs close to the
ideal in many instances.
The fact that it is possible for rezonings to be approved close to the ideal time led staff to research why some
applications require more time. In looking at several of the lengthier applications, staff observed that an increase in
time and costs are usually related to deferrals of an application going to the Planning Commission or to the Board.
Deferrals give applicants time to revise their applications rather than risk a denial. The revised application necessitates
additional staff reviews, reports and advertisement. Generally, the time and costs of a deferral are outside of staff’s
control. An applicant must request a deferral and the Planning Commission or Board must approve the request for a
deferral. Staff’s role at that point is to react to the direction of the Planning Commission or Board in responding to
changes requested of the applicant. The North Pointe ZMA is often used to illustrate the time and cost of a rezoning,
and a chart for that project is provided. (Attachment I) In reviewing the timeline, it was noted the initial staff report was
completed within 35 days of submission, consistent with the time shown for an ideal application. The applicant then
deferred for 2 years to work through the transportation study issues. After two years of deferral, the Planning
Commission acted within 90 days, recommending denial. From that point, there were 22 worksessions or public
hearings,10 months of a Board subcommittee working with the applicant, and an additional 14 month gap where the
applicant decided what it wanted to do. With the exception of applicant deferrals, there was a recommendation before
the Board within 90 days of submission and the remaining delays resulted from changes sought by the Board or
Planning Commission. It is also noted the County recovered none of its costs for providing this additional process to
the applicant.
With this analysis, staff believes the following are questions the Board may wish to consider at this worksession:
1. What part of the cost of an ideal application should be the responsibility of the County versus the applicant?
2. What part of the cost related to an applicant requested deferral should be the responsibility of the County
versus the applicant?
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff believes the budget impact of the proposed fees remains the same as was presented at the December 2 , 2009
and February 3, 2010 Board meetings. Should the Board provide new direction to staff, additional time spent on that
effort would be considered an opportunity cost, as it will require redirection of staff rather than a new budget expense.
This work would need to be prioritized against the current list of Board initiatives and a decision made as to what
efforts should be postponed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This worksession is intended to address the Board’s request for information on application costs. If additional
information is desired, staff requests the Board provide direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – August 5, 2010 Board Action Letter
Attachment B – Planning Commission Recommendation to Board
Attachment C- December 2, 2009 Board Minutes
Attachment D – February 3, 2010 Board Minutes
Attachment E – Zoning Ordinance Fee Recommendation as presented to Board
Attachment F – Idealized Rezoning Application Costs
Attachment G – Idealized Rezoning Time and Costs Chart
Attachment H – Rezonings, Total Time in Chronologic Order
Attachment I – North Pointe Rezoning Time and Cost Chart
Attachment J – October 7, 2009 Board Executive Summary
Community Development Fees Attachment E
Fee Adjustments per Policy
Fiscal Year
Starting
Budgeted Salary
Increase
Cumulative
Salary Increase
July 2009 0%
July 2010 0%
July 2011 1% 1%
July 2012 1% 2%
July 2013 2% 4%
July 2014 1% 5%
January 2016* 2.3% 7.5%
*Proposed, either October 2015 or January 2015
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 14-203, Fees, of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 14 of the
Albemarle County Code) establishes a schedule of fees for services provided for various
subdivision and related applications and approvals under the Subdivision Ordinance (the
“services”); and
WHEREAS, the County conducted an extensive fee study to determine the cost of
services provided by the County under the Subdivision Ordinance in conjunction with the
comprehensive amendment to Albemarle County Code § 14-203 in 2009; and
WHEREAS, since 2009, the County’s cost of providing services under the Subdivision
Ordinance has increased and the current fees are inadequate to cover the County’s reasonable
costs; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the fee schedule in Albemarle County Code § 14-203
in an amount that corresponds to the County’s increased costs to provide those services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County
Code § 14-203 to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certif y that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote
of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _______________________.
_____________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 18-35.1, Fees, of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code) establishes a schedule of fees for services provided for various zoning
and related applications and approvals under the Zoning Ordinance (the “services”); and
WHEREAS, the County conducted an extensive fee study to determine the cost of
services provided by the County under the Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with the
comprehensive amendment to Albemarle County Code § 18-35.1 in 2009; and
WHEREAS, since 2009, the County’s cost of providing services under the Zoning
Ordinance has increased and the current fees are inadequate to cover the County’s reasonable
costs; and
WHEREAS, the County has recently added services under the Zoning Ordinance for
which no fee has been established; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the fee schedule in Albemarle County Code § 18-35.1
in an amount that corresponds to the County’s increased costs to provide those services, and to
establish fees for services for which no fee is currently imposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code
§ 18-35.1 to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote
of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _______________________.
_____________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Ms. Dittmar ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Ms. McKeel ____ ____
Ms. Palmer ____ ____
Mr. Sheffield ____ ____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Transportation Project Priorities
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review and discussion of priority list of
transportation projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish, Gotabu
PRESENTER (S): David Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the Board of Supervisors determines its priorities for funding transportation improvements and transit
services in VDOT’s Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP), the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and
the County’s Operating Budget. The list of priorities is derived from a number of sources:
The Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP);
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission’s (T JPDC) 2035 Rural Long Range
Transportation Plan (RLRP), which includes the non-MPO area of Albemarle County;
The County’s Comprehensive Plan, associated Master Plans and other allied transportation
documents; and
Other projects and services identified by the public, VDOT and/or County staff and other public
agencies.
In the past the Board has approved two separate priority lists each year, one for secondary road improvements
(typically reviewed in the Spring of each year in conjunction with the review of the VDOT Secondary Six Construction
Program) and a second for primary road, transit, and enhancement improvements (the “primary road priorities”
typically reviewed in late Summer/early Fall). From time to time, there has been some confusion as to the relationship
between the two lists and questions about how each list affects overall transportation funding decisions.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2. Critical Infrastructure: Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes
and improves the capacity to serve community needs
3. Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development
areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting
the quality of neighborhoods
4. Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenues that support community goals
DISCUSSION:
This year, in an effort to assist the Board’s consideration of the County’s overall transportation improvement needs,
staff has put together a comprehensive list of prioritized transportation improvements and transit services (Attachment
A). Staff is recommending that the Board approve the list to be used as the basis for the projects that will be funded
from the various funding sources noted above. Please note the following:
This list breaks down and prioritizes the projects eligible for funding by type: Roads Projects (by
Primary System and Secondary System roads); Bridge Projects; Transit Projects; and, Pedestrian,
Bike and Enhancement Projects. It includes projects that were included in the previously approved
separate priority lists except for Unpaved Road projects and those projects that have either been
completed (e.g., Dry Bridge) or removed from one of the source plans/documents (e.g., Sunset-
Fontaine connector and Southern Parkway have been removed front the priority list based on
recommendations in the draft Comprehensive Plan update).
AGENDA TITLE: Transportation Project Priorities
April 1, 2015
Page 2
While there is a placeholder for Unpaved Road projects, the list of projects is still being completed and
will be reviewed at a Board work session on May 6, 2015 as part of the Board’s consideration of the
VDOT Six year Secondary Six Year Road Construction Program.
This list also includes projects that have already been fully funded in the SYIP.
Comprehensive Plan/Master Plan projects on the list are those identified as short to mid-term projects
(projects recommended to be initiated within the next ten years).
The potential funding information is a very general assessment of typical funding sources that could
be used for each project. CIP and Revenue Sharing funds could also be used towards almost all of
the projects on the list.
Regarding the recommended priorities within the list:
Primary system priorities place an emphasis on: 1) improvements to the I-64/Rt. 29 interchange
consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan priorities; and 2) improving the safety, capacity,
and operation of Rt. 250 throughout the County. With major improvements to the Rt. 29 North
corridor under development, emphasis should now move to providing similar upgrades to the Rt. 250
corridor.
Emphasis/priority on pedestrian crossing improvements on Rt. 250, Rt. 29, and Rio Road.
Emphasis/priority for expansion of transit to unserved portions of the Urban Area and Communities
(Avon Street area, Hollymead, and Crozet).
BUDGET IMPACT:
The list is intended to provide the basis for County decisions regarding funding transportation improvements and
transit services from various funding sources, including the County’s CIP and Operating Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The purpose of Wednesday’s work session is for the Board to review and discuss the attached information and your
transportation priorities. No specific action is requested at that time. The Board is scheduled to hold an additional
work session on the Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP) on May 6th with an expected public hearing and Board action on
the SSYP in June. Ultimately, a Board approved, prioritized list of transportation improvements and transit services
should serve as a basis for determining projects that will be funded in VDOT’s Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP),
the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and the County’s Operating Budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Albemarle Transportation Priorities April, 2015
Return to agenda
Desktop > Trans Priorities 2015 >TRANPSORTATION PRIORITIES > new priority list format.doc
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES (DRAFT) April 1, 2015:
The following are the counties strategies priorities for transportation improvements derived adopted the County’s Comprehensi ve Plan (CP), Master Plans (MP) and allied documents, the MPO’s 2040
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and TJPDC’s 2035 Rural Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRP), or otherwise identified by VDOT, County staff, other public agencies.
ROAD PROJECTS
RANK PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION SOURCE OF
PROJECT COMMENTS
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
PRIMARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
SECOND-
ARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
TRANSIT
/RAIL
SAFETY
(HSIP
eligible)
TAP
GRANT
eligible
CIP/Rev
Sharing
eligible
Primary and Interstate Roads
1
I-64 and Rt. 29
Interchange (Exit
118)
Existing I-64/Rt. 29
interchange and
nearby Fontaine Ave.
Full replacement of the existing interchange,
including related improvements to Fontaine
Ave. interchange (not full replacement of
Fontaine)
LRTP; Southern-
Western
Neighborhoods
MP
Fully funded in LRTP.
New to Co. Priority list X X
2
I-64 and Rt. 250
Interchange (Exit
124)
Existing I-64
interchange
Increase capacity and rebuild the interchange
to be safer for higher volumes of traffic.
LRTP; Pantops MP Not fully funded in LRTP
due to limited funding
availability
X X
3
US 29/250
Widening, Prel.
Engineering Only
From I-64 to Barracks
Rd.
Widen to 6 lanes with median and includes
replacement of the RR Bridge, other bridge
improvements.
LRTP; Places29 MP Funded for preliminary
engineering only in LRTP X X
4
Rt. 250 East
Widening East of
Pantops
From I-64 interchange
to Rivanna Village
Widen to 4-lanes w/bike & ped. facilities LRTP; Pantops &
Rivanna MPs
Funded for preliminary
engineering only in LRTP X X
5
Rt. 250 West
Intersection
Improvements
a. Owensville Rd.
b. Three Notch’d Rd
c. Crozet Ave
d. Rt. 151
e. Tilman Rd.
Safety/operation/capacity improvements
(traffic light, roundabout, lengthen turn
lanes, and/or other)
LRTP, RLTP, Crozet
MP
X X X X
6
Rt. 20 North
Widening and
intersection
improvement of
Rt. 250/Rt. 20
From Rt. 250 to
Elks/Fontana Drive in
Pantops
Widen to 4 lanes, with sidewalk and bike
lanes. Safety/ operation/capacity
improvements at Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection
Pantops MP
X X X
7
Rt. 20 South
Improvements
From Rt. 53 to Mill
Creek Drive
Alignment improvements, widening, C & G,
bike lanes and sidewalk/multi-use path
Southern
Neighborhoods
MP
X X X
8
Rt. 250 Widening,
Pantops
From I-64 to City Limits Widening to 6 lanes, section not done with
development; sidewalk, bike lanes,
crosswalks, landscaping improvements
Pantops MP
9 Rt29/Greenbrier
Dr.
Rt. 29 north corridor Add southbound left turn lane,
And westbound right turn lane
Places29 X X X X
10 Rt. 29/Woodrook
Dr.
Rt. 29 north corridor Extend northbound left turn and right turn
storage & possible channelizing of lanes
Places29 X X X X
11 Rt. 20 Intersections
in Scottsville
Valley St. and Warren
St.
Improve alignment / operation/capacity Scottsville X X X
12
Rt. 22 and Rt. 231
Safety
Improvements
From Gordonsville/Co.
line to Rt.250
Full lane width, intersection, shoulder and
other spot safety improvements
RLRP
X X X
Desktop > Trans Priorities 2015 >TRANPSORTATION PRIORITIES > new priority list format.doc
2
13
Rt. 20/Rt. 712 ,
Plank Rd.
intersection
Keene area Reconstruct west bound lane to address
safety issue
RLRP New to Co. Priority list.
X X X X
14
Rt. 29/Rt. 692 ,
Plank Rd.
intersection
North Garden area Lengthen west bound left turn lane RLRP New to Co. Priority list.
X X X X
Secondary Roads
1
Proffit Road
Improvements
From Leake Ln./Worth
Crossing to Baker
Butler Ele. School
Improve alignment, install C & G, bike
lanes and sidewalks
Places29,
X X X
2
Sunset Road and
County Green Rd.
Improvements
(secondary)
From Fifth St. to City
Limits/Moore’s Crk.
And from Old
Lynchburg Rd to Sunset
Rd.
Improve alignment, install C & G, bike
lanes and sidewalks.
Southern-Western
Neigh MP
The Sunset–Fontaine
Connector (new road
segment) has been
removed from Plan
based on Draft Comp
Plan recommendation
X X X
3
Eastern Ave.
Construction
From Rt. 250 to north
of Lickinghole Crk.
(Crozet)
New road segment to improvement local
road network capacity and accessibility
Crozet MP
X
4
Old Lynchburg spot
safety
improvements
From 4-lane section to
Red Hill Rd. (708)
Improve alignment, install C & G, bike
lanes and sidewalk/multi-use path. Priority
on intersection improvement at Ivy Rd. and
pedestrian improvements
Southern
Neighborhood MP
X X X
5
Old Ivy Road From Ivy road to
29/250 Bypass western
ramp
Alignment at Ivy Road intersection to RR
underpass, and sidewalk and bike lanes or
multi-use path along length of road
Southern-Western
Neigh MP
6
Ashwood Blvd.
Extension
Extend Ashwood Blvd.
from Rt. 29 to Berkmar
Dr. Extended
New road segment to improvement
accessibility and capacity (of Rt. 29). Would
include intersection improvements at Rt. 29
Places29 MP New to Co. Priority list.
X X X
7
Fifth St. Extended
C&G, Bike Lanes &
Sidewalks
From City limits to old
Lynchburg Rd
Provide curb & gutter for stormwater control,
bike lanes, and sidewalks (and sidewalk
repair). Includes sidewalk & bike lanes on I-
64 overpass
Southern
Neighborhoods
MP
New to Co. Priority list
X X X
8
Avon St., Curb &
Gutter and Bike
Lanes
From City limits to Rt.
20
Provide curb & gutter for stormwater control
and bike lanes. Includes sidewalk & bike
lanes on I-64 overpass
Southern-Western
neigh. MP
New to Co. Priority list
9 Library Avenue From Library east to
Eastern Avenue
Construct sections that will not be built as
part of approved or future developments
Crozet Master
Plan
X X X
10
Polo Grounds Rd
safety
improvements
Spot improvements
west of RR underpass
Address travelway width, shoulder, sight
distance, drainage
VDOT, public
X X X
11 James River Rd.
(726), Scottsville
From Rt. 795 to Rt.
1302
Spot safety improvements Scottsville X X X
12
Blenheim Rd (795)
Intersection
Improvement
Blenheim Rd. (795) and
Pine Rd. (790)
Improve safety /operation of intersection Scottsville
Desktop > Trans Priorities 2015 >TRANPSORTATION PRIORITIES > new priority list format.doc
3
13
Berkmar Drive
extended to
Airport Rd.
From Hollymead Town
Center to Airport
Continue Berkmar Dr. extended to Airport Rd
and to Innovation Dr. in UVA Research Park
Places29 MP New to Co. Priority list
X X
14 Unpaved Roads Various Use minimum yearly allocation of State
Road paving funds
Unpaved Road project
list under development X X X
BRIDGE PROJECTS
RANK PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION SOURCE OF
PROJECT COMMENTS
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
PRIMARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
SECOND-
ARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
FEDERAL
BRIDGE
SAFETY
(HSIP
eligible)
TAP
GRANT
eligible
CIP/Rev
Sharing
eligible
1
Dickerson Road
Bridge
Replacement
Just south and west of
Briarwood Subdivision
Lengthen/widen bridge over North Fork
Rivanna River Creek to accommodate paving
of Dickerson Rd
LRTP; VDOT
Priority
X X
2 Old Ivy Rd. (601) US 29/US250 Bypass Bridge Construction, Primary Road: Replace LRTP; VDOT
Priority
New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP X X
3 Richmond Rd (US
250)
Shadwell Creek Bridge Construction, Primary Road: Replace LRTP; VDOT
Priority
New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP X X
4 Crozet Avenue
(240)
Lickinghole Creek Bridge Construction, Primary Road: Replace LRTP; VDOT
Priority
New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP X X
5 Louisa Rd (22) Branch Carroll Creek Bridge Construction, Primary Road: Replace LRTP; VDOT
Priority
New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP X X
6 Red Hill Rd. (708) North Fork Hardware
River
Bridge Construction, Secondary Road:
Replace
LRTP; VDOT
Priority
New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP X X
7 Browns Gap Rd.
(680)
Lickinghole Creek Bridge Construction, Secondary Road:
Replace
LRTP; VDOT
Priority
New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP X X
8 Watts Passage Rd.
(600)
Preddy Creek Bridge Construction, Secondary Road:
Replace
LRTP; VDOT
Priority
X X
9
Frays Mills Rd.
(641)
Marsh Run Bridge Construction, Secondary Road:
Replace
LRTP; VDOT
Priority
New to Co. Priority list;
New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP
X X
10
Fontaine Ave. Ext.
(702)
Morey Creek Bridge Construction, Secondary Road:
Replace
LRTP; VDOT
Priority
New to Co. Priority list;
New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP
X X
11 Proffit Rd. (649) Norfolk Southern RR Maintain adequate sufficiency rating for level
of traffic and emergency access
X
TRANSIT AND RAIL PROJECTS
RANK PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION SOURCE OF
PROJECT COMMENTS
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
PRIMARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
SECOND-
ARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
TRANSIT
/RAIL
SAFETY
(HSIP
eligible)
TAP
GRANT
eligible
CIP/Rev
Sharing
eligible
1
Regional Transit
Authority
N/A Funding to establish and operate a regional
authority providing expanded transit service
to Co. and City
LRTP
X X
2
New Service to
Avon St./Mill Crk.
Dr. area
Urban Neighborhood 4,
along Avon and Mill
Creek Dr.
New service to developing Urban
Neighborhood, regional public facilities and
service areas
Southern
Neighborhoods
MP
X X
Desktop > Trans Priorities 2015 >TRANPSORTATION PRIORITIES > new priority list format.doc
4
3 Service to
Hollymead
Hollymead Community New service to Hollymead DA, regional public
facilities and service areas
Places29 MP X X
4
Crozet Transit Link Along Rt. 250
connecting Crozet to
downtown C’ville
New transit service connecting Crozet and
Downtown C’ville. Service would only occur
during peak hrs (7am to 10 am) and (4pm to
7pm). Service would run on 30-minute
headways.
LRTP; Crozet MP New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP
X X
5
Route 10: Transit
Only Link
Pantops area, with
improvements along
High St. in City
a. Increase headways on existing CAT Route
10 to 15 minutes during the peak hour and 30
minute off-peak.
b. Construct transit-only link on US 250 and
existing Free Bridge (adding a lane) allowing
buses to avoid transit congestion in this
location.
LRTP; Pantops MP New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP
X X X X
6
Transit-Focused US
29 and US 29
BRT/Express
Rt. 29 North corridor
(between Downtown
C’ville and
Hollymad/Piney Mtn.)
Reshape US 29 to allow BRT rapid transit
infrastructure, Bus Rapid Transit Service
(between Downtown C’ville and the NGIC);
increased bike, ped., bus-stop infrastructure.
Improvements also include new signal
preference technology to facilitate BRT or
express bus.
LRTP (T1) New to Co. Priority list;
funded in LRTP
X X X X
PEDESTRIAN, BIKE AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS [Note: most of the Road Projects noted above will include pedestrian and bike facility improvements]
RANK PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION SOURCE OF
PROJECT COMMENTS
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
PRIMARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
SECOND-
ARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
TRANSIT
/RAIL
SAFETY
(HSIP
eligible)
TAP
GRANT
eligible
CIP/Rev
Sharing
eligible
1
Pedestrian
Crossings of Rt. 250
East
Between Free Bridge
and State Farm Blvd.
Crosswalks, pedestrian signals, associated
sidewalks/ramps/safety islands. Eval. grade
separation options
Pantops MP
X X
2
Pedestrian
Crossings of Rt. 29
North
Strategic locations
between City limits and
Timberwood Blvd.
Grade separated and at grade options;
associated pedestrian signals,
sidewalks/ramps/safety islands.
Places29 MP
X X
3
Pedestrian
Crossings, Rio Rd.
East
Between Fashion Sq.
Mall western entrance
and Old Brook Rd
Pursue crosswalk(s) in multiple locations
including at Putt Putt Place or Rio East Ct.
safety improvement
Places29
X X X X
4
North Town Trail From downtown C’ville
to Hollymead Town
Center
Construction unbuilt sections of multi-use
trail between new Berkmar Drive extended
and Belvedere development.
LRTP; Places29;
MPO adopted
study
X X
5
Rivanna River Trail From North Town Trail
at Rivanna River to
existing trail at Darden
Towe Park
Construct multi-use trail for commuting and
rec. purposes
LRTP; Places29
X X
6
Biscuit Run &
Moore’s Creek Trail
Biscuit Run from Mill
Creek area to Moore’s
Crk., along Moore’s
Crk. east and west to
existing trails.
Construct multi-use trail for commuting and
rec. purposes; includes walkway along
Southern Parkway reservation
LRTP, Southern
Neighborhoods
MP
New to Co. Priority list
X X
Desktop > Trans Priorities 2015 >TRANPSORTATION PRIORITIES > new priority list format.doc
5
7
Route 250 West
sidewalk and bike
lanes, Ivy Road
From City limits to
Bypass
Install sidewalk, crosswalks, and bike lanes
X X (REC’D)
8
Rt 250 West in
Crozet
Cory Farms to
Cloverlwan/Harris
Teeter SC
Install sidewalk, crosswalks, and bike lanes Crozet MP
X X (REC’D)
9
Landscaping of
Rt.20 South AND
Fifth St.
From City limits to Rt.
53 and from city to Old
Lynchburg Rd.
Install street trees to improve visual quality Southern
Neighborhoods
MP
X X
FULLY FUNDED PROJECTS IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN (SYIP)
PROJECT NAME LOCATION DESCRIPTION SOURCE OF
PROJECT COMMENTS
PRIMARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
SECOND-
ARY
SYSTEM
FUNDING
TRANSIT
/RAIL
SAFETY
(HSIP
eligible)
TAP
GRANT
eligible
CIP/Rev
Sharing
eligible
- Rt. 29 North
Widening
Polo Grounds Rd to
Town Center Drive
Widen to 6 lanes, with sidewalk and multi-
use path
Rt. 29 Solutions;
LRTP; Places29
In design-build phase X
-
Rt. 29/Rt. 250
Bypass
Interchange
Improvements
(Best Buy Ramp)
Existing Emmet Street
and Rt. 250 Bypass
(City)
Add third lane south bound and an additional
ramp lane
Rt. 29 Solutions;
LRTP; Places29
Under construction
X
-
Hillsdale Drive
Extended (Rt.1427)
New Road from
existing Hillsdale Dr. to
Hydraulic Road
New 2 lane road with sidewalks and bike
lanes
Rt. 29 Solutions;
LRTP; Places29
Design completed, in
ROW and construction
phase (managed by City)
X
-
Hillsdale Drive
Extended (South)
From Hillsdale Dr.
/Hydraulic Rd.
intersection south to
Holiday Dr. (City)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ONLY to add
new roadway
Rt. 29 Solutions;
LRTP; Places29
To be studied in concert
with the Hydraulic Road
Interchange X
-
Berkmar Drive
Extended South
From current northern
terminus at Hilton
Heights Road to Town
Center Drive
Extend existing roadway from current
northern terminus over the South Fork of the
Rivanna River to Town Center Drive. Includes
bike and pedestrian facilities.
Rt. 29 Solutions;
LRTP; Places29
In design-build phase
X
-
Rt.29/Rio Road
Grade Separated
Interchange
Intersection of Rio Rd.
and Rt. 29
Construct a grade-separated interchange to
replace the current signalized intersection.
Includes Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities.
Rt. 29 Solutions;
LRTP; Places29
In design-build phase
X
-
Rt29/Hydraulic
Road Grade
Separated
Interchange
Intersection of
Hydraulic Rd. and Rt.29
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ONLY to
Construct a grade-separated interchange to
replace the current signalized intersection.
Includes Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities.
Rt. 29 Solutions;
LRTP; Places29
To be studied in concert
with the Hillsdale Drive
Extended South project X
-
Seminole Trail
Signals/Traffic
Services
From Ivy Rd. (City) to
Airport Rd.
Adaptive signal improvements In design-build phase
X X
-
Broomley Road
Bridge
Replacement (rt.
677)
Broomley Road, just
north of its intersection
with Ivy Road (Rt. 250)
Replace bridge over CSX/Buckingham Branch
RR
LRTP; Co. Priority
List
Funded, designed and
bid for construction X
-
Black Cat Road
Bridge
Replacement (Rt.
616)
Black Cat Road, north
of its intersection with
Rt. 250
Replace bridge over CSX/Buckingham Branch
RR
LRTP; Co. Priority
List
Under construction
X
Desktop > Trans Priorities 2015 >TRANPSORTATION PRIORITIES > new priority list format.doc
6
-
Dick Woods Bridge
Replacement (Rt.
637)
Dick Wood Road
between Rt. 250 and I-
64 interchange
Replace bridge over Ivy Creek LRTP; SYIP In design
X
-
Ivy Road Bridge
Replacement (Rt.
250)
Just east of the
intersection of Dick
Woods Rd. and Rt. 250,
in Ivy
Replace bridge over Little Ivy Creek LRTP; SYIP Preliminary design
X
-
Dickerson Rd
Bridge over North
Fork Rivanna River
(Rt. 606)
South and west of
Briarwood
development
Bridge replacement over North Fork Rivanna
River in Albemarle County.
Preliminary design
X
-
Additional
Regional Rail
Service (AMTRAK)
NS Railroad Provide a second train from Lynchburg to
Washington, D.C.
Rt. 29 Solutions funded
X X
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Photosafe Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Expansion of the Photosafe Program to the intersection
of Richmond Road and Stoney Point Road
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Blair, Sellers, Lantz and Wagner
PRESENTER (S): Ron Lantz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, the General Assembly enacted Virginia Code §15.2-968.1 enabling localities to establish, by ordinance, traffic
light signal photo-monitoring systems. The Virginia Code permits one traffic light photo enforcement location per 10,000
residents upon completion of the required traffic safety engineering studies. The County adopted an ordinance to
authorize a traffic light signal monitoring system on August 5, 2009. Under this authority, the County Executive can
approve the installation of photo-monitoring systems at up to ten intersections in the County.
On December 12, 2010, the Albemarle County Police Department activated the Photosafe Program, a traffic light signal
monitoring system, at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road. Due to the success of the Photosafe Program,
staff has identified another location where the Photosafe Program is recommended for photo enforcement. Staff is also
reviewing how the current location at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road will be impacted by the Route 29
Solutions Project.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Operational Capacity - Ensure County government’s ability to high quality services that achieves community priorities.
DISCUSSION:
Following a traffic safety analysis of the County’s top crash locations controlled by a traffic signal, as well as a survey of
red light violations and an engineering analysis, the Police Department identified the intersection of Richmond Road and
Stony Point Road as the most suitable location for an additional traffic signal monitoring system site. In 2013, the
intersection of Richmond Road and Stony Point Road was selected as a recommended second photo monitoring system
location. However, due to construction in that area, implementation of the system was postponed. In selecting the
Richmond Road and Stony Point Road intersection for inclusion in the Photosafe Program, the Police Department
considered the factors set forth in Virginia Code § 15.2-968.1(J), including (i) the accident rate at the intersection, (ii) the
rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection, (iii) the difficulty experienced by law enforcement office rs in
apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability to apprehend violators safely within a reasonable distance from the violation.
Prior to the activation of the Photosafe Program at the Richmond Road and Stony Point Road intersection, the County
must do the following: (1) complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses signal timing and other location-specific
safety features; (2) if recommended by the analysis, make reasonable location-specific improvements, including signs
and pavement markings; (3) install conspicuous notification signs within 500 feet of the intersection; and (4) conduct a
public awareness program advising the public that the Photosafe Program is being expanded to the intersection.
The Virginia Department of Transportation intends to begin construction on a grade separated interchange at the
intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road in April or May of 2016. The traffic light signal monitoring system at that
location will need to be removed when that construction begins. If the County elects to permanently discontinue the use
of the Seminole Trail/Rio Road traffic light signal monitoring system, the County could owe Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.
any unamortized costs related to that location pursuant to the current contract. The amount, if any, of unamortized costs
is currently being determined. Another option is to negotiate with Redflex to move the Seminole Trail/Rio Road traffic light
signal monitoring system to another location. One possible site being considered is the intersection of Seminole Trail and
Burnley Station Road. Consideration of this and other possible locations is on-going and there is no recommendation at
this time.
AGENDA TITLE: Photosafe Program
April 1, 2015
Page 2
The County’s current contract with Redflex expires on December 30, 2016. The County has the option to renew the
current contract for two additional two (2) year terms. Notice for the first extension must be given to Redflex by
December 1, 2016. The contract and all renewal terms will expire on December 31, 2020.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No County funds have been required to support this program. Redflex assumes the preliminary costs associated with
expansion of the Photosafe Program (cameras, signs, engineering safety analysis, signs, etc.). Net revenue to the
County from the Photosafe Program was $70,271.71 in FY 13 and $45,901.01 in FY 14. This revenue is designated
solely for traffic safety programs. The expansion of the Photosafe Program will continue to be supported by revenue from
civil penalties assessed for violations of the Traffic Light Signal Monitoring Systems Ordinance, and any additional net
revenue would be designated solely for traffic safety programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Unless given different direction by the Board, the County Executive intends to authorize the expansion of the Photosafe
Program to include a traffic light signal photo-monitoring system at the intersection of Richmond Road and Stony Point
Road upon its meeting all of the Virginia Code requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Photo Red Power point
Return to agenda
Albemarle County Police Department
Red Light Camera Details
Total Number of Crashes at the Intersection
of Seminole Trail and Rio Road
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
37
46
31 31 34
Number of CrashesYear
Total Crashes at the Intersection of
Seminole Trail and Rio Road
Number of Summonses Issued by Redflex
and Revenue Collected by Year
Note that the southbound camera system was down from 05/31/2013 – 07/09/2013
for milling and paving which may account for the increase in summonses but the
decrease in revenue for 2014.
6,187
5,656
4,695
5,114
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2011 2012 2013 2014Summons IssuedYear
Summonses Issued by Law Enforcement Using
Photosafe Program
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Revenue $0.00 $82,787.24 $88,227.44 $57,270.22 $54,100.38
$0.00
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
$30,000.00
$40,000.00
$50,000.00
$60,000.00
$70,000.00
$80,000.00
$90,000.00
$100,000.00 RevenueRevenue Generated from Red Light Cameras by Year
Total Number of Crashes at the Intersection
of Richmond Road and Stony Point Road
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2012 2013 2014
12
6
10
Number of CrashesYear
Total Crashes at the Intersection of
Richmond Road and Stony Point Road
Total Number of Crashes at the Intersection
of Seminole Trail and Burnley Station Road
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2012 2013 2014
3
4
3
Number of CrashesYear
Total Crashes at the Intersection of
Seminole Trail and Burnley Station Road
Board-to-Board
April, 2015
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Chief Information Officer Receives National Award—The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)
bestowed its Outstanding CTO Award to Vince Scheivert at their annual conference this week in
Atlanta. Mr. Scheivert was recognized for his commitment and work in closing the digital divide and his
emphasis on using technology to extend learning by students beyond the classroom. CoSN is the leading
national association for school technology leaders and it provides management, community building,
and advocacy tools to school divisions across the country. The organization represents over 10 million
students in school districts nationwide and is a powerful voice in K-12 education.
Congressman Hurt Visit— Following a visit by Congressman Robert Hurt with students and teachers at
Sutherland Middle School, staff had the opportunity to brief the congressman on activities that will be
supported by the recent $3.5 million dollar federal Investing in Innovation (i3) grant award. That work
includes professional development, the creation of integrated science and engineering curriculum, and
supplies and materials that will advance student learning in advanced manufacturing at the middle
school level. The program includes schools in Charlottesville and Fluvanna.
Learning Commons at Monticello Earns National Award— Monticello High School’s Learning
Commons this week received the National School Board Association’s (NSBA) 2015 Magna Award at
the organization’s annual conference in Nashville. The award is given to school division programs that
“take bold and innovative steps to improve the lives of their students and their communities.” This is the
first time in the program’s history that a school division has won multiple times. Albemarle County
Public Schools also received a Magna Award in 2013 for its M-Cubed Program.
The Learning Commons is a multipurpose resource center that has a vast array of interactive stations to
more fully engage students with learning. Use by students and teachers cuts across the entire curriculum,
from science students who design a new MRI application, to drama students who via Skype connect
with a Tony-Award winning actress on the interpretation of their spring musical, to history students who
study the civil war using the 3D printers to recreate battlefields.
There are more than 70,000 annual visits by students to the Learning Commons, which has also attracted
attention from the Smithsonian and the New York Hall of Science in their pursuit of new instructional
models to benefit all disciplines and student demographic groups. The Commons has been featured in
the Virginia School Boards Association’s Showcases for Success. It also has been cited as a best
practice by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the accreditation agency for K-12
education in Virginia, and most recently, by the George Lucas Educational Foundation. Visitors have
included MIT; Harvard; UVA and Virginia Tech; the universities of North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Indiana; as well as Randolph College.
CATEC Donation—An anonymous donor made a $500,000 gift to the CATEC Foundation. The funds
will support annual scholarships to current students and recent graduates or to defray the cost of
licensure and certification exams. The donation also will support adult education students who are
seeking internships or apprenticeships, as well as to help those without work find employment.
Student Honors—
• The Western Albemarle Scholastic Bowl team successfully defended their state championship in
their division and have qualified for the overall state championship at UVA later this month and
national competitions in Chicago and Washington D.C. The team was ranked second in the
nation this year.
• Western Albemarle junior Lillian Xu earned the highest grade of any student in the United States
who competed in the recent Biology Olympiad, which serves 10,000 students as part of the
Center for Excellence in Education.
• Albemarle High School’s band, choir and orchestra received the highest assessments at the
National Association for Music Educators and has earned Blue Ribbon status from the Virginia
Music Educators Association. Two students, Joshua Ling and Sephaen Tan, also were selected
for the All-Virginia Orchestra.
• For the second year in a row, Albemarle High School’s Academic team won their state
championship.
• At the 34th annual Piedmont Regional Science Fair, 10 Albemarle High School students and
teams won first place in their categories and Albemarle students won the show’s top four awards,
including both Best in Show honors (Monika Grabowski, Seth Liyanage and Ishpreet Singh) .
These students gain automatic entry to the International Science Fair.
• Albemarle’s robotics team won their state championship and will participate in the super
regional tournament later this month.
Baker-Butler Student Fundraiser—The annual Jump Rope for Heart event at Baker-Butler Elementary
School set a new record in fundraising this year, donating $18,700 to the American Heart Association.
Previous school fundraisers brought in approximately $6,500, and school principal Steve Saunders
challenged the students to reach $10,000 in donations this year and as an added incentive, he told the
students they could duct tape him to the wall. They did.
Virginia School Board Association Business Honor Roll—The board has named three division
partners to the VSBA Business Honor Roll this year. Local biotech company HemoShear has provided
support for the Health and Medical Sciences Academy, and brought teachers into their new laboratory
for hands-on professional development activities as part of the division’s Making Connections
conference. The local branch of Battelle has provided significant financial support to each of the
division’s three STEM academies, along with the annual sponsorship of the Piedmont Regional Science
Fair. The board also recognized Verizon for the $10,000 grant they provided to the Environmental
Studies Academy startup.
School Board website: http://www2.k12albemarle.org/Pages/default.aspx
Memorandum
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: March 24, 2015
SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List
______________________________________________________________________________
For information only please find attached an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through
March 24, 2015.
Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Crozet Community Advisory Committee, Jefferson Area
Board for Aging (JABA) and Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Committee.
Listed below are the names of individuals who wish to be appointed the respective committees:
Crozet Community Advisory Committee: Seven vacancies
Jennifer Lafferty More (Currently serving)
Mary Gallo (Currently serving)
Jon McKeon (Currently serving)
Beth Bassett (Currently serving)
John Savage (Currently serving)
Alice (Lisa) Marshall (Currently serving)
Alice Lucan
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA): Three vacancies
Richard Lindsay (Currently serving)
Robert Gest III (Currently serving)
Carolyn W. “Cary” Anderson
Susan Friedman
Fred Copeland
Village Rivanna Community Advisory Committee: Four vacancies
Richard Wagaman (Currently serving)
Carole Milks (Currently serving)
Paula Pagonakis (Currently serving)
Dennis Odinov (Currently serving)
Attachment: Vacancy List
Return to agenda
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Cmte David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible Advertised, No applications recv'd
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Cmte John Mattern 4/17/2015 4/17/2019 Ineligible
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Cmte Brad Cogan 4/17/2015 4/17/2019 Ineligible
Crozet Community Advisory Committee Jennifer Lafferty More 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Committee Meg Holden 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 Ineligible
Crozet Community Advisory Committee Mary Gallo 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Crozet Community Advisory Committee Jon McKeon 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Crozet Community Advisory Committee Beth Bassett 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Crozet Community Advisory Committee John Savage 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Crozet Community Advisory Committee Alice (Lisa) Marshall 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Crozet Community Advisory Committee Following application received:
Alice Lucan
Historic Preservation Committee Eden Brown 6/4/2015 6/4/2018 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA)Constance Palmer 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 No Advertised, 3 applications recv'd
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA)Richard Lindsay 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA)Robert Gest III 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA)Following applications received:
Carolyn W. "Cary" Anderson
Susan Friedman
Fred Copeland
Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Cmte William Hines 11/30/2015 Resigned Advertised, 3 applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Brian Morse 9/30/2013 9/30/2017 waiting for response
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Cmte Richard Wagaman 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES Advertised, No new applications recv'd
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Cmte Carole Milks 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Cmte Paula Pagonakis 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Cmte Linda Porterfield 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 waiting on response
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Cmte Dennis Odinov 3/31/2015 3/31/2017 YES
Revised 3/24/2015
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY15 Debt Financing Plan for Schools CIP and
Public Hearing on Issuance of Local School Bond
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of (1) a Resolution authorizing the issuance of
a general obligation school bond or (2) a Resolution
authorizing a direct bank loan, to provide financing for
reimbursement or expenditures for FY14 and FY15
Schools CIP costs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Burrell
PRESENTER (S):
David Rose, Davenport & Co., Financial Advisors
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 1, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board received preliminary information on February 4, 2015 (Attachment A) and additional information from the
County’s Financial Advisor on March 4, 2015 (Attachment B) regarding a Plan of Finance for expenditures already
budgeted for, appropriated, and to a large extent expended from the School Division’s CIP fund. The proposed Plan is to
issue debt in advance of the County’s usual biennial financing cycle to pay for cash funded project expenditures already
incurred or anticipated to be incurred in FY 15.
The County’s annual budget process includes the Board’s adoption of a Reimbursement Resolution, which allows the
County to spend cash on appropriated capital projects and then reimburse itself once loan proceeds are secured. The
County needs approximately $9.5 million in bond revenue in FY15 to reimburse cash funded Schools CIP expenditures
through June 30, 2015. The recommended Plan of Finance would not jeopardize the County’s current credit rating. It
would allow the County to maintain adequate cash and fund balances and to take advantage of the current low interest
rate environment.
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 County’s Financial Advisor, Davenport and Company, presented a funding strategy overview to the Board on
March 4, 2015 (Attachment C). The Board approved the dual-track approach recommended by Davenport, which
would authorize borrowing approximately $9.5 million for the School Division CIP in FY15 to support the projected
expenditures through June 30, 2015. The Plan directed staff to pursue both a Direct Bank Loan financing option, as
well as a Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) “Spring 2015” pool financing option.
A public hearing is advertised for the April 1, 2015 meeting to consider the VPSA option. The Board is required to
hold a public hearing prior to adopting a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds in connection with the VPSA
financing option. The Albemarle County School Board adopted a resolution on March 12, 2015 authorizing
participation in the VPSA “Spring 2015” pool in order to secure the $9.5 million in project costs. No collateral is
necessary for VPSA financing. The interest rate(s) for VPSA financing will not be known until bonds are sold in late
April.
Davenport solicited bids from local, regional, and national banks in order to determine whether it is in the County’s
best interest to pursue a Direct Bank Loan financing option through the County’s Economic Development Authority
(EDA) or whether the County would be better served to participate in the VPSA “Spring 2015” financing pool. The
bidding for the Direct Bank Loan financing option will close on March 25th. Davenport will present its recommendation
to the Board on April 1st regarding whether it is in the County’s best interest to pursue the EDA lease financing
through a direct bank loan or by a VPSA school bond. At the EDA’s March 18, 2015 meeting, the EDA was provided
an overview of the Direct Bank Loan financing option. The EDA is willing to proceed if the Board decides to pursue
AGENDA TITLE: FY15 Debt Financing Plan for Schools CIP and Public Hearing on Issuance of Local School Bond
April 1, 2015
Page 2
that option. The School Board agreed to allow Agnor-Hurt Elementary School to be used as collateral in a lease
financing with the EDA, should that be necessary for the Direct Bank Loan financing option.
The specific projects related to this financing are included on the attached list (Attachment D).
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY16 budget includes an estimated debt service amount for this debt. It is unlikely that the actual interest rate
will be more than the estimated rate used to calculate the debt service amount. Accordingly, the FY16 budget, as
proposed, anticipates and includes the anticipated debt service payment related to this financing. Staff anticipates
that the budgetary impact for FY 16 will not be substantially impacted by the financing option that is chosen.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve either the VPSA financing option or the Direct Bank Loan financing option
based on the information shared Wednesday. Should the Board decide to authorize participation in the Spring 2015
VPSA financing pool, the Board must adopt the proposed Resolution Authorizing Issuance of a General Obligation
School Bond (Attachment E). Should the Board decide to utilize the Direct Bank Loan financing option, the Board
must adopt the proposed Resolution Approving a Plan of Lease Financing with the Economic Development Authority
(Attachment F). (The Resolutions will be updated prior to the meeting to include necessary information not currently
available.)
ATTACHMENTS:
A – February 4, 2015 Executive Summary
B - March 4, 2015 Executive Summary
C – Proposed Plan of Finance
D – List of projects
E – Resolution – VPSA
F – Resolution – Direct Bank Loan
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 15 School Division Capital Improvement Plan Funding
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information regarding FY 15 School CIP cash
shortfall
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Burrell
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2015
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County’s Capital Improvements Plan’s expenditures are budgeted, appropriated, and accounted for in four
main funds: General Government, Regional Public Safety Firearms Training Center, Stormwater, and School Division.
The sources of funding (revenue) to support CIP expenditures include the general fund allocation transfer, loan proceeds,
state revenue, local revenue, and other sources. The purpose of this informational Executive Summary is to provide the
Board with preliminary information regarding the potential need to provide the School Division CIP cash funding to support
the School Division’s projected expenditures through June 30, 2015.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
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:
For the past few fiscal years, the County has issued debt on an every-other-year basis in an amount sufficient to
reimburse itself for prior fiscal year capital improvement fund expenditures as well as to fund the then-current fiscal
year expenditures. At least two official actions are taken by the Board that authorizes each debt issuance. The first
action is authorization that is granted through the annual appropriation of the CIP budget that reflects loan proceeds
as a source of funding, and the second action is taken by the Board when the County is preparing to issue debt
through the sale of bonds.
The benefit of issuing debt every other year is a lower cost of issuance. The fees are incurred once rather than twice
for services provided by bond counsel, rating agencies and some of the other third parties involved in the issuance.
One disadvantage of every-other-year issuance is the negative impact on the County’s pooled cash, which results in a
reduction of the County’s access to cash for operational purposes. Another disadvantage is in the process of
accounting for the sources and uses; the County’s “books” reflect a negative cash position in those funds/projects that
are reliant upon bond proceeds as a source of funding that is not available until the debt is actually issued (although
the funds have been appropriated). In the past, supplemental appropriations have been made to cure this deficiency
so the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report does not reflect a cash deficiency.
The Finance Department intends to present a Plan of Finance to the Board at its March meeting to address projected
FY15 cash shortfalls in the Schools CIP program. At that time, Finance will provide an overview of the upcoming debt
issuance to take place in the fall of 2015 (FY16) that corresponds with our every-other-year financing schedule.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact related to this executive summary.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This executive summary is for information only and no action is required by the Board.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY15 Plan of Finance for School Capital
Improvements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Finance plan for reimbursement of FY14 Schools CIP
project costs and funding for FY15 Schools CIP project
costs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, Burrell
PRESENTER (S):
David Rose, Davenport & Co., Financial Advisors
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 4, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board received preliminary information on February 4, 2015 regarding the status of the County’s Capital
Improvements Plan’s (CIP) expenditures already budgeted for and appropriated in the School Division’s CIP fund (See
Attachment A). Although the CIP expenditures are proceeding as planned, approved, and appropriated by the Board, the
timing of the expenditures occurred faster than anticipated.
Part of the annual budget process includes the Board’s adoption of a Reimbursement Resolution, which allows the County
to spend cash on appropriated capital projects and then reimburse itself once loan proceeds are secured. For the past few
fiscal years, the County has issued debt on an every-other-year basis in an amount sufficient to reimburse itself for prior
fiscal year capital improvement fund expenditures and to fund the then -current fiscal year expenditures. Authorization to
borrow is granted through the annual appropriation of the CIP budget that reflects, and is balanced on, loan proceeds as a
source of funding (revenue). The County needs approximately $9.5 million in bond revenue to fund Schools CIP
expenditures through June 30, 2015.
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 County’s Financial Advisor, Davenport and Company, and County staff have prepared the attached Plan of Finance
(Attachment B), which would authorize borrowing funds for the School Division CIP in this fiscal year to support the
projected expenditures through June 30, 2015. The recommended Plan of Finance would not jeopardize the County’s
current credit rating. It would allow the County to maintain adequate cash and fund balances and to take advantage of the
current low interest rate environment.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As with any financing, the budgetary impact will depend on the rates for the financing. The exact amount will be unknown
until the financing is finalized.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board approve the attached recommended Plan of Finance (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – February 4, 2015 Executive Summary
B – Proposed Plan of Finance
Alb l C Vi i iAlbemarle County, VirginiaProposed Plan of FinanceProposed Plan of FinanceMember NYSE|FINRA|SIPCMarch 4, 2015a
Background/Goals & ObjectivesDavenport & Company, in our capacity as Financial Adconjunction with County Staff, has been asked to provSchool Capital needs.School Capital needs.Due to an accelerated project construction timeline, thDue to an accelerated project construction timeline, thapproximately $9.5 million of previously Board approvpreviously approved to be funded in FY 2016 along wit–The County will need to effect an approximately $9Projects.This $9 5 million for School Capital Projects will be–This $9.5 million for School Capital Projects will beand/or potential bond issuance(s) in the County’sEnclosed is a recommended Plan of Finance and propMarch 4, 2015visor to Albemarle County (the “County”), in vide a recommended financing strategy for upcoming he County School System has an immediateneed for he County School System has an immediateneed for ed long term capital funding. The $9.5 million was th approximately $50 million of other capital needs.9.5 million new money borrowing to fund the School e funded independent of any future capital needs e funded independent of any future capital needs multi-year Capital Improvement Plan.posed timetable for the potential $9.5 million project.Albemarle County, Virginia 1
Background/Goals & ObjectivesThrough the recommended Plan of Finance, the CountProjects and continue to meet the following Goals & O–Enhance/maintain the County’s hard earned, and wMaintain both cash balances and fund balances tha–Maintain both cash balances and fund balances thaunder the recently adjusted credit rating agencies c–Alleviate any potential cash-flow concerns;yp;–Eliminate/minimize debt service funding concerns f–Maintain compliance with all of the County’s self-im–Take advantage of interest rates that remain at or ngMarch 4, 2015ty will be able to borrow the $9.5 million for School Objectives:well deserved AAA ratings(s);at are consistent with AAA rated local governments at are consistent with AAA rated local governments riteria;or the County’s Fiscal 2016 budget; posed Financial Policy Guidelines; and,near historic lows.Albemarle County, Virginia 2
Interest Rate TrendsTax-exempt interest rates remain near all-time lows bof 2015.It is unclear how long rates will remain at their currenGO 20Y B d I d (1980 Pt)12 00%14.00%16.00%GO 20-Year Bond Index (1980 -Present)8.00%10.00%12.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%808284868890929496980002040608101214The “20-Bond Index” shown above consists of 20 tax-exempt bonds with an average rating of 198198198198198199199199199199200200200200200201201201March 4, 2015prevailing interest rates for tax-exempt borrowers. but have trended slightly higher through the beginning nt levels.GO 20Y B d I d (J 2014 Pt)440%4.60%4.80%5.00%GO 20-Year Bond Index (January 2014 -Present)360%3.80%4.00%4.20%4.40%3.00%3.20%3.40%3.60% ‘Aa2’/‘AA’ (Moody’s / S&P) that mature in 20 years and serves as a general indicator of Albemarle County, Virginia 3
Recommended ApproachDavenport recommends the County follow a “Dual Track AppProject.The Dual Track Approach means that Davenport, working on –Solicit financing proposals from local, regional, and nationPl f th flliProposals process for the following:1.Interim/Short Term Financing through either a Line of2.Permanent Financing through a Direct Bank Loan.Davenport would work as the County’s Financial Advisor andpossible result, and, as such, would be unbiased as to whicheventually be chosen.The various nuances of each approach would continue to berecommendation and eventual financing provider is selectedThe following page(s) summarize “Key Features” of the RequMarch 4, 2015roach” in pursuing potential funding sources for the School the County’s behalf, would:nal lenders for the School Project via a competitive Request for f Credit or Bond Anticipation Note; or in conjunction with County Staff to pursue the most favorable h approach (Interim Financing or Permanent Financing) would discussed as the Plan of Finance process evolves, and as a d.uest for Proposal Process and potential Next Steps.Albemarle County, Virginia 4
Request for Proposal ProcessThe key characteristics of the Request for Proposal financing–Davenport, on the County’s behalf, distributes a Request fDavenport, on the County s behalf, distributes a Request fproposals from local, regional, and national lenders;–Distributing the RFP in no way obligates the County to movsend out the RFP.–The RFP can specify several different loan term and/or strinterim/short term financing and permanent financing);–The repayment structure can be tailored to meet the Coun–The entire process could be completed in approximately 4–The County has the benefit of knowing the terms and condincluding, if necessary, certain collateral requirements espObligation of the County;–This approach does not preclude the County/School BoardPublic School Authority’s (“VPSA”) through the Spring 2015Usually allows for the ability to prepay the loan at any timeMarch 4, 2015–Usually allows for the ability to prepay the loan at any timeg can be summarized as follows:for Proposals (RFP) to solicit competitive interest rate for Proposals (RFP) to solicit competitive interest rate ve forward with the School Project, nor does it cost anything to ructure options for bidders to provide in their proposals (i.e. nty’s cash-flow needs;5-60 days;ditions before deciding on which option to move forward with pecially under a permanent financing and/or a Moral d from opting for a permanent financing with the Virginia 5 pool issuance.e in whole or in part and sometimes without penaltyAlbemarle County, Virginia 5e in whole or in part, and sometimes without penalty.
Timetable/Next StepsDtAtiDateActionMarch 4, 2015County Board of Supervisorsand Dual Track Approach to March 5, 2015•Davenport Distributes RFPMarch 5, 2015Davenport Distributes RFP•Davenport/County Staff suWeek of March 9 School Board passes resoluevent the dual track results March 19 2015RFP Responses DueBack toMarch 19, 2015RFP Responses DueBack toWeek of March 23 Negotiate with Potential BidDocuments. April 1, 2015County Board of Supervisorsp,ypand recommendation(s) on Legal Financing DocumentsApril 10, 2015 Last date in which a localityBalance of April/Early May•Obtain, as necessary, apprbut not limited to School B•Bond Counsel Finalizes Le•Close on Series 2015 NewMarch 4, 2015s Meeting:Davenport to Present Proposed Plan of Finance the County Board of Supervisors.Pto Local Regional and National Lending Institutions.Pto Local Regional and National Lending Institutions.ubmit application for VPSA Spring 2015 pool issuance.tion to be eligible for VPSA Spring 2015 pool issuance in the from bankinginstitutions are deemed less favorable.o Davenporto Davenport.ders. Bond Counsel Drafts Necessary Legal Financing s Meeting:Davenport/CountyStaffto Present RFP Results gp/ yhow to proceed. County Board to Takes Action on Necessary s, as Necessary.can opt out of the VPSA Spring 2015 pool issuance.rovals, resolutions, etc. of other interested parties, including Board and Economic Development Authority Board.egal Financing Documents, as Necessary.w Money Bond.Albemarle County, Virginia 6
Richmond — HeadquartersOne James CenterOne James Center901 East Cary Street,Suite 1100,Richmond, Virginia 23219 Tl hTelephone:(804) 780-2000Toll-Free:(800) 846-6666E-Mail:info@investdavenport.comMarch 4, 2015David RoseSenior Vice President, Manager of Public Finance804-697-2905drose@investdavenport.comCourtney RogersSenior Vice President804-697-2902crogers@investdavenport.comAlbemarle County, Virginia 7
DisclaimerThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has clarified that a broker, dealerunderwriting a particular issuance of municipal securities should be subject to municipal advisowith the SEC. As a registered municipal advisor Davenport may provide advice to a municipal ena not for profit corporation, that has commenced an application or negotiation with an entitytissuerengagesDavenporttoprovidefinancialadvisoryorconsultantserviceswithrespecttothissuerengagesDavenporttoprovidefinancialadvisoryorconsultantserviceswithrespecttothrelationship with a written agreement.When acting as a registered municipal advisor Davenport is a fiduciary required by federal lainterests. Davenport is not a fiduciary when it acts as a registered investment advisor, when advwith such persons.This material was prepared by public finance, or other non-research personnel of Davenport.research analyst or research report. Unless otherwise indicated, these views (if any) are theothers in the firm. Davenport may perform or seekto perform financial advisory services for theThis material has been prepared for information purposes only and is not a solicitation of anyofferwouldbemadeonlyafteraprospectiveparticipanthadcompleteditsownindependenofferwouldbemadeonlyafteraprospectiveparticipanthadcompleteditsownindependenrequired to make its own investment decision, including, where applicable, a review of any offecontain material information not contained herein and to which prospective participants are refthereafter. We have no obligation to tell you when information herein may change. We make nno obligation to continue to publish informationon the securities/instruments mentioned hereinholding, sale, exercise of rights or performance ofobligations under any securities/instrumentsThe securities/instruments discussed inthis material may not be suitable for all investors oridecision based on this material. This material does not provide individually tailored investmenttransaction, recipients should determine, in consultation with their own investment, legal,tax,regulatory and accounting characteristics and consequences, of the transaction. You should coThe value of and income from investments and the cost of borrowing may vary becaussec rities/instr mentspricesmarketinde esoperationalorfinancialconditionsorcompaniesecurities/instrumentsprices,marketindexes,operationalorfinancialconditionsorcompaniesecurities/instruments transactions. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future perealized. Actual events may differ from thoseassumed and changes to any assumptions maymay occur and may significantly affect the projections or estimates. Certain assumptions mayany projections or estimates, and Davenport does not represent that any such assumptions willprojections will be realized or that actual returns or performance results will not materially diffewritten consent of Davenport.Version 1.13.14 DJG | DR | CRMarch 4, 2015or municipal securities dealer engaging in municipal advisory activities outside the scope ofor registration. Davenport & Company LLC (“Davenport”) has registered as a municipal advisorntityor obligated person. An obligated person is an entity other than a municipal entity, such aso issue municipal securities on its behalf and for which it will provide support. If and when aneissuanceofmunicipalsecuritiesDavenportisobligatedtoevidencesuchafinancialadvisoryeissuanceofmunicipalsecurities,Davenportisobligatedtoevidencesuchafinancialadvisoryw to act in the best interest of a municipal entity without regard to its own financial or othervisingan obligated person, or when acting as an underwriter, though it is required to deal fairlyThis material was not produced by a research analyst, although it may refer to a Davenportauthor’s and may differ from those of the Davenport fixed income or research department orissuers of the securities and instruments mentioned herein.offer to buy or sell any security/instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. Any suchntinvestigationofthesecurities,instrumentsortransactionsandreceivedallinformationitntinvestigationofthesecurities,instrumentsortransactionsandreceivedallinformationiteringcircular or memorandum describing such security or instrument. That information wouldferred. This material is based on public information as of the specified date, and may be staleo representation or warranty with respect to the completeness of this material. Davenport hasn. Recipients are required to comply with any legal or contractual restrictions on their purchase,transaction.issuers. Recipients should seek independent financial advice priortomakinganyinvestmenttadvice or offer tax, regulatory, accounting or legal advice. Prior to entering into any proposed,regulatory and accounting advisors, the economicrisksandmerits,aswellasthelegal,tax,nsider this material as only a single factor in making an investment decision.se of changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, default rates, prepayment rates,esorotherfactorsTheremabetimelimitationsontheeerciseofoptionsorotherrightsinesorotherfactors.Theremaybetimelimitationsontheexerciseofoptionsorotherrightsinerformance and estimates of future performance are based on assumptions that may not behave a material impact on any projections or estimates. Other events not taken into accountyhave been made for modeling purposes or to simplify the presentation and/or calculation oflreflect actual future events. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that estimated returns orr from those estimated herein. This material may not be sold or redistributed without the priorAlbemarle County, Virginia 8
Attachment D
Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) – Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) - Projects included in
the 2015 $9.5M financing
Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/Renovations
This project includes additions and renovations at Agnor Hurt Elementary School. The construction of this
13,824 sq ft addition onto Agnor-Hurt Elementary will increase capacity to 598 students and will include
seven (7) K-5 classrooms, one (1) full-size SPED classroom, a faculty workroom, offices, and associated
support spaces. One new classroom will be constructed to replace an existing classroom, as the existing
classroom will be renovated into a corridor and a Resource classroom. Additional parking will also be
built. The project scope has also been modified to include: (a) improvements to the existing building,
including security improvements to the front entrance and (b) site Improvements, including improvements
to the bus drop off area and improvements to the parent drop-off area. The project will incorporate LEED
design principles, strategies and elements. Beginning with pre-design, the project will take 24 months to
complete. Based on the request, the addition will be operational by the 2015/16 Schoo l Year.
Contemporary Learning Spaces
This project will begin to provide for needed contemporary renovations and refurbishments of existing
school classrooms, libraries, and other support areas consistent with School Board goals and priorities.
As an initial focus, funds will be used to primarily support redesign, renovation, and refurbishment of
learning areas that are accessible to more than one class of students. Modifications will include furniture
and structural improvements/minor renovation work ..
Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition
The addition of approximately 7,200 sq ft will include an auxiliary gym, a physical education storage room,
mechanical space, and a connection corridor. The multi-purpose space will have a competition-sized
basketball court with volleyball game markings. Limited site improvements are envisioned for accessibility
around the addition. The new space provides a third teaching station for physical education.
Murray High School Addition/Renovation
This project supports an addition and renovation to Murray High School in two phases. Each phase will
incorporate LEED principles, strategies, and elements. Phase 1 will bring Enterprise & ISAEP Programs
from trailers into the building and renovate the lab/darkroom area. The renovation will transform the
existing Albemarle Resource Center (ARC) spaces into classrooms and administrative areas that could
accommodate these programs at approximately 6,680 sq ft. The classroom bathrooms will also be
enlarged. The lab space and darkroom spaces will be combined to create a larger science room. A door
will be installed in the hallway to secure this area from the rest of the building. Phase 2 is the addition of
1,450 sq ft to create a kitchen and weight room immediately adjacent to the gym and kitchen addition.
Beginning with pre-design, phase 2 will take 24 months to complete.
School Maintenance/Replacement
This supports various ACPS maintenance and replacement projects.
School Security Improvements
In the fall of 2012 the School Security Audit Team evaluated the front entrances at 26 schools and graded
them based on ease of surveillance.
School leadership has set the goal of a secure main entry as one that directs visitors so that they must
walk through the main office to enter the building during normal school hours. There are 15 schools that
require construction modifications since office staff currently have no clear visibility of the main door from
their workstations. Eight schools have a door or window that allows visitors to be seen from the main
office reception area, and may also benefit from minor renovations.
Telecommunication Network Upgrade
This project will provide funding to upgrade the Albemarle County network telecommunications
infrastructure to meet the expanding instructional and administrative data needs. The upgrades would
provide for substantial increases in bandwidth by migrating to the latest wireless and physical networking
technologies, including the construction of county owned wide area wireless and optical data transport
facilities. The upgrades will allow the division to utilize high density and bandwidth application of
contemporary web technologies that will demand video, collaboration tools and distance learning in
addition to normal operational needs.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A GENERAL
OBLIGATION SCHOOL BOND OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000, TO
BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the “County”), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow a principal
amount not to exceed $10,000,000 and to issue its general obligation school bond (as more
specifically defined below, the “Local School Bond”) for the purpose of financing various capital
improvements for school purposes, including but not limited to Agnor Hurt Elementary
Addition/Renovation, Contemporary Learning Spaces, Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym,
Murray High School Addition/Renovation, School Maintenance/Replacement, School Security
Improvements, and Telecommunications Network Upgrade (collectively, the “Project”);
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on April 1, 2015, on the
issuance of the Local School Bond in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code
of Virginia 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”);
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution, requested the Board to
authorize the issuance of the Local School Bond and consented to the issuance of the Local School
Bond;
WHEREAS, Virginia Public School Authority (“VPSA”) has offered to purchase the Local
School Bond along with the local school bonds of certain other localities with a portion of the
proceeds of certain bonds to be issued by VPSA in the spring of 2015 (the “VPSA Bonds”);
WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that approximately
$[9,650,000] is the amount of proceeds requested (the “Proceeds Requested”) from VPSA in
connection with the sale of the Local School Bond;
WHEREAS, VPSA’s objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Local School
Bond which, in VPSA’s judgment, reflects the Local School Bond’s market value (the “VPSA
Purchase Price Objective”), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the
County has requested for the Local School Bond relative to the amortization schedules requested by
other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA from the sale of the VPSA Bonds and
other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA Bonds; and
WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Local School Bond having a purchase price
other than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue the Local School Bond in a
principal amount that is greater than or less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive an
amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the maximum
authorized principal amount of the Local School Bond set forth in paragraph 1 below does not
exceed the Proceeds Requested by at least the amount of any discount, the purchase price to be paid
to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than
the Proceeds Requested.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Local School Bond and Use of Proceeds . The Board hereby
determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school
bond in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $10,000,000 (the “Local School Bond”) for
the purpose of financing the Project. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the
Local School Bond in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Local School Bond. The sale of the Local School Bond, within the
parameters set forth in paragraph 4 of this Resolution, to VPSA is authorized. Given the VPSA
Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, the County acknowledges that the limitation on
the maximum principal amount of the Local School Bond set forth in paragraph 1 of this
Resolution restricts VPSA’s ability to generate the Proceeds Requested, however, the Local
School Bond may be sold for a purchase price not lower than [95]% of the Proceeds Requested.
The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive, or either of them (each a “Delegate”) and
such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are
hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with VPSA providing for the sale of
the Local School Bond to VPSA (the “Bond Sale Agreement”). The Bond Sale Agreement shall
be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby
approved, with such completions, insertions, omissions and changes not inconsistent with this
Resolution as may be approved by the County officer executing the Bond Sale Agreement.
3. Details of the Local School Bond. The Local School Bond shall be dated 16 days
prior to the date of its issuance and delivery or such other date designated by VPSA; shall be
designated “General Obligation School Bond, Series 2015”; shall bear interest from its dated date
payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 beginning January 15, 2016 (each an
“Interest Payment Date”), at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution;
and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a “Principal Payment Date”) and in the amounts
acceptable to a Delegate (the “Principal Installments”), subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 of
this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. Each Delegate is hereby authorized
and directed to accept the interest rates on the Local School Bond established by VPSA, provided
that each interest rate shall be five one-hundredths of one percent (0.05%) over the interest rate to be
paid by VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the VPSA Bonds, a portion of the
proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Local School Bond, and provided further that the
true interest cost of the Local School Bond does not exceed five and fifty one-hundredths percent
(5.50%) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to
change at the request of VPSA. Each Delegate is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes
in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of VPSA based on the
final term to maturity of the VPSA Bonds, requirements imposed on VPSA by the nationally-
recognized rating agencies and the final principal amount of the Local School Bond; provided,
however, that the principal amount of the Local School Bond shall not exceed the amount
authorized by this Resolution and the final maturity of the Local School Bond shall not exceed
[____] years from the date of the issuance and delivery of the Local School Bond. The execution
and delivery of the Local School Bond as described in paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively
3
evidence the approval and acceptance of all of the details of the Local School Bond by the Delegate
as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Local School Bond. The Local School Bond shall be initially in the
form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall
apply to the Local School Bond:
(a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Local School Bond, all
payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Local School Bond shall be made in
immediately available funds to VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment
Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a
business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00
a.m. on the business day next succeeding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or
date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law,
interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Local School Bond.
(c) [________________, ___________], Virginia, is designated as Bond
Registrar and Paying Agent for the Local School Bond. The County may, in its sole discretion,
replace at any time the Bond Registrar with another qualified bank or trust company as successor
Bond Registrar. The County shall give prompt notice to VPSA of the appointment of any successor
Bond Registrar.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Local School
Bond held by VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2025, and the definitive bond for which the
Local School Bond held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2025, are
not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments
of the Local School Bond held by VPSA coming due on or after July 15, 2026, and the definitive
bond(s) for which the Local School Bond held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or after
July 15, 2026, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their
stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2025, upon payment of the
prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid
or the principal amount of the Local School Bond to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued
interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2025 through July 14, 2026 101%
July 15, 2026 through July 14, 2027 100½
July 15, 2027 and thereafter 100
Provided, however, that the Principal Installments of the Local School Bond shall not be
subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without
first obtaining the written consent of VPSA or other registered owner of the Local School Bond.
4
Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to VPSA or
other registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60)
days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
If VPSA refunds the VPSA Bonds in the future and such refunding causes the Local
School Bond to be deemed refunded, the prepayment or redemption of the Local School Bond
will be subject to VPSA approval and subject to similar prepayment or redemption provisions as
set forth above that correspond to the call period of the VPSA bonds issued in part to refund the
Local School Bond.
8. Execution of the Local School Bond. The Chairman and the Vice Chairman of
the Board, either of whom may act, and the Clerk and any Deputy Clerk of the Board, any of
whom may act, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Local School Bond and to
affix the seal of the County thereto.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and the interest on the Local School Bond as the same shall become due, the full
faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any portion of
the Local School Bond shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with
law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the
interest on the Local School Bond as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due,
which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes
authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully
available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement. The Chairman of
the Board, the County Executive and such other officer or officers of the County or the School
Board as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute
and deliver on behalf of the County a Use of Proceeds Certificate and Tax Compliance Agreement
(the “Tax Compliance Agreement”) setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of
the Local School Bond and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show
compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”),
and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the VPSA
Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and
sale of the Local School Bond will be invested and expended as set forth in such Tax Compliance
Agreement and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained
therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the
VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby
determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County Director of
Finance to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Local School
Bond. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County
as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and
deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Local
School Bond by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds,
5
VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board
at this meeting, which form is hereby approved, with such completions, insertions, omissions and
changes as may be approved by the County officer executing such Proceeds Agreement.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County
Executive and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom
may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement,
substantially in the form set forth in Appendix D to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the
reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in
order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
15c2-12, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and directed to make all filings
required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by VPSA to
be a MOP (as defined in the Bond Sale Agreement).
13. Refunding. The Board hereby acknowledges that VPSA may issue refunding bonds
to refund any bonds previously issued by VPSA, including the VPSA Bonds issued to purchase the
Local School Bond, and that the purpose of such refunding bonds would be to enable VPSA to pass
on annual debt service savings to the local issuers, including the County. Each of the Delegates is
authorized to execute and deliver to VPSA such allonge to the Local School Bond, revised debt
service schedule, IRS Form 8038-G or such other documents reasonably deemed necessary by
VPSA and VPSA’s bond counsel to be necessary to reflect and facilitate the refunding of the Local
School Bond and the allocation of the annual debt service savings to the County by VPSA. The
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is authorized to affix the County’s seal on any such documents
and attest or countersign the same.
14. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court
of the County.
15. Election to Proceed under Public Finance Act. In accordance with Section 15.2-
2601 of the Virginia Code, the Board elects to issue the Local School Bond pursuant to the
provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code.
16. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents
of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Local School Bond and
otherwise in furtherance of this Resolution and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
17. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
* * *
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a
meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on April 1, 2015, and of the whole thereof so far as
6
applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting
was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution,
a quorum was present. Members present at the meeting were: [______________________].
Members absent from the meeting were: [______________________]. Members voting in favor
of the foregoing resolution were: [______________________]. Members voting against the
foregoing resolution were: [______________________]. Members abstaining from voting on
the foregoing resolution were: [______________________].
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, this ___ day of April, 2015.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia
[SEAL]
A-1
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TR-1 $___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
General Obligation School Bond
Series 2015
Dated Date: April ___ [16 days prior to issuance], 2015
Issue Date: May __, 2015
The COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the “County”), for value received,
hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY (“VPSA”) the principal amount of _____________ DOLLARS ($__________),
in annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto payable on July 15,
20__ and annually on July 15 thereafter to and including July 15, 20__ (each a “Principal
Payment Date”), together with interest from the dated date of this Bond on the unpaid
installments, payable semi-annually on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing on
January 15, 2016 (each an “Interest Payment Date”; together with any Principal Payment Date, a
“Payment Date”), at the rates per annum set forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to
prepayment or redemption as hereinafter provided. Principal of and interest and premium, if
any, on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America.
For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of this Bond, _____________, or any successor
appointed by the County as bond registrar and paying agent (the “Bond Registrar”), shall make all
payments of the principal of and interest and premium, if any, on this Bond, without the
A-2
presentation or surrender hereof, to VPSA, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m.
on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a Payment Date or
date fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of
Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of the principal of and interest and
premium, if any, on this Bond shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m.
on the business day next succeeding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said payments of principal,
premium, if any, and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given
promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this
Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to
the Bond Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the
principal of and the premium, if any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors authorizing the issuance of this Bond provides, and Section 15.2-2624, Code
of Virginia 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”), requires, that there shall be levied and
collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient to
provide for the payment of the principal of and interest and premium, if any, on this Bond as the
same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and shall be in
addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the
County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the Constitution
and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26,
Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code, and resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the
A-3
County and the School Board of the County to provide funds for capital projects for school
purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost, on twenty (20) days written notice from the
VPSA, at the office of the Bond Registrar on one or more occasions for one or more temporary
bonds or definitive bonds in marketable form and, in any case, in fully registered form, in
denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, and having an equal aggregate principal
amount, having principal installments or maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to the
maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid. This
Bond is registered in the name of the VPSA on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar,
and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this Bond only upon due
execution of an assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the
surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive bonds as
hereinabove provided, such definitive bonds to be registered on such registration books in the name
of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment.
The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before July 15, 2025 and the
definitive bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2025, are
not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The principal installments
of this Bond coming due on or after July 15, 2026, and the definitive bonds for which this Bond
may be exchanged that mature on or after July 15, 2026, are subject to prepayment or redemption at
the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after
July 15, 2025, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of
principal installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of this Bond to be redeemed) set forth
below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
A-4
Dates Prices
July 15, 2025, through July 14, 2026 101%
July 15, 2026, through July 14, 2027 100½
July 15, 2027, and thereafter 100
Provided, however, that the principal installments of this Bond shall not be subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without the prior
written consent of VPSA or other registered owner of this Bond. Notice of any such prepayment
or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to VPSA or other registered owner by
registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed
for prepayment or redemption.
If VPSA refunds its bonds issued in part to purchase this Bond in the future and such
refunding causes this Bond to be deemed refunded, the prepayment or redemption of this Bond
will be subject to VPSA approval and subject to similar prepayment or redemption provisions as
set forth above that correspond to the call period of the VPSA bonds issued in part to refund this
Bond.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have hap-
pened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and this Bond,
together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by
the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
A-5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle has
caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be signed by
its Chairman or Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its
Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be dated April __ [16 days prior to the
closing date], 2015.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia
_____________________________________
Chairman, Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia
A-6
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF
ASSIGNEE)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: ____________________________
the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
__________________________________________________ attorney to exchange said Bond for
definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive
bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Date:
Signature Guaranteed:
(NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed
by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting
the requirements of the Bond Registrar
which requirements will include Membership
or participation in STAMP or such other
"signature guarantee program" as may be
determined by the Bond Registrar in addition
to, or in substitution for, STAMP, all in
accordance with the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
Registered Owner
(NOTICE: The signature above must
correspond with the name of the Registered
Owner as it appears on the front of this Bond
in every particular, without alteration or
change.)
99900.14463 EMF_US 54712194v3
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAN OF LEASE
FINANCING WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
APPROVING THE FORM OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF
THE SAME
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the “County Board”) of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the “County”), desires to finance the costs of various capital improvements for school
and other governmental purposes, including but not limited to (a) additions to and renovations of
Agnor Hurt Elementary School, (b) redesign, renovation and refurbishment of existing
classroom, library and other school facilities, (c) addition of an auxiliary gym and other related
space to Henley Middle School, (d) additions and renovations to Murray High School, (e)
maintenance and replacement projects at existing school facilities, (f) security improvements,
modifications and renovations to existing school facilities and (g) upgrades to the County’s
telecommunications infrastructure (collectively, the “Project”);
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
“Authority”), was created under and is authorized to exercise all the powers set forth in the
Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 49, Code of Virginia, as
amended (the “Act”), which include, among other things, the powers (a) to make loans to, among
others, a county in furtherance of the Act, (b) to finance or refinance facilities and lease facilities
for use by, among others, a county, (c) to issue its revenue bonds, notes and other obligations
from time to time for such purposes and (d) to pledge all or any part of its revenues and receipts
derived from payments received by the Authority in connection with its loans or from the leasing
by the Authority of such facilities or from any source, as security for the payment of principal of
and interest on any such obligations;
WHEREAS, the County Board desires to undertake the Project through a lease financing
structure with the School Board of Albemarle County, Virginia (the “School Board”), and the
Authority, pursuant to which the County and the School Board would lease the Agnor Hurt
Elementary School property (as more specifically described in the hereinafter defined Prime
Lease, the “Premises”) to the Authority pursuant to the terms of the Prime Lease (as hereinafter
defined) and the Authority would lease such real property back to the Authority pursuant to the
terms of a Lease Agreement (as hereinafter defined);
WHEREAS, the County Board has requested that the Authority (a) issue one or more
series of lease revenue bonds (collectively, the “Bond”) pursuant to the terms of the Lease
Agreement, (b) loan the proceeds of the Bond to the County pursuant to the terms of the Lease
Agreement to pay the costs of the Project, including all or a portion of the costs of issuing the
Bond, and (c) secure the repayment of the Bond by a lease of the Premises to the County and the
School Board pursuant to the terms of the Prime Lease (as hereinafter defined) and the Lease
Agreement;
2
WHEREAS, the County has requested Davenport & Company LLC, as the County’s
financial advisor (the “Financial Advisor”), to solicit bids from banking and other financial
institutions for the purchase of the Bond; and
WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting drafts of the following documents
(collectively, the “Documents”) that the County proposes to execute in support of the
transactions described above, copies of which shall be filed with the records of the County
Board:
(a) Prime Lease (the “Prime Lease”), between the Authority, the County and the
School Board, pursuant to which the County and the School Board will lease the Premises to the
Authority; and
(b) Bond Purchase and Lease Agreement (the “Lease Agreement”), between the
Authority, the County, the School Board and the Bondholder (as hereinafter defined), pursuant to
which (1) the Authority will issue the Bond, (2) the Authority will agree to sell, and the
Bondholder will agree to purchase, the Bond, (3) the Authority will use proceeds thereof to
finance the Project and (4) the Authority will lease the Premises to the County and the School
Board.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The following plan of lease financing for the Project is hereby approved: (a) the
Authority shall issue the Bond in a principal amount not to exceed $[10,000,000], (b) the County
and the School Board will lease the Premises to the Authority pursuant to the terms of the Prime
Lease, with an expiration not later than [December 31, 20__], and (c) the Authority will lease the
Premises back to the County and the School Board pursuant to the terms of the Lease
Agreement, with an expiration not later than [December 31, 20__]. The County will undertake
to make payments to the Authority of basic rent (“Basic Rent”) and additional rent (“Additional
Rent”) under the terms of the Lease Agreement in amounts sufficient to pay when due the
principal of, and premium (if any) and interest on the Bond and to pay the fees and expenses of
the Authority. The obligation of the Authority to pay principal of and premium, if any, and
interest on the Bond will be limited to the payments of Basic Rent and Additional Rent received
from the County. The undertaking by the County to make payments of Basic Rent and
Additional Rent will be subject to appropriations from time to time by the County Board of
sufficient amounts for such purposes. Upon an event of default or an event of non-appropriation
by the County Board under the Lease Agreement, the Authority shall have the right to exercise
any remedies provided in the Lease Agreement, including the right to terminate the Lease
Agreement and exclude the County and the School Board from possession of the Premises for
the remainder of the term of the Prime Lease. The Bond will be secured in part by an assignment
to the Bondholder of the Authority’s rights to receive payments of Basic Rent. This plan of lease
financing shall contain such additional requirements and provisions as the County Executive
(which term for purposes of this Resolution includes any Deputy County Executive) may
approve and determine to be in the best interests of the County.
3
2. Subject to the pricing parameters of the Bond described below, the County Board
hereby authorizes the County Executive, in consultation with the Financial Advisor and the
Authority, to review the bids received and to select the bid that the County Executive determines
to be in the best interests of the County. The banking or other financial institution submitting
such winning bid shall be selected as the bondholder (the “Bondholder”).
3. The County Executive is authorized and directed to execute the Documents,
which shall be in substantially the forms submitted to this meeting, which are hereby approved,
with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as
may be approved by the County Executive, his execution to constitute conclusive evidence of his
approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes. In making completions to
the Lease Agreement, the County Executive shall provide for payments of Basic Rent on terms
equivalent to the Bond, which shall (a) mature in installments ending no later than [December
31, 20__]; (b) have an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $[10,000,000]; (c) have a “true”
or “Canadian” interest cost not exceeding [___]%; (d) be subject to optional redemption on such
terms that the County Executive and the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Authority determine
to be in the best interests of the County and the Authority; and (e) be sold to the Bondholder at a
price not less than [100]% of the aggregate principal amount thereof. Following the sale of the
Bond, the County Executive shall file a certificate with the records of the County Board setting
forth the final terms of the Bond and the Lease Agreement. The actions of the County Executive
in approving the terms of the Bond and the Lease Agreement shall be conclusive, and no further
action shall be necessary on the part of the County. As set forth in the Lease Agreement, the
County undertakes to pay from legally available funds such “late charges” and other charges as
described therein.
4. The officers of the County are authorized and directed to execute and deliver all
certificates and instruments and to take all actions necessary or desirable in connection with the
execution and delivery of the Documents and the completion of the lease financing.
5. The undertaking by the County to pay any amounts under the Lease Agreement
shall be limited obligations payable solely from funds to be appropriated by the County Board
for such purpose. Nothing herein or in the Lease Agreement shall constitute a debt of the County
within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or a pledge of the faith and credit
or taxing power of the County.
6. The County Board believes that funds sufficient to make payment of all amounts
payable under the Lease Agreement can be obtained. While recognizing that it is not empowered
to make any binding commitment to make such payments beyond the current fiscal year, the
County Board hereby states its intent to make annual appropriations for future fiscal years in
amounts sufficient to make all such payments and hereby recommends that future County Boards
do likewise during the term of the Lease Agreement. The County Board directs the County
Executive, the Director of Finance or such other officer who may be charged with the
responsibility for preparing the County’s annual budget, to include in the budget request for each
fiscal year during the term of the Lease Agreement an amount sufficient to make the payment of
all amounts payable under the Lease Agreement. Within 10 days after adoption of the County’s
annual budget and related appropriation resolution, but not later than 10 days after the beginning
of each fiscal year, the County Executive is authorized and directed to deliver to the Authority
4
and the Bondholder a certificate stating whether an amount equal to or credited to the payment of
Basic Rent and Additional Rent that will be due during such fiscal year has been budgeted and
appropriated by the County Board. So long as the Bond is outstanding, if at any time during any
fiscal year of the County, the amount appropriated in the County’s annual budget in such fiscal
year is insufficient to pay when due the amounts payable under the Lease Agreement, the County
Board directs the County Executive or Director of Finance, or such other officer who may be
charged with the responsibility for preparing the County’s annual budget, to submit to the
County Board a request for a supplemental appropriation sufficient to cover the deficit.
7. (a) The County covenants that it will not take or omit to take any action the
taking or omission of which will cause the Bond to be an “arbitrage bond” within the meaning of
Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and regulations issued pursuant
thereto (the “Code”), or otherwise cause the interest due on the Bond to be includable in the
gross income of the holder thereof under existing statutes. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the County shall comply with any provision of law that may require the County at any
time to rebate to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the investment of the
funds received under the Lease Agreement, unless the County receives an opinion of nationally
recognized bond counsel that such compliance is not required to prevent interest on the Bond
from being includable in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the holder thereof
under existing law.
(b) The County covenants that during the term of the Lease Agreement it shall
not permit the proceeds of the Bond or the facilities financed therewith to be used in any manner
that would result in (a) 10% or more of such proceeds or facilities being used in a trade or
business carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as provi ded in Section
141(b) of the Code, provided that no more than 5% of such proceeds may be used in a trade or
business unrelated to the County’s use of such facilities, (b) 5% or more of such proceeds or
facilities being used with respect to any “output facility” (other than a facility for the furnishing
of water), within the meaning of Section 141(b)(4) of the Code, or (c) 5% or more of such
proceeds being used directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a
governmental unit, as provided in Section 141(c) of the Code; provided, however, that if the
County receives an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that any such covenants need
not be complied with to prevent the interest on the Bond from being includable in the gross
income for federal income tax purposes of the holder thereof under existing law, the County need
not comply with such covenants.
8. Such officers of the County as may be requested by bond counsel for the County
are authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certificate setting forth (a) the expected use
and investment of the proceeds of the Lease Agreement in order to show that such expected use
and investment will not violate the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and (b) any elections
such officers deem desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States for purposes of
complying with Section 148 of the Code. Such certificate shall be prepared in consultation with
bond counsel for the County, and such elections shall be made after consultation with bond
counsel.
9. All costs and expenses in connection with the undertaking of the Project and the
issuance of the Bond, including the Authority’s fees and expenses and the fees and expenses of
5
bond counsel, counsel for the Authority, the Bondholder and counsel to the Bondholder, shall be
paid from the proceeds of the Bond or other legally available funds of the County. If for any
reason the Bond is not issued, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the County
from its legally available funds and that the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor.
10. Any authorization herein to execute a document shall include authorization to
deliver it to the other parties thereto and to record such document where appropriate.
11. All other actions of the officers of the County that are in conformity with the
purposes and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of this lease financing are approved and
ratified.
12. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed.
13. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
99900.14463 EMF_US 54745546v2