HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-01
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
OCTOB ER 1, 2008
9:00 A.M., LAN E AU DITORIU M
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. VACo Annual Achiev ement Award.
b. Energy Star Award.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:40 a.m. – Information/Presentation Items:
8. James U tterback , VD oT Culpeper District Administrator.
9. BoardtoBoard, Monthly Communications R eport from School Board, School Board C hairman.
10. a. AC SA Quarterly U pdate, Gary Fern.
1. Albemarle Place Meeting with Edens & Av ant on September 24, 2008.
2. N orth Fork Pump Station.
b. RW SA Quarterly Update, Tom Frederick .
10:20 a.m. Action Items:
11. 2009 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) Legislative Program
10:30 a.m. Public hearings:
12. PROJECT: SP2008018. Rosewood Village R ehab Services – Greenbrier. PR OPOSED: Allow non
residents of Ros ewood Village to use the Rosewood Village rehab facility. LOC ATION: 500 Greenbrier
D rive. N ortheast corner of Greenbrier Drive and W estfield R oad. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W /021.
MAGISTERIAL DISTR ICT: Rio.
13. PROJECT: SP2008019. Rosewood Village R ehab Services Hollymead Town Center. PROPOSED:
Allow nonresidents of Rosewood Village to us e the Rosew ood Village rehab facility. LOCATION: 2029
Lockwood Driv e. The property is located approximately 1,500 feet from U.S. Route 29 along Timberwood
Boulevard in the H ollymead Town Center. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/41K. MAGISTERIAL D ISTRIC T: Rio.
14. PROJECT: SP2008021. C oConstruct Home Occ B. (Sign #47). PROPOSED: Home Occupation,
C lass B to allow up to 2 employees associated with a internetbased home business. LOCATION : 1814
C lay Drive, Crozet, VA 22932, in the Waylands Grant subdiv ision, off of Jarman's Gap Road (RT 691),
approx. 700 ft from the intersec tion of Crozet Ave (Rt 810). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 55D49. MAGISTERIAL
D ISTRICT: W hite Hall.
15. To amend the Albemarle County Service A uthority jurisdictional areas for Robert and C arolyn
Michie to provide water serv ice to Tax Map 79, Parcels 17 and 17C located on the north side of R oute 250,
near the intersection of Route 250 and North Milton Road (Rt 72 9) and adjacent to the GOCO O il site. Znd RA .
R ivanna Dist.
16. To amend the Albemarle County Service A uthority jurisdictional areas for Kirtley Property/
U niversity of Virginia to prov ide water and s ewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcels 23B1. Property
located on north side of Rt 250 West, adjacent to the Northridge Building and the Volvo of
C harlottesville site. Znd C1, Commercial and R A. Samuel Miller D ist.
17. FY 2009 Budget A mendment.
18. Revalidation Ordinance Amendment. An ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle
C ounty Code, by amending Section 15803, Same – Proces sing; C ontinuation of Assessments, etc.; Fees,
of Article VIII, Special Assess ments for Agric ultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate. The
proposed amendment would require effective tax year 2010 that property owners in the Land Use Value Tax
Program verify every two years that participating properties c ontinue to meet Program requirements and
w ould establish a filing deadline and late filing fee.
19. Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance Amendment. An ordinance to amend C hapter 15, Taxation, of the
Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 15901, Imposed; Amount of Tax , of Article IX, Transient
Occupancy Tax. The proposed amendment would conform the County’s trans ient occupancy tax to the
new State law that requires the County to designate and spend that portion of the revenue collected from
the transient oc cupancy tax rate over two percent solely for tourism and trav el, marketing of tourism or
initiatives that, as determined after consultation w ith the local tourism industry organizations, attract
travelers to the County and generate tourism revenues in the C ounty.
20. Closed Meeting.
21. Certify Closed Meeting.
22. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies /Appointments.
2:00 p.m. – Transportation Matters
23. a. VDOT Monthly Report.
b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
c . Ashcroft Traffic Calming R esolution.
d. Primary Road Improvement Priorities .
24. 2:45 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Eastern Connector Alignment Study.
25. Voting Credentials for VACo Annual Busines s Meeting.
26. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
Recess and Reconvene in Room 241.
27. 4:00 p.m. – Joint Meeting with School Board,
a. Call to Order.
b. Discussion: Total C ompensation Report.
c . Matters not Listed on Agenda.
28. Adjourn to October 8, 2008, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: December 12, 2007; February 11, March 5, March 12, March 19, July 9, July 23,
August 5, September 3 and September 10, 2008.
7.2 Resolution to Fix Compensation for Albemarle County Servic e Authority Board Members.
7.3 Res olut ion Supporting National Byway AllAmerican R oad D esignation for R oute 20, Route 22 and R oute
231.
7.4 Resolution Supporting Virginia By way Designation for Route 53, Route 729 (Milton Road) and portions of
R oute 20 and Route 250.
7.5 Resolution Supporting State Sc enic River designation for the South Fork of the Rivanna R iver and the
R ivanna River from the South Fork Rivanna River R eservoir Dam to the site of the former Woolen Mills
D am.
7.6 Resolution to accept the abandonment of Route 640 (Turkey Sag Road) in the State Secondary Road
Sy stem.
7.7 Resolution to Endorse Pedestrian Bridge Project in the City of Charlottesville.
7.8 FY 2008 Appropriations.
7.9 Destruction of FY 2003 Paid Personal Property Tax Receipts .
7.10 Set Dates related to development of FY 09/10 Budget Calendar.
FOR IN FORMATION:
7.11 2008 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline
Transmission Companies as certified by the Department of Tax ation (on file in Clerk's office).
7.12 2008 Statements of Assessed Value for the Electric, Gas, Telec ommunications and Water C ompanies; and
Listing of Motor Vehicle Carrier C ompanies Subject to Annual Rolling Stock Tax Administered by the Public
Service Taxation Division for Albemarle County, as certified by the State C orporation Commis sion (on file
in Clerk's office).
Ret urn t o Top of Agenda
Ret urn t o Board of Superv isors Home P age
Ret urn t o Count y Home Page
RESOLUTION TO FIX COMPENSATION
FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS
WHEREAS, Section 15.25113(C) of the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act provides
that Service Authority Board members shall receive such compensation as fixed by resolution of the
governing body or bodies which are members of the authority; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board has requested that the
compensation of Board members be increased to $150.00 per meeting attended in recognition of the
increasing complexity of the management, environmental and other issues facing the Authority, and in
keeping with presentday compensation for board members among other Western Virginia water
authorities; and
WHEREAS, compensation of ACSA Board members has not increased since 1997; and
WHEREAS, the ACSA Board compensation increase in 1997 was not fixed by a resolution of
the Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby affirms and ratifies the compensation of Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board
members for the period beginning July 1, 1997 through September 30, 2008 at $100.00 per regular
meeting attended and $50.00 for each additional meeting attended per month; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby fixes
the compensation of Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board members at $150.00 per
meeting effective October 1, 2008. Such compensation shall be adjusted annually on April 1st by the
percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Such compensation shall be further reviewed
every five years.
View letter of request
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
National By way Designation, Routes 20, 22 and
231
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt a resolution supporting National Byway
AllAmerican Road designation for Routes 20, 22
and 231.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: INFORMATION :
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION: X IN FORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Journey Through H allowed Ground (JTH G) Partnership is reques ting all loc alities along the JTH G corridor, from
the Gettysburg battlefield in Pennsy lvania to Monticello, adopt res olutions supporting the designation of Routes 15,
20, 22 and 231 as National Scenic Byw ays Program, AllAmerican Roads. The National Scenic Byw ays Program is
part of the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and is a grassroots collaborative
effort establis hed to help recognize, preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the U nited States. There are
currently 126 N ational Scenic Byways in the country. There are four designated in Virginia: Colonial Parkw ay
(W illiamsburg/Jamestown/Yorktown), Skyline Drive, Blue Ridge Park way, and the George Washington Memorial
Parkw ay (outside of W as hington, D.C .).
One of the JTHG Partnership’s main goals is to coordinate efforts with localities along the corridor and with the
transportation officials in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania to seek this designation in 2008. The support of each
locality is needed for the 175mile corridor to be designated as a National Scenic Byway, AllAmerican Road. A
locality may hold a public hearing on the proposed designation, but a public hearing by the locality is not required.
The roads proposed for designation as AllAmerican Roads are:
Route 20 North (Stony Point Road), from its intersection w ith Route 250 East to the Orange County line
Route 22, from R oute 250 E to its junction with R oute 231
Route 231, from Route 22 to the Louisa County line
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural R esources.
Goal 3: Effectively Manage the County ’s Grow th and D evelopment.
DISCU SSION :
To be designated a National Scenic Byway, a road must poss ess at least one of the following “intrinsic qualities” on
a regional level: archaeological, c ultural, historic, natural, recreational, or s cenic. To meet the higher level All
American Road designation, a road must poss ess at least two of the intrinsic qualities on a national lev el. Apply ing
U.S. Department of Transportation standards, the JTHG Partnership determined that the Route 15/20/22/231
corridors meet the criteria for the AllAmerican Road designation.
An AllAmerican Road designation does not impose any restrictions on private property with the exception of
prohibiting the installation of new signs advertising offsite uses and activities (billboards) along these roads. Such
signage is already restricted by County regulation and the existing Virginia Byway designation along these routes.
All other regulatory authority remains with local and state jurisdictions.
According to Virginia Department of Transportation (VD OT) staff, an AllAmerican Road designation w ould not limit
VDOT’s ability to maintain, operate or improve transportation facilities along designated byway corridors, nor would it
increase the extent of Federal involvement. (See Attachment A) These corridors are w ithin a JTHG National
Heritage Area. (See Attachment C ) VDOT staff has noted that “the NHA designation is designed to call attention to
issues of historic and heritage cons erv ation” and, therefore, “it may increase public attention and scrutiny on the
effects of VDOT actions w ithin the NHA.”
An AllAmerican Road designation w ould mak e affected localities and states eligible for grant funding to support and
enhance the National Scenic By way through the N ational Scenic Byways Discretionary Grants Program. According
to the JTHG Partners hip, the NH A and R outes 20, 22 and 231, if they receive the AllAmerican Road designation,
will be included in future American Byway s maps published by the U .S. Department of Transportation and will be
marketed to national and international visitors with the hope of increasing heritage touris m in the area.
Since the designation would not establish any new restrictions on priv ate property except restrictions on billboards,
which are already regulated in the County, staff does not believe a public hearing is necessary. The intent of the
designation is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan goals to protect natural, cultural and historic
resourc es as follows:
Goal: Protect the County’s historic and cultural resources
Objective: Pursue additional protec tion measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle’s historic and
archaeological res ources in order to foster pride in the C ounty and maintain the County’s charac ter
Goal: Preserve the County’s scenic resources as being essential to the character, economic vitality and quality
of life.
Objective: Maintain the visual integrity of all Albemarle’s roadways.
A resolution supporting an AllAmeric an designation for Routes 20, 22 and 231 is attached. Should the Board dec ide
to hold a public hearing, the hearing should be held in Nov ember to allow sufficient time to meet required submittal
deadlines for federal ac tion in 2008.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no direct budget impact of des ignating these routes as AllAmerican Roads. The designation w ould provide
opportunities for grants related to enhancing and protec ting the Scenic Byway corridor.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution s upporting an AllAmerican Road designation for
Routes 20, 22 and 231 in Albemarle County. Again, sinc e the designation would not establish any new restrictions
on private property ex cept restrictions on billboards , which are already regulated in the C ounty, staff does not
believe a public hearing is necessary.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Journey Through H allow ed Ground Talking Points (VDOT)
B – Resolution
C – Map s how ing JTHG National Heritage Area
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
A ugust 22, 2008
Journey Through Hallowed Ground
Talking Points (VDOT)
Background
The Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) corridor was designated a Virginia Byway by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board on May 17, 2007
Legislation designating the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area was signed
by the President on May 8, 2008.
The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership plans to seek All American Road (National
Scenic Byway) designation through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Applications
for designation are due to FHWA in the Fall of 2008.
Both National Heritage Area and All American Road designation processes require the
development of a corridor management plan.
Corridor Management Plan
The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership has undertaken the development of a Corridor
Management Plan (CMP) and has a draft document currently under review by stakeholders.
VDOT is one of many stakeholders that are participating in the development of the CMP. We
provide our comments in an open, transparent manner, for review by all stakeholders.
The CMP is a resource document for the corridor with recommendations related to tourism, land
use, and transportation.
The CMP is not regulatory in nature and does not impose new requirements on state or local
governments for implementation. However, it does invite stakeholders to consider aspects of
tourism, land use, and transportation with an awareness of their interaction with historical and
cultural resources.
VDOT’s Perspective
These designations do not limit VDOT’s ability to maintain, operate, or improve transportation in
the JTHG National Heritage Area (NHA) or along designated byway corridors.
The corridor management plan will be a consideration in the implementation of transportation
projects along the designated corridor as part of a transparent and collaborative process based on
sound and sensitive engineering.
NHA designation will neither increase nor decrease the amount of Section 106 involvement in
transportation projects. Only federal funding and permits trigger consideration of effects on
historic properties under Section 106.
However, as NHA designation is designed to call attention to issues of historic and heritage
conservation it may increase public attention and scrutiny on the effects of VDOT actions within
the NHA.
Go to next attachment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
Attachment B
RESOLUTION SU PPOR TING
TH E U.S. DEPA RTMENT OF TR ANSPORTATION ’S FEDERA L
HIGHWA Y AD MIN ISTRATION “ALLA MER IC A N ROA D” DESIGNATION
FOR ROU TES 20, 22 AND 231
WH ER EA S, the U nited States Congress approved legislation in May 2008 to create The Journey
Through Hallowed Ground National H eritage Area; and
WH ER EA S, this legislation creates a National Heritage Area corridor that includes Routes 20 and
22/231 from Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello in C harlottesville north to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; and
WH ER EA S, designation of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground as a N ational H eritage Area,
and Route 20 North (Stony Point R oad) from its intersection w ith Route 250 E to the Orange C ounty line,
R oute 22 from Route 250 East to its junction with R oute 231, and Route 231 from Route 22 to the Louisa
C ounty line as AllAmerican R oads within the National Scenic Byways Program, will help support the four
state public/private partnership that has been developed to promote and celebrate the historical and
cultural resources along the route; and
WH ER EA S, designation of the County as a National H eritage Area and R outes 20, 22 and 231 as
AllAmerican R oads will make federal funds available to government entities located along this corridor for
the purposes of developing tourism, preservation and enhancement of historical sites and battlefields; and
WH ER EA S, designation of the County as a National H eritage Area and R outes 20, 22 and 231 as
AllAmerican R oads is consistent w ith the principles, goals and objectives of the County’s C omprehensive
Plan to protect the C ounty’s natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources.
NOW, TH ER EFOR E, BE IT R ESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
supports the designation of Route 20 North (Stony Point R oad) from its intersection w ith R oute 250 E to
the Orange County line, Route 22 from R oute 250 East to its junction with Route 231, and Route 231 from
R oute 22 to the Louisa County line as AllAmerican Roads within the National Scenic Byways Program.
Go to next attachment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
2 Chapter 1: Introduction DRAFT: July 2008
Journey Through Hallowed Ground Corridor Management Plan
Fig. 1-4: The primary travel route for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground and its location within the
National Heritage Area (tan) and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (above left)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Virginia Byway D esignation for Route 53, Route
729 (Milton Road) and portions of Route 20 and
Route 250
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt Res olution supporting State By way
designation for Route 53, R oute 729 (Milton
Road) and portions of R oute 20 and Route 250
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
AC TION: IN FORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION: X IN FORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTH G) Partnership, in its continuing effort to get National Scenic Byw ay
Designation from the Gettysburg battlefield in Penns ylvania to Monticello, asked VD OT to determine the eligibility of
roads in the Journey Through Hallow ed Ground Corridor to be inc luded in the Virginia Byway Sys tem. It w as
determined that Route 729 (Milton Road), Route 53 (Thomas Jeffers on Parkw ay) and portions of Route 20 and
Route 250 have been recognized as part of the JTHG C orridor in the C ounty and the City, but are not designated as
Virginia Byways. Therefore, the JTH G Partnership has proposed Virginia By way designation for the following (s ee
Attachment A):
Route 729 (Milton Road), from its intersection with Route 250 to its intersection with Route 53;
Route 250 (east) from Route 22 to R oute 729 (Milton R oad);
Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkw ay), from the Fluvanna County line to its inters ection with Route
20;
Route 20, from the inters ection of Stony Point Road (R t. 20 north) and Route 250 east of
C harlottes ville through the City of Charlottesville to the Interstate 64 interchange south of
C harlottes ville (a small portion of this segment, from Stony Point Road to Free Bridge, is in the County
and not c urrently designated. This segment of road is considered part of both Route 250 and Route
20).
The following roads are currently designated as Virginia Scenic Byways in the County:
Route 20 North (Stony Point Road)
Route 20 South (Sc ottsville Road)
Route 22 (Louisa Road)
Route 231 (Gordonsv ille R oad)
Route 250 W est (Ivy Road/Rockfish Gap Turnpike)
Routes 601/676/614 (Old Garth Road/Garth Road/White Hall Road)
A separate request will be presented to the Board at its October 1, 2008 meeting to adopt a Resolution supporting
the National Byw ay AllAmerican Road designation for Routes 20, 22 and 231. Roads must be designated as a
Virginia Byw ay to be eligible for AllAmerican R oads Des ignation.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural R esources.
Goal 3: Effectively Manage the County ’s Grow th and D evelopment.
DISCU SSION :
The Virginia Byway Program identifies road corridors containing aesthetic or cultural value near areas of historic al,
natural or recreational significance. Roads designated as Virginia Byways are identified on a widely distributed Map
of Scenic Roads in Virginia and promoted on the Virginia Scenic Roads Web site. The program enc ourages travel to
interesting destinations on thes e roads, which are generally aw ay from hightraffic corridors. Byw ays typically
stimulate local economies by attracting visitors to less erknown destinations.
A Virginia Byw ay designation does not impose any restrictions on private property, except that it may prohibit the
installation of new signs advertising offsite uses and activities (billboards) along thes e roads. Such s ignage is
already restricted by C ounty regulation. All other regulatory authority remains w ith the locality. A Virginia Byw ay
designation does not limit VDOT’s ability to maintain, operate or improve transportation facilities on such designated
roads.
VDOT staff has indic ated that all three road segments (Routes 53, 729, 20 and 250) are eligible and should be
considered for Virginia Byw ay designation (see Attac hment B). Prior to Virginia Byw ay designation by the State, the
Board must adopt a resolution in support of the designation. The Board may hold a public hearing on the propos ed
designation, but a public hearing is not required.
Since the designation would not establish any new res tric tions on priv ate property, staff does not believe a public
hearing is necessary.
The intent of the designation is consis tent w ith the C ounty’s Comprehensive Plan goals to protect natural, cultural
and historic resources, inc luding:
Goal: Protect the County’s historic and cultural resources.
Objective: Pursue additional protec tion measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle’s historic and
archaeological res ources in order to foster pride in the C ounty and maintain the County’s charac ter.
Goal: Preserve the County’s scenic resources as being essential to the character, economic vitality and quality
of life.
Objective: Maintain the visual integrity of all Albemarle’s roadways.
Strategy: Pursue additional Virginia Byw ay designations for roads meeting State criteria:
Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkw ay)
A resolution supporting Virginia Byway designation for Route 53, Route 729 and portions of Route 20 and R oute 250
is attac hed (Attachment C ).
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no direct budget impact of des ignating these R outes State Scenic Byways.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution supporting Virginia Byw ay designation for Route 53,
Route 729 and portions of Route 20 and Route 250. Sinc e the designation w ould not establish any new restrictions
on private property, staff does not believe a public hearing is necess ary .
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Augus t 27, 2008 Department of Conservation and Recreation Letter to VDOT w/Location Map
B – Letter from VDOT
C – Res olution
Return to c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING VIRGINIA BY WA Y DESIGNA TION
FOR ROUTES 729, 53 A ND POR TION S OF R OUTE 20 A N D ROU TE 250
WHEREAS, the V irginia D e pa rtme nt of Conse rva tion a nd Re crea tion a nd the Virginia Depa rtme nt of
Tra nsporta tion ha ve de te rmine d tha t Route 729 (Milton Road) from its inte rse ction with Route 250 to its
interse c tion with Route 53, Route 53 (Thoma s Je ffe rson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its
interse c tion with Route 20, the portion of Route 20 tha t is also pa rt of Route 250 Ea st from the intersec tion of
Route 20 a nd Route 250 Ea st to the City of Cha rlotte sville c ity limits at Fre e Bridge , a nd the portion of Route 250
from the inte rse c tion of Route 22 to the intersec tion of Route 729 (Milton Roa d) qualify for de signa tion a s
V irginia Bywa ys; a nd
WHEREAS, e ac h of the se route s ha ve re la tive ly high a esthe tic or c ultural va lue , le ading to or within
area s of historica l or na tural signific anc e; and
WHEREAS, the de signa tion of a V irginia Bywa y offers opportunitie s for tourism a nd e c onomic bene fits
to loca lities; and
WHEREAS, the de signa tion of a V irginia Bywa y does not a ffec t la nd use c ontrols a nd road
improvements; a nd
WHEREAS, the la nd a long Route 729 a nd Route 53 is z oned Rura l Area s and is de signate d a s Rura l
A re a s in the County’s Compre he nsive Pla n a nd the portion of Route 20 identifie d herein is zoned for c omme rc ia l
use s; a nd
WHEREAS, the Rura l Area s zoning does not a llow for de nse re side ntial or c omme rc ia l de ve lopme nt
and a llow s for use s suc h a s a griculture , fore stry a nd de tac hed single family dwe llings and the commercia l z oned
area s w ill not be a dversely impa cted by the de signa tion; a nd
WHEREAS, the Journe y Through Ha llowe d Ground Pa rtne rship has e xpre ssed its support for the
de signation of these routes a s Virginia Byw a ys.
NOW, THEREFOR E, BE IT RESOLVED, tha t the Board of Supe rvisors of A lbe ma rle County,
V irginia , he re by supports the de signa tion of Route 729 (Milton Roa d) from its intersec tion with Route 250 to its
interse c tion with Route 53, Route 53 (Thoma s Je ffe rson Parkway) from the Fluvanna County line to its
interse c tion with Route 20, the portion of Route 20 tha t is also pa rt of Route 250 Ea st from the intersec tion of
Route 20 a nd Route 250 Ea st to the City of Cha rlotte sville c ity limits at Fre e Bridge , a nd the portion of Route 250
from the inte rse c tion of Route 22 to the intersec tion of Route 729 (Milton Roa d) a s V irginia Bywa ys; a nd
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED tha t the Board of Supe rvisors of A lbe ma rle County requests tha t the
Commonw e alth Tra nsportation Board take a ll nec essa ry ac tions to e ffe c t a de signa tion of the se route s as Virginia
Bywa ys.
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
State Scenic R iver Designation, Rivanna River
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt res olution supporting State Scenic River
designation for the South Fork of the Rivanna
River and the R ivanna Riv er from the South Fork
Rivanna R iver reservoir dam to the site of the
former W oolen Mills dam
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION : X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
At the request of the City of Charlottesv ille and Albemarle County, the Department of C onservation and Recreation
(DCR) c onducted an ev aluation of the South Fork of the Rivanna River and the Rivanna River from the South Fork
Rivanna River reservoir dam to the site of the former Woolen Mills dam, and has determined that it is eligible for
Scenic Riv er Designation (Attachment A). The evaluation criteria for Scenic River des ignation include: stream
corridor vegetation; streambed and stream flow modific ations; human development of visual corridor; historic
features; landscape; quality of fishery ; rare, threatened or endangered s pecies; water quality; parallel roads;
crossings; and special features affecting aesthetics. That segment of the river from Woolen Mills to the James
River is already officially designated by the General As sembly as a state Scenic Riv er. Attachment B is information
from D CR regarding the impacts of Sc enic Stream des ignation.
The next step in the des ignation proc ess would be for the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution s upporting the
designation. If the resolution is adopted, the C ounty would then reques t the General As sembly to adopt legislation
to formally designate the river in the 2009 session. The Board may hold a public hearing on the proposed
designation, but a public hearing is not required. The Charlottesville City C ouncil adopted a resolution supporting
this propos al for Scenic River designation on September 2, 2008 (Attachment C).
This request began as a community effort that has included the Rivanna Conservation Society, the Southern
Environmental Law Center, and local legis lators.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural R esources.
Goal 3: Effectively Manage the County ’s Grow th and D evelopment.
This proposal is also consistent with the C ounty’s C omprehensive Plan goals and objectives including:
Goal: Preserve the County’s scenic resources as being essential to the character, economic vitality and quality
of life.
Objective: Protect the scenic quality of Albemarle’s streams.
Strategy: Pursue Virginia Scenic R iver designations for rivers meeting state criteria.
Pantops Master Plan Guiding Principle: Residents of Pantops v alue the exc eptional natural and historical
scenic qualities of this neighborhood – views to Monticello, surrounding mountains, RIvanna River, and west to
the City. It is important to protect these scenic v istas and sense of open space as the neighborhood continues
to grow .
Pantops Master Plan Recommendation: Preserve the Rivanna River. It is shown as green s pac e on the
Parks and Green Systems Map and will create a linear park within the Pantops Neighborhood
DISCU SSION :
The designation of a river as “scenic” by the General Ass embly is gov erned by the “State Scenic R ivers Act”
(Virginia C ode Section 10.1400). The only applicable limitation contained in the enabling legislation is as follows:
After designation of any river or section of river as a scenic river by the General Assembly , no dam or other
structure impeding the natural flow thereof shall be c onstructed, operated or maintained in such river or section
of the river unless specifically authorized by an act of the General Assembly.
DCR staff have clarified that bridges are typically not considered a struc ture that w ould “impede the natural flow,”
with the possible exception of unique “bridge” structures such as a low level/water lev el bridge or a c onstructed ford.
DCR staff advised that while the Scenic River status would not prev ent a road or pedestrian crossing from being
constructed, if Federal or State funds w ere used for the construction of such a project, there would be an emphasis
placed on the aesthetic design of the crossing to be in harmony with the scenic status of the river. Projects might
be expected to use design features s uch as seethrough guardrail and other features that provide easy visual acces s
to the river.
The following summariz es the impact of the designation:
The designation does not impose any restrictions on private property.
The only legislative prohibition of Scenic Riv er designation is that no dam or other struc ture “impeding the
natural flow” shall be constructed w ithout General Assembly authorization.
It does NOT give the public any right to use privately owned land.
In general, des ignation is intended to recognize the scenic, natural and his toric values of the river and to
encourage present and future owners to continue to exercise good stewards hip of the land and resources
along the river. It also informs C ounty officials about the special attributes of the river, so that they can
w ork with landowners to protect those attributes.
Since the designation does not establish any new res tric tions on priv ate properties exc ept restrictions on the
construction of dams or other structures impeding the flow of the riv er, staff does not believe a public hearing is
necessary to support this designation. The intent of the designation is consistent with the C ounty’s C omprehensiv e
Plan goals to protect natural, cultural and historic resourc es and to designate eligible s treams for Scenic River
designation. A resolution recommending Scenic River designation for the R ivanna/South Fork of the R ivanna Riv er
is attac hed (Attachment D ). Should the Board decide to hold a public hearing, the hearing should be held in
November to allow sufficient time to meet required s ubmittal deadlines for federal action in this year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no direct budget impact from establishing the Scenic River designation. The designation would provide
opportunities for grants related to enhancing and protec ting this section of the river.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution supporting State Scenic Riv er designation for the
South Fork of the Rivanna River and the Rivanna River from the South Fork R ivanna River reservoir dam to
the site of the former W oolen Mills dam.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – DCR, Scenic Riv er Designation Qualification Letter
B – DCR, Information on Scenic River Designation
C – Charlottesville City C ouncil adopted R esolution
D – Res olution of Support
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Rev. 8/26/2005 1 of 1
Since the inception of the Scenic River System program in 1970, 19 river segments totaling
436.8 miles of river have been added to the System.
WHAT SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION DOES
• Designation encourages protection and preservation of the river.
• Designation declares the protection of a river’s scenic values to be a beneficial
purpose of water resource policy.
• Designation requires appointment of an administering agency, usually the Department
of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
• Designation requires the Virginia Scenic Rivers Advisory Board, whose members are
appointed by the Governor, to advise the Director of DCR on the federal, state or
local plans that impact the designated river segment and to give local citizens a voice
in river-related issues.
• After designation, the General Assembly must approve construction of any dam that
would result in an impediment to the natural flow of the river.
• For properties along designated scenic rivers, a special tax assessment may be given
to reduce the tax liability, as valued by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Council,
if adopted by the locality.
• The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recognizes Virginia’s
designated Scenic River System. This acknowledgement of the program ensures that
the qualities of the designated river are considered during licensing or relicensing of
federal projects on that river.
WHAT SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION DOES NOT DO
• Designation does not give the state control over land use.
• Designation carries with it no land use controls.
• Designation does not give the public any right to use privately owned land.
• Virginia does not commercially promote its scenic rivers.
• Recreational use of the rivers currently in the Scenic Rivers System has not increased
any more that the use of high quality streams that are not in the system.
In a nutshell, Scenic River designation constitutes official recognition of the natural, scenic,
historic and recreational values of some of Virginia’s most valuable riverine resources and
provides them with a measure of protection not afforded other rivers. In addition, it gives
riparian landowners and other local citizens a stronger voice in any government action or
decisions that have the potential to impact ‘their’ river.
Planning and Recreation Resources
Lynn M. Crump, CLA, ASLA, Environmental Programs Planner
(804) 786- 5054 fax (804) 371-7899 Lynn.Crump@dcr.virginia.gov
Virginia DCR
Planning & Recreation Resources
203 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
ATTACHMENT C
A RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF THAT PORTION
OF THE RIVANNA RIVER BETWEEN THE BASE OF THE
SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RESERVOIR DAM AND THE SITE OF THE FORMER WOOLEN
MILLS DAM AS A STATE SCENIC RIVER
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Council
hereby expresses its support for the designation of the Rivanna River from the base of the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir River dam to the junction of the South Fork and the North Fork of the Rivanna River
(a distance of approximately three miles) and the Rivanna River from the junction of the two forks to the
site of the former Woolen Mills dam (a distance of approximately six miles) as a “Scenic River” pursuant
to the Scenic Rivers Act, Virginia Code section 10.1400 et seq.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT City staff is hereby directed to draft the appropriate
enabling legislation for inclusion in the City’s 2009 legislative agenda, which if adopted by the General
Assembly will officially designate the aforementioned sections of the Rivanna River as a state Scenic
River.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the state Department of
Conservation and Recreation and to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
RES OLUTION TO S UPPORT STATE SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION
FOR THE S OUTH FORK OF THE RIVANNA RIVER AND THE RIVANNA RIVER
FROM THE S OUTH FORK RIVANNA RESERVOIR DAM
TO THE S ITE OF THE FORMER WOOLEN MILLS DAM
WHEREAS , the Code of Virginia, pu rsuant to Title 1 0.1, S ections 10.1400 through 10.1418,
provides for a “Scen ic Rivers Act” under th e jurisdictio n of the Virg inia Department of Co nservation an d
Recreation ; and
WHEREAS, the portion of the Rivanna River from th e Woolen Mills dam to the F luv anna County
line is n ow designated as a S tate S cenic River; and
WHEREAS , the Albemarle County Comp rehensive P lan, as adopted b y the Board of S upervisors,
recogn izes this existing designation and supports a strategy to pursue additional designatio ns for rivers
meeting state criteria; and
WHEREAS, desig nation of this additio nal portion of th e Rivanna River as a Scen ic River would
recogn ize the quality an d value o f this natural and scenic resou rce through out its length from the S outh
F ork Rivanna reservoir dam to the F luvanna Coun ty line; and
WHEREAS , on October 31, 2007 by letter to John R. Davy, Director o f the Divisio n of Plannin g
and Recreation Resources, the Albemarle County Executiv e has requ ested that the Virginia Department o f
Conserv ation and Recreation conduct a study of this portion o f the Riv an na River to d etermine its potential
as a S tate Scenic River; and
WHEREAS , on July 17, 2008 by letter to th e Albemarle County Executiv e, Jo hn R. Davy, Directo r
of the Division of P lanning and Recreation Resources has declared that this portion of th e Rivanna River
was fou nd to qualify as an extensio n of the existing d esignated p ortion of the Rivanna.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Co unty Board o f Superviso rs
hereby expresses its support for the designatio n of the Rivan na River from the base of the S outh Fork
Rivan na Riv er reservoir dam to th e ju nction of the South F ork and the North F ork of the Rivann a River (a
distan ce of approximately three miles) and the Rivanna River from the junction of the two forks to the site
of the former Woolen M ills dam (a d istance of approximately six miles) as a “Scenic River” pursuant to the
S cenic Rivers Act, Virginia Code S ection 10.14 00 et seq.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that th e Albemarle County Board of Superviso rs does hereb y
respectfully request that the members of the Alb emarle County legislative delegation intro duce designatio n
legislation to the Virg in ia General Assembly for approval and designation in the 2 009 sessio n.
Return to exec summary
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting on the 1s t day of
October, 2008, adopted the following:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle C ounty, Virginia, with a sk etc h dated October 15, 2007, depicting the additions, discontinuanc es and
abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways; and
W HEREAS, the portions of Route 640 (Turkey Sag Road) identified to be abandoned is deemed to no
longer s erv e public conv enience warranting maintenance at public ex pense; and
W HEREAS, the new road serv es the same c itizens as those portions of old road identified to be abandoned
and those segments no longer serve a public need; and
N OW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary
system of state highw ays thos e portions of Route 640 (Turkey Sag Road), from Route 231 to .10 miles northwest of
Route 231, for a distance of .10 miles, pursuant to Sec tion 33.1155, of the Code of Virginia; and
B E IT FURTH ER RESOLVED , that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia D epartment of
Transportation to add to the secondary s ystem of s tate highways those portions of Route 640 (Turkey Sag Road),
from Route 231 to .09 miles northw est of R oute 231, for a distance of .09 miles, with a 50 foot rightofway width,
pursuant to Section 33.1229, of the Code of Virginia; and
FUR TH ER R ESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted rightofw ay, as described,
exclusive of any necess ary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as required; and
R ESOLVED that a certified copy of this res olution be forwarded to the Resident Administrator for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
View at tac hed road des cription
Return t o c ons ent agenda
Return t o regular agenda
RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and the CharlottesvilleAlbemarle Metropolitan Planning
Organization (“MPO”) have endorsed a Transportation Enhancement Project in the City of
Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the project will add a much needed pedestrian bridge to connect the eastern and
western portion of McIntire Park that is cleaved by a railroad line, and
WHEREAS, the project will expand the City of Charlottesville’s pedestrian and bicycle network
and is the highest remaining priority in the City’s Bike Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project toward the design and
construction of a bike and pedestrian commuter bridge, as more specifically described in Exhibit A
[attached].
View Exhibit A
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Exhibit A
McIntire Park Railroad Bridge
TEA Grant Application Project summary
The City is working to connect Route 29 and McIntire Park with a 10 foot wide hard surface bicycle commuter trail.
This trail will connect to the future Meadowcreek Parkway and to downtown Charlottesville via the new Schenk’s
Greenway trail. The missing link is a bridge over the railroad connecting the two sides of the park.
City Council has authorized $250,000 in the CIP budget to begin construction of the trail, which is planned to be in
place by summer 2009. In order to maximize the usefulness of the trail and the park, we would like to identify
funding for design and construction of this bridge
The City is requesting ~$250,000 in Transportation Enhancement funds from VDOT with an application due
November 1st, 2008 to design and construct the bridge. If awarded, we hope to have the bridge in place in time for
the opening of both the parkway/interchange and the YMCA at the park.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2008 Appropriations
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of Appropriations #2008084, #2008085,
and #2008086 for various general government
and school programs and projects
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION : X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Code of Virginia § 15.22507 stipulates 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. How ever, any s uch amendment
which ex ceeds one perc ent 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 SelfSustaining, etc.
The total of these requested FY 2008 appropriations is $520,238.79. A budget amendment public hearing is not
required because the c umulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs
DISCU SSION :
This request involves the approval of three (3) new FY 2008 appropriations as follow s:
One (1) appropriation (#2008084) totaling $94,100.00 for various School grants and programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2008085) for General Fund over expenditures in the amount of $308,929.65; and
One (1) appropriation (#2008086) adjusting budgeted revenues and expenditures for the Commission on
Children and Families totaling $117,209.14
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends the approval of the FY 2008 Appropriations #2008084, #2008085, and #2008086 totaling
$520,238.79.
ATTAC HMENTS
A Appropriations
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2008084
$ 94,100.00
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $ 94,100.00
At its meeting on August 28, 2008, the School Board approved the follow ing appropriations:
The 21st Century C ommunity Learning Centers grant funds are used for the C lub Yancey After School
Program which prov ides academic, civic, cultural and fitness /wellness enrichment to eligible s tudents
at no cost to the parents. Club Yancey is a jointly operated program through the Saint John the Baptist
in the Woods Foundation and Albemarle County Public Schools. Expenditures have exceeded
appropriations for FY 2008, in the amount of $39,000.00, due to an increase in funding.
The Teaching American History Grant is based on a partners hip of five public sc hool systems in central
Virginia (Charlottesville City, Albemarle, Madison, Orange and Greene Counties). The City of
Charlottesville is the fiscal agent and Albemarle C ounty Schools will seek reimbursement for s alary
and compensation expenses inc urred. The purpose of this grant is to create a sustainable, longterm
project that will bec ome a model to share both teaching strategies and contentbased activities as well
as inform future historical projects. Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY 2008, in the
amount of $25,100.00, due to an increase in funding.
At its meeting on September 11, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
The Univers ity of Virginia’s mathematics Outreach Office has awarded Albemarle County Schools
w ith a grant in the amount of $30,000.00. These funds were used towards the salaries of two Math
Specialists at the middle school level.
Appropriation
#2008085
$ 308,929.65
R evenue Sourc e: General Fund Balance $308,929.65
Several general government departments will require an additional appropriation to c over FY 2008
expenditures. This request will appropriate $308,929.65 from the General Fund Balance to the following
departments:
Board of Supervisors Overtime, Parttime Wages , $ 20,906.76
Temporary H elp Fees
The Board Office incurred additional ov ertime and parttime wages resulting from an increase
in Board meetings and transcription services.
Circuit Court Books & Subscriptions $ 1,404.19
A new C ircuit C ourt judge w as appointed during FY 2007 resulting in an increase in books
and subsc ription costs .
Police Motor Vehicles Fuel $ 1,992.89
Motor vehicle fuel cos ts in the Polic e D epartment exc eeded budget.
Police OvertimeReimbursable $ 4,083.89
The Police Department exceeded the appropriated budget for reimburs able overtime w hich is
offset by an increase in revenue for this service.
City Fire Contract $ 23,376.18
Based on the City Fire Contract terms, the FY 2008 payment due the C ity exceeded the
appropriated budget.
Regional J ail $217,994.09
The C ounty’s share of inmate population in proportion to other member entities was higher
than antic ipated resulting in the County’s share of ex penses being ov er the County’s budget.
Facilities Development Temporary H elp Fees $ 2,872.68
As a result of staff turnover, temporary help fees were incurred to maintain essential c lerical
office support during the hiring process.
Tax Relief for the Elderly $ 36,268.85
Increases to the net worth and income limits for 2008 resulted in an increase in participants
and relief amount rec eived through the Tax R elief
for the Elderly and Disabled Program.
Soil & Water Conserv ation VRS $ 30.12
The Virginia Retirement System contribution for the one Countyfunded position exceeded the
FY 2008 appropriation.
Appropriation #2008086
$117,209.14
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $ 14,732.94
State Revenue 102,476.20
The Commission on Children and Families exceeded their FY 2008 appropriated ex penditures by
$117,209.14. This ov er expenditure was offset by additional State Grant R evenue in the amount of
$102,476.20 and additional funding from the City of C harlottesville in the amount of $14,732.94.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Destruction of FY 2003 Paid Personal Property
Tax Rec eipts
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorization to Dispos e of FY 2003 Paid
Personal Property Tax Receipts
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Wiggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION : X IN FORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Pursuant to Va. Code § 58.13129(A), the director of finance may, w ith the consent of the governing body, destroy
all paid tax tickets at any time after five years from the end of the fisc al year during w hich taxes represented by
such tic kets w ere paid, in accordance with retention regulations pursuant to the Virginia Public Records Act. The
Library of Virginia’s Record R etention and Disposition Sc hedule GS28 requires that paid tax tickets be retained for
five years from the end of the fiscal year in w hich the tax is paid or until an audit, whichever is longer, at w hich time
the gov erning body is to be petitioned for authorization to destroy the rec ords.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County’s future needs.
DISCU SSION :
Paid pers onal property tax tickets for FY 2003 were included in the FY 2003 audit in D ecember 2003 and reached
the fiveyear retention period on June 30, 2008 and are eligible for destruction. Attached is the County’s Certificate
of Records Destruction (Attachment A), w hich has been approved and signed by the Director of Financ e and by the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the County’s designated Records Retention Offic er. Authorization from the Board
is required to proceed with the destruction of these rec ords.
BUDGET IMPACT:
N/A
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff requests that the Board authoriz e the destruction of the FY 2003 paid tax receipts.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Certificate of Records Destruction
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 09/10 Budget Calendar
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set dates related to the development of the FY
09/10 budget
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans, and
Ms. Vinzant
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The process of developing the C ounty ’s Operating Budget for FY 09/10 and the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for
FY1014 is underway. The proposed c alendars are provided to the Board to establish firm dates for Board meetings
and public hearings on the budget and CIP, and to provide the public w ith as much notice as possible for planned
community meetings, public hearings, and work sessions related to the budget and the CIP.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Objective 5.1: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County ’s grow ing needs .
DISCU SSION :
There are several dates in the budget pres entation and approval process that are driven by state code requirements
and are reflected in the attached calendars. The first is the requirement that the tax rate be adopted by April 15th for
localities with a firsthalf tax year collec tion in June. In addition, the Virginia Code requires that there be seven days
between the public advertisement of the budget public hearings and the actual hearing dates, and s even days
between the public hearing and the adoption of the budget. During the 2007 session of the General Ass embly,
legislation was enacted that requires loc alities to provide 30 days minimum notice of the tax rate public hearing if the
reasses sment would result in an increase of one perc ent or more in the total real property tax levied compared to the
prior year’s tax levies. In addition to these state requirements, the School Board has requested that the second
public hearing be scheduled so that it does not coincide with Spring Break.
Attachment A provides a preliminary budget calendar for the FY 09/10 budget proces s that conforms to the Virginia
Code requirements and meets the School Board’s request. This calendar can be used if real estate tax levies
caused by the reasses sment are less than 101% of the prior year’s tax levies.
Attachment B is an alternative preliminary budget calendar for the FY 09/10 budget proc ess that conforms to the
Virginia Code requirements, meets the School Board’s request and meets the 30 day notice requirements triggered if
real estate tax levies c aus ed by the reas sessment exceed 101% or more of the prior year’s tax levies . This
alternative schedule would only be neces sary this year if the reassess ment picture c hanges dramatically.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Because it is unlikely that the 2009 reas sessment w ill require the 30 day notice for the tax rate public hearing, staff
recommends that the Board adopt the preliminary budget calendar s et forth in Attachment A.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – FY 09/10 Budget Dev elopment Calendar
Attachment B – Alternativ e FY 09/10 Budget Development Calendar
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
FY 09/10 OPERATING BUDGET CALENDAR
August 2008
13 Operating budget instruction manual and forms posted to budget site
22 CIP project requests due to OMB
29 Community agenc y applications distributed
October 2008
1 Joint Compens ation meeting w ith School Board
17 Department budget submissions due to OMB
November 2008
5 Preliminary FY 09/10 revenue projections, school allocation, and capital transfer estimates to the Board of
Supervisors (BOS)
5 BOS Work Sess ion – Five Year Financial Plan
12 BOS Work Sess ion – Five Year Financial Plan
12 CIP project information to Oversight Committee
14 Community agenc y applications due to OMB
17 CIP Oversight C ommittee Meeting #1
24 CIP Oversight C ommittee Meeting #2
26 CIP Oversight C ommittee Meeting #3 (if needed)
December 2008
3 BOS Work Sess ion – Five Year Financial Plan
10 Ov ersight Committee CIP R ecommendation to Joint meeting of BOS/School Board
19 Special revenue fund reques ts due to OMB
January 2009
27 General fund and local government special rev enue funds balanced
February 2009
18 County Exec utiv e’s Recommended Budget document published
25 Public hearing on the C ounty Executive’s R ecommended Budget
March 2009
2 BOS W ork Session – General Gov ernment
4 BOS Work Sess ion – School D ivision
9 BOS Work Sess ion – C IP
11 BOS Work Sess ion (if needed)
18 Deadline for setting tax rate for public hearing
25 Advertise tax rate for April public hearing
April 2009
1 Public H earing on the 2009 c alendar year tax rate
1 Public H earing on the FY 09/10 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets
610 Spring Break
8 BOS adopts FY 09/10 budget
8 BOS adopts the 2009 calendar y ear tax rate
June 2009
3 BOS approves the FY 09/10 Appropriation Res olution
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Attachment B
ALTERNATIVE FY 09/10 OPERATING BUDGET CALENDAR
August 2008
13 Operating budget instruction manual and forms posted to budget site
22 CIP project requests due to OMB
29 Community agenc y applications distributed
October 2008
1 Joint Compens ation meeting w ith School Board
17 Department budget submissions due to OMB
November 2008
5 Preliminary FY 09/10 revenue projections, school allocation, and capital transfer estimates to the Board of
Supervisors (BOS)
5 BOS Work Sess ion – Five Year Financial Plan
12 BOS Work Sess ion – Five Year Financial Plan
12 CIP project information to Oversight Committee
14 Community agenc y applications due to OMB
17 CIP Oversight C ommittee Meeting #1
24 CIP Oversight C ommittee Meeting #2
26 CIP Oversight C ommittee Meeting #3 (if needed)
December 2008
3 BOS Work Sess ion – Five Year Financial Plan
10 Ov ersight Committee CIP R ecommendation to Joint meeting of BOS/School Board
19 Special revenue fund reques ts due to OMB
January 2009
27 General fund and local government special rev enue funds balanced
February 2009
4 Summary Recommended Budget Information to BOS – Local Government
6 Summary Budget Information to BOS – Schools
9 BOS Work Session – Local Government
11 BOS Work Session – School Division
18 Public hearing on the C ounty Executive’s R ecommended Budget
25 BOS Work Session – Set Proposed Tax Rate for Public Hearing
26 County Exec utiv e’s Recommended Budget document published
March 2009
1 Advertise tax rate for April public hearing
2 BOS W ork Session – General Gov ernment
4 BOS Work Sess ion – School D ivision
9 BOS Work Sess ion – C IP
11 BOS Work Sess ion (if needed)
April 2009
1 Public H earing on the 2009 c alendar year tax rate
1 Public H earing on the FY 09/10 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets
610 Spring Break
8 BOS adopts FY 09/10 budget
8 BOS adopts the 2009 calendar y ear tax rate
June 2009
3 BOS approves the FY 09/10 Appropriation Res olution
Return to exec summary
BoardȬtoȬBoard
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ Septemberȱ2008ȱ
AȱmonthlyȱreportȱfromȱtheȱAlbemarleȱCountyȱSchoolȱBoardȱtoȱtheȱAlbemarleȱCountyȱBoardȱofȱSupervisorsȱȱ
ȱ
ProjectȱManagementȱandȱtheȱBalancedȱScorecard:ȱȱȱȱDuringȱitsȱJuneȱ2008ȱretreat,ȱtheȱSchoolȱBoardȱandȱ
staffȱdiscussedȱtheȱvarianceȱinȱwaysȱtheȱDivision sȱstrategicȱplanȱhasȱbeenȱimplementedȱintoȱactionableȱ
projectsȱandȱongoingȱperformanceȱmeasuresȱthatȱmayȱbeȱtrackedȱandȱmonitoredȱtoȱproduceȱtheȱdesiredȱ
results.ȱTheȱDivisionȱmustȱcloseȱbestȱpracticeȱk nowing ȱvs.ȱ doing ȱgapsȱthroughoutȱdepartmental,ȱschoolȱ
andȱclassroomȱlevels.ȱ
ȱ
Followingȱtheȱretreat,ȱaȱdivisionȬlevelȱteamȱparticipatedȱinȱtheȱExecutiveȱLeadershipȱProgramȱforȱEducatorsȱ
heldȱatȱtheȱDardenȱGraduateȱSchoolȱofȱBusinessȱAdministrationȱinȱJuly.ȱTheȱprogramȱwasȱjointlyȱsponsoredȱ
byȱDardenȱandȱtheȱCurryȱSchoolȱofȱEducation,ȱinȱassociationȱwithȱtheȱWallaceȱFoundation.ȱAȱmajorȱfocusȱofȱ
theȱprogramȱwasȱtoȱsupportȱteamsȱinȱaligningȱcriticalȱmanagementȱprocessesȱforȱeffectiveȱleadershipȱ
throughȱimplementationȱofȱaȱbalancedȱscorecardȱandȱprojectȱmanagementȱoversight.ȱ
ȱ
AtȱtheȱAugustȱ28ȱworkȱsession,ȱtheȱSchoolȱBoardȱdiscussedȱtheȱuseȱofȱaȱbalancedȱscorecardȱandȱ
implementationȱofȱaȱformalȱprojectȱmanagementȱprocessȱtoȱsupportȱimplementationȱofȱtheȱDivision sȱ
FrameworkȱforȱQualityȱLearningȱ(FQL),ȱProfessionalȱLearningȱCommunityȱ(PLC),ȱandȱTeacherȱPerformanceȱ
Appraisalȱ(TPA).ȱȱAtȱthisȱworkȱsession,ȱtheȱSchoolȱBoardȱdiscussedȱhowȱaȱbalancedȱscorecard,ȱcombinedȱ
withȱaȱnewȱprojectȱmanagementȱandȱoversightȱprocess,ȱwillȱprovideȱaȱstructuredȱmethodologyȱforȱdefiningȱ
keyȱstrategiesȱforȱachievingȱourȱgoals,ȱspecificallyȱtheȱFQL,ȱTPA,ȱandȱPLC.ȱTheseȱmeasuresȱwillȱputȱformalȱ
structuresȱinȱplaceȱtoȱcloseȱtheȱk nowing ȱvs.ȱ doing ȱgapȱacrossȱtheȱDivision.ȱAȱcopyȱofȱtheȱfullȱreportȱandȱ
dataȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱonȱtheȱDivisionȱwebsiteȱatȱwww.k12albemarle.orgȱunderȱReportsȱtoȱtheȱBoard.ȱ
ȱ
MeetingȱwithȱLegislatorsȱtoȱDiscussȱKȬ12ȱFunding:ȱȱTheȱSchoolȱBoardȱmetȱwithȱourȱlocalȱCongressionalȱ
andȱGeneralȱAssemblyȱdelegationȱonȱSeptemberȱ15th.ȱȱElectedȱofficialsȱpresentȱincludedȱCongressmanȱVirgilȱ
Goodeȱ(RȬ5th),ȱSenatorȱEmmettȱHangerȱ(RȬ24th),ȱandȱDelegateȱDavidȱToscanoȱ(DȬ57th).ȱȱDueȱtoȱpriorȱ
commitmentsȱDelegateȱSteveȱLandesȱ(RȬ25th),ȱDelegateȱRobȱBellȱ(RȬ58th),ȱandȱSenatorȱCreighȱDeedsȱ(D)ȱsentȱ
theirȱlegislativeȱaids.ȱItemsȱdiscussedȱduringȱtheȱmeetingȱincluded:ȱȱȱ
ȱ
¾CostȱofȱCompeting/CompositeȱIndexȱAdjustmentȱ
¾InternationalȱStandards:ȱMath,ȱEngineeringȱandȱScienceȱAcademyȱatȱAlbemarleȱHighȱSchoolȱ
¾CapsȱonȱInflationȱ(Attachmentȱ1)ȱȱ
ȱ
ACPSȱStudents ȱSATȱScoresȱforȱ2007Ȭ2008ȱFarȱExceedȱStateȱandȱNationalȱAverages:ȱAlbemarleȱCountyȱ
highȱschoolȱstudentsȱcontinueȱtoȱsurpassȱstateȱandȱnationalȱaveragesȱforȱperformanceȱonȱtheȱSATȱexams.ȱAsȱ
aȱdivision,ȱ73ȱpercentȱofȱgraduatingȱseniorsȱtookȱthisȱexam,ȱcomparedȱwithȱonlyȱ63ȱpercentȱofȱgraduatingȱ
seniorsȱstatewide.ȱACPSȱstudentsȱscoredȱanȱaverageȱofȱ544ȱforȱmath,ȱcomparedȱtoȱtheȱstateȱaverageȱofȱ512ȱ
andȱtheȱnationalȱaverageȱofȱ515.ȱScoresȱonȱtheȱEnglishȱsectionȱwereȱanȱaverageȱofȱ553ȱforȱACPSȱstudents,ȱ
versusȱ511ȱforȱVirginiaȱandȱ502ȱnationally.ȱACPSȱstudentsȱaveragedȱ540ȱonȱtheȱwritingȱsection,ȱversusȱ499ȱ
forȱtheȱstateȱandȱ494ȱnationally.ȱAdditionalȱinformationȱisȱavailableȱinȱtheȱNewsȱReleaseȱaboutȱtheȱSATȱ
scores,ȱavailableȱfromȱtheȱDivisionȱhomepage.ȱȱ
ȱ
AdequateȱYearlyȱProgressȱResultsȱforȱ2007Ȭ08:ȱȱAtȱtheȱSeptemberȱ11thȱmeetingȱtheȱSchoolȱBoardȱreceivedȱ
aȱreportȱonȱAlbemarleȱCountyȱPublicȱSchools ȱAdequateȱYearlyȱProgressȱ(AYP)ȱstatus,ȱasȱreleasedȱbyȱtheȱ
VirginiaȱDepartmentȱofȱEducationȱ(VDOE).ȱTheȱpresentationȱhighlightedȱbothȱsuccessesȱandȱareasȱforȱ
improvement.ȱȱAggregateȱdivisionȱdataȱasȱwellȱasȱindividualȱschoolȱdataȱwereȱpresented.ȱȱInȱadditionȱtoȱ
presentingȱtheȱSOLȱresultsȱforȱeachȱschoolȱinȱtheȱDivision,ȱthisȱreportȱidentifiedȱandȱdescribedȱtrendsȱwithinȱ
andȱacrossȱschools.ȱAnȱanalysisȱofȱtheseȱtrendsȱwillȱbeȱpresentedȱtoȱtheȱBoardȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱAnnualȱProgressȱ
Report,ȱscheduledȱtoȱbeȱpresentedȱinȱNovember.ȱȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱVDOE,ȱ19ȱofȱ25ȱAlbemarleȱCountyȱPublicȱ
SchoolsȱmadeȱAYPȱforȱtheȱ2007Ȭ08ȱschoolȱyearȱasȱdefinedȱbyȱtheȱNoȱChildȱLeftȱBehindȱ(NCLB)ȱAct.ȱLastȱ
year,ȱ18ȱAlbemarleȱCountyȱschoolsȱmadeȱAYP.ȱȱAgnorȬHurtȱandȱGreerȱElementaryȱSchools;ȱandȱBurley,ȱ
Henley,ȱJackȱJouettȱandȱWaltonȱMiddleȱSchoolsȱdidȱnotȱmakeȱAYP.ȱȱTheȱCountyȱisȱappealingȱtheȱAYPȱstatusȱ
forȱoneȱschoolȱandȱtheȱdivisionȱoverall,ȱandȱexpectsȱtoȱhearȱaȱresponseȱfromȱVDOEȱinȱlateȱSeptember.ȱAȱ
copyȱofȱtheȱfullȱreportȱandȱdataȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱonȱtheȱdivisionȱwebsiteȱatȱwww.k12albemarle.orgȱunderȱ
ReportsȱtoȱtheȱBoard.ȱ(Attachmentȱ2)ȱ
ȱ
BudgetȱUpdate:ȱDuringȱtheȱSeptemberȱ11thȱmeeting,ȱtheȱSchoolȱBoardȱdiscussedȱtheȱanticipatedȱlocalȱ
revenueȱshortfall,ȱcurrentlyȱestimatedȱtoȱbeȱ$2.4ȱmillionȱforȱschools.ȱThisȱdollarȱamountȱdoesȱnotȱincludeȱanyȱ
informationȱfromȱtheȱstateȱaboutȱitsȱanticipatedȱreducedȱrevenues.ȱ
ȱ
Followingȱtheȱannouncementȱofȱtheseȱshortfalls,ȱtheȱSuperintendentȱprovidedȱdirectionȱtoȱallȱschoolsȱandȱ
departmentsȱtoȱincreaseȱoperationalȱholdbacksȱfromȱ7.5%ȱtoȱ10%.ȱTheȱoverallȱreductionȱinȱexpensesȱ
associatedȱwithȱaȱ10%ȱholdbackȱisȱapproximatelyȱ$970,000.ȱInȱaddition,ȱaȱhiringȱfreezeȱwasȱinstitutedȱforȱallȱ
currentȱandȱfutureȱopenȱpositionsȱforȱ2008Ȭ09.ȱAsȱfurtherȱinformationȱbecomesȱavailable,ȱadditionalȱ
reductionsȱwillȱlikelyȱbeȱnecessary.ȱȱDuringȱtheȱbudgetȱprocessȱforȱFYȱ2008/09,ȱstaffȱandȱtheȱBoardȱidentifiedȱ
$400,000ȱinȱsalaryȱandȱbenefitȱcostȱsavingsȱtoȱbeȱrealizedȱfromȱadministrativeȱstaffingȱinȱtheȱcentralȱoffice.ȱ
Theȱspecificȱreductionsȱwereȱnotȱidentifiedȱatȱtheȱtimeȱofȱadoption.ȱPositionsȱwereȱreducedȱand/orȱ
eliminatedȱandȱresponsibilitiesȱwereȱreassigned.ȱAȱcopyȱofȱtheȱfullȱreportȱandȱdataȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱatȱ
www.k12albemarle.orgȱunderȱReportsȱtoȱtheȱBoard.ȱListedȱbelowȱareȱtheȱpositionsȱwhichȱcomprisedȱtheȱ
$400,000ȱofȱidentifiedȱsavingsȱforȱFYȱ2008/09:ȱȱȱ
ȱ
x CoordinatorȱofȱEquityȱandȱDiversityȱȬ1ȱFTEȱȬ$ȱ94,460ȱ
x AssistantȱDirectorȱofȱBuildingȱServicesȱȬ1ȱFTEȱȬ$ȱ88,496ȱ
x ExecutiveȱDirectorȱofȱSupportȱServicesȱȬ1ȱFTEȱȬ$151,239ȱ
x FamilyȱLiaisonȱȬ0.5ȱFTEȱȬ$ȱ58,393ȱ
x AssessmentȱSpecialistȱȬ0.07ȱFTEȱȬ$ȱ7,412ȱ
TotalȱReductionsȱȬ3.57ȱFTEȱȬ$400,000ȱ
ȱ
TeleȬTownȱHallȱMeeting:ȱAȱsecondȱTeleȬTownȱHallȱmeetingȱisȱscheduledȱforȱWednesday,ȱOctoberȱ29ȱfromȱ
7Ȭ8ȱp.m.ȱWorkȱisȱcontinuingȱonȱtheȱagendaȱforȱthisȱyear,ȱpollȱquestions,ȱandȱprocessȱimprovements.ȱThisȱ
TeleȬTownȱHallȱwillȱfocusȱonȱcommunityȱfeedbackȱaboutȱwhatȱtoȱincludeȱinȱtheȱSuperintendent sȱFundingȱ
Requestȱforȱtheȱ2009Ȭ10ȱschoolȱyear.ȱȱ
ȱ
ReachingȱOutȱtoȱRealȱEstateȱAgentsȱandȱNewȱResidents:ȱTheȱSchoolȱDivisionȱpartneredȱwithȱtheȱlocalȱ
governmentȱtoȱproduceȱaȱNewȱResidentȱGuide,ȱwhichȱincludedȱanȱinsertȱonȱAlbemarleȱCountyȱPublicȱ
Schools.ȱThatȱtwoȬpageȱcolorȱinsertȱisȱalsoȱbeingȱdistributedȱthroughȱtheȱCharlottesvilleȬAlbemarleȱ
AssociationȱofȱRealtorsȱ(CAAR)ȱforȱuseȱbyȱtheirȱagentsȱinȱassistingȱhomebuyersȱinȱtheȱcounty.ȱAȱfactȱsheetȱ
forȱeachȱindividualȱschoolȱinȱtheȱDivisionȱisȱplanned,ȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱavailableȱtoȱrealȱestateȱagentsȱandȱtheȱ
public,ȱbothȱelectronicallyȱandȱinȱprint.ȱ(Attachmentȱ3)ȱ
ȱ
CompensationȱWorkȱSession:ȱȱȱInȱMayȱ2008,ȱtheȱSchoolȱBoardȱheldȱaȱworkȱsessionȱtoȱdiscussȱ
compensationȱandȱagreedȱtoȱholdȱaȱsecondȱworkȱsessionȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱFY2010ȱbudget.ȱȱOnȱSeptemberȱ25th,ȱ
theȱBoardȱheldȱtheȱfollowȬupȱworkȱsession,ȱwhichȱincludedȱanȱupdateȱfromȱHumanȱResourcesȱasȱwellȱasȱ
backgroundȱinformationȱonȱpastȱpracticesȱofȱtheȱdivision:ȱtheȱcareerȱladderȱandȱacademicȱleadershipȱstipendȱ
model.ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱBoardȱheldȱbreakȬoutȱsessionsȱonȱsalaryȱscalesȱwithȱaȱfocusȱonȱaȱMaster sȱScale;ȱPayȬ
forȬPerformanceȱandȱSchoolȬBasedȱPerformanceȱAwards;ȱandȱPayȱforȱKnowledge/SkillsȱandȱMarketȱ
Incentives.ȱȱTheȱBoardȱwillȱuseȱthisȱinformationȱtoȱhelpȱguideȱtheirȱcompensationȱdiscussionsȱFYȱ2009/10.ȱ
ȱ
OctoberȱMeetings:ȱȱTheȱSchoolȱBoardȱwillȱholdȱitsȱregularȱbusinessȱmeetingȱonȱOctoberȱ9ȱandȱworkȱ
sessionȱonȱOctoberȱ23,ȱ2008.ȱȱAȱstudentȱconductȱmeetingȱisȱtentativelyȱscheduledȱforȱOctoberȱ27th.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) provides the Charlottesville
Metro Area Cost of Living Index at 8.5% above the national average.
ACCRA Cost of Living Index Comparative Data for 318 Urban Areas
Data for Second Quarter 2008, Published August 2008
Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Area DATA
100% (sum of the six following 108.5 8.5% higher than national average
component categories):
29.84% Housing 128.1 28.1% higher than national average
(% of individual s income spent on housing)
12.49% Grocery Items 106.8 6.8% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on groceries)
32.93% Miscellaneous Goods & Services 103.1 3.1% higher than national average
(% of individual s income spent on miscellaneous)
4.07% Health Care 93.8 6.2% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on health care)
10.73% Transportation 93.1 6.9% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on transportation)
9.94% Utilities 92.2 7.8% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on utilities)
The data is collected by The Council for Community and Economic Research (C2ER) and developed each
quarter. The ACCRA Cost of Living Index measures relative price levels for consumer goods and services in
participating areas. The average for all participating urban areas, both metropolitan and non metropolitan,
equals 100, and each participant s index is read as a percentage of the average for all urban areas.
The Index does not measure inflation (price change over time). Because each quarterly report is a separate
comparison of prices at a single point in time, and because both the number and the mix of participants changes
from one quarter to the next, Index data from different quarters cannot be compared.
C2ER (The Council for Community and Economic Research) produces the Index and is fully aware that state
and local taxes are an integral part of the cost of living, and that tax burdens vary widely among states and
metropolitan areas. Due to the multiplicity of state and local taxes, taxing jurisdictions, and assessment
procedures, it is not feasible to calculate local tax burdens reliably. C2ER has opted to produce an index that
adequately measures differences in goods and services costs, rather than to produce an inaccurate measure that
attempts to incorporate taxes levied on real and intangible property, retail purchases, and income.
Source: Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) & The Council for Community and Economic Research
434 979 5610 703 522 4980
www.tjped.com www.c2er.org
9/4/08 COST OF LIVING, PAGE 1
Attachment 1
Charlottesville has the 2nd highest cost of living, of the 11 Virginia Metropolitan
and Micropolitan Areas reported to C2ER:
1. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA-MD-WV 38.4% higher than national average
Metropolitan Area & Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA
2. Charlottesville, VA Metropolitan Area 8.5% higher than national average
3. VA Beach-Norfolk-Newport News VA-NC Metropolitan Area 8.1% higher than national average
& Hampton Roads-SE Virginia, VA
4. Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford VA Metropolitan Area 4.6% higher than national average
& Blacksburg, VA
5. Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Area 3.5% higher than national average
6. Lynchburg, VA Metropolitan Area 1.9% higher than national average
& Lynchburg, VA
7. Richmond, VA Metropolitan Area 1.2% higher than national average
& Richmond, VA
8. Winchester VA-WV Metropolitan Area .7% higher than national average
& Winchester VA-WV
9. Lexington-Buena Vista-Rockbridge, VA 2.8% lower than national average
10. Staunton-Waynesboro VA Micropolitan Area 3.8% lower than national average
& Staunton-Augusta County, VA
11. Roanoke VA Metropolitan Area 8.5% lower than national average
& Roanoke, VA
Source: Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) & The Council for Community and Economic Research
434 979 5610 703 522 4980
www.tjped.com www.c2er.org
9/4/08
COST OF LIVING, PAGE 2
ACCRA Cost of Living Index Comparative Data for 318 Urban Areas
Data for Second Quarter 2008, Published August 2008
Richmond, VA Metropolitan Area DATA
100% (sum of the six following 101.2 1.2% higher than national average
component categories):
29.84% Housing 105.0 5% higher than national average
(% of individual s income spent on housing)
12.49% Grocery Items 96.7 3.3% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on groceries)
32.93% Miscellaneous Goods & Services 96.9 3.1% lower than national average
(% of individual s income spent on miscellaneous)
4.07% Health Care 109.8 9.8% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on health care)
10.73% Transportation 104.6 4.6% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on transportation)
9.94% Utilities 102.2 2.2% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on utilities)
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Area & Washington-Arlington-
Alexandria DC-VA DATA
100% (sum of the six following 138.4 38.4% higher than national average
component categories):
29.84% Housing 222.3 122.3% higher than national average
(% of individual s income spent on housing)
12.49% Grocery Items 105.7 5.7% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on groceries)
32.93% Miscellaneous Goods & Services 102.9 2.9% higher than national average
(% of individual s income spent on miscellaneous)
4.07% Health Care 103.5 3.5% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on health care)
10.73% Transportation 106.6 6.6% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on transportation)
9.94% Utilities 93.8 6.2% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on utilities)
COST OF LIVING, PAGE 3
Staunton-Waynesboro VA Micropolitan Area & Staunton-Augusta County, VA
100% (sum of the six following 96.2 3.8% lower than national average
component categories):
29.84% Housing 92.0 8% lower than national average
(% of individual s income spent on housing)
12.49% Grocery Items 98.3 1.7% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on groceries)
32.93% Miscellaneous Goods & Services 98.8 1.2% lower than national average
(% of individual s income spent on miscellaneous)
4.07% Health Care 97.1 2.9% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on health care)
10.73% Transportation 93.0 7% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on transportation)
9.94% Utilities 100.3 .3% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on utilities)
Harrisonburg, VA Metropolitan Area
100% (sum of the six following 103.5 3.5% higher than national average
component categories):
29.84% Housing 112.8 12.8% higher than national average
(% of individual s income spent on housing)
12.49% Grocery Items 94.8 5.2% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on groceries)
32.93% Miscellaneous Goods & Services 103.2 3.2% higher than national average
(% of individual s income spent on miscellaneous)
4.07% Health Care 98.4 1.6% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on health care)
10.73% Transportation 94.0 6% lower than national average
(% of individuals income spent on transportation)
9.94% Utilities 100.3 .3% higher than national average
(% of individuals income spent on utilities)
Source: Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) & The Council for Community and Economic Research
434 979 5610 703 522 4980
www.tjped.com www.c2er.org
9/4/08
COST OF LIVING, PAGE 4
A Brief Primer on the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Albemarle County Public Schools
September 11, 2008
NCLB regulations:
1)The success of all students in meeting grade-level math and reading standards is
measured. The level of rigor of standards and tests differs from state to state.
2)A target date of 2013-14 for 100% success in reaching Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) measures was set. Incremental targets change every year or so until the 100%
success rate is expected of every public school in the United States.
3)The same AYP measures apply to each membership group, including students who
speak no English when they immigrate to the United States.
4)Each membership group must meet the annual AYP target or the failure rate in that
group must decrease by 10% to make AYP .
5)If failure rate reduction is the way a school makes AYP, then a 3rd indicator must also
be met for each membership group. For high schools it is always graduation rate
measures. For elementary/middle schools it most often is attendance measures but
science or social studies pass rates may be selected by the principal.
6)At least 95% of all students in a school must participate in the SOL assessments of
math and reading to make AYP.
7)Special education students can participate in alternative assessments known as the
Virginia Grade Level Assessment (VGLA) or the Virginia Alternative Assessment
Program (VAAP). Only 1% of the total student population can participate in the
VAAP. If the 1% rule is exceeded, then the Division must pick students who in
schools that exceed the 1% to fail for AYP calculation purposes. VAAP only is used
with students who have significant mental disabilities.
8)AYP measures apply only when a school has at least 50 students in a membership
group. Therefore, a school with over 50 students may not make AYP if a membership
group does not meet the target. A school with under 50 students in a membership group
will make AYP even if the failure rate in that group does not meet the target.
9)A school or school division must meet AYP targets for each membership group. Even
one measurement that does not meet the target causes the school or division to not
make AYP.
10)Only Title I schools are subject to improvement actions. This applies if a school does
not make two years in row in the same content and membership group.
11)At least 14 different rules are applied to computing data for each membership group.
12)Staff projects that local funds allocated to administer and implement NCLB equals or
exceeds the federal Title funds we receive based upon the analysis completed in 2004 for
the Virginia Department of Education. The staff time to count all expenses associated
with NCLB exceeded 200 man-hours in 2004.
Attachment 2
Albemarle County New Resident Guide
Albemarle County a great place to raise a family. In June 2008, Forbes magazine studied localities across the
United States in search of the top 20 best places to raise a family (see Forbes June 27, 2008 issue). Using
research provided by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C., Forbes
looked at localities that are safe, fun, affordable, and have a strong, high-performing school system both during
the school day and with after-school and extracurricular programs. Albemarle County ranked 13th on Forbes
nationwide list, and is the only locality in the state of Virginia to make the ranking.
Why did Forbes select Albemarle County? Take a look:
x100 percent of our schools are fully accredited by the Virginia Department of Education the highest
rating a school can earn.
xAlbemarle County Schools was one of only 19 school divisions in the state to earn the VIP Governor s
Award for Educational Excellence. The distinction is given to school systems that far surpassed the
benchmarks established by the state.
xAverage SAT scores by Albemarle County students surpass state and national averages by more than
10 percent.
x82 percent of Albemarle County high school graduates pursue post-secondary education.
x81 percent of our students taking an AP test received a passing score, compared to the state average
of 60 percent.
xSeven Albemarle County elementary schools were recognized by the Virginia Board of Education for
raising the academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students. The recognition is earned
by schools that have significantly closed the achievement gap or exceeded AYP targets for two or
more consecutive years under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
xAs a division, 99.93% of our teachers are Highly Qualified under the provisions of the No Child Left
Behind act. Approximately 58-percent of Albemarle County teachers hold a master s degree and both
teachers and support staff continue to receive honors as leading education experts in Virginia and the
nation, including the prestigious Red Apple award for integrating technology into the classroom, which
has gone to an Albemarle Schools educator for the past two years.
xIn 2007-2008, our school division offered 53 Advanced Placement (AP) courses and 21 dual-
enrollment classes so students could earn college credit while still in high school. For the class of
2006-07, 66% of graduates had taken at least one AP or dual credit course.
xWe have award-winning fine arts programs in place throughout our schools. Albemarle High School
has been selected as a Blue Ribbon School for its music program for the past three years. The choirs,
bands and orchestra at AHS each earned superior ratings at state and national festivals to earn this
honor.
xOur extra-curricular activities and sports teams continue to earn honors at the district, state, and na-
tional level. Western Albemarle High School earned the prestigious Wachovia Cup in Athletics for the
third time for 2007-2008, and Monticello High was the state AA champion in football. A team of relay
runners at Albemarle High posted the second fastest time in the nation at the national track meet in
June 2008.
Albemarle County Public Schools
Strong schools = strong communities
Attachment 3
Albemarle County New Resident Guide
Albemarle County stretches across 726 square miles, making it the fifth largest county
by area in the Commonwealth. The mission of the school district is to establish a com-
munity of learners and learning through rigor, relevance, and relationships, one student
at a time. The school division has identified five goals as part of its strategic plan, and reports to the community
the progress made toward these goals in an annual report and in individual school-based improvement plans.
The five goals are:
1. Prepare all students to succeed as members of a global community and in a global economy.
2. Eliminate the Achievement Gap.
3. Recruit, retain, and develop a diverse cadre of the highest quality teaching personnel, staff, and
administrators.
4. Achieve recognition as a world-class educational system.
5. Establish efficient systems for development, allocation, and alignment of resources to support the
division s vision, mission, and goals.
Albemarle County school district serves 12,651
students in 27 schools: 16 elementary; six
middle; and five high schools, including Murray
High, our charter school, and Charlottesville-
Albemarle Technical Education center (CATEC),
which is jointly operated with Charlottesville City
Schools. In 2008-2009, we opened an arts-
infused charter middle school, and in 2009-
2010, a Math and Science Academy will open
at Albemarle High School. The county also
operates a regional alternative school for
students who qualify.
The Virginia Department of Education issues
annual report cards for schools, school
divisions, and the commonwealth, providing
information about student achievement,
accountability ratings, attendance, program
completion, school safety, teacher quality, and
other topics. To view the Albemarle County
school division report card for any of our
schools, go to the division website at
www.k12albemarle.org and click on Reports
and Data in the left-hand column. For more
information, visit the Virginia Department of
Education website at www.doe.virginia.gov.
For information on Albemarle County Public
Schools visit www.k12albemarle.org.
Who We Are
Albemarle County
Schools
at-a-glance
xNumber of schools: 27. All are fully
accredited.
xTotal number of students in grades pre-K
through 12: 12,651
xStudents identified as gifted: 15%
xStudents served by Special Education: 14%
xStudents eligible for free and reduced lunch: 21%
xStudents identified as Limited English Proficient:
6%
xNumber of languages spoken by
students: 68
xNumber of student lunches served daily: 6,000
xNumber of miles buses travel daily: 11,378
xStudents-to-computers ratio: 3.18: 1
xHigh School completion rate: 91%
xAverage Class Size:
Kindergarten: 18
Grades 1-3: 19
Grades 4-5: 20
Grades 6-12: 21 *2007-08 data
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN D A TITLE:
2009 Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission (TJPDC) Legislative Program
SU B JECT/PR OPOSAL/R EQUEST:
Request input on and approval of the 2009
TJ PDC legislative program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mess rs. Tucker, Foley, D avis, Bowman, and
Blount
LEGAL R EVIEW : Yes
A GENDA DATE:
October 1, 2008
A C TION: X INFORMATION:
C ON SENT A GENDA:
ACTION : IN FORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEW ED B Y:
B A C K GR OU N D :
The Thomas Jefferson Planning Distric t Commis sion (TJPDC) w orks with Albemarle County and other Planning
D istrict loc alities each y ear to develop a legis lative program for the upcoming General Assembly session. The draft
2009 TJPDC Legislative Program (Attachment A) is before the Board for input and approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Goals: Enhance Quality of Life for all C itizens; Protect the C ounty's Natural, Scenic and Historic R esources;
D evelop Policies and Infras tructure Improvements to Addres s the County's Growing N eeds; Effectively Manage
Growth and Development; Fund the County's Future N eeds.
D ISC U SSION:
The draft 2009 TJPDC Legislative Program follows the same format as in previous years, identifying priority “action
items” and highlighting areas of continuing concerns. The draft program incorporates all of the legislative priorities the
Board approved at its August 6, 2008 meeting (Attachment B). David Blount of the TJPDC will be present to receive
the Board’s comments and answer any questions on the draft program.
B U D GET IMPACT:
Should the State provide additional funding for the County’s “Child Care for Low Income W orking Families” priority, a
local match will be required. Beyond that priority, there are no specific, identifiable budget impacts, although the
C ounty’s legis lative priorities seek to ensure that the State adequately funds its mandated responsibilities and does not
jeopardize the County’s ability to effectiv ely and efficiently implement the policies (inc luding fiscal) and programs that it
deems necessary.
R ECOMMEN D A TIONS:
Staff recommends the Board approve the draft 2009 TJPDC Legislative Program, which will be amended to include any
changes that the Board requests.
A TTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Draft 2009 TJPD C Legislative Program
Attachment B – Albemarle C ounty’s 2009 Legislative Priorities – Adopted August 6, 2008
Ret urn to regular agenda
2009
Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Legislative
Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
September 2008
Connie Brennan, Chairman
Billie J. Campbell, Acting Executive Director
David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison
2
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to honor their
funding obligations to services provided in cities and counties by their local
government partners, and to resist shifting fiscal responsibility for these programs
to localities.
After approving a FY09-FY10 state budget that included spending reductions of
nearly $2 billion, the state faces continuing revenue shortfalls that likely will result in an
additional $1 billion to $2 billion in cuts over the biennium. Reductions in aid to various
local programs and services totaled nearly $250 million, including a $100 million cut that
required localities to decide how to absorb the shortchanging; for FY09 alone, this means
a $1.4 million shortfall to localities in our region. We particularly are concerned about
potential state reductions in public education, public safety and health/human services.
We believe state funding reductions for state-required services/programs should be
accompanied by relaxation of the state requirement or flexibility for the locality to meet
the requirement.
Local governments, which are overly dependent on the real estate tax that
presently is producing less revenue due to the sluggish housing market, cannot continue
to pick up the slack when the state retreats from its obligations. Unfunded and
underfunded state mandates/commitments and “cost shifting” by the state reduce the
ability, especially in our rural localities, to meet local needs, and force our citizens to bear
local tax and fee increases to pay for programs and services. Service cuts will have a
direct and harmful effect on the lives and well-being of our citizens who expect, rely and
need programs in critical areas such as education, safety and human services. In addition,
increased demand for services that are primarily funded at the local level present unique
challenges to rural, urban and fast-growing localities alike (all present in our region).
Finally, any changes to Virginia’s tax code should not reduce local government
revenues or restrict local taxing authority. The legislature should broaden the revenue
sources available to local governments, rather than capping, removing or restricting them.
The state should refrain from establishing local tax policy at the state level and allow
local governments to retain authority over decisions that determine the equity of local
taxation policy, if governing bodies are to provide cost-effective services. This includes
the processes for setting real estate tax rates and developing and approving budgets,
which are integrated processes that are effective in involving the public and ensuring
efficient tax administration. Recent, proposed changes to these processes would have
upset this balance.
LOCAL and STATE FUNDING OBLIGATIONS
3
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities encourage the state to provide local governments
with additional tools to manage growth, without preempting or circumventing
existing authorities.
The past few years have seen an increase in both mandated and optional land use
provisions applicable to local governments to address growth issues. Still, current land
use authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to provide for balanced,
sustainable growth in a manner that protects and improves quality of life.
Last year, the General Assembly considered SB 768, a measure that would have
repealed local authority to accept voluntary cash proffers from new residential projects
and limited the ability to accept off-site non-cash proffers, while revising existing impact
fee authority, capping the amount of impact fees a locality can impose at $7,500 per unit.
While we support efforts to have impact fee and proffer systems that are workable and
meaningful for various parties, we oppose attempts to weaken our current proffer
authority.
Rather, we support revising the road impact fee authority adopted in 2007 to
include additional localities and to provide for the following: 1) a fair allocation of the
costs of new growth on public facilities; 2) facility costs that include, but are not limited
to, various transportation modes, schools, public safety, libraries and parks; 3) effective
implementation and reasonable administrative requirements; and 4) no caps or limits on
locality impact fee updates.
Further, to enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to support
services associated with new developments, we endorse enabling legislation and optional
provisions that include the following:
• Authority for local ordinances for determining whether public facilities are
adequate (“adequate public facility,” or APF ordinances)
• Optional cluster development as a land use tool for local governments.
We also support 1) dedicated funding through the Virginia Land Conservation
Foundation for the acquisition, preservation and maintenance of open space and
recreation lands, 2) full authority to generate local dollars for such efforts, and 3)
additional incentives for citizens to create conservation easements, including removing
the cap on conservation easement tax credits approved in 2006. We request the state
increase, from five years, the roll-back taxes assessed against property under land use
taxation that changes to a non-qualifying use to an amount equal to the sum of the
deferred tax for each of the 10 most recent complete tax years. Finally, we support
authority for localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts.
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
4
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the state to establish separate, dedicated and
permanent state revenue streams for our transportation infrastructure. The state
also should not shift road maintenance and construction responsibilities to localities.
The need to fund a declining transportation infrastructure is dire and state dollars
remain inadequate. Local governments need sustainable, dedicated, non-general funds
from the state to support our transportation network. Absent such an investment, Virginia
faces a congestion and mobility crisis that will stifle economic growth and negatively
affect the quality of life of our residents.
This past spring, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved a $1.1
billion reduction to the Six-Year Improvement Program, meaning construction budgets
for primary, secondary and urban roads were slashed by 44%, while transit was cut by
10%. Instead, those dollars are being transferred to the highway maintenance budget. It
is expected that $400 million will have to be transferred from construction to
maintenance in each of the next two years to cover the maintenance shortfall, a figure that
will grow as revenues coming into the state’s transportation coffers continue to slow.
The state should direct its funding efforts at all transportation modes both
statewide and regionally, targeting investments toward solutions that put money to work
on new ideas and in tandem with leveraging private investment. It should account for
urban area needs where public transportation is very important, the increasing traffic
demands placed on fast-growing localities and the ongoing improvements necessary on
rural, secondary roads. These improvements are vital to our region’s ability to respond to
local and regional congestion and economic development issues.
We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land
use planning, without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities
that do so. We urge VDOT to be mindful of local comprehensive, land use and
trail/bicycle plans, as well as regional transportation plans, when planning transportation
systems within a locality. We also request the following:
• Legislative support for enabling authority to establish a Regional Transit
Authority for Charlottesville/Albemarle
• State funding for improvements along rural sections of the Rt. 29 corridor
• Increased funding for the revenue-sharing program
• Support for passenger rail service for the Piedmont corridor (TransDominion
Express)
• Allowing the use of Rural Rustic Road funds to pave rural addition roads
• Increased funding to help mitigate transportation, environmental and other
impacts (e.g. educational facilities) on localities affected by recommendations of
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC).
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
5
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District’s member localities urge the state to be partners in containing
costs of the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better balance CSA
responsibilities between state and local government.
Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act in the early 1990’s, there
has been pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to
increase local match levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to
control how localities run their programs. State and local costs of residential and non-
residential mandated services continued to increase; from 2006 to 2007, CSA pool
expenditures for state and local governments rose 16% (from $295 million to $342
million). Costs also have been difficult to forecast because of factors beyond state and
local control (number of mandated children in a community, severity of problems, service
rates, availability of alternative funding). Further, localities pay the overwhelming
majority (90%) of costs to administer CSA. Over the last decade, the state has increased
administrative responsibilities, but not administrative funding dollars to localities.
The FY09/10 budget modified the local share of funding for community and
residential services on a “phased-in” basis, by lowering the local share for community-
based services as an incentive to serve children who can be appropriately cared for in the
community, and then increasing the local share for residential services. Unfortunately, the
approved service definitions do not include some services provided in the community as
such, and therefore they will not qualify for a lower local match. Local governments are
troubled by the haste with which service definitions were proposed and approved, that
local governments were not part of the team that developed the definitions and that the
changes will have a negative local fiscal impact.
We support the following: 1) full funding of the state pool for CSA, with
allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need; 2) increased state funding for
CSA administrative costs; and 3) a state cap on local expenditures in order to combat
higher local costs for serving mandated children, costs which often are driven by
unanticipated placements in a locality. The state also should be proactive in making
residential facilities and service providers available, especially in rural areas.
In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local
governments, we recommend that the state establish contracts with CSA providers to
provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor accountability and
control costs. We encourage the state to consider penalties for individuals who have had
children removed from their care due to abuse or neglect. Finally, we support local and
regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing among localities by procuring services
through group negotiation.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
6
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District localities urge the legislature to fully fund the state share of
the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and to enhance teacher
salaries to help recruit and retain high-quality instructional personnel.
The state spends nearly $6 billion/year on public education, roughly one-third of
its general fund budget. Local governments, likewise, appropriate a similar amount and
spend far more local dollars on educating children than the state requires. In these tight
fiscal times, the state should resist changes that require localities to fund a greater share
of K-12 education costs, such as proposals that recalculate personnel salaries by
recognizing only state (and not also local) costs, and that increase the federal revenue
deduction, which results in a savings to the state but an increase in required local costs.
State funding should be realistic and recognize actual educational needs, practices and
costs (including operational, capital and maintenance costs for school facilities and
transportation). Otherwise, more of the education funding burden would fall on local real
estate taxes. We also support establishment of a mechanism for local appeal of the
calculated Local Composite Index (LCI) to the state; changes to the LCI that negatively
impact a locality also drive up local taxes.
The state budgeted teacher salary figure (on which it bases its share of teacher
costs) trails the statewide and national averages. Teacher pay comprises the majority of
K-12 expenditures, and local market conditions dictate the level of pay required to recruit
and retain quality teachers. We believe that the localities in our region should be included
in the “Cost of Competing Adjustment” now available only to various localities primarily
in Northern Virginia. This would help our localities to reach and maintain competitive
compensation to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher
workforce.
Regarding school capital needs, we continue to urge state financial assistance with
school construction and renovation needs, including funding for the Literary Loan and
interest rate subsidy programs. The state should resist its customary seizing of dollars
from the Literary Fund to pay state costs for teacher retirement (nearly $300 million is
being diverted in the current biennium). We also support an increase in the maximum
amount of Literary Fund loans from the current $7.5 million.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
7
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and
workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We
support policies that closely link the goals of economic and workforce development and
the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce activities and revenue sources.
We also support increased state funding for workforce development programs.
• We support the governor’s Economic and Workforce Development Strategic Plan
for the Commonwealth that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local
governments and includes new tools for local governments to use in attracting economic
development opportunities.
• We support enhanced funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue
meaningful opportunities for regional projects. We also support enhanced state funding
for the Industrial Site Development Fund, the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism
initiatives that help promote economic development in localities and regions.
• We encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities to
identify and promote local, regional and state agricultural products.
• We support increased state funding for workforce development programs.
• We appreciate and encourage continuing state incentives and support for
expanding broadband technology in underserved areas.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be
funded and promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water
quality, solid waste management, land conservation, climate change and land use
policies. We are committed to the protection and enhancement of the environment and
recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and the
socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of available revenues.
Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the inter-jurisdictional nature of
many environmental resources, and adequate state funding to support local and regional
efforts.
We believe the following:
• The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or
other local services to pay for state environmental programs. To do so would set a
disturbing precedent whereby the state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund
state priorities.
• The state should reduce permit application fees associated with stormwater
management and stream mitigation projects, as past fee increases have adversely
impacted local abilities to adopt regional stormwater management programs and to
ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
8
undertake projects needed for stream protection. Fees should be used only to cover costs
of administering the program.
• The legislature should provide funding for wastewater treatment and other
necessary assistance to localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaired waterways,
while ensuring that system design standards remain compatible with any new state
requirements. The state also should explore alternative means of preventing and
remediating water pollution.
• The state should not enact legislation mandating expansion of the area covered by
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Instead, the state should 1) provide legal, financial
and technical support to localities that wish to comply with any of the Act’s provisions,
2) allow localities to use other practices to improve water quality, and 3) provide funding
for other strategies that address point and non-point source pollution.
• The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply
development and should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues,
including investing in regional projects. Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts
should continue to involve local governments.
• The state should expand the list of localities that may, by ordinance, require
conservation of trees during the development process.
• The state should 1) ensure landfill closure schedules permit facilities posing no
threat to property or the public to continue to operate through their allowable life, and 2)
provide adequate funding for landfill closure and post-closure costs.
• We support increased local government representation on the Biosolids Use
Regulation Advisory Committee (BURAC).
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given
to developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the
young and the elderly, can achieve their full potential. Reductions to community agencies
are especially troublesome, as their activities often end up preventing more costly
services later. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative effort
from federal, state and local agencies. We urge the General Assembly to ensure funding
is available to continue such valuable preventive services.
• We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of
the local share of costs for human services, including changes that would require
additional local contributions for indigent care.
• The state should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime
Control Act (VJCCCA) program, which has produced a nearly 50% drop in Department
of Juvenile Justice commitments since 1998. Further, the state should maintain a
formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA funding.
• The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards
(CSBs) to meet the challenges of providing a community-based system of care, including
maximizing the use of Medicaid funding. We believe children with mental health needs
should be treated in the mental health system, where CSBs are the point of entry. We
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
9
support state action to increase investment in the MR waiver program for adults and
young people and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services. We also
oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the state to localities.
• We support efforts to fund mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile
detention centers.
• We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local
funding.
• We support sufficient state funding for local social services facilities and for local
departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services. We also request that
the state provide funds for staffing local social services departments to 1) determine
eligibility for residents seeking social services such as Medicaid, food stamps and
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and 2) meet child and family services
review goals. We also support state assistance for providing pre-admission screening
services for nursing homes and for prompt investigation and services in cases involving
abuse, neglect or exploitation of the elderly or disabled.
• We support continued state funding for local Disability Services Boards, as well
as restored state dollars for the Rehabilitative Services Incentive Fund.
• We support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include
companion and in home services, home delivered meals and transportation.
• We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and
prevention programs (and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), including
school-based prevention programs which can make a difference in children’s lives. This
would include the state’s program for at-risk four-year-olds, the Child Health Partnership
and Healthy Families programs.
• We support Virginia’s welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote
family preservation and work requirements. The legislature should provide full funding to
assist low-income working and TANF (and former TANF) families with childcare
costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and
support efforts for families to become self-sufficient. We oppose any initiatives to shift
traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local
governments. We support state efforts to expand access to education and training needed
by welfare recipients to become employed and self-supporting. We believe the current
funding and program responsibility for TANF employment services should remain within
the social services realm. We also support a TANF plan that takes into account and fully
funds state and local implementation and support services costs.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an
opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments
should work toward expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of
affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low- and moderate-income
households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever
possible.
HOUSING
10
• We support changes to the Code to allow 1) local flexibility in the operation of
affordable housing programs, 2) for creation of a state housing trust fund, 3)
establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances, 4) the award of grants and loans to
low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing dwellings, and 5) the provision of
other funding to encourage affordable housing initiatives.
• We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
• We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic
structures.
• In addressing the lack of input that local governments have concerning housing
issues, we support local government notice provisions for all proposed low and moderate-
income housing projects seeking federal tax credits, including VHDA.
• We support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of
existing housing and discourages new construction in close proximity to existing
subsidized housing.
• We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured
homes in zoning districts that permit single-family dwellings.
• We encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using
environmentally friendly (green) building materials and techniques, which can contribute
to the long-term health, vitality and sustainability of the region.
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation
and assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities
and fire services responsibilities carried out locally.
• We encourage urge the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority,
fully funding local positions that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local
share of funding constitutional offices or divert funding away from local offices, but
increase money needed for their operation, as local governments have continued to
provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets.
• We support urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program
(in accordance with Code of Virginia provisions), drug courts and the Pre-Release and
Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts.
• The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset
and maintain the per diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners.
• We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’
Service Award Program and other incentives that would help recruit and retain
emergency service providers. Further, the state should improve access to and support for
training for volunteer and paid providers.
• We encourage shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate
regional jails; however, we do not believe the state should operate local and regional jails.
• We urge local involvement in planning processes for homeland security measures.
• We support state funding to develop supervised visitation centers to protect
children during visitation with non-custodial parents, when ordered by a court.
PUBLIC SAFETY
11
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental
actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local
governments must have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
• We support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide
services required by citizens and to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships.
Accordingly, we support a requirement for state agencies to notify localities of planned
construction projects that may affect the locality’s comprehensive plan.
• We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local
government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for
local employees; matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance; and procedures
for adopting ordinances.
• We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
preserve 1) a local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of
records currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning
creation of customized computer records. We support changes to allow local and regional
public bodies to conduct electronic meetings as now permitted for state public bodies.
• We support local requests to the state for enabling legislation to increase the
income and financial worth limitations for real property tax exemption or deferral
programs. We also support enabling legislation that allows property tax relief for
community land trusts that hold land for the purpose of providing affordable
homeownership.
• We encourage clarification of Code provisions that stipulate law enforcement
responsibilities when transporting persons for whom a temporary detention order has
been issued for emergency medical treatment or evaluation.
• We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to
regulate noise or the discharge of firearms.
• We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
• We support enactment of an interest rate cap of 36% on payday loans.
• The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the
costs associated with compensating jury members.
• We support state funding for regional planning districts.
• We support legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse maintenance.
• The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility are considered in
any centralizing of state computer functions.
• The state must ensure that the continued implementation of electric utility
restructuring is revenue neutral to localities and that any necessary stopgap
appropriations to adversely affected localities are fully funded.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE and LAWS
Albemarle County 2009 Legislative Priorities – A dopted August 6, 2008
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
Local Authority: R equest that the legislature 1) strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to utilize
adequate public fac ilities ordinances; and 2) not pass legislation that preempts or circumvents existing local
authority to regulate land use.
Impact Fee A uthority: Request that the legislature support impact fee legislation that allow s for 1) a fair
allocation of costs representing a “prorata” offset of new growth on public facilities ; 2) impact fees for facility
costs related to transportation, s chools, fire, police, emergenc y medical services , libraries , stormwater
management, open space and parks /recreation lands; 3) effective implementation through simple locallybas ed
formulae and reasonable administrative requirements ; 4) does not c ap or limit loc alities’ impact fee updates ; and
5) does not diminish the existing proffer system.
C onservation Easements: Request the legislature support and augment local efforts in natural res ource
protection through 1) Continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLC F) for locally
established and funded Purchase of D evelopment R ights programs (e.g. ACE Program in Albemarle County); 2)
Retaining provisions in transient oc cupancy tax legislation so that funds can continue to be used to protect
openspace and resources of his torical, cultural, ecological and scenic value that attract tourism; and 3)
Increas e incentives for citizens to create conserv ation easements.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement: Request enabling legislation for an Albemarle County to prov ide
for a scenic protec tion and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the
visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide a method to ensure
full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas w hen the C ounty or state makes land use decisions in
designated areas.
Transportation Funding: Request the legislature 1) Es tablish stable and consistent state revenues for
Virginia’s longterm transportation infrastructure needs; 2) Direct funding efforts at all transportation modes; 3)
Coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of local C omprehensiv e and regional
Transportation Plans when planning transportation sys tems within a locality; and 4) Not shift transportation
responsibilities, inc luding maintenance, to localities.
Health and Human Services
C omprehensive Services Act (CSA ): Request the legislature assist localities’ implementation of CSA in a
cons istent, financially stable manner by: 1) Fully funding the s tate pool for C SA w ith allocations based on
realis tic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local expenditures for serving a child through CSA; 2)
Enhancing state funding for grants to localities to create communitybased alternatives for children served in
CSA; 3) Establishing state contracts w ith CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management proces s,
improve vendor acc ountability and control costs; and 4) Encouraging the state to be proactive in making serv ice
prov iders available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing among loc alities by
proc uring services through group negotiation.
Child Care for Low Income W orking Families: Reques t the legislature provide additional funds to local
governments to as sist low income w orking families with childc are costs. This funding helps w orkingclass
parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts for families to bec ome selfsuffic ient.
Local Government Administration and Finance
Full Funding of State Mandates: Request the state prov ide full funding for its mandates in all areas of local
government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs ), positions approved by the C ompensation Board, cos ts
related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services positions.
Local Control of Local Revenues: R eques t the legislature take no action to res tric t or limit the existing local
control of local revenues so that loc al government leaders can take appropriate measures to generate sufficient
revenues to sustain and improve s erv ices.
D rug Court Funding: Reques t the legislature fully fund the D rug Court Program, which prov ides effective
treatment and intensiv e supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit Courts of s everal Virginia localities.
Cost to Compete Pay Differential: D ue to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle County , request the
legislature include Albemarle County Schools in the “Cost to C ompete Pay Differential” so that the C ounty may
reac h and maintain competitive compensation to help recruit, dev elop and retain a highly qualified and diverse
teac her workforce.
Land Use Taxation: Request the legislature to amend Virginia Code § 58.13237 to increase the rollback tax es
assessed against property under land use taxation that changes to a nonqualifying use to an amount equal to
the s um of the deferred tax for eac h of the ten mos t rec ent c omplete tax years. Currently the rollback tax
applies only to the deferred taxes relating to the five most recent tax years.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
Augus t 29, 2008
Rosewood Village Rehab Center
c/o Kristine Clark
500 Greenbrier Drive
Charlottesv ille VA 22901
RE: SP200800018 R osewood Village Rehab Center Services – Greenbrier
SP200800019 R osewood Village Rehab Center Services – Hollymead Town C enter
Dear Ms. Clark:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 19, 2008, rec ommended approv al of the
abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 7:0.
Please note that these approvals are s ubject to the follow ing conditions :
REGAR DIN G SP200800018
1. This s pecial use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninety residents (90) residents in the facility.
3. Phys ical Therapy services to nonresidents are allowed.
View Ex ecutive Summary and attached staff report
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
REGAR DIN G SP200800019
1. This s pecial use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninety residents (96) residents in the facility.
3. Phys ical Therapy services to nonresidents are allowed.
View Staff report and attac hments
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review these petitions and receive public
comment at their meeting on October 1, 2008.
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 08 – 18 Rosewood Village (Greenbrier) and SP 08 –
19 Rosew ood Village (Hollymead Tow n C enter)
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
To allow nonresidents of R osewood Village to
use the phy sical therapy services of the
Rosew ood Village rehab facilities.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols, Grant
LEGAL R EVIEW: NO
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: X IN FORMATION:
CONSENT A GENDA:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: YES
BACK GROUND :
On Augus t 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for each of the Ros ewood Village special
use permit amendment requests. The Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of each with the
following conditions:
SP 200800018 Rosewood Village (Greenbrier)
1. This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninety (90) residents in the facility.
3. Phys ical Therapy services to nonresidents are allowed.
SP 200800019 Rosewood Village (Holly mead Town Center)
1. This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninetysix (96) res idents in the facility .
3. Phys ical Therapy services to nonresidents are allowed.
DISCU SSION :
The Commission recommended condition three (3), “Phy sical Therapy s ervices to nonresidents are allowed”, be
added because they wanted to make sure the use w ould be allowed and available to nonresidents of Rosew ood
Village, particularly sinc e both previous ly approved special use permits have conditions that state, “No part of
the property may be utiliz ed for any activities other than those directly related to the adult care residence.”
However, condition three (3) is not actually necessary because, in both requests, the underlying z oning (C1 for
Rosewood Village (Greenbrier) and PDMC for Rosew ood Village (Hollymead Town C enter)) already permits the
physical therapy use for the general public . Therefore, unless conditioned otherwise, as was the case with the
original s pecial use permits, physical therapy services to nonresidents are allowed by right.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Approval of Special Use Permits 200818 and 200819, each with conditions one (1) and two (2), but not condition
three (3), as recommended by the Planning Commiss ion.
ATTAC HMENTS:
Attachment I: Planning Commission staff reports, dated August 19, 2008
Ret urn t o PC act ions letter
PR IVATE ALB EMARLE COU NTY DEPA R TMENT OF C OMMUNITY D EVELOPMENT
STAFF R EPORT
Proposal: SP 2008 018 R osewood Village Rehab
Services (Greenbrier)
Staff: C laudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
August 19, 2008
Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owners: Rosewood Village Assisted Living, LLC Applicant: Rosewood Village Rehab Services, LLC
Acreage: Approximately 2.0660 acres Special U se Permit for: Assisted living facilities by
special use permit in C 1, Commercial district.
TMP: TM: 61W P: 021
Location: 500 Greenbrier D rive. Northeast corner of
Westfield Road and Greenbrier Drive. (Attachments A &
B)
Byright use: C1, commercial and service
establishments permitted by right in the C1 district; and
uses permitted by special use permit in the C1
district.
Magisterial D istrict: Rio Conditions: Yes EC : No
Proposal: To allow nonresidents of Rosewood Village
to use the physical therapy services of R osewood Village
rehab facility.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0
DA (Development Area): N eighborhood 2 Comp. Plan Designation: Community Service
communityscale retail w holesale, business and medical
offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment
services, and residential (6.0134 units/acre).
Character of Property: The subject property lies east of
Route 29, along the northeast corner of Westfield Road
and Greenbrier Drive. The building is existing in an
established office neighborhood.
Use of Surrounding Properties: A mixture of uses
consisting of residential units, The LaurelsNursing and
Rehab C enter, The Senior Center, and a variety of
commercial/office uses and a financial institution.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal for the expansion of an existing
rehab use adds a variety of rehab services available
within the Greenbrier Drive neighborhood.
2. The residents of the surrounding community may
benefit from the opportunity of rehab services becoming
available to them.
Factors U nfavorable:
1. There are no factors unfavorable.
RECOMMEN DATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2008018, R osewood Village Rehab Services (Greenbrier)
with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 19, 2008
B OARD OF SU PERVISORS:
SP2008018: R OSEWOOD VILLAGE REH A B SERVIC ES (GREENB R IER)
Petition:
PR OJECT: SP 200800018 R osewood Village Rehab Services Greenbrier
PR OPOSED: Allow nonresidents of Rosew ood Village to use the Rosew ood Village rehab facility.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENER AL USAGE: C 1 Commercial retail sales and service uses; and residential use by
special use permit (15 units/acre)
SECTIONS: 22.2.2(6) and 18.2.2.9
C OMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND USE/DEN SITY: Community Service communityscale retail wholesale, business
and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.0134 units/acre).
EN TRANCE C ORRIDOR: N o
LOCATION: 500 Greenbrier D rive. Northeast corner of Westfield Road and Greenbrier Drive.
TAX MAP/PAR C EL: 61W/021
MAGISTERIAL D ISTRICT: R io
C haracter of the Area and A djoining properties:
The subject property lies east of Route 29, along the northeast corner of Westfield Road and Greenbrier Drive. See
Attachment A for the Location Map and Attachment B for the Tax Map. The area consists of residential units, The
LaurelsNursing and Rehab C enter, The Senior Center, and a variety of commercial/office uses and a financial
institution.
Specifics of Proposal:
The Rosewood Village Rehab Services (Greenbrier) is an existing building. The applicant is requesting a special use
permit to allow nonresidents of Rosewood Village to use the Rosewood Village rehab facility for physical therapy.
Although the property is zoned C1, commercial, which allows physical therapy, the existing special use permit for
assisted living, does not allow this use. In order for physical therapy for nonresidents to be available, conditions on
the existing special use permit must be changed.
A pplicant’s Justification for the Request:
The applicant w ants to expand their services and offer their rehab services to patients not residing in Rosewood
Village. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as C ommunity Service and the guidelines associated with the
C ommunity Service designation allow this form of development.
Planning and Zoning History:
The current C1 zoning is the original 1980 designation on the property. C 1 allows various retail sales and service
and public establishments by right and assisted living facilities by special use.
On October 21, 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved w ith conditions, SP 9843 to allow construction of an
assisted living facility. The request was to develop a 60bed facility that w ould provide residential, assisted and
intensive living care 24 hours per day.
On July 3, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved with conditions, SP 02018, which was an amendment to
increase the maximum residential beds in the facility to ninety (90) instead of the previously approved sixty (60) beds.
Attachment C contains the staff report for the SP, the minutes of the Commission meeting and the approved
conditions.
C omprehensive Plan:
The Land Use Plan designates this area as C ommunity Service in Neighborhood Two (2). The Comprehensive Plan
allows for communityscale medical offices as well as urban density residential uses as long as the proposed use is
compatible with adjacent land uses for a parcel designated as Community Service. Rosewood Village is in the vicinity
of The Senior C enter, The Laurels nursing and rehab center, Branchlands Retirement C ommunity, Our Lady of Peace
N ursing Home and Assisted Living, and the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. The expansion of the rehab services to
nonresidents of Rosewood Village is a compatible use for this neighborhood and remains in keeping with the
C ommunity Service designation.
A full Neighborhood Model Analysis is not applicable for this project since it is an existing development and does not
propose redevelopment, but proposes an expansion of an existing use.
Staff Comment:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follow s:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The facility will continue to house elderly residents and offer patients not residing in Rosewood Village rehab services
at this facility. The size of the physical therapy office will accommodate 12 therapists treating one patient every 45
minutes to one hour; therefore, requiring a maximum of 24 parking spaces if the clinic is at full capacity. Hours of
operation will be Monday through Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.
The parking available at the facility will meet the County’s requirement of 1 space per 3 beds. With one patient every
45 minutes to one hour using the rehab services over an eight hour time span daily during the work w eek, staff does
not see this as a high impact to the facility or adjacent property. Some of the patients of the physical therapists will be
residents. The facility has adequate parking, therefore, staff can identify no detriment that this facility or expanded use
w ould have on adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The existing site is established in the community. The proposed expansion of use will provide the applicant an
opportunity to provide rehab services to nonresident patients. The character of the district will not change. The
proposal is in keeping with the form of development anticipated with the C omprehensive Plan.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose of the C1 district is to permit selected retail sales, service and public use establishments which are
primarily oriented to central business concentrations. It is intended that C 1 districts be established only within the
urban area, communities and villages in the comprehensive plan. The proposed physical therapy use is a service that
is currently provided to residents of Rosewood Village. The applicants are proposing to make the service available to
nonresidents also. The physical therapy use is allowed in the C1 district and Rosewood Village is located in the
urban area. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and
identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its approval.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Section 22.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Commercial, C1, allow s a variety of retail sales and service and
public establishments byright as well as those that are permitted by special use permit. Assisted living facilities are
permitted by special use permit in C1 districts. The number of staff and potential number of patients using the rehab
facility in any given work day is minimal. There is also adequate parking on the site. Therefore, staff does not feel there
w ill be any detrimental traffic impacts as a result of the expanded use. The proposed expansion of rehab use is
compatible with the other permitted uses in this district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.13 has restrictions for REST H OME, NUR SING HOME, C ONVALESC ENT HOME, ORPHANAGES.
The existing use meets these regulations. R emoval of the restriction for the site to only be used for assisted living w ill
not affect the assisted living use.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit process
w hich assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. There are no
expected impacts on public health safety or w elfare, except to improve the opportunity for physical therapy services in
an area which can support this use. Attachment F indicates that water and sewer service will continue to be available
to the site.
Summary:
This request is to expand the rehab services use to nonresidents of Rosewood Village. The rehab service use has
been part of the assisted living facility that w as previously approved with SP 9843 and subsequently SP 200218. The
availability of additional rehab services in the Greenbrier D rive neighborhood could be an asset for residents in the
surrounding community. As previously stated in this report, staff feels the impact of this expanded use will be minimal.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
The proposal for the expansion of an existing rehab use adds a variety of rehab services available w ithin the
Greenbrier Drive neighborhood.
The residents of the surrounding community may benefit from the opportunity of rehab services becoming available to
them.
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
R ecommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of SP 2008018, Rosewood Village Rehab Services (Greenbrier) with the following
conditions of approval:
This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
Maximum usage is limited to ninety residents (90) residents in the facility.
A TTACHMENTS
A ttachment A – Tax Map
A ttachment B – Vicinity Map
A ttachment C – Planning Commission minutes from May 28, 2002
A ttachment D – SP2002018 Board of Supervisors Executive Summary and minutes, dated July 3, 2002
A ttachment E – Board of Supervisors Action Letter, dated July 11, 2002
A ttachment F – Memo from Gary Whelan, dated June 13, 2008
R eturn to exec summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 19, 2008
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
August 19, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield Eric Strucko, Jon
Cannon, Vice Chairman, Bill Edgerton. and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP,
nonvoting representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Phil Custer, Engineer; Amy Pflaum, Senior Engineer; Glenn
Brooks, County Engineer; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Francis MacCall, Counter Planner; Gerald Gatobu, Senior
Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP200800018 Rosewood Village – Greenbrier (Sign # 1)
PROPOSED: Allow nonresidents of Rosewood Village to use the Rosewood Village rehab
facility.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C1 Commercial retail sales and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre)
SECTIONS: 22.2.2(6) and 18.2.2.9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service communityscale retail
wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment
services, and residential (6.0134 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 500 Greenbrier Drive. Northeast corner of Greenbrier Drive and Westfield Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W/021
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a powerpoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See power
point presentation)
This special use permit request is to expand the rehab services use to nonresidents of
Rosewood Village. It is an existing building.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposal for the expansion of an existing rehab use adds a variety of rehab services
available within the Greenbrier Drive neighborhood.
2. The residents of the surrounding community may benefit from the opportunity of rehab
services becoming available to them.
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
Staff recommends approval of SP 2008018, Rosewood Village Rehab Services (Greenbrier)
with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was struck by fact that the original zoning before the special use
permit was issued would allow for this. He asked why this was excluded and why they have to
go through the process.
Ms. Grant replied that it had to do with one of the previous conditions that restricted the uses in
the facility for the residents.
Mr. Edgerton questioned why that condition was put in the original special use permit approval.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it had been a similar condition used in a lot of cases. Normally in the
case of one of these facilities the conditions are related to the facility accommodating for its
own resident population. If they had asked for a more general allowance to provide say rehab
services for the general public at the time it would probably have been part of it.
Mr. Edgerton noted that it was just the way the application came in. He asked if both projects
with very similar names run by the same corporation, and Ms. Grant replied yes
Ms. Joseph noted that in an email she asked does this use intensify and do they have enough
parking.
They don’t need to limit the size of the office because they have plenty of parking spaces even
if they have five or six clients per hour.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it will be self regulated because if they expand to the point that the
parking on site does not accommodate the use, then they won’t be able to get their clearance.
They could expand to the point that zoning will allow off site parking and then zoning could
count the additional spaces.
Ms. Joseph asked if there would be an appropriate number of parking spaces on the site plan
that would accommodate this additional use.
Ms. Grant replied that they have more than enough parking spaces on the site. They have
adequate parking.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that staff cover the other special use permit at this time, take comment
and then take separate actions.
Mr. Morris agreed that the two special use permit requests would be reviewed together with
separate actions.
Return to PC actions letter
PRIVATE A LBEMARLE COU NTY D EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STA FF REPOR T
Proposal: SP 08 19 Rosew ood Village Rehab
Services (H ollymead Tow n C enter)
Staff: C laudette Grant
Planning Commission Public H earing:
August 19, 2008
Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owners: Rosewood Village of H ollymead, LLC Applicant: Rosewood Village Rehab Services, LLC
Acreage: Approximately 1.25 acres Special U se Permit for: Assisted living facilities by
special use permit in PD MC , Planned Development –
Mixed Commercial district.
TMP: TM: 32 P: 41K
Location: 2029 Lockwood D rive. The property is
located approximately 1,500 feet from U .S. Route 29
along Timberwood Boulevard in the Hollymead Town
Center. (Attachments A & B)
Byright use: PDMC, commercial and service
establishments permitted by right in the C1, CO and
HC districts; and uses permitted by special use permit
in the C 1, CO and HC districts.
Magisterial District: R io Conditions: Yes EC: Yes
Proposal: To allow nonresidents of Rosewood Village
to use the physical therapy services of the Rosew ood
Village rehab facility.
Requested # of Dwelling U nits: 0
DA (Development Area): Hollymead
Community
Comp. Plan D esignation: Town C enter: Compact,
higher density area containing a mixture of
businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas
and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds.
(6.0134 dwelling units per acre).
Character of Property: The subject property lies west
of Route 29, along the southeast corner of Timberw ood
Boulevard and Lockwood Drive in the H ollymead Tow n
Center development. The building and area are under
construction.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Mixed use
development consisting of residential tow nhouses,
and a variety of commercial and office uses that are
currently under development/construction.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal for the expansion of an existing use
adds a diversity of uses in the Town C enter.
2. The residents of the surrounding H ollymead
Town Center community may benefit from the
opportunity of rehab services becoming available
to them.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. There are no factors unfavorable.
1. 1.
RECOMMEN DATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2008019, Rosewood Village Rehab Services
(Hollymead Tow n Center) with conditions.
STAFF PERSON : Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 19, 2008
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S:
SP2008019: ROSEWOOD VILLA GE REHA B SER VICES (HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER)
Petition:
PROJECT: SP 200800019 Rosew ood Village Rehab Services Hollymead Town Center
PROPOSED : Allow nonresidents of R osewood Village to use the R osewood Village rehab facility.
ZON IN G CATEGORY/GENERAL U SAGE: PDMC Planned Development Mixed C ommercial largescale
commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre)
SEC TIONS: 25A.2.2(1) and 24.2.2(7)
COMPR EH ENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center: Compact, higher density area containing a
mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all
kinds. (6.0134 dwelling units per acre).
ENTRAN CE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 2029 Lockw ood Drive. The property is located approximately 1,500 feet from U.S. Route 29 along
Timberwood Boulevard in the Hollymead Town Center.
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: 32/41K
MAGISTER IAL D ISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area and Adjoining properties:
The subject property lies west of Route 29, along the southeast corner of Timberwood Boulevard and Lockwood
Dr. in the Hollymead Town Center development. See Attachment A for the Location Map and Attachment B for
the Tax Map. The area consists primarily of residential townhouses, and a variety of commercial, and office uses
that include a Target store and Harris Teeter grocery store. H ollymead Town Center is currently under
construction.
Specifics of Proposal:
The R osewood Village R ehab Services (H ollymead Town Center) building is currently being constructed. The
applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow nonresidents of Rosew ood Village to use the Rosew ood
Village rehab facility for physical therapy. Although the property is zoned C1, commercial, w hich allows physical
therapy, the existing special use permit for assisted living, does not allow this use. In order for physical therapy for
nonresidents to be available, conditions on the existing special use permit must be changed.
Applicant’s Justification for the R equest:
The applicant wants to expand their services and offer their rehab services to patients not residing in Rosew ood
Village. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Town Center and the guidelines associated with the
Town Center designation at Hollymead allow s this form of development.
Planning and Zoning H istory:
The property was zoned Rural Areas prior to ZMA 200100020 which changed the zoning to Planned
Development Mixed C ommercial. The rezoning to PDMC was accompanied by a proffered Code of
Development.
On April 12, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved with conditions, SP 2005032 to allow for a 70,000 sq. ft.
assisted living facility.
PDMC allows commercial and service establishments permitted by right in the C1, C O and HC districts byright
and assisted living facilities by special use permit.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Land U se Plan designates this area as Town Center. The Town C enter designation at Hollymead is
accompanied in the Land U se Plan with “Conceptual Master Plan and D esign Guidelines for the H ollymead Town
Center”. The expansion of the rehab services to nonresidents of Rosew ood Village remains in keeping w ith the
Town Center designation and the Hollymead Tow n C enter Guidelines.
A full N eighborhood Model Analysis is not applicable for this project since conformity w ith the Neighborhood
Model w as assessed with the Hollymead Town Center rezoning to PDMC .
Staff Comment:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board
of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The facility will house elderly residents and offer patients not residing in R osewood Village rehab services at this
facility. The size of the physical therapy office w ill accommodate 12 therapists treating one patient every 45
minutes to one hour; therefore, requiring a maximum of 24 parking spaces if the clinic is at full capacity. Hours of
operation will be Monday through Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.
The parking available at the facility w ill meet the County’s requirement of 1 space per 3 beds. With one patient
every 45 minutes to one hour using the rehab services over an eight hour time span daily during the w ork week,
staff does not see this as a high impact to the facility or adjacent property, since some of the patients of the rehab
facility w ill be residents. The facility has adequate parking, therefore, staff can identify no detriment that this facility
or expanded use w ould have on adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The proposal is in keeping w ith the form of development anticipated w ith the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
that placed the Town Center designation on the area. The proposal is in keeping w ith the Town Center Design
Guidelines for a mixeduse development.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance w ith the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and identified
no conflict that w ould arise as a result of its approval. The physical therapy services will complement other
services available in the Town Center.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Section 25A of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled Planned D evelopment – Mixed C ommercial, allows the same by
right uses as well as those that are permitted by special use permits in the C1 (Commercial), CO (Commercial
Office), and HC (Highway Commercial) zoning districts. Assisted living facilities are permitted by special use
permit in C 1, CO, and H C districts. A proffered Code of Development was submitted with the request to rezone
this property to PDMC (ZMA 200100020). This Code of Development set maximum nonresidential parameters
in each block and allowed for certain uses to be allow ed by Special Use Permit. Within this block, the C ode of
Development allow s assisted living facilities by special use permit. The number of staff and potential number of
patients using the rehab facility in any given work day is minimal. There is also adequate parking on the site.
Therefore, staff does not feel there will be any detrimental traffic impacts as a result of the expanded use. The
proposed use is compatible w ith the other permitted uses in this district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.13 contains restrictions for REST HOME, NU RSING HOME, C ON VALESCEN T HOME,
ORPHA NA GES.
The existing use meets these regulations. R emoval of the restriction for the site to only be used for assisted living
will not affect the assisted living use.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit
process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. There
are no expected impacts on public health safety or welfare, except to improve the opportunity for physical therapy
services in an area which can support this use. Attachment E indicates that water and sewer service will continue
to be available to the site.
Summary:
This request is to expand the rehab services use to nonresidents of Rosewood Village. The rehab service use
has been part of the assisted living facility that was previously approved with SP 2005032. The availability of
rehab services in Hollymead Tow n C enter could be an asset for residents in the surrounding community. As
previously stated in this report, staff feels the impact of this expanded use will be minimal.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
The proposal for the expansion of an existing use adds a diversity of uses in the Town Center.
The residents of the surrounding H ollymead Town Center community may benefit from the opportunity of rehab
services becoming available to them.
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of SP 2008019, Rosewood Village Rehab Services (Hollymead Town Center) with
the follow ing conditions of approval:
This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
Maximum usage is limited to ninetysix residents (96) residents in the facility.
ATTA CH MENTS
Attachment A – Tax Map
Attachment B – Vicinity Map
Attachment C – SP2005032 Planning Commission Staff R eport and minutes, dated March 21, 2006
Attachment D – Board of Supervisors Action Letter, dated May 11, 2006
Attachment E – Memo from Gary Whelan, dated June 13, 2008
Return to PC actions letter
SP200800019 Rosewood Village – Hollymead Town Center (Sign # 6, 22)
PROPOSED: Allow nonresidents of Rosewood Village to use the Rosewood Village rehab
facility.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDMC Planned Development Mixed Commercial
largescale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre)
SECTIONS: 25A.2.2 (1) and 24.2.2(7)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center: Compact, higher density area
containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public
spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.0134 dwelling units per acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 2029 Lockwood Drive. The property is located approximately 1,500 feet from U.S.
Route 29 along Timberwood Boulevard in the Hollymead Town Center.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/41K
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Claudette Grant)
Ms. Grant presented a powerpoint presentation and summarized the staff report for SP2008
00019. (See powerpoint presentation)
This special use permit request is to allow for nonresidents for Rosewood Village to use the
facility as a physical therapy service at this location. The building is under construction.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposal adds a diversity of uses in the Town Center.
2. The residents of the surrounding Hollymead Town Center community may benefit from
the opportunity of rehab services becoming available to them.
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
Staff recommends approval of SP2008019, Rosewood Village Rehab Services (Hollymead
Town Center) with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Ms. Grant noted that Phil Custer was present from engineering.
Mr. Edgerton suggested adding a third condition that the use by nonresidents would be
acceptable. Condition two sounds like they are limiting the applicant to what they are already
allowed to do.
Mr. Cilimberg said it would be appropriate to add that condition so that the Board of Supervisors
can include it. He noted that was a good question and needs to be clarified.
Mr. Loach agreed that condition two sounds like they have undone what they want to do.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff would address that before the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Ms. Porterfield said that the people in the facility should have priority.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission on
both special use permits.
Virginia Talbot said she and her husband own the both Rosewood Villages. They opened
Rosewood Village in Greenbrier in 2001 and Rosewood Village in Hollymead Town Center
would open in September, 2008. The special use permit allows only for the care of their
residents on site. They have gotten a physical therapist on site to help take care of their
residents on site, which is allowable. But, they would like to offer it to the outside community.
They feel that is a good opportunity for the folks in the Branchland’s area or north of town.
Mr. Morris asked if the residents would have priority, and Ms. Talbot replied absolutely.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed to bring
the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve SP200800018, Rosewood
Village – Greenbrier with the conditions as recommended by staff.
1. This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninety residents (90) residents in the facility.
Mr. Edgerton suggested an amendment to include the third condition mentioned to staff that
use by nonresidents would be acceptable.
Mr. Strucko amended the motion to include the third condition that use by nonresidents would
be acceptable.
Ms. Porterfield asked that the condition include the fact that they said that priority would be
given to the residents.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the priority to residents was an unenforceable condition. It was just
understood because the applicant had stated it on record.
Mr. Loach seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris said that SP200818 was approved and would go to the Board of Supervisors at a
date to be determined with the following conditions.
1. This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninety residents (90) residents in the facility.
3. Use by nonresidents is allowed.
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved and Mr. Cannon seconded to approve SP200800019 Rosewood
Village – Hollymead Town Center Greenbrier with the conditions recommended by staff as
amended.
1. This special use permit authorizes an assisted living facility.
2. Maximum usage is limited to ninety residents (90) residents in the facility.
3. Use by nonresidents is allowed.
Mr. Morris said that SP2008000019, Rosewood Village – Hollymead Town Center was
recommended for approval and will be heard by the Board of Supervisors at a date to be
determined.
Return to PC actions letter
Augus t 26, 2008
Donald Ev erette Wyatt
1814 Clay D rive
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP200800021 C oConstruct, Home Occupation Class B
TAX MA P/PA RCEL: 55D49
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 12, 2008, rec ommended approv al of the
abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors, by a vote of 4:0.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. This H ome Occ upation, Class B, replaces Home Occupation, Class A (HO 200500260).
2. There will be no more than two (2) employees, other than members of the immediate family living on the
premises.
3. The H ome Occ upation will not use more than 500 square feet of the home at 1814 Clay Drive.
4. There will be no customer/client v isits.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on October 1, 2008.
View st aff report and at tac hment s
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Judith C . W iegand, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200800021 CoConstruct, Home
Occupation, Class B
Staff: Judith C. Wiegand, AICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
August 12, 20008
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not yet scheduled
Owners: Donald E. & Louise J. Wyatt Applicant: Donald E. Wyatt
Acreage: 0.142 acre .Special Use Permit: A home occupation, Class B, to
permit no more than two employees. Sections 19.3.2
and 32.2.4.1 of the zoning ordinance apply to this
proposal.
TMP: TM 55D, Parcel 49
Location: 1814 C lay D rive, C rozet, VA 22932, in the
Waylands Grant subdivision, off of Jarman's Gap Road (Rt.
691), approx. 700 ft from the intersection of C rozet Ave
(Rt. 810). (See Attachment A)
Existing Zoning and Byright use: PRD Planned
Residential District – residential (3 – 34 units/acre) with
limited commercial uses.
Magisterial District: White H all Conditions: Yes
Proposal: Donald Wyatt has an internetbased
subscription project management software business for
which he would like to add two (2) employees in his home.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
DA (Development Area): X
RA (Rural Area):
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Crozet Master Plan
Neighborhood Edge CT3 predominantly residential uses
(net 3.5 4.5 units per acre, 6.5 units per acre if accessory
apartments added for 50% of the residential stock) .
Character of Property: The parcel subject to the Special
Use Permit includes onehalf of a duplex townhouse.
Employee parking is provided in the driveway in front of the
home.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The subject property is
surrounded on three sides by other residences within the
Wayland’s Grant subdivision. On the fourth side, the property
backs up to property owned by The Arc of the Piedmont.
Factors Favorable:
1. This home occupation provides a useful service to
home builders and remodelers.
2. Allowing the owner to have up to two (2) employees
will offer employment to two people.
3. There will be no impacts on surrounding properties.
Factors Unfavorable:
There are no unfavorable factors.
RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: JUDITH C. WIEGAND , A ICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: AUGUST 12, 2008
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Not scheduled
SP 2008021 CoConstruct Home Oc cupation, Class B
PETITION
SP200821 CoConstruct
PROPOSED: Home O cc upation, Class B to allow up to 2 e mploye es a ssocia ted w ith a internetbase d home busine ss
ZONING CATEG ORY/G ENERAL USA GE: PRD, Planned Residentia l D istrict, with Proffers : re side ntial (3 34
units/ac re) with limited c ommercial uses.
SECTION: 19.3.2 Home Occ upations, Class B.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DENSITY: Croz et Master Pla n Neighborhood Edge CT3 predomina ntly
reside ntial uses (net 3.5 4.5 units per acre, 6.5 units per a cre if a cc essory apartments adde d for 50% of the reside ntial
stock) in Neighborhood 7. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 1814 Clay Drive , Croz et, VA 22932, in the Wayla nds Gra nt subdivision, off of Ja rman's Ga p Road (RT
691), a pprox. 700 ft from the inte rse ction of Croze t A ve (Rt 810).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 55D49
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Ha ll.
CHARACTER OF THE AR EA
The pa rce l subjec t to the Spe cia l U se Pe rmit is located in the Waylands Grant subdivision in Crozet, Virginia. It include s
onehalf of a duple x townhouse , with other duple x townhouse s to the north and south. Single family deta ched homes are
loc ate d across the stree t (to the w est). Parking for the home is provided in the gara ge and in the driveway in front of the
home .
SPECIFIC S OF THE PROPOSAL
The homeowner now opera te s an inte rne tba sed busine ss under a H ome Oc cupa tion, Cla ss A permit. The business is a
we bbased proje ct manage me nt software tha t is designed to serve c ustom builde rs, se micustom builders, and highe nd
remodele rs. It sells subscription a cc ess to its website, which clients ca n use to sha re information about c ha nge orde rs,
sc he duling, e xpense tra cking, a nd similar items. Bec ause the business is growing, the owner would like to add up to two (2)
employe es. The two employee s would park offstree t in the drive way and would be at the property during regular business
hours of 8:00 a m to 6:00 pm, Monda y through Frida y. The company’s sale s are comple ted online and on the tele phone, so
the re will be no customer visits to the property and no signs a re proposed.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The prope rty wa s re zone d in 1992 (ZMA 199003) from R1 to R6, with proffers, for a 51unit single family subdivision,
afte r a c ourt reverse d a 1990 Board De cision. Proffe rs inc luded a conc eptua l la yout, as w ell as le aving a 100foot stream
buffe r undisturbed.
On Janua ry 14, 2000, the Boa rd of Supe rvisors approved SUB 1999303 for up to 49 lots of atta ched or detac he d housing.
In 1998, the prope rty was re zone d from R6 to Wayla nds Grant Planne d Re side ntial District, (ZMA 9818) for up to 85
dw elling units and 4,000 square fee t of profe ssional office s.
CONFORMITY WITH THE C OMPREHENSIV E PLAN
The Croz et Master Plan a llows home office s and live /work units in CT3, Neighborhood Edge locations; so, as a use, a
home oc cupa tion is in c onformity with the Maste r Pla n.
Since this proposal rela tes to a n e xisting reside nc e in a n existing de ve lopment that includes some Ne ighborhood Mode l
principles a nd no physical change s are propose d or nee de d, a Neighborhood Model analysis is not provided.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff will addre ss e ac h provision of Sec tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordina nce as follows:
31.2.4.1: Spe cial Use Pe rmits prov ide d for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supe rvisors
that such use will not be of substantial de triment to adjac ent property ,
The existing business is conduc ted over the internet a nd the te lephone, so no impa ct is expecte d on any of the adja ce nt
properties. There will be no noise , odors, vibration, lights, or gla re re sulting from the ope ration. All busine ss will be
conduc ted inside the home. The applic ant has indic ated tha t there will be no more than tw o (2) employee s other than family
me mbers living in the home and that no customers or clients will come to the re sidence. The applic ants ha ve spoke n with
the ir neighbor who owns the other half of the duple x. A lette r from the neighbor indica ting their support for the Home
Oc cupa tion is included as A ttachme nt B.
that the charac ter of the district will not be changed thereby and
The re will be no change to the exte rior of the home; no signs will be use d, and no c ustome rs/clie nts will come to the home.
The tw o proposed employee s will have offstre et pa rking. So, no change to the chara cter of the district is e xpec ted from this
home oc cupa tion.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance ,
The Pla nned Residential District, PRD, allows Home Oc cupa tions, Cla ss B, by spec ial use pe rmit (Sec tion 19.3.2.5). One
inte nt of PRD districts is “to promote economica l a nd effic ient la nd use .” Allow ing home occ upations means that a small
business and a home ca n be loc ate d on the same property. Two additional vehicle trips pe r da y are expe cte d.
with use s permitte d by right in the district,
Allow ing a home oc cupa tion with no discernible impac ts is vie wed as compa tible with the re sidentia l and other byright
uses in a Planned Reside ntial Distric t, PRD.
with the additional regulations prov ide d in sec tion 5.0 of this ordinanc e,
Sec tion 5.2 of the Ordina nc e a pplie s to Home Oc cupations, Cla ss B. The follow ing sec tions are of particular re levance to
this proposal:
5.2.2.1.a. Such occ upation may be conducted eithe r within the dwelling or an acc essory structure, or both, prov ided that not
more than twentyfive (25) pe rce nt of the floor area of the dwelling shall be use d in the c onduct of the home occ upation and
in no event shall the total floor are a of the dwelling, acc essory structure , or both , de voted to such occ upation, ex ce ed one
thousand five hundred (1,500) square fee t; provided that the use of accessory structures shall be permitte d only in
connec tion with home occ upation, Class B;
The we bbased business will be conducte d in the home. The owner has indicated tha t not more than 500 squa re fe et of
the 2,944 total squa re fe et in the residence will be use d for the business. Thus, the 500 square fee t to be de vote d to the
home oc cupa tion is le ss tha n twentyfive (25) pe rce nt of the floor are a (736 square feet) and less tha n the 1,500 square
foot ma ximum.
5.2.2.1.b.Acc essory structures shall be sim ilar in façade to a single family dwelling, priv ate garage, shed, barn or
other structure normally e xpec ted in a rural or reside ntial area and shall be specific ally c ompatible in design and scale
with othe r de ve lopment in the are a in which loc ated. Any acc essory structure which does not c onform to the setback
and y ard re gulations for m ain structures in the district in which it is loc ate d shall not be use d for any home oc cupation;
The business will be conducted in the home, not in an ac ce ssory struc ture, so this re quirement doe s not apply.
5.2.2.1.c. There shall be no sale s on the pre mise s, other than item s handcrafted on the pre mise s, in connec tion with
such home occ upation;
The applicant has indic ated tha t there will be no inperson sale s on the premises; the only sales will be ove r the internet
a nd te lephone .
5.2.2.1.d. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greate r volumes than would normally be ex pe cte d
in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the c onduct of such home occupation shall be met
off the stre et;
The applicant has indic ated tha t the propose d two employees will ha ve offstreet parking. They may also live in the
a rea , possibly even within wa lking distance. So, an additional two ve hicle trips per day a re e xpec ted.
and with the public he alth, safe ty and gene ral we lfare.
Staff believes that the re will be no adve rse impacts on the public hea lth, safe ty or general we lfare from this proposed home
oc cupa tion.
SUMMARY
Staff has identifie d the following factors fa vorable to this applica tion:
1. This home occ upation provides a useful servic e to home builde rs a nd remode lers.
2. Allowing the owner to ha ve up to two (2) employee s will offe r employme nt to two pe ople.
3. There will be no impac ts on surrounding properties.
Staff has identifie d no fac tors unfavorable to this application:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recomme nds approva l of Spe cia l Use Permit 2008021, with the following conditions:
1. This Home Occ upation, Class B, re pla ce s Home Occ upation, Class A (HO 200500260).
2. There will be no more than two (2) employee s, other tha n members of the imme dia te family living on the premises.
3. The Home Occupation will not use more tha n 500 square fee t of the home a t 1814 Cla y Drive.
4. There will be no c ustome r/client visits.
ATTA CHMENTS
Attachment A – Loca tion Ma p
Attachment B – Le tte r from adja ce nt owner in support of home occ upation, da ted July 3, 2008
Re tur n to PC actions le tter
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 12, 2008
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
August 12, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Thomas Loach, Linda Porterfield and Calvin Morris,
Chairman. Absent were Eric Strucko, Jon Cannon, Vice Chairman and Bill Edgerton. Julia
Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Gerald Gatobu, Senior Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner;
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development and Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP200800021 CoConstruct
PROPOSED: Home Occupation, Class B to allow up to 2 employees associated with a internet
based home business ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PRD, Planned Residential
District, with Proffers : residential (3 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses. SECTION:
19.3.2 Home Occupations, Class B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Crozet
Master Plan Neighborhood Edge CT3 predominantly residential uses (net 3.5 4.5 units per
acre, 6.5 units per acre if accessory apartments added for 50% of the residential stock) in
Neighborhood 7. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 1814 Clay Drive, Crozet, VA
22932, in the Waylands Grant subdivision, off of Jarman's Gap Road (RT 691), approx. 700 ft
from the intersection of Crozet Ave (Rt 810). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 55D49. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: White Hall. (Judy Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand made a powerpoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See power
point presentation)
The purpose of this special use permit is to allow an existing internetbased business now
operating under a Home Occupation, Class A permit to add up to two employees.
Applicant’s Proposal:
• Now operates an internetbased business that provides project management software
for home builders and remodelers. Sells subscription access to its website.
• Business is growing—needs up to two employees.
• Regular business hours 8 am – 6 pm, Monday – Friday.
• Employees will park in the driveway.
• No customer/client visits to the home.
• No signs or other exterior changes to home.
As an attachment to the staff report there is a neighbor’s letter in support of the request from
the occupant of the other side of the duplex. The business will primarily be conducted in the
basement. Wayland’s Grant has singlefamily and duplex homes.
Factors Favorable:
1. This home occupation provides a useful service to home builders and remodelers.
2. Allowing the owner to have up to two (2) employees not living in the home will offer
employment to two people.
3. There will be no impacts on surrounding properties.
Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors.
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff
report.
Mr. Loach asked if there are a maximum number of employees before it changes to another
grade.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ordinance allows up to two nonfamily employees, which can be
modified by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Donald Wyatt, applicant, represented the request.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the
matter back
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Ms. Joseph seconded to recommend approval of SP2008
00021, CoConstruct with the conditions recommended by staff,
1. This Home Occupation, Class B, replaces Home Occupation, Class A (HO 200500260).
2. There will be no more than two (2) employees, other than members of the immediate
family living on the premises.
3. The Home Occupation will not use more than 500 square feet of the home at 1814 Clay
Drive.
4. There will be no customer/client visits.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.
Mr. Morris said that SP2008021, CoConstruct will go before the Board of Supervisors at a
date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Robert and Carolyn Michie, Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
Amendment Request for Water Servic e
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on a propos ed amendment to the
Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide water
service to Tax Map 79, Parcels 17 and 17C
located on the north side of R oute 250, near the
intersection of Route 250 and North Milton Road.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION : X INFORMA TION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
ACTION: INFORMA TION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The applicant is reques ting ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation for w ater service to tw o parcels totaling 15.8 acres
with two ex isting singlefamily homes and a new singlefamily home which the applicant had previous ly received a
building permit to construc t on Parcel 17C. The parc els are on the north side Route 250 East, just north of the
intersec tion of Route 250 and North Milton R oad (Rt. 729) and adjac ent to the GOC O Oil site (Attachment A). The
parcels are located entirely within the designated Rural Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The existing well
serving the home and cottage has recently been tested by the Virginia D epartment of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
and determined to be contaminated w ith Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive that promotes a
cleaner burn of the fuel. Beginning in May 2008, the property owners experienced taste and odor problems with the
water, whic h prompted a request to DEQ to test the well water supply for contamination. Subsequent testing of the
well found MTBE conc entration of 0.021 mg/L. DEQ has funded the installation of a c harcoal filter sy stem on the
well to treat the contamination. DEQ c onsiders charcoal filtration systems a temporary remediation inferior to public
water s erv ice (if available) and has rec ommended the site be connec ted to public water service.
The adjacent GOCO Oil s ite experienc ed a similar MTBE contamination in the wells serving that site and was
approved for, and connec ted to, ACSA w ater service in 1999.
Because of site conditions, including the location of the homes, outbuildings/barn, exis ting and bac kup septic
fields, and the topography of the properties, there does not appear to be a viable loc ation for a new well onsite at a
sufficient distance from the existing w ell to ensure no further contamination w ill occur in the new well.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Objective 2.2 Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources .
DISCU SSION :
The Comprehensive Plan provides the follow ing concerning the provis ion of public water and sewer s ervice:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p.
114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases
w here the property is: 1) adjac ent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or s afety is in danger (p. 130).”
Water and sew er servic es by policy are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where grow th is
encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services are a potential catalyst to growth.
Water s upply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to serve the
Development Areas. Continued connections of properties in the Rural Areas result in further extension of lines from
the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area and into the R ural Areas , potentially straining limited water resources
and capacity.
This request meets the firs t criteria for the provision of service to Rural Area parcels (adjacency to exis ting service
lines). The adjacent property to the eas t of this parcel is within the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for W ater Only to
Existing Structures and is served with public water. The primary issue with this request is w hether the level of
contamination experienc ed onsite creates a danger to the public health and safety. The County’s Groundwater
Manager has provided additional information regarding the health threat of MTBE (Attachment B). D EQ has
essentially established a “zerotolerance” level for MTBE contaminations . However, neither the Virginia Department
of Health (VDH) nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a level of MTBE contamination
which is considered a health risk. The Code of Virginia requires quarterly testing of public water supplies for MTBE
and reporting of concentrations above 0.015 mg/L to VD H and DEQ. As previously noted, MTBE in concentrations
of 0.021 mg/L w as found in the Michies’ well. The C ounty has prev ious ly granted AC SA Jurisdictional Area
designation to the adjac ent GOCO Oil site and the Key West subdiv ision based on MTBE contamination. The
contamination levels for those two sites w ere lower than the level found at the Michies’ well.
Based on the odor and tas te condition of the water s upply, the level of contamination w ithin this source falling within
the range suggested for public system monitoring, the proximity to a known contaminate site, and past actions
regarding s ites/requests w ith similar lev els of contamination, staff recommends amendment of the AC SA
Jurisdictional Area for water service only to existing structures.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property ow ner w ill bear the costs for the water c onnection.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
At the c onc lusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend the ACSA Jurisdic tional Area for
water only to existing s tructures on Tax Map 79, Parcels 17 and 17C and one new res idence Tax Map 79, Parcel
17C (for a total of three residences served on the two parcels).
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Location Map and AC SA Jurisdictional Area Des ignations
B – Memorandum from Groundw ater Manager
Ret urn t o regular agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Road Bridges
Road Centerlines
Roads
Roads - City
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Structures
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
Michie - Location Map and Jurisdictional Area Designations ATTACHMENT A Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery from Commonwealth of Virginia August 17, 2008
AT T ACHMENT B
MEMO RA NDU M
To: David Benish, Chief of Planning
From: Josh Rubinstein, Groundwater Manager
Date: August 18, 2008
RE: ACSA Jurisdictional Area Amendment Request, Robert and Carolyn Michie Pr operty (1066 Shadwell Station
Lane, Charlottesville)
Carolyn and Robert Michie have requested inclusion in the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) jurisdiction
based upon contamination of their well with Methyl T ertiar yButyl E ther (MTBE). I n May 2008, the Michies noticed
a fuel taste in their well water and a black staining in their sediment f ilter. Subsequent testing of the well found
MTBE concentration of 0.021 mg/L. While the MTBE concentration accounts for the taste, it does not account for the
staining.
Since no health standards exist for MT BE , staff must defer to the Board to answer the following question: in the
context of the General Principles for Public Water and Sewer set out in the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan, should
MTBE contaminated wells be considered “cases where public health and safety are at issue?” The following
information may be useful in answering this question.
Methyl T er tiaryButyl E ther (MTBE) is a gasoline additive that promotes a cleaner bur n. In 2001, Virginia consumed
13,600 bar rels per day of MT BE . Since 2005, MT BE has been gradually phased out in favor of ethanol
There has been no research into the ef fect(s) of MTBE on humans. Some who work in areas with high inhalation
concentrations of MTBE have reported dizziness and nausea but no direct link the per son’s health has been found. At
very high doses, cancer s have been induced in rodents. T he research has lead to no consensus on the health effect and,
therefore, E PA has issued no Health Standard for MT BE . Humans, on the other hand, are extraordinar ily sensitive to
MTBE in very small amounts. In 1997, the EPA issued a Drinking Water Advisory that found that we begin to taste
and smell MT BE at 0.02 to 0.04 milligr ams per liter (mg/L )*. The Michies have described the sensation as “drinking
gasoline.”
MTBE has a low absorption rate and a high dissolution rate. It travels faster and further in groundwater than any of the
other volatile compounds associate with fuel. Because of its mobility, MTBE contamination can result from a spill of
as little as tengallons of f uel and it can be the only contaminant detected. In the National Water Quality Assessment,
the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) found that 7.5% of the 4,146 wells tested had detectable concentrations of
MTBE. As part of a zer o tolerance approach to any concentration of petroleum constituents in drinking water, the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has supplied and operates 27 carbon filters on private wells in
Albemar le County. Seventeen are to clean water contaminated solely by MTBE.
On 7 May 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Super visors approved an amendment to the ACSA jurisdictional area
to include the Key West Subdivision. T wo of the four wells serving the 228 homes in the subdivision were
contaminated solely with MT BE. Three of the six test wells had MT BE concentrations higher than the Drinking Water
Advisory. T he concentr ations in well 2 never exceeded 0.021 mg/L.
Eleven states have Primary Drinking Water Standards ranging from 0.01 mg/L (Delaware) to 0.24 mg/L
(Mississippi). The Code of Virginia r equires quarterly testing of public water supplies for MT BE and reporting
concentration above 0.015 mg/L to VDH and the DEQ. Since these standards are based on the EPA Drinking Water
Advisory, staff recommends that if the Board determines that MTBE is an issue of public health and safety under the
Comprehensive Plan, that the 0.02 mg/L standard be adopted. In the USGS study, only one percent of the
contaminated wells had concentrations higher than the E PA Drinking Water Advisory standard.
Robert and Carolyn Michie ACSA Jurisdictional Area Amendment Request
In May 2008, the Michies noticed a fuel taste in their well water and a black staining in their sediment filter, with
subsequent well test finding MTBE in concentration of 0.021 mg/L . While the MT BE concentration accounts for the
taste, it does not account for the staining. Since this concentration is so close to the Drinking Water Advisory and,
since, in the case of Key West, concentrations have been shown to change over time, it is staff’s recommendation that
followup testing be done.
The property is adjacent to the GOCO Oil Company fr om which DEQ has identified a gasoline plume. DE Q
immediately contracted with Culligan to install and maintain a carbon filter on the Michie’s well. DE Q approximates
the cost to maintain these filters at $3000 per year. Presently, that fee is being charged to GOCO.
During the deliberations on the Key West Subdivision ACSA Jurisdictional Amendment, carbon filtr ation was
considered. At that time, this solution was deemed too expensive.
* The Drinking W ater Adv isory states “There are over fo ur to five orders o f magnitude betw een the 20 to 4 0 micrograms p er
liter rang e and concentration s associated w ith observed can cer and noncancerous effects in animals.”
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Kirtley Property/U nivers ity of Virginia R equest to
amend the existing Juris dictional Area des ignation
for Sewer Service
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing on proposed amendment to the
Jurisdictional Area Servic e designation and
associated conditions to provide sewer s ervice
through a nongravity line to the existing
warehous e building on Tax Map 59, Parc els 23B1.
The property is located on the north side of Route
250 West, adjacent to the Northridge Building.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: X
IN FORMATION:
CONSENT A GENDA:
ACTION:
IN FORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The applicant is reques ting an amendment to the current ACSA Jurisdic tional Area designation to allow an existing
warehouse building to be served by a pumped sewer line as opposed to a gravity sew er line as required by the
conditions of approval for the existing Jurisdictional Area designation. The property is located on Route 250 West,
between the N orthridge Building and the Volvo of Charlottesville site. The property is z oned C1, C ommercial and is
designated as Rural Areas in the County Comprehensive Plan.
The Board of Supervisors amended the Jurisdictional Area designation for this parcel in 1984, granting conditional
sewer s erv ice to this parc el and the adjac ent parcels to the east (Tax Map 59, Parcels 23B, 23C1, 23D, 23F). The
Jurisdictional Area des ignations were approved with a condition that “sew er service is approved only for the portions
of thes e parcels which can be totally grav ity fed…” Parc els 23B, 23C, 23D, and 23F have subsequently each
demons trated that the w hole parcel c an be served by gravity fed sewer.
The recently submitted preliminary site plan for the Long Term Acute Care H ospital (LTAC H) (located on portions of
Parcels 23B and 23B1) demonstrated that both the LTACH building and the existing w arehouse building on the
Kirtley property can be served by a gravity sewer line running along the northern boundary of the Kirtley and
Northridge parcels, generally parallel to the railroad rightofw ay, cons istent with the exis ting Jurisdictional Area
designation. H owever, the applicant would prefer to pump the sewer uphill and interc ept the public s ewer line
serving the LTACH facility as opposed to installing a lengthier and more expensive grav ity line downhill to the
warehouse. Aside from the benefit to the applicant, the relocation of the line would provide protection of existing
trees and vegetation that would otherwise have to be removed to run the gravity line. The maintenanc e of this
vegetation would allow for better screening of the LTACH and Northridge sites from sev eral adjacent residential
properties located in Farmington (the site is visible from at least one home).
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Protect the County's Natural R esources.
DISCU SSION :
The Comprehensive Plan provides the follow ing recommendations concerning the provis ion of public water and
sewer s erv ice:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p.
114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated D evelopment Areas in cases
w here the property is: 1) adjac ent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or s afety is in danger (p. 130).”
By policy, public water and sewer services are intended to serve the designated Development Areas where growth
is encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services are a potential catalyst to
growth. Sewer supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively us ed and reserved to serve the
Development Areas. Continued connections of properties in the Rural Areas result in further extension of lines from
the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area and into the R ural Areas , potentially straining limited sew er capacity.
This request to modify the Jurisdictional Area designation is not consis tent w ith the s tric t reading of the policy
regarding c hanges to the Jurisdictional Area for Rural Areas properties because there is no health or safety reason
for the requested modific ation. However, the applicant has demons trated that the existing warehous e building can
be serv ed by a gravity sewer line cons istent with the current conditions of the Juris dictional area designation.
Therefore, the requested c hange will hav e no impact on the level of sewer service provided to this site or to the
Rural Areas.
This request to modify the Jurisdiction Area would allow for the warehouse to be served by a pumped sew er line.
While gravity service is preferred over pumped lines because of: 1) the greater potential for pump sy stems to fail due
to power outages and breakdowns, and; 2) the higher level of maintenance necessary for a pumped sys tem over the
longterm life of the facility; this would be a private line and the respons ibility for maintenance would be the property
owner’s.
Installing the pumped s ewer line would prevent the loss of approximately 30 trees, mos tly mature white pines, along
the Northridge parking lot. These trees would have to be removed with the installation of a gravity line. This site
appears to be visible from at least one adjacent residenc e. New landscaping would be planted to replace these
trees, although locating the new landsc aping w ill be more difficult to ac hieve in this area due to the new easement
for the sewer line (plac ement of trees w ithin a utility eas ement is dis couraged).
On September 3, 2008, the Board agreed to set a public hearing on this request, but requested that a tree
preserv ation plan be es tablished for the trees located in the area along the north side of the Northridge Building site
and part of the Kirtley W arehouse site that w ould be retained as a result of this Jurisdic tional Area amendment. A
tree preservation plan has not been c ompleted to date, but w ill now be required prior to approval of the final site plan
for the LTACH Building.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property ow ner w ould bear all of the costs for connec tion to public water service.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
At the c onc lusion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend the J urisdictional Area designation
to Water and Sewer Serv ice for Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B1 conditional upon a tree preservation plan being completed
and approv ed for the trees located in the area along the north side of the N orthridge Building site and part of the
Kirtley Warehouse site that would be retained as a result of this Jurisdictional Area amendment as part of the final
site plan approval for the LTACH Building.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Location Map and J urisdictional Area Designation
Ret urn t o regular agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Road Bridges
Road Centerlines
Roads
Roads - City
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Structures
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
LTACH - Location Map and Jurisdictional Area Designations ATTACHMENT A Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery from Commonwealth of Virginia August 17, 2008
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2009 Budget Amendment
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public H earing on the Proposed FY 2009 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $3,765,823.00 and
request approval of amendment and of
Appropriation #2009019, #2009020, #2009021,
#2009022, #2009023, #2009024, #2009025,
#2009029, and #2009030 to provide funding for
various local government, school, ECC , and
capital programs.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Code of Virginia § 15.22507 stipulates 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. How ever, any s uch amendment
which ex ceeds one perc ent 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 SelfSustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2009 appropriations, itemized below, is $1,887,190.00. C ombined with the
appropriations approved since the budget was adopted, the cumulativ e appropriation total is $3,765,823.00.
Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exc eeds one percent of the c urrently adopted budget, a budget
amendment public hearing is required. The advertised budget amendment included reappropriation requests
for uncompleted General Government, Schools, and Storm Water capital projects. These three requests are
currently undergoing additional staff review and have been removed from the amendment request. They will
be provided for the B oard’s considered at it’s November meeting.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCU SSION :
The proposed increase of this FY 2009 Budget Amendment totals $3,765,823.00. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPEND ITURES
General Fund $ 298,086.80
Special R evenue Funds $ 1,838,781.23
School Fund $ 218,100.08
School Program Funds $ 420,255.00
C apital Improvements Fund $ ( 124,171.00)
Emergency Communication Center Funds $ 1,114,770.89
TOTAL ESTIMA TED EXPEN DITURES – All Funds $ 3,765,823.00
ESTIMATED REVEN UES
Local Revenues (Fees, C ontributions, Donations) $ 1,305,483.96
State Revenue $ 629,029.19
Federal R evenue $ 784,396.19
General Fund Balance $ 217,503.80
Other Fund Balances $ 829,409.86
TOTAL ESTIMA TED REVENUES – All Funds $ 3,765,823.00
The budget amendment is comprised of tw entyseven (27) separate appropriations, eighteen (18) of w hich
have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved July 2, 2008:
One (1) appropriation (#2009001) prov iding funding to the N orthw estern Virginia Health Systems Agenc y in
the amount of $4,723.00;
One (1) appropriation (#2009002) totaling $80,000.00 for a Fire Rescue SAFER grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2009003) in the amount of $20,000.00 for a donation to the School Division; and
One (1) appropriation (#2009004) in the amount of $180,000.00 establis hing the revenue and expenditure in
the School’s operating budget relating to the storage facility leas e, facilitating the transfer of appropriated
c apital funding.
Approved Augus t 6, 2008:
One (1) appropriation (#2009005) distributing the $25,000.00 budgeted in the Total Rew ards contingency to
General Government departments;
One (1) appropriation (#2009006) transferring $46,000.00 for additional motor vehicles from the General Fund
to the Motor Vehicle Replacement Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2009007) allocating $28,395.00 from the budgeted contingency for the Teen
Pregnancy Program to MACAA ;
One (1) appropriation (#2009008) totaling $4,140.00 for a Crime Analysis Improv ement Grant for the Police
D epartment,
One (1) appropriation (#2009009) totaling $451,589.00 for Education donation donations and grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2009010) establishing the FY2009 budget for the Commis sion on Children and
Families in the amount of $952,025.00; and
One (1) appropriation (#2009011) totaling $165,799.00 for the OAR Cris is Intervention Team grant.
Approved September 3, 2008:
One (1) appropriation (#2009012) totaling $140,000.00 for tw o C ommission on C hildren & Families grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2009013) in the amount of $3,800.00 for miscellaneous FY08/09 budget
adjustments;
Tw o (2) appropriations (#2009014 and #2009016) for two Soc ial Services grants totaling $37,399.00;
One (1) appropriation (#2009015) totaling $7,520.00 for Education donations;
One (1) appropriation (#2009017) providing $34,042.00 for transcription services for the Board of
Supervisors; and
One (1) appropriation (#2009018) totaling $34,000.00 to reappropriate funding for two uncompleted
Emergency Communications C enter projects.
The nine(9) new appropriations are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2009019) reappropriating $174,659.80 in funding for uncompleted Emergency
C ommunications Center projects and $906,111.09 for the Mobile Data Project;
One (1) appropriation (#2009020) $244,248.80, reappropriating funds for outstanding purchase orders;
One (1) appropriation (#2009021) totaling $265,993.06, reappropriating grant and seized ass et funds;
Tw o (2) appropriations (#2009022 and #2009030) totaling $35,075.08 for sc hool programs and donations;
One (1) appropriation (#2009023) in the amount of $58,844.26 for the Foothills C hild Adv ocacy Center;
One (1) appropriation (#2009024) reappropriating $61,835.91 for Commis sion on Children and Families
grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2009025) of $130,422 .00 recognizing additional Community Development fees and
unfreezing tw o C ommunity D evelopment pos itions; and
One (1) appropriation (#2009029) providing $10,000.00 to the Thomas J efferson Planning District
C ommission for the Regional Transit Authority.
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the FY 2009 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,765,823.00 after the public
hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2009019, #2009020, #2009021, #2009022, #2009023, #2009024,
#2009025, #2009029, and #2009030 to provide funds for various local government, school, ECC, and capital
projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2009019
$ 1,080,770.89
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue $ 416,309.62
ECC Fund Balance 174,659.80
Mobile Data Fund Balance 489,801.47
The Emergency Communications Center had the follow ing uncompleted projects at the end of FY 2008 that
will need to be reappropriated to FY 2009:
Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Systems Review $50,000.00
Prototype remote call taker workstation $20,000.00
Replac ement of current ECC Building Security System $100,000.00
Shelter Training for Local Agencies $3,000.00
Unexpended Emergenc y Management Grant Funding $1,659.80
Mobile Data Project $906,111.09
Appropriation #2009020
$ 244,248.80
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 217,503.80
Vehicle Replac ement Fund Bal. 26,745.00
Several departments had funding for projects approved in FY 2008 that had not been c ompleted as of June 30,
2008. This request reappropriates the remaining balanc es for the unc ompleted projec ts for which purchase
orders were outstanding as of June 30, 2008.
Appropriation #2009021
$ 265,993.06
Revenue Source: State Rev enue $ 140,101.19
Federal Revenue 59,772.28
Other Fund Balances 66,119.59
The following grants and s eized asset acc ounts had not expended all funding as of J une 30, 2008 and will
require reappropriation. N o additional local funding is required.
In FY 2008, the Department of Motor Vehicles awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s
D epartment a grant in the amount of $9,000.00 with a local match of $2,328.00 for a total grant
award of $11,328.00. The purpose of this grant w as to as sist in overtime expenses and vehicle
costs for officers conducting speed checks on primary and s econdary roads . The balance to
bring forw ard into FY 2009 is $2,109.37.
Seized asset monies w ere received from the D epartment of Criminal J ustice Services for the
Police Department ($43,469.93) and Commonwealth Attorney ($11,363.18). These monies w ill be
used to purc hase evidenc e equipment and traffic enforcement items for the Police Department
and office supplies, furniture, and training/c onferences for the C ommonw ealth’s Attorney’s office.
The Riparian Buffer R estoration grant provides funds to match local expenditures to restore
riparian stream buffers. U nder this grant, landowners can request 50% reimbursement for the
labor and materials of adding new buffer plantings on their property. To date, we have approved
projects that commit $120,240.65 in cost share funds. The unexpended balance to bring forward
into FY 2009 is $137,991.82.
In FY 2007 State Farm aw arded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant c ontribution in
the amount of $5,000.00. The purpose of this grant was to hold training events and to purchase
equipment to enhance the Police Department Tactical Unit. The balanc e to bring forw ard into FY
2009 is $1,837.30.
In FY 2007, the Department of Justic e awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Department a
grant in the amount of $29,617.00 with a local match of $166.54 for a total grant award of
$29,783.54. The purpose of this grant w as to purchase automated external defibrillators,
Alzheimer trac king bands, and digital video equipment and cameras. The balance to bring
forw ard for FY 2009 is $8,884.19.
In FY 2007, the U.S. Department of J ustice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant in the amount of $15,847.00. The purpose of this grant w as to as sist in funding overtime
hours by current officers in support of reduc ing crime and improvement of public safety w ith more
“Community Policing”. The amount to bring forward for FY 2009 is $15,124.57.
The Department of Criminal Justice aw arded Bedford C ounty a grant in the amount of $95,000.00
to assist in the investigations of Internet C rimes agains t C hildren. Bedford has designated
Albemarle C ounty as being an area district in the fight against internet c rime and is providing
Albemarle C ounty $19,000.00. The amount to be brought forward for FY 2009 is $7,305.13.
The U.S. Department of C riminal Justic e awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant in the amount of $26,235.00 in FY 2006 to assist in the funding of ov ertime hours in an
effort to reduc e crime and improve safety w ith more “Community Policing”. The amount to bring
forw ard for FY 2009 is $1,438.96.
In FY 2008, the U.S. Department of J ustice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant in the amount of $23,557.00. The purpose of this grant w as to as sist in funding overtime
hours by current officers in support of reduc ing crime and improvement of public safety w ith more
“Community Policing”. The amount to bring forward for FY 2009 is $23,557.00.
In FY 2008, the Divis ion of Motor Vehicles awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant in the amount of $35,000.00 to ass ist in the purchase of radar units , breath testing units, as
w ell as funding overtime hours for DUI c hec kpoints, increas ed saturation of trouble spots both on
primary and secondary roads and in shopping locations. The amount to bring forward for FY 2009
is $4,901.39.
The Department of Homeland Security has aw arded the Fire Rescue Department a grant in the
amount of $309,168.00 with a local match of $77,292.00 for a total grant in the amount of
$386,460.00. This grant w ill assist in the purchase of safe and compliant personal protective
equipment. The amount to bring forward for FY 2009 is $8,010.22.
Appropriation #2009022
$ 25,725.00
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue (Donations ) $ 25,725.00
At its August 28, 2008 meeting, the School Board approv ed the follow ing appropriations:
Red Hill Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $10,000.00 from Anne Ueltschi. The donor
has reques ted that this c ontribution be used to help offset the expens es of building an amphitheater for
performances at Red Hill Elementary School.
Albemarle High School received several donations totaling $450.00. The following are the donors along w ith
their respective donations: Mr. & Mrs. Edward Spellman donated $50.00; Mr. & Mrs . J effrey Leonard donated
$300.00; and Mr. Gregory Tyler donated $100.00. Thes e donors have requested that their contribution go
towards the turf field at Albemarle High School.
Western Albemarle High School received donations totaling $275.00 from two donors. D aniel J. May nard
donated $250.00 and Andrew M.D. W olf donated $25.00. Both of these donors have requested that their
contribution go towards the Turf Project at Western Albemarle High School.
Western Albemarle High School received tw o donations totaling $15,000.00. An anonymous donor donated
$5,000.00 and Craig and Martha Redinger donated $10,000.00. Both of these donors have requested that
their contributions go towards the Row ing Club at W estern Albemarle High School.
Appropriation #2009023
$ 58,844.26
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue (Foothills) $ 58,844.26
For the last several years, Albemarle County has been the fiscal agent for Foothills Child Advocac y C enter.
Effective July 1, 2008, Foothills became an independent entity and Albemarle County is no longer its fiscal
agent. With C ounty Executive Office approval, the Grant Project Director for Foothills will remain on C ounty
payroll for FY 2009. All salary and benefit expenses for FY 2009, totaling $58,844.26, w ill be reimbursed to
the County by the Foothills C hild Adv ocacy Center.
Appropriation #2009024
$ 61,835.91
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue $ 1,667.00
State Revenue 5,000.00
Federal Revenue 55,168.91
The following C ommission on C hildren and Families’ grants had not expended all funding as of June 30, 2008
and will require reappropriation.
In FY 2008, the Department of Criminal J ustice Services awarded the Commission of Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $97,500.00. This grant will provide training and c ontinued
services to reduce system involvement of truants and juv eniles w ith other negative sc hool related
behaviors. This will include staff time, s taff training, and training materials. The federal portion of
the grant is $65,000.00 with an “inkind” matc h of $32,500.00, resulting in a total grant aw ard of
$97,500.00. The amount to be brought forward for FY 2009 is $38,119.13.
In FY 2008, the Department of Criminal J ustice Services awarded the Commission on Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $5,000.00 in Federal funds, $5,000.00 in State funds, with a
local matc h of $1,667.00, for a total award of $11,667.00. This grant will be used to provide 200
servicelearning sessions for 48 weeks for y outh w ho are at risk of gang involvement. The local
match will be funded by the Community Attention Agency. The amount to be brought forward for
FY 2009 is $11,667.00.
In FY 2008, the Department of Criminal J ustice Services awarded the Commission on Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $16,526.00 with a local match of $1,836.00 for a total grant
award of $18,362.00. This grant will provide training and the implementation of promoting greater
accountability in the juvenile justice system, including the increased acc ountability for juvenile
offenders . The amount to be brought forw ard for FY 2009 is $12,049.78.
Appropriation #2009025
$ 130,422.00
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue (Fees) $ 130,442.00
As a res ult of increased Community Development fees recently implemented, funding is available to offset
two Community Development positions that had previously been frozen.
Appropriation #2009029
$ 10,000.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency $ 10,000.00
At its September 10, 2008 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved the use of $10,000.00 from the
Board’s c ontingency for ongoing support to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District C ommission for their
support of the R egional Transit Authority. This appropriation does not increase the County’s total budget.
Appropriation #2009030
$ 9,350.08
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue $ 9,350.08
At its September 11, 2008 meeting, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Youngmin Kim. The donor
requested that their donation go towards any school needs at Sutherland Middle Sc hool.
Scottsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Crutc hfield. The donor has
requested that this contribution be us ed tow ards ass isting students to participate in a Team Building program
at Triple C Camp.
Hollymead Elementary School receiv ed a donation in the amount of $1,000.08 from Microsoft. The donor has
requested that this contribution be us ed for any educational needs at H ollymead Elementary School.
Jack Jouett Middle School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from Blue Ridge Radiant Sy stems,
Inc. The donor has reques ted that this c ontribution s ponsor any students that wish to attend the 7th grade
Triple C camp trip.
The Dominion Educational Partnership has aw arded Henley Middle Sc hool with a grant in the amount of
$7,500.00. These funds will be used to increase students’ awarenes s of alternative energy in their
communities and improve their unders tanding of the nature and extent of energy consumption, cons erv ation
and efficiency, the economic and environmental effec ts of energy use, and alternative energy technologies. A
portion of these funds will also be used towards the installation costs of solar panels at the school.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Use Value Tax Revalidation
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider the adoption of an
ordinance to establish a revalidation requirement
for property in the Use Value Tax Program
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, and
Wiggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On July 9, 2008, the Board held a work session on a proposed revalidation requirement for property in the Use Value
Tax Program (“Program”). On September 3, 2008, the Board authorized a public hearing for October 1s t to consider
adoption of an ordinanc e to establish the revalidation program. In addition, the Board reviewed a proposed
revalidation form and prov ided comments to staff.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Objective 4.2: By June 30, 2010, increase the protec tion of the County ’s rural areas by implementing the key
strategies of the Rural Area Plan.
DISCU SSION :
Virginia Code § 58.13234 authorizes the governing body of any county , city, or town to require property owners in the
Program to revalidate any previously approved applic ation. Revalidation requires property owners in the Program to
confirm that the property c ontinues to meet Program requirements.
To date, the County has not required revalidation. Prior to January 2007, the County conducted property
reasses sments on a biennial cycle. That tw oyear reas sessment schedule allowed the Assessor’s staff to conduct
site visits of each property in the County every two years to reassess the property and, if the property was in the
Program, physically inspect the property to gauge compliance with Program guidelines.
In 2007, the County c hanged from biennial to annual reassessments . This change res ulted in the Assessor’s staff
visiting each property every three to four y ears instead of every two years. R evalidation is a tool to as sure that
parcels enrolled in the Program continue to qualify w ithout a field vis it by an assess or.
Advantages/Disadvantages:
There are several adv antages and dis adv antages of a revalidation requirement. Adv antages of requiring revalidation
include:
greater public confidence that only qualifying parcels are receiving the special tax benefits of the Program.
regular notification to property owners of their enrollment in the Program and the requirements of the
Program.
requirement that Program participants certify their farming/forestry/horticulture/open space use (i.e.,
Schedule F, income receipts , farm numbers, etc.).
Disadvantages of requiring revalidation include:
additional administrative c osts (i.e., supply/postage expens e, staff assistance, and storage space needs).
failure to meet deadline(s) and/or provide proper documentation would result in parcel(s) being removed from
the Program, the possible as ses sment of roll back taxes and taxpayer complaints.
Comparativ e Information:
The following chart shows the revalidation requirements of other localities:
Locality U se Value Parcels Revalidation
Augusta County 6,000 Every Year, With Fee
Chesterfield County 800 Every Year, No Fee
Fluvanna County 1,500 Every Year, No Fee
Greene County 600 No
Henrico County 410 Every Year, No Fee
James City County 249 Every Year, No Fee
Louisa County 3,400 Every Two Years, No fee
Loudoun County 5,000 Every Year, With Fee
Nelson County 2,000 Every Six Years, With Fee
Orange County 1,000 Every Year, With Fee
Rockingham County 5,400 Every Six Years, With Fee
Albemarle County currently has 4,981 tax parcels in the U se Value Tax Program.
Recommended Revalidation Process:
Staff recommends that property owners in the Program be required to revalidate every two years, beginning in 2009
for tax year 2010. This tw oyear approac h w ould ease the burden of the property owner having to file every year,
while still providing the County adequate documentation that the property conforms to Program requirements.
Staff recommends an extensive education process prior to implementation of a revalidation requirement. This
education process would begin by providing information about revalidation to all affected owners with the second half
2008 tax bills (to be mailed in late October 2008) and the 2009 reass ess ment notices (to be mailed in January 2009).
Using the tax bills and reassessment notices for this step of the education process would save the cost of additional
mailings to Program participants.
The second step of the process would be the distribution of the actual revalidation forms . These forms would be
mailed in late April 2009, separately from the tax bills, to all owners in the Use Value Tax Program. The deadline for
filing the forms w ith the As sessor’s Office would be September 1, 2009. Staff recommends no fee for applicants who
file by the deadline. Applic ations would be accepted after the deadline until D ecember 5, 2009, but would require
payment of a late fee of $125. As with the initial Use Value applications , a separate revalidation would be required
for eac h parcel.
Proposed Ordinance:
Following the Board’s disc ussion at its September 3 meeting, staff is presenting for the Board’s consideration a
proposed ordinance to implement the rev alidation proc ess recommended above. Specifically, the proposed revisions
to Albemarle County Code Sec. 15803 w ould require participating owners to file (at no charge) a revalidation form
with the Assessor’s Offic e every other year by September 1. After September 1, partic ipating owners c ould still file
for rev alidation as late as December 5, upon payment of a late filing fee of $125.
The proposed effectiv e date of the ordinance is January 2, 2009, whic h is the appropriate date to mak e the
revalidation requirement effective for the 2010 tax year.
Proposed Form:
Staff collected revalidation forms in use by 12 other localities and incorporated the best elements of each form to
develop the attached proposed form (Attachment A). The proposed form requires property owners to provide certain
information and forms to verify the continued qualifying use of the property. Staff then consulted w ith several
representatives of the Farm Bureau and the farming c ommunity to ensure that the form, w hile providing the needed
information, w ould not be unduly burdensome. Staff has also incorporated suggestions made by the Board at its
September 3 meeting, namely:
Inc luding a brief statement of the purpose of the Program at the top of the form;
Highlighting the filing deadlines in bold; and
Clarifying the standards for fores tal use and providing a link to the state Department of Forestry website for
additional information.
Administration of the Revalidation Process:
Upon receipt of the revalidation forms , the Assessor’s staff would review the paperw ork for accuracy and
compliance, and would make every attempt to contact landowners c onc erning incomplete applications prior to the
final filing deadline. Property that qualified w ould remain in the Program. Owners of property that did not qualify
would be notified and the nonqualifying properties w ould be removed from the Program.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Although the revalidation forms would be sent as a separate mailing, the fiscal impact of revalidation is expected to
be minimal (less than $2,000). Expens es would include postage and printing costs. It is anticipated that existing
staff w ill be sufficient to review the documentation upon submission. Minimal expens es are anticipated for supplies
and storage. Minimal late fee revenues are projected.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment B) to implement
the rev alidation program.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – Revalidation Form
B – Ordinance
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Created 08-15-2008
R ev alid at io n F o r T ax at io n On T h e B a si s Of L a nd U se Ass es sm en t
P u rpos e : The pur pose of the Use V a lue Ta x Pr ogr a m i s to e ncou rage f a r mi n g , f o r e s t r y, a n d o p e n s p a c e b y a ll o wi n g a ta x
r e d u c t ion on q ual if yi n g a c reag e .
T h i s f or m m u s t b e f il e d wi th t h e Re a l Es tat e A s s e s s or n o lat e r t han 5 :0 0 p .m., Se p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 9. I f m a il e d, i t m u s t be
p o s t mar k ed N O la ter th an mid nigh t on t h e a b o ve d a t e . A n a ppl ica ti o n ma y b e s u b mi t ted af t e r Se p tem b e r 1 , b ut no l a t e r t h a n
Dece mbe r 5 , b y pa yi n g a lat e f il i n g fee o f $1 25.0 0. Fai l u re to com p l e t e a n d fi l e t h i s fo rm b y t he dea d li ne(s ) w i ll c a u se t h e
p ro pe rt y t o be re m o ve d f ro m t h e L a n d Use p ro gram .
NAME
A DDRESS 1
A DDRESS 2
CI TY STA TE ZIP
Numb er o f Ac r e s : T ax Map/Parcel Number:
C urr ent Acreage Use (pleas e ver ify and/or mak e appropriate adj ustm ents)
Agric ul tu ral Us e : H o r ti c u l tur a l Us e : F o res tr y Us e : Open S pace Use:
DI RECTI ONS: P lea se c omple te the sec tion(s) of the for m below for the type(s) of use (Agri cul tural , H orti cul tural ,
Fores t, a nd/or Open Space) that you are re vali dating.
For Agric ul tural or Horti cul tural Use: P leas e c omple te the applic abl e tabl e(s ) bel ow or furni sh one of the fol low ing:
F eder al ta x f o rm s (10 4 0 F ) Fa rm E xp e n s e a n d Inc o me, (43 8 5 ) Fa rm Re n t a l I n c o me and E xp e n s e s , (1040 E ) Cas h
r e n t f o r A g ri c ul tu ral L a n d , (104 0 C) B u s iness P rof i t a nd L o s s , o r (1 1 2 0 ) Co r p o r a te Par t n e r s h ip .
Recei p t s sh o wi n g a t le a s t $1 ,000 i n Gr o s s A g r icul tu ral a n d /o r H o r ti c u lt ur a l sal e s fo r the pas t ye a r .
E vi d e n c e o f pa rt ici pat i o n i n a fed e ral fa rm su b s id y p r o g r a m .
A cons er va tion Farm Mana geme nt Plan pr epared by a profession al.
REAL E STATE DEV OTE D TO AGR IC UL TU RAL U S E
TO QUALIF Y FO R A GR IC UL TU RA L US E : Th e a p p l icant s h a ll c e r ti f y t h a t t he r e a l est at e is b e i n g u s e d i n a B O NA F I DE p r o g r a m
o r m a n agem e nt a n d p rod u c ti o n o f f i e ld c r o p s , l i ves tock/pr oduct s , p o u lt r y/p roduc ts, d a i r y/p r o d u c t s f or s a le. The r e a l est at e must
c o n s i s t of a m ini mum o f f i ve ac res.
Is t hi s a c re a g e d e vo ted t o t h e p r o d u ct i o n F OR S AL E o f p lan ts and /o r a n i ma ls?
YE S NO
AGRI CULT URAL PRODUCT ION – T ABL E
ANI M ALS CROPS
KIND*
C OUN T
NO OF M ONTHS
KIND
N O O F AC RE S
AV E R AG E YI EL D **
NOTE : * P le a s u r e an im a ls (e .g . hor s es) DO N OT q u a li f y for L a n d Use a s s essm e n t . ** Ind icat e To nnage (T ) o r Do l lar s ($)
REAL E STATE DEV OTE D TO HOR T I CULT URAL U S E
TO QUALIF Y FO R HO RTICUL T URAL U S E : The appl ican t s h al l c e r ti f y t hat the r e al es tat e is b ei n g u s e d in a B ON A F I DE p r o g r a m
o r m a n agem e nt a n d p rod u c ti o n o f f r u it s o f al l k i n d s , i n c l u d i n g g rapes , n ut s a n d b e r ri e s ; vege tabl e s ; n u rse r y a nd f lo ral p ro d u c ts f o r
s a l e . Th e Real e s tat e mus t c o n s i s t of a m ini mum o f f i ve ac res.
Is t hi s a c re a g e d e vo ted t o t h e p r o d u ct i o n F OR S AL E o f frui t s , vege tab les, o rn a me n ta l p l a n t s a n d o rn a men tal p ro d uct s?
YE S NO
HORTICUL TURAL PRODUCTI ON – TABLE
CROPS
KIND
N O O F AC RE S
AV E R AG E YI EL D (Ton n a ge o r $)
County of Albemarle, Virginia For Office Use Only
Real Estate Office
401 McIntire Road, Room 243 Received Date:
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(434) 296-5856
Received By:
Created 08-15-2008
FOREST USE
TO QUALIF Y FO R F OR E S T U S E : The o wne r s hal l c er t if y that th e r eal e s tat e (m i n im u m of t we n t y acr e s ) i s b e i n g u s e d i n a
p l a n n e d p r o g r a m o f t im ber man a g e men t a nd s o i l c o n s er vat io n p ract ic e s wh ich ar e in tende d t o e n hance t h e g r o wt h o f c om mer c i a ll y
d e s i ra b le s p eci e s thr ough gen e ra ll y acce p ted si l vi c u l tu re pr a c t ices and /or red u c e o r pr e ve nt s o il e rosi on b y B e s t Ma nagem ent
P r a c t ices s uch a s logg ing r o a d la yo u t s t a b il i za ti o n, s tr e am s id e m a n agem e n t zo n e s , wa t e r d i ver s i o n p rac ti c e s , and ot h er B e s t
Ma n a g e men t Pr a c t ices t h a t p re ven t s o i l e r o s ion and i mpr o ve wat er q u a li t y.
ac res o f t hi s p a rce l a r e i n for est wi th a t l e ast 4 0 % n or mal s tocki n g* o f t r e e s ther eon.
Is this acr eage und e r an a ppr o ved For est Ma nagem ent P la n ?
YES
NO
I f N O, d o yo u c e r ti f y t h a t t hi s land wi l l b e mai n t a ine d and pr o t e c t e d i n a m anne r
cons istent with approved soil and water management p ractices as defined
YES
NO
in t h e B est Ma nagem ent P r a c t ices g ui d e * f r o m t h e V A Dep a rt m e n t of F o r e s tr y?
*Fu rthe r i nf orm a ti on on st o cki n g a nd t h e Be st Manag e men t Pract i c e s g u i d e a re a va il a b l e a t : h ttp://www .dof.vi rginia.gov
At leas t one of the following docum ents must be on f ile with the R eal Estate off ice:
a plan prepared by a professional for ester .
a Landowner F orest Land Use Commitm ent form whic h is available from the R eal Estate Offic e.
OPEN SPAC E
TO QUALIF Y FO R OPE N S P A CE USE : Ge ner al l y t h e o p e n s p a c e u s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y m u s t be c onsi s te n t wi t h t he l a n d u s e p lan of
the county, which has been mad e an d ad opte d officiall y in accordance with Titl e 15 .2, Chapter 22, Article 3 o f t he Code of V irgi nia.
A lan d use consi s t e n t wit h the l a n d u s e p lan m e a n s a use t h a t i s c o n s ist ent wi th ar e a s o f l a n d u s e zo n e s d e p ict ed on a map t h a t i s
p a r t of the l a n d u s e p lan , o r t hat d ir ect l y s uppo rt s o r i s gen e ra ll y cons ist e n t wit h s ta ted l a n d u s e s , na tu ral resou rces , c o n s er va t ion
o r hi s t o r ic p r e s e r va ti on o b j e c t i ves, g o a ls or s tan d a rds of the l a n d u s e p lan .
Th e o wner s h al l c er t if y that the r e al es tat e (m i n im u m of twe n t y acr es) is d e vot e d to one of the f o l lo wing uses:
a . preserved as a park or for recreati onal p u r p o s e s YES NO
b . conservation of land and other na tural r e s o u r c e s YES NO
c. conservi ng floodwa ys YES NO
d . conservi ng histor ic and scenic resources YES NO
e . agricultur e, horticulture or forest use YE S N O
acres o f t hi s p a rce l is i n a n op e n sp a c e co n tr act wi th Al b e m a rl e Count y
Th is con tr act i s fo r Ye a rs and e xpi r e s in ,
mo nth y ear
NOTICE:
If thi s pa rc e l i s L E AS E D o r RENTE D, please furni sh th e foll ow ing in fo rmati on:
Name of Lessee Phone Number
Number o f acr es in v o l ved i n the l e a s i n g a n d /o r r e n t ing p r o p e r t y .
Amo unt of ren t/inc ome or crop value received for the immed iate past yea r. $
CERTIFICATI ON
I /W e f urth er c ertif y th at al l lan d fo r which use taxa tion is re quest ed meets all requi reme nts of a pplica ble Coun ty o rdin ances
a nd of t he u nifo rm st anda rds presc ribe d b y the C ommissio ner of Ag ricult ural and C onsu mer Se rvices, the St ate Fo reste r,
a nd/or t he Di recto r of th e D epa rt ment of Con servation an d Recreatio n. I/W e d ecla re u nde r pe nalt y of l aw tha t this
a p p l i c a ti o n a n d a n y at t a c hme n ts h e re to h a ve b een exami ned by me and to the best of my kno wl edge are t rue and correct .
I /W e d o h e re b y g ra nt p e rmi s s i on t he Fa rm S e rvi c e A ge n c y a n d t h e S ta t e Fo r e s t er to p r o vi de i n f ormatio n to the pro per
a u t h or i t i es f o r t he p u rp ose o f a d mi n i s t e ri n g t h e L an d U s e P r o g ra m . I /W e a g re e t o a l l ow Co u n t y real e s ta t e a s s esso rs t o
i nsp e c t t h e p rop e rt y d esc ri b e d i n t h i s a p plica t i o n a s au t ho ri zed i n V i r g i n i a C o d e S ect i o ns 5 8 .1 -32 3 3 a n d 5 8 .1 -3 28 0 .
Print Name O w ner/Aut ho riz ed Signat ure Company (if app licable) Date Da yti me Phone Number
Print Name O w ner/Aut ho riz ed Signat ure Company (if app licable) Date Da yti me Phone Number
OR DINA N CE N O. 0815(2)
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TA XATION, A RTICLE VIII, SPECIAL
A SSESSMEN TS FOR A GRICULTURAL, H ORTICU LTURAL, FO REST O R OPEN SPACE REAL
ESTA TE, OF TH E CODE OF TH E COUN TY OF ALBEMA RLE, V IRGIN IA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 15,
Taxa tion, Artic le VIII, Spe c ia l Asse ssme nts for Agricultura l, Hortic ultura l, Forest or Ope n Spa ce Re a l
Esta te , is he re by a mended and reordained as follow s:
By A mending:
Se c. 15803 Sa meProc e ssing; continua tion of asse ssme nt, etc.; fee s
CHA PTER 15. TAXA TION
A RTICLE VIII. SPECIA L ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURA L,
HOR TIC ULTUR AL, FOR EST OR OPEN SPAC E REAL ESTATE
Se c. 15803 SameProc essing; c ontinuation of asse ssme nt, etc.; fe es.
A. The a pplic a tion fe e due under this artic le sha ll be figure d a t fifte en ce nts ($0.15) pe r a cre on tota l
ac re age w ith the minimum cha rge of fifte en dollars ($15.00) per individual applic ation and sha ll be paid to the
dire c tor of fina nce of the county. H ow e ve r, whe re a landowne r is required to file a ne w a pplic a tion under this
artic le be ca use the use or a c rea ge of suc h la nd previously approve d has c hanged, the applica tion fe e for ea c h
re applica tion sha ll be fifte e n dollars ($15.00).
B. The ta x for the ne xt suc c ee ding tax ye ar for property qualifying unde r this a rtic le shall be base d
on the use value re c orde d in the Land Use Tax A ssessment Book.
C. Continua tion of valuation, asse ssme nt a nd ta xation under this artic le sha ll de pe nd on the
continua nc e of the rea l esta te in the use for which c la ssifica tion is grante d, continue d pa yment of taxe s as
re fe rre d to in Virginia Code § 58.13235, c ontinued re valida tion e very se c ond ta x ye ar as provided in subsec tion
(D) below , and c omplia nc e with the othe r require me nts of this a rtic le and Artic le 4 of Cha pte r 32 of Title 58.1 of
the Code of Virginia, and not upon c ontinuanc e of the sa me owner of title to the la nd.
D . A pa rc el’s e ligibility for use va lue asse ssme nt sha ll be reva lidate d e very two yea rs during the
sec ond tax ye ar of e ac h tw oyea r reva lidation c ycle. A reva lidation form shall be file d with the loc al a sse ssing
office r on or before Septe mbe r 1 of the ye a r pre c eding the twoye ar period for w hic h the re va lida tion is sought,
on forms pre pa re d by the county. A se parate revalida tion form sha ll be filed for e ac h pa rc el re c eiving a use
va lue a sse ssme nt. Late filing of a re valida tion form ma y be ma de on or be fore De c embe r 5 of the ye ar pre ce ding
the twoyea r period for which the reva lidation is sought, upon pa yme nt of a la te filing fe e of one hundre d twenty
five dolla rs ($125.00).
(82373; 122073; 71775; 7286; 41388; Code 1988, § 834; O rd. 98A (1), 8598)
Sta te law referenceVa. Code § 58.13 2 34.
This ordinance shall be effective on and af ter January 2, 2009
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend
County C ode § 15901 to c onform the transient
occupanc y tax provisions to new State
requirements.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Wiggans,
and Walters
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT A GENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The 2008 General Assembly adopted House Bill 1453 that requires an amendment to Albemarle County’s ordinanc e
regarding the transient oc cupancy tax . Prior to July 1s t, Albemarle’s enabling authority provided that it and 14 other
named counties could impose a 5% transient occupancy tax provided that the portion of the tax rate over two
percent was designated and spent for promoting tourism, travel or business that generated tourism or travel in the
County. U nder the new legislation, Albemarle is now required to des ignate and spend any excess over tw o percent
solely for tourism and travel, marketing of tourism or initiatives that, as determined after consultation with the local
tourism industry organizations, attrac t trav elers to the County and generate tourism revenues in the C ounty.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County’s Future Needs
DISCU SSION :
The proposed ordinanc e revises the transient occupancy tax provisions of the County Code. The proposed revision
is required to comply w ith recent changes to state law.
Effective July 1, 2008, Virginia Code § 58.13819(A) included Albemarle among the 34 localities for which “any
excess over two percent [of transient occupancy tax] shall be designated and spent s olely for tourism and travel,
marketing of tourism or initiatives that, as determined after consultation with the local tourism industry organizations ,
attract travelers to the locality and generate tourism revenues in the locality.”
The new s tate law simply requires consultation with loc al tourism indus try organizations regarding how best to
spend c ertain tax revenues to attract trav elers to the County and generate tourism revenues. It does not require
approval by the tourism industry organizations. Staff anticipates that this requirement will be satisfied by consulting
with the Charlottesville Albemarle Conv ention & Visitors Bureau. It is not anticipated that it w ill change how these
funds are currently budgeted. This proposed revision neither raises nor low ers the amount of the trans ient occupancy
tax.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budgetary impact is anticipated.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the attac hed ordinanc e be adopted.
ATTAC HMENT
A Ordinance Amendment
Ret urn t o regular agenda
OR DINA N CE N O. 0815(1)
A N O RD INA NCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TA XATION, A RTICLE IX , TRA NSIENT O CCUPANCY
TA X, OF TH E COD E OF TH E COUN TY OF ALBEMA RLE, V IRGIN IA
BE IT O RD AIN ED By the Board of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 15,
Taxa tion, Artic le IX, Tra nsie nt O c c upa ncy Tax, is he re by amende d a nd re ordaine d a s follow s:
By A mending:
Se c. 15901 Impose d; a mount of ta x
CHA PTER 15. TAXA TION
A RTIC LE IX. TRANSIEN T OC C UPAN CY TA X
Se c. 15901 Imposed; amount of tax.
A. The re is he re by impose d a ta x on the oc cupanc y of a ll rooms or spac e s in hote ls, mote ls, boa rding
houses and tra vel ca mpgrounds within the county. Suc h ta x shall be a sse ssed a t the ra te of five pe rc ent (5%) of
the a mount c ha rge d for suc h occ upa ncy; provided, how e ve r, tha t nothing he re in sha ll be c onstrued a s imposing
any ta x upon rooms or spac e s re nted for c ontinuous oc c upa nc y to the sa me pe rson or group of persons for thirty
(30) or more da ys in hotels, mote ls, boarding houses, or tra vel ca mpgrounds.
B. The re ve nue s c ollec ted from tha t portion of the ta x ove r two pe rc ent (2%) shall be de signate d
and spent for promoting tourism, travel or busine ss tha t ge ne ra tes tourism or tra ve l in the c ounty solely for tourism
and tra ve l, ma rke ting of tourism or initia tives tha t, as dete rmined a fter consultation with the loca l tourism industry
orga niz ations, a ttrac t tra ve lers to the county a nd ge nerate tourism re venues in the c ounty.
(112873; 81574; 41388; 31997; § 841; Code 1988, § 842, O rd. No. 988(2), 61098; O rd. 98A (1), 8598)
S tate law referenceVa. Code § 58.13819.
Retur n to e xe c summar y
MEMBERTERM EXPIRESNEW TERMEXPIRESWISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED?ACE Appraisal Review CommitteeJoe Samules12/31/200812/31/2009EligibleACE Appraisal Review CommitteeRoss Stevens12/31/200812/31/2009EligibleARBWilliam Daggett11/14/200811/14/2012EligibleARBCandace M. P. Smith11/14/200811/14/2012EligibleARBFred Missel11/14/200811/14/2012EligibleBoard of Building Code AppealsVacant11/21/200811/21/2013NoBoard of Building Code AppealsDiane Allen 11/21/200811/21/2013EligibleBoard of Building Code AppealsDavid Booth (alternate)11/21/200811/21/2013EligibleBoard of Building Code AppealsFrederick Huckstep (alt.)11/21/200811/21/2013EligibleEqualization Board Alan Collier12/31/200812/31/2009EligibleEqualization Board David Cooke II12/31/200812/31/2009EligibleEqualization Board Virginia Gardner12/31/200812/31/2009EligibleEqualization Board Rosa Hudson 12/31/200812/31/2009EligibleEqualization Board C. Marshall Thompson12/31/200812/31/2009EligibleEqualization Board Alice Nye Fitch 12/31/200812/31/2009EligibleFire Prevention Code of Appeals Diane Allen11/21/200811/21/2013EligibleHousing CommitteeValerie L'Herrou 12/31/200812/31/2011Eligible Housing Committee Helen Flamini 12/31/200812/31/2011Eligible Housing Committee Deborah Van Eersel 12/31/200812/31/2011Eligible JABAWallace McKeel10/20/200810/20/2010YesJoint Airport Commission Frank Robinson 12/1/200812/1/2011Not Eligible Jordan Development CorporationWilliam Jackson8/13/20088/13/2009NoNatural Heritage CommitteeHank Shugart9/30/20089/30/2012Resigned July 30, 2008Public Recreational Facilities AuthorityBruce Dotson 12/13/200812/13/2011EligiblePublic Recreational Facilities AuthorityJay Fennell12/13/2009Resigned September 1, 2008 Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Michael Gaffney12/31/200812/31/2010Joint Member, Eligible, City Rivanna Solid Waste Auth. Citizens Adv. Comm.Reed Muehlman12/31/200812/31/2010EligibleRivanna Water and Sewer AuthorityMichael Gaffney12/31/200812/31/2010Joint Member, Eligible, CityRevised 09/24/2008
DISTRICT IFMAGISTERIALAPPOINTMENTNo Action RequiredNo Action RequiredNo Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No applications receivedNo Action Required No Action Required No Action Required Rivanna, No Action Required Jack Jouett, No Action Required White Hall, No Action Required Scottsville, No Action Required Rio, No Action Required Samuel Miller, No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required Action Required To be advertised in November 1 Received 2 Received No Action Required To be advertised in October No Action RequiredNo Action Required No Action Required
Allan D. Sumpter Vir ginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administr ator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MO NTHLY REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2008
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS A CTION ITEMS
Ken Boyd
Safety Implementations on Route 29 at Forest Lakes The Forest Lakes Homeowners Association has
relocated their sign on Ashwood Boulevard. Traffic Engineering is working on the administrative process to
obtain funding approval for installation of the controller actuated beacon to alert motorists to prepare to stop for
a red phase at the traffic signal. Additionally, a street sign mounting of a street sign to the signal masts for
Ashwood Boulevard has been approved. Signs are being ordered and installation will be scheduled upon their
receipt.
Signal Installation at Route 250/State Farm Boulevard – Construction continues at this location. The signal is
expected to be operational by the end of October.
Signal Installation at Route 29/Burnley Station Road – Construction of this signal is expected to begin the week
of October 6, 2008.
Dennis Rooker
Illegal Signs on RightofWay – A draft agreement to allow the County to police illegal signs is under review by
the Attorney General’s office.
Ann Mallek
Walnut Level Rural Rustic Project – Work on this project is ongoing. A meeting was held with Ms. Carolyn
Ohle, Director of Innisfree Village, on September 15th to provide her an update. The residency is attempting to
contact a property owner at the road’s intersection with Route 810 to seek approval to improve sight distance for
turning vehicles.
Sally Thomas
Dry Bridge – At the time of this report, Buckingham Branch Railroad Company (BBRC) was working on repairs
to the bridge. According to their schedule, work is expected to be completed September 26, 2008. Upon
completion, VDOT bridge division staff will inspect the bridge and make a determination regarding the
appropriate weight limit posting.
Tree Trimming for School Buses VDOT has received several requests from school officials to trim trees
affecting school bus travels on state maintained routes. Crews have been working to address these needs.
Lindsay Dorrier
Walton School Entrance (Route 20/Route708) A safety review of this location is ongoing. Additionally, the
review has been expanded to include the Route 20 corridor from Route 53 to the town limits of Scottsville.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Albemarle County
Route 631 Meadow Cr eek Parkway, 0631002128, C 502, B612, B657
Utility relocation work remains ongoing. The project has been submitted to the VDOT Central Office for
administrative preparations to allow a fall advertisement.
Me adow Cree k Par kw ay, U000104102 (City portion)
It has been determined after consultation with the Army Corp of Engineers that a Section 106 review must be
done in association with the culvert that serves the tributary to Shanks Branch to obtain permit approval from
the Corp. A minor delay may occur in the advertisement; however, the construction schedule is not expected to
be impacted.
Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691002158, C501
A meeting was held Friday September 19, 2008 with county staff to discuss the concept of allowing the county
to construct the first portion of the project in conjunction with the streetscape project. It has been determined
that due to scheduling conflicts, this will not occur. VDOT continues work to update plans to reflect field
changes in utilities that have occurred due to development since project design began.
Route 656 George town Road, 0656002254, C501
Preliminary design work is continuing. A progress meeting will be scheduled in October 2008.
Route 743 Advance Mills Bridge , 0743002282 P101, R201, C501, B658 (Pe r manent R e placement Pr oje ct)
Authorization has been received to begin the rightofway and utility relocation phase. The project remains on
schedule for an early 2009 advertisement.
Completed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Rt 729 Rt 53 to 618 Speed study
Reports finalized; 45 mph speed limit
being recommended. Report in
Central Office for review and approval.
Rt 618 Rt 53 to 620 Speed study
Reports finalized; 45 mph speed limit
being recommended. Report in
Central Office for review and approval.
Rt 250 Pantops
Two way left turn lane (Safety,
access and pavement marking
review)
Field modifications being drafted
Rt 29 Hollymead to Proffitt Pavement marking review;
request lane shift
Pavement widening completed. Lane
striping modifications should be
complete by the end of October.
Rts 631/743 Rio & Hydraulic Pedestrian Study
Field modifications being drafted.
New bicycle lane markings have been
completed on Rio Road west and
Hydraulic.
Rts 743/1315 Hydraulic &
Commonwealth Pedestrian Study Design modifications complete.
Developing logistics for installation.
Rts 631/1403 Rio & Berkmar Pedestrian Study Design modifications complete.
Developing logistics for installation.
Rts 743/667 Hydraulic & Lambs Pedestrian Study Design modifications complete.
Developing logistics for installation.
Rts 743/656 Hydraulic & Georgetown Pedestrian Study Crosswalks & pedestrian signing
should be installed by mid October.
CONSTRUCTION Ac tiv e Construc tion Projec ts
PM7B08 Scheduled Asphalt Overlay
Completed paving and pavement markings on Rt 29 SBL from Rio Road to just south of Greenbrier.
Snow plowable markers installation remains to complete schedule.
627039195, M501 Grade and drainage improvements with box culvert and asphalt paving
Contractor has mobilized the site and erected construction signs and plans to begin clearing.
(NFO) PM07002351, N501 I64 Pavement Overlay and Guardrail Upgrades
Paving is complete from beginning of project near mile marker 104 to mile marker 110.
RU RAL RUSTIC ROAD UPDATE
ROUTE ANTICIPATED START DATE
Route 806 (Estes Ridge Road)Complete
Route 765/668 (Walnut Level Road)Under construction
Route 722 (Green Mountain Road)Mid November and progress through the winter
with paving in the spring.
PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Land Developme nt Items Total This
Month
Total This
Fisc al Year
Special Use Permits and Rez oning Applic ation Re view 8 16
Site Pla n Re views for new Subdivisions 15 25
New Entrance Plan Review s 0 4
Tota l Pe rmits Processed 80 141
Inspec tion of new Subdivision Street c onducte d 30 67
Inspec tion of new entranc e conducted 135 257
Mile s of Stre e t Accepte d in the State System 0 1.17
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED
Pa tching opera tions c ompleted on Route s 29, 692 (Pla nk), 743 (Ea rlysville)
Graded a nd re placed stone on Rt 600 (Stony Point Pass), 606 (Dickerson), 611 (Jarmans Gap), 627
(G ree n Mtn/Frys Pa th), 631 (Apple Berry), 634 (Spring V a lley), 640 (Gilbert Station), 643 (Rio Mills),
668 (Fox Mtn), 671 (Ballard Mill), 675 (Albemarle Lake), 678 (Ridge), 689 (Pounding Creek), 697
(Sutherla nd), 699 (Boa z), 701 (Alberene Church), 703 (Pocke t), 704 (Fortune ), 711 (Burton), 712
(Coles Rolling), 713 (Dye rs Mill/Gle n Dower), 717 (Secretarys Sa nd), 718 (Murrays), 720 (Harris Creek),
722 (Old Green Mtn), 728 (Ed Jones), 735 (Mt Alto), 736 (White Mtn), 753 (Paces Store ), 754 (Loving).
760 (Re d Hill Sc hool), 761 (Briery Cree k), 766 (Pe a Ridge ), 767 (Rabbit V a lle y), 774 (Bea r Cre e k),
775 (Ra bbit Valley), 778 (Johnson), 792 (Stump Town), 793 (Serene), 795 (Ble nheim), 805 (He nderson),
813 (Star Light), 821 (Blufton mill), 824 (Patterson Mill), 829 (Horseshoe Bend)
Mowing on Routes 250, 600 (Stony Point Pa ss), 602 (Howardsville Trnpk), 610 (Lone some Mtn),
612 (Hammocks Ga p), 623 (Snow Hill), 631 (5th St), 638 (Blacks), 703 (Pocket), 704 (Fortune), 708
(Se c re ta ry), 713 (G le n Dowe r), 718 (Murrays), 720 (Harris Creek), 722 (O ld Gre en Mtn), 723
(Sha ron), 724 (Lew iston Ford), 725 (Daw son Mill), 727 (Blenhe im), 728 (Ed Jones), 731 (Kesw ic k),
733 (Ca mpbell Farm), 735 (Mt A lto), 746 (Fosters Bra nch), 761 (Briery Creek), 769 (Rocky hollow),
780 (Old Lynchburg), 781 (Sunse t Extd), 785 (Pritchett), 795 (Ble nheim), 800 (Schuyler), 812 (Jim
La ne), 875 (Country Gre e n), 1140 (S Pantops), 1428 (Huntington), 1801 (Forre st), 1809 (Have nwood),
1810 (Firefly)
Clea red pipes a nd ditch w ork on Route s 620 (Rolling), 640 (Turkey Sag), 664 (Markwood), 747
(Preddy Creek), 795 (Ble nheim), 854 (Ca rrsbrook), 1515 (Airport Acres)
Tree c leanup on Route s 6, 20, 29, 615 (Lindsa y), 618 (Jeffe rson mill/Martin Kings), 620 (Rolling),
626 (La nghorne ), 627 (Carte rs Mtn/Porte rs), 631 (5th St/Old Lync hburg), 633 (Cove Garden), 697
(Sutherla nd), 706 (Dudle y Mtn), 708 (Dry bridge /Red Hill), 712 (Coles rolling), 715 (Esmont), 717
(Se c re ta ry Sa nd), 726 (Ja me s River), 742 (A von St Ext), 745 (Arrowhe ad Valle y), 795 (Blenhe im),
(810 (Blackwells Hollow), 811 (Jone s Mill), 875 (Country Green)
Trash pickup to include a dopta highway pickups on Routes on 29
Dust Control on Routes 697 (Sutherland).
Daylighting signs across Albemarle County on primaries and secondaries.
Bridge deck work on Routes 626 (James River).
Rural Rustic Road work on Route 806 (Estes), 668 (Walnut Level) and 765 (Walnut Level).
PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK – OCTOBER 2008
Maintenance activities are continuing on various routes. They include:
Pavement patching
Ditching operations
Machining and adding stone to gravel roads
Dust Control
Pipe rehabilitation and replacement
Pipe rehabilitation and replacement
Cleaning drop inlets and storm drains
Tree trimming and removal
Guardrail mowing
Daylighting signs
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ashcroft Traffic C alming Resolution
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of R esolution to install speed humps
and speed table on Lego Drive (Route 1090) in
the Ashcroft Subdivision
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Benish,
and Wade
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
A CTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFOR MATION :
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The residents of the Ashc roft H omeowners Association (H OA) contacted the County in 2006 concerning speeding
on Lego Drive, the main road in the As hcroft subdivision. The County Police D epartment conducted a traffic survey
that showed a speeding problem exists on Lego Drive from vehicles both coming dow n the mountain and those
going up, and that the speeding problem exists throughout the day. The posted speed limit on the portion of Lego
Drive where the traffic calming improv ements are being considered is 25 mph. There are no sidewalk s/w alkways
along the road.
Staff met with the Ashc roft H OA and the traffic committee on several occasions to disc uss the safety of
pedestrians and vehicles on Lego Drive.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal Three: Develop Policies and Infras tructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
DISCU SSION :
Staff provided information to the Ashcroft subdivision residents about the VDOT Traffic Calming Program and the
process . The community has followed the process and the following three traffic calming solutions have been
approved by the HOA:
Construct a median in the road adjacent to the clubhouse. This w as once the end of the statemaintained
road w ith a turnaround traffic c ircle. The road has now been ex tended beyond the circle, so this area of the
road is very wide. The HOA would landscape and maintain the median with a permit from VDOT, and the
new traffic pattern w ould be w ellmarked.
Ins tall a speed hump north of the Anderson Lane intersection.
Ins tall a speed table north of W right Lane. The speed table is basically an ex tended speed hump. Staff and
VDOT believe this improvement will serve as a good introduc tion to the reduced speed limit.
These three solutions are illustrated on the attached diagram (Attachment A). Advis ory signage would be installed
with all of the above improvements.
The County Police Department, School Transportation, and the Department of Fire Rescue have approved the
requested improvements. Fire Rescue expressed conc erns that the installation of the s peed hump and speed table
would inc rease the response time to the homes in Ashcroft (VDOT es timates about 4 to 8 seconds per hump/table).
Community Development staff advised the H OA of this concern, and the HOA responded that the potential impac t
to emergency respons e time is acceptable to the residents in order to achieve safer travel speeds along the main
access road for the community. Fire and Rescue service to the Ashc roft Subdivision w ould still meet the
emergency response time standards established in the C omprehensiv e Plan w ith the installation of the traffic
calming measures.
VDOT guidelines for the Traffic Calming Program state that 75 percent of the residents w ithin an area impacted by
proposed traffic calming improvements s hould support the recommended improvements. Because of the single
access point/culdesac design of the community, VDOT required that all of the 142 homes in the Ashc roft
Subdiv ision be included as part of the impacted area. Attachment B is a copy of the letter and the acc ompanying
ballot that was mailed to all of the res idents. The HOA gathered signatures from October 2007 to May 2008. A
copy of the full petition is available for rev iew in the in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Superv isors, Albemarle
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
One hundred and two (102) residents approved the recommended improvements (71.8%) and 32 residents voted
against the improvements (22.5%). The HOA was unable to get responses after numerous attempts from eight
property owners. County and VDOT s taff met with the HOA’s traffic committee representative to dis cuss w hy the
75% approval threshold w as not reac hed. County and VDOT staff were satisfied that the H OA has made a strong
effort to reach all of the residents and had worked hard to acquire the s ignatures for nearly eight months , w hich is an
extraordinary amount of time and level of commitment. VDOT indic ated that the 75% approval threshold is a guide
and can be modified based on the indiv idual project. VDOT believes that the intent of the Traffic Calming guidelines
has been met, and that a s trong majority of the residents support the rec ommended improvements.
If the Board adopts the attached Res olution (Attachment C), staff will w ork with VDOT and the As hcroft HOA to
install the improvements. Staff estimates that the improvements would be installed in the spring of 2009, although it
is possible that they could be completed this fall. The traffic speed on Lego Drive thereafter would be monitored to
determine the effectiv eness of the improvements.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The cost for the speed hump, speed table and median would be approximately $20,000. These improvements would
be funded from the VD OT Six Year Secondary Road C onstruction Program w here funds have been allocated for
traffic calming.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution supporting the Ashc roft H ome Owners Association
recommended traffic calming improvement for Lego Drive (Rt. 1090).
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A Diagram with Proposed Improvements
Attachment B Letter and ballot HOA sent to residents
Attachment C Resolution
Ret urn t o regular agenda
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
NORTHWEST REGION-TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Charlottesville Residency
Lego Drive Traffic Calming Plan
Route1090-Lego Drive
Albemarle County
8/3/2007
Entrance
500 FeetN
Begin 25-End 35 mph
Anderson Lane
North Pantops Drive
TRAFFIC CIRCLE-curb
and grass, landscaping by
residents possible
Ridgeway Lane
End of State
Maintenance
Wright Lane400 Feet# 440Driveway
SPEED HUMP
North of Anderson.
SPEED
HUMP
1
SPEEDHUMPAHEAD
15
MPH
Note: Typical sign installation
for Speed Humps, 2 signs each
location both directions.
Posted in advance(30”x30”)
Posted at Speed Hump
w/ advisory speed plate.
3
2
Signs on Circle-each
approach
2 0 ’m i n .
Note: Typical sign installation
for Traffic Circle-signs both
directions.
TRAFFIC
CIRCLE
Note: Diagrammatic or
worded -signs both directions.
NTS Lego DriveRoute 1090Chevron pavement markings
typical for Speed Humps.
Posted in advance(30”x30”)
Posted at Cul-de-Sac.
or
Note: All devices are shown at
approximate locations.
SPEED TABLE
North of Wright.
50 feet
Note: SPEED TABLE is
constructed same as raised
crosswalk but a crosswalk is
not marked. Signs similar to
Speed Hump.
Dear Neig hbors:
The Bo ard has been ex amining the p roblem of speed ing along Lego Drive. F o r years we have tried to slow
traffic o n Lego by en co uraging awareness but the p roblem has continued. For most of us, speed naturally
increases as we go down the moun tain. For the few, it is a matter of reckless driv ing.
Another 100 homes are planned fo r Ashcroft wh ich will mean another 200 cars on Lego. Heavier traffic will
only increase the cu rrent threat to walkers, joggers, and our children as they wait for the scho ol bus.
To slow traffic, we h av e proposed that a median b e placed in the cu l de sac adjacent to the clubhouse and
that two sets of speed humps be placed on Lego. One hump will be just before Anderson on the curve (as
you go do wn Lego), slo wing vehicles on the curve. Another will also be placed just before Wright Lane,
slowing traffic before th e bus stop. Attached to this email is a map that will giv e you an idea of where the
median and humps are located.
We do no t have to institute all three proposals at o nce, but VDOT requires that we pass the entire plan to be
able to do any of them. It’s all or non e. Once passed , we can decide which to do . We think the median in
the cul de sac will be an attractive ad dition to the neighborhood and will reco mmend it first.
S eventyfive percen t of the neighborhood must vo te yes for the plan to pass, so it’s importan t that everyon e
vote. Please place you r ballot in the lockbox at th e entrance to Ashcroft. If we d o not hear from you,
someon e will be by you r house to take your vote. P lease be sure to sign and include your add ress.
Albemarle County requ ires this for th e vote to be co unted. Every household has one vote.
If you have question s, you may call any of your traffic committee for answers:
Audrey Irvine at 9793 810
Ann McAndrew at 9 791980
Tom Wo lanski at 296 37 01
S teve Fox at 2952826
John Healy at 97959 02
Lisa Lockwood at 29 51 702
Ashc roft N eighborhood Assoc ia tion
O w ner’s Ba llot
Tra ffic Ca lming
In ma king my vote below , I a c knowle dge tha t I ha ve re vie we d the traffic c alming pla n a nd unde rsta nd the
ste ps tha t will be take n to slow tra ffic in Ashc roft. The se include :
A me dia n 32 fe e t in dia me te r in the c ul de sa c adjac e nt to the c lub house ,
A spe e d hump just be fore Ande rson Lane a s you go down Le go Drive , a nd
A spe e d hump just be fore Wright La ne as you continue dow n Le go D rive.
_____ Yes I vote in fa vor of the tra ffic pla n
_____ No I vote a ga inst the tra ffic plan
Signature ____________________________
A ddre ss _____________________________
G o to next a tta c hment
Re turn to exe c summa ry
R ESOLU TION TO SU PPORT TRA FFIC C ALMING MEASURES
ON LEGO D RIVE (ROUTE 1090)
IN THE ASHCROFT SU BD IV ISION
WHEREAS, spe e ding ha s be e n ide ntified a s a ma jor conce rn of the residents of A shcroft Subdivision;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Albe ma rle Police Department has c onducte d a spe ed study in the Ashcroft
Subdivision, which confirme d tha t a spe eding proble m e xists on Le go D rive (Route 1090); a nd
WHEREAS, the Virginia De partment of Tra nsporta tion has re vie we d a nd c onc urs w ith the spe ed study;
and
WHEREAS, a strate gic ally pla ce d spe ed hump a nd spee d ta ble on Le go D rive (Route 1090) w ould
enc oura ge slowe r spe e ds; and
WHEREAS, a me dia n pla c ed at the end of the culdesac at the Ashc roft clubhouse w ould furthe r
enc oura ge slowe r spe e ds.
N OW , THEREFORE, BE IT R ESOLV ED , that the Boa rd of Supervisors of Albemarle County, V irginia
re quests the Virginia Depa rtme nt of Tra nsporta tion to construc t a spe ed hump, a spe ed ta ble and a median as
re comme nde d in the Lego Drive Traffic Calming Plan da ted A ugust 3, 2007.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Primary R oad Improvement Priorities
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Identify the County’s primary and interstate road
improvement priorities for presentation to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board Public
Meeting on the FY 200914 Sixyear Improvement
Program
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Benish,
and Wade
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: Yes
IN FORMATION:
CONSENT A GENDA:
ACTION:
INFOR MA TION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (C TB) will conduct a public hearing to giv e c itizens and public officials an
opportunity to review and provide comments on projects and programs for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 20102015
SixYear Improvements Program (SYIP). The hearing date has not been set, but it is ty pically held in midOctober
or early November. This is the opportunity for the Board of Supervis ors to inform the CTB of the County’s interstate,
primary road, rail, bicy cle, pedestrian and transit improv ement priorities . Primary roads are those roads with route
numbers below 600, inc luding interstate highways (R outes 6, 20, 22, 53, 29, 231, 240, 250 and I64). The County
has maintained a priority list of improv ements for a number of years, and uses this list as the basis for each year’s
update.
The Six Year Interstate and Primary Road Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that
specific amounts of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the C ounty, w hereas funds for primary road
projects are allocated for each construction district, and all primary road projects proposed w ithin all loc alities in the
district compete for thos e funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock C ounties.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3.0: Develop Policies and Infras tructure to Addres s the County’s Growing Needs
DISCU SSION :
The purpose of this review is to receive the Board’s direc tion on transportation projects to be included in the FY
201015 SYIP for the Culpeper District. Staff has provided a propos ed priority list of improvements w hich is based
on last year’s priority lis t approved by the Board (Exhibit A). Changes proposed by s taff are identified in bold italics
or strik ethrough type. The Priority List includes an “Attachment A”, whic h provides a more detailed narrative
description of the County’s project priorities.
The only major changes to the priority lis t are to bridge improvement priorities (see Section III. Bridges). The Free
State Bridge improvement project has been deleted as a priority improvement. The construction of the entrance road
to the Belvedere development has eliminated the need to improve the bridge. Improvements to the Route 250 East
bridge over the C SX railroad in Shadwell have been added as a high priority project. Staff was informed by VDOT
that a high level of deterioration was found during a recent inspection. VD OT recommended that this be included in
this year’s priority list. Staff recommends this project as the second highest bridge priority, after the Advance Mills
bridge project. The Route 250 East bridge is the only bridge project on the list that is actually part of the primary road
system. Staff is not recommending any other changes to the Priority List except for relatively minor updates and
corrections .
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County is providing its priorities for projects to be funded through the State’s interstate, primary and urban
system funding. The impact on the budget will be determined after VDOT has identified the projects it will fund in
their Six Year Financial Plan.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board 1) approve the attac hed recommended priorities (Attac hment A) for primary road
system improvements ; and 2) provide direction regarding the presentation of the County recommendations and
comments .
ATTAC HMENTS
Exhibit A Priority List of Improvements
Ret urn t o regular agenda
EXHIBIT A
ALBEMARLE C OUN TY RECOMMEND ED PRIORITIES FOR SYIP,
FOR PR IMA RY R OAD, TRAN SIT A ND ENHA N CEMEN T IMPR OVEMENTS
(OC TOBER, 2008)
The following are Albemarle County’s priorities for each federal funding allocation and each suballocation of the
Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Attachment A provides a more detailed explanation of the priority
projects .
I. Surface Transportation Program (STP Projects)
U ndertake projec ts in The CHART–U NJam 2025 Regional Transportation Study (adopted May 3, 2004).
These include:
1. Cons truct Meadow Creek Parkway from R oute 250 Bypass to Rio R oad, including the interchange
at the Route 250 Bypass. The CTB should make ev ery effort to provide adequate funding and
resources to maintain the current cons truction schedule;
2. Improv ements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations. These
improvements include an ex tra ramp lane on Route 29 North onto the Route 250 Bypass
and an extra lane on Route 29 from Hydraulic Road (in the C ity);
b. W idening improvements to Route 29 Northconstruct third lane on northbound and
southbound lanes, from South Fork Rivanna R iver;
c. C onstruct Hills dale Drive ex tension from H ydraulic Road to Greenbrier Driv e in the City of
Charlottesville; and
d. C onstruct Berkmar Drive extens ion.
3. Widening of Route 20 South, from I64 to Mill Creek D rive, including bik e lanes and sidewalks.
4. Improv ements to Route 250:
a. Improve two intersections on R oute 250 West: the Tilman Road Intersec tion (R oute 676)
and the Owensv ille R oad intersection (Route 678). Otherwise, maintain the current twolane
road configuration from the By pass to Yanc ey Mills;
b. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops Neighborhood Plan
(improvements to interchange, pedestrian cross ings, widening to no more than six lanes,
parallel road and new bridge/crossing at Riv anna R iver); and
c. Improve Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass .
5. Improv e R oute 240 in acc ord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement s idew alk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and C rozet Master
Plan);
b. C reate bike lanes to and in downtow n;
c. C onstruct Eas tern Avenue, to include the Lick inghole Bridge and a railroad c rossing; and
d. C onstruct Main Street east from Crozet Av enue.
6. Widen Route 20 North, from Route 250 to Elks Driv e/Fontaine Driv e intersection, including bike
lanes and sidewalks.
7. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improv ements to Fontaine Avenue and c onstruction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset Av enue
connec tor road.
8. Improve two intersec tions on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the W arren Street intersection
and the H ardware Street intersection.
II. Transit Improvements
1. Regional Transit Authority Funding to support establishing a regional transit entity w ith expanded
service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville.
2. Expand Existing Service Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CTS, JAUNT,
RideShare, including c apital projects to enhance capital operations (s uch as bus pullouts, shelters,
etc.).
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of transit
operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs.
4. InterCity Rail – Improve and increas e intercity rail service to Albemarle County. The County
continues to support the funding and implementation of the TransDominion Express as a means to
provide improved intercity rail service within the State.
III. Bridge Projects
Bridge priorities identified by Albemarle County, VDOT Local and District Offic es.
Route 651, Free State at N orfolk Southern RR
1. Route 743, Advance Mill at North Fork Rivanna
2 Rt. 250 East over the railroad near Rt. 729.
3. Route 708, Dry Bridge R oad at Buckingham Branch RR
4. Route 677, Old Ballard Road Buckingham Branch RR
5. Route 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch R R
6. Route 637, Dick W oods Road – Ivy Creek
7. Route 641, Frays Mill Road at Marsh Run
8. Route 795, Presidents R oad at Hardware R iver
9. Route 614, Sugar Hollow Road at Moormans River
10. Route 649, Proffit R oad at Norfolk Southern R R
IV. Safety Improvements
1. Construc tion of pedestrian walkways and crosswalk along primary roads in the County’s Urban
Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improv ement projects . Absent major
road improvements, the following roads are prioritized for improvement:
a. R oute 240 in dow ntown Crozet;
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt. 29 North.
c. R oute 250 Eas t in Pantopsextend from the exis ting sidew alks and provide pedestrian
crossings at strategic locations ;
d. R oute 250 West from the C ity limits to the Farmington/Ednam entrance;
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek D rive extended.
2. Safety improvements in Crozet area inc luding R oute 240 underpass.
3. Reconfigure intersection of Route 22 and R oute 250. This project is included in the c urrent SYIP.
Provide adequate funding and resources to maintain the c urrent construction schedule.
3. Intersection improvements on R oute 250 West at 1) Tilman R oad and 2) Owensville Road (noted
above).
4. Support the construction of bikelane improvements along primary roads consistent with
C ounty and Regional bicycle plans (bikelanes, paved shoulders and/or adjacent bike paths).
5. Develop func tional plans, including an analy sis of safety improvements for Route 22 and R oute 231.
V. Enhancement Projects/Safe R outes to School Program
1. Pedestrian Streetscape improvements in dow ntown Crozet.
2. Beautification of entrance corridors.
3. Construc tion of bikeway, pedestrian, and greenway improv ements as prioritized in the Jefferson Area
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Plan and the County ’s C omprehensiv e Plan.
4. Development of portions of the Rivanna R iver Greenway path system.
5. Removal of nonconforming billboards.
6. Continued support of Scotts ville Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project.
VI. National H ighway System (NH S)
The C harlottes villeAlbemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NH S as proposed by VDOT in this area
exc luding the Route 29 Bypas s.
VII. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of nonattainment for ozone or
c arbon monoxide.
A TTA CHMENT A
ALBEMARLE C OUN TY RECOMMEND ED PRIORITIES FOR SYIP,
FOR PR IMA RY R OAD, TRAN SIT A ND ENHA N CEMEN T IMPR OVEMENTS
(OC TOBER, 2008)
The following are Albemarle County’s priorities for each federal allocations and each suballocation of the Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds. This attachment provides more information about each projec t.
I. Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projec ts:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds. The County supports these
projects as referenced.
U ndertake those projects in the Charlottesville Albemarle R egional Transportation Study (C HART) –
U nJam 2025 (adopted May 3, 2004) eligible for the primary program in the sequence as called for in the
February 2, 1992 joint resolution betw een the City, C ounty and U niversity and agreed to by VDOT. These
include:
1. Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to R io Road. The Parkway is the C ounty 's
highest priority project after Route 29 N orth, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an
adequate level of serv ice on Route 29 and to improv e the overall roadw ay system serving the
urbaniz ing area north of the City. This project is being funded in the C ounty's secondary program
and has been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (C TB) as a low speed parkway
in the City of Charlottesv ille and the C ounty. The County asks that this section be designed and
built in accord with the County’s design and alignment recommendations developed with the
assistance of an independent consultant and endorsed by resolution of the County Board of
Supervis ors on June 20, 2001 and approved by the C TB on December 18, 2001. This endorsed
design and alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor’s potential as a linear park and its
relationship to the dev elopment of adjacent urban land. The linear park concept is intended to
replace McIntire Park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, link McIntire Park to the
Rivanna Trails Foundation trail along Meadow Creek and the County’s urbanizing area along Rio
Road. The C ounty requests that the C TB make every effort to provide adequate funding and
resources to maintain the current cons truction schedule for this project.
Meadow Creek Parkway/R oute 250 Bypass Interchange. The County also supports the
construction of the Meadow Creek Parkw ay interchange at the terminus of the Parkway w ith Route
250 in the City of Charlottesville. This interchange is es sential to the s afe and acc eptable future
traffic operation of this high volume intersection. The County is grateful for the funding earmarked
in the Federal Transportation Bill for this interchange. It is recogniz ed that this interc hange project,
and its funding, is a s eparate but related project from the Meadow C reek Parkway mainline project.
The C ounty requests that the CTB make every effort to provide adequate funding and resources to
maintain the current construction sc hedule for this project.
Northern Free State Road (formerly Meadow Creek Parkway Phas e II) is being funded in VD OT’s
Six Year Secondary Road Plan for the county. The C ounty is now studying the conc ept/alignment
of this road as part of the Places29 Study, an integrated land use and transportation master
planning study for the Route 29 North c orridor.
2. Route 29 North. This highly urbaniz ed area continues to grow and transportation sy stem
improv ement needs c ontinue to increase. The County, City, VDOT and the MPO have completed
Phas e I and Phase II of the 29H250 (US 29 – Hydraulic – 250 Bypas s Intersection) Study. The
County appreciates continued VDOT and C ommonw ealth Transportation Board support of initiatives
in the Route 29 North corridor. The County, in coordination w ith the MPO, is currently utilizing
VDOT, developer proffered and County general funds to study the concept/alignment of Route 29
North as part of a larger transportation netw ork study for the County’s northern development areas
from the City limits to the Greene C ounty line. This study, a component of the County ’s Places 29
Study, will include a c omprehensive and integrated evaluation of both transportation and land use
issues and planning to establish a s eries of land us e recommendations, transportation network
improv ements and multimodal approaches that will s upport the northern development areas and the
Route 29 Corridor.
a) The C ounty requests that VDOT plan for the funding of the 29H250 Phas e II Option B
design recommendations, w hich emphasize improving Route 29 to serve regional trips and
changing the character of Hydraulic R oad betw een Route 29 and the Route 250 Bypass.
These improvements include an extra ramp lane on Route 29 N orth onto the Route 250
Bypass and an extra lane on Route 29 from H ydraulic Road (in the C ity).
b) The C ounty requests funding for a third lane northbound and s outhbound on R oute 29 from
the South Fork Rivanna River to north of its intersection with Hollymead D rive. These
improvements would tie into a third lane recently constructed in each direction along Route
29 as part of major land development projects at the Hollymead Town Center. This new
third lane section, and other road improvements in the area, w as funded by the developer
through zoning proffers related to the projec t’s approval. There are significant peaks and
valleys in Route 29 through this area that create an existing dangerous condition and this
will only worsen as traffic inc reases as development occurs in this area in acc ord with the
Comprehens ive Plan. This section of road already experienc es a high level of vehicle
accidents, particularly in the area of Forest Lak es South. Completion of this section would
essentially complete the three phases of improvements to R oute 29 from Hydraulic Road to
Airport Road that w ere originally programmed in the SixYear Plan in 1988. These and
other Comprehensive Plan trans portation sy stem recommendations envision future
development to be served by a transportation netw ork that ultimately prov ides a complete
system of urban streets and supports walking and biking and comprehensively links all land
uses.
Other projects listed in CH ART in the northern study area must be actively pursued and completed.
These projects include:
c) The Hillsdale D rive Extension Project;
d) Berkmar Driv e Extended.
Also, while funding has previously been dropped for Route 29 improvements north of the South Fork
Rivanna River, transportation system improvements as identified by the C ounty in its
Comprehensive Plan are imperative to this area.
3. Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from I64 to Mill
Creek Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane fac ilities into these improvements. This is a
curvy sec tion of road in the County’s Urban Area that s erves the traffic from Monticello High School
and has experienced s everal accidents with fatalities in recent years.
4. There are three areas of emphasis the County reques ts be addressed on R oute 250:
a) The County does request funding for the improv ements of the Tilman Road intersection at
Route 250 and the Owensville Road/Route 250 intersection (possible roundabout at
Ownesville Road). Otherwise, the C ounty recommends maintaining the present twolane
configuration of the corridor w ith any short term or spot improvements being as non
intrusive and consistent as pos sible with the special character of this scenic byw ay.
b) VD OT has completed a similar study of Route 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvanna
County line. This study’s findings have been pres ented to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors. The C ounty has included a number of the study’s recommendations in
the adopted Pantops Master Plan, a component of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
is considering the recommendations of this study as part of the Neighborhood Planning
process “Pantops Urban Area N eighborhood Master Plan.” This Pantops Plan focuses on
creating a neighborhood plan that integrates land use and trans portation planning to establis h
land use recommendations, transportation netw ork improvements and multimodal
approaches that will support neighborhood dev elopment. Recommendations include
improvements to the I64 interchange, pedestrian crossings, parallel roads and a possible
new bridge/crossing of the Riv anna R iver connecting to the C ity, and limited widening of
Route 250 to no more than six lanes.
c) Improve Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is
covered by the joint Ivy Road Design Study conducted by the City, County and University of
Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in the Lew is Mountain
Neighborhood/U niversity Heights (Area B) Study. Any plans for the improvement of this
section of Route 250 West need to be coordinated among the City, C ounty and U niversity.
5. Undertake improvements that will benefit/improve Route 240 in Crozet in accord with
recommendations from the recently completed Crozet Master Plan.
a) Implement sidewalk plan (per Dow ntown Sidewalk and Park ing Study) and C rozet Master
Plan.
b) C reate bike lanes to and in downtow n.
c) Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Creek Bridge and a railroad crossing.
d) C onstruct Main Street east from Crozet Avenue.
6. Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of R oute 250 Eas t to the Elks Drive/Fontana
Drive intersection. Inc orporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into the w est side improvements.
The C ounty has also listed these improv ements under “Safety” priorities. To date, the County has
constructed sidewalks on the east side of R oute 20 from Route 250 to Fontana Driv e.
7. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study recently c ompleted in
coordination w ith the C ity of Charlottesville, C ounty of Albemarle, and the University of Virginia.
The Study recommends improvements to Fontaine Avenue and the construction of a new connec tor
road betw een Fontaine Avenue and Sunset Avenue.
8. The Town of Scottsville has requested that VDOT improve Route 20 (Valley Street) at the
intersection of both W arren Street and H ardware Street. VDOT had proposed thes e improvements
in the 1970’s, but the improvements were not completed. The improvements will enhance the safety
of the traveling public in the Town.
ll. Transit Improvements
1. Regional Transit Authority Funding to s upport establishing a regional transit entity with expanded
service to Albemarle County and the C ity of Charlottesville.
2. Expand Existing Service Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CTS, JAUNT,
RideShare, including c apital projects to enhance capital operations (s uch as bus pullouts, etc.).
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of transit
operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs.
4. InterC ity Rail – Improve and increase intercity rail s erv ice to Albemarle County. The County
continues to support the funding and implementation of the TransD ominion Express as a means to
provide improved intercity rail service within the State.
III. Bridges
The County has worked with VDOT to identify the top ten bridge projects for Albemarle County. The top
three priorities on the list below have been lis ted on the County ’s Strategic Priorities for Secondary R oad
Improvements. All priorities were chosen from a comprehens ive list of bridges located in Albemarle County
found on Attachment D . This lis t includes the lowest sufficiency ratings for all bridge projec ts. These
projects are, in priority order:
R oute 651, Free State at Norfolk Southern RR
1. Route 743, Advance Mill at North Fork Rivanna
2 Rt. 250 East over the railroad near Rt. 729.
3. Route 708, Dry Bridge R oad at Buckingham Branch RR
4. Route 677, Old Ballard Road Buckingham Branch RR
5. Route 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch R R
6. Route 637, Dick W oods Road – Ivy Creek
7. Route 641, Frays Mill Road at Marsh Run
8. Route 795, Presidents R oad at Hardware R iver
9. Route 614, Sugar Hollow Road at Moormans River
10. Route 649, Proffit R oad at Norfolk Southern R R
The County strongly encourages the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund all the bridge projects
identified by VD OT and Albemarle C ounty as needing to be upgraded.
IV. Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% setaside. They are, in priority order:
1. Cons truct pedestrian w alkw ays and crosswalks along various primary routes within the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of suc h w alkways into full road
widening/improvement projects, the follow ing road sec tions are priorities for pedestrian walkways:
a) R oute 240 in “downtown” Crozet;
b) Pedestrian cross ings at strategic locations on R t. 29 North;
c) R oute 250 Eas t in the Pantops area as an ex tension to existing sidewalks and
provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
d) Route 250 W est from the City limits to the Farmington/Ednam entrance; and,
e) R oute 20 South from the City limits to Mill C reek D rive.
2. The C ounty has placed a high priority on pedestrian improvements in the Crozet area. The County
chose Crozet as the firs t community to be master planned based on the C ounty’s adopted
Neighborhood Model. The County rec eived TEA 21 funding in July 2004 for Phase I of the C rozet
Streets cape Plan and continues to s eek additional funding to undertake needed improv ements (see
Enhancement Project section). Another potentially eligible safety project is the improvement of the
Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet (including pedestrian fac ility
improv ements).
3. Reconfigure intersection and install traffic signals at the intersection of Routes 22 and 250. This
project is currently sc heduled in the SYIP for construction. Provide adequate funding and resources
to maintain the current construction sc hedule.
3. Improvements to Route 250 West in the Ivy area to address existing traffic circulation problems at
the Tilman R oad intersec tion and the Ow ensville Road intersection (as noted in l.4.a, above),
including access to dev eloped properties in this area. Of particular c oncern is the Tillman Road
intersection (Route 676), which serves s chool bus traffic and has poor sight distance. These
improv ements should be undertaken in accordance w ith recommendations approved by the Board of
Supervis ors in the R oute 250 West Corridor Study.
4. Support the construction of bikelane improvements along primary roads consistent with
County and Regional bicycle plans (bikelanes, paved shoulders and/or adjacent bike paths).
5. Functional plans, including an analys is of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231.
The C ounty remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created by large
trucks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate measures to
ensure that trucks trav el safely along these roadways in the future. The C ounty has repeatedly
reques ted VDOT to restrict through trucks on Route 22 and Route 231.
V. Enhancement Projects/Safe R outes to School Program:
This is a valuable funding source for w hich s everal projects appear to be eligible. Unfortunately funding for
new projects is not available this year. The County urges that funds be made available for new pedestrian
and bicycling projects. For the County, new projects, in priority order, are:
1. Pedes trian streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet. These streetscape improvements,
which w ere included in an Enhancement Grant submitted in January 2002, June 2003 and October
2004, include the reloc ation and burial of overhead utility wires, and c onstruction of historically
compatible sidewalks . The C ounty received TEA 21 funding in July 2004 for Phase I and July 2005
for Phase II of the C roz et Streetscape Plan.
2. Beautification of entranc e corridors (particularly Routes 20, 29 and Route 250).
3. Cons truction of bikeway , pedestrian, and greenway facilities as prioritiz ed in the Jefferson Area
Bicyc le, Pedestrian, and Greenways Plan.
4. Development of portions of the Rivanna R iver Greenway path system.
5. Removal of nonconforming billboards.
6. Continued support of Sc ottsville Downtow n Streets cape Improvement Project.
VI. N ational Highway System (N HS)
The Charlottesv illeAlbemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area
excluding the Route 29 Bypass . The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) has approved the N HS,
w hich includes the existing Route 29 and the Route 29 Bypass . The County believes any projects that are
included in the NH S should reflect the recommendations that result from the previously referenced
transportation improvement study of the Route 29 North corridor area.
VII. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of nonattainment for ozone or
carbon monox ide.
Ret urn to ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Eastern C onnector Alignment Study
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of the rec ommendation from the
Eastern C onnector Steering C ommittee
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Kelsey,
and Wade
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Eastern Connector was identified in the long range transportation plan for the Charlottesville/Albemarle area for
an alignment study. The Albemarle C ounty Board of Supervisors (Board) and Charlottesville City C ouncil (Council)
decided in 2006 to jointly fund a $500,000 Eastern Connector Study. The study area for the Eastern Connector is
roughly an area bordered by R oute 250 to the south, Route 29 to the w est, Proffit Road to the north and Route 20 to
the east. The purpose of the study identified in the Scope of W ork was to: “Determine the basic feasibility of the
proposed Eas tern Connector and the definition of no more than three alternatives for this proposed facility. In
essence, this will represent a major inves tment study (MIS) for the defined study corridor. A ranking of the
performance of the three final alternatives was to be prepared to allow for the members of the Council and the Board
to identify a locally preferred alternative which could then be advanced into the more detailed formal preliminary
engineering and environmental impac t assessment phases of project dev elopment.”
The Board and Council appointed a Steering Committee to direct the c onsultant and s elect alternative alignments. At
its August 7, 2006 meeting, the Board approved the membership and duties/function of the Eastern Connector
Steering Committee. The mission of the C ommittee was to: “Work w ith a consultant to determine a minimum of
three alternative alignments that will provide a connection between US 250 east of Route 20 and US 29 North
between Rio Road and Profit Road. Study s hall provide a thorough assessment of issues related to each alignment
and a recommendation on preferred alignment based on analysis and direction provided during project” (See
Attachment A)
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goals 3: D evelop Polic ies and Infrastruc ture to Address the C ounty ’s Grow ing Needs
DISCU SSION :
The Committee’s recommendation will be presented to the Board on October 1, 2008 by Lewis G. Grimm, P.E.,
Projec t Manager for the transportation c onsultant. Mr. Grimm has been working closely w ith staff and the Committee
to develop the recommendation. Mr. Grimm will include additional information on is sues relating to developing a
recommendation and the process the C ommittee used in developing its recommendation. The Steering Committee
held meetings throughout 2007 and 2008 w ith the consultant, which allowed for public participation and input. The
input from the pubic was valued and considered in the Committee’s recommendations. Attached are summaries of
the Committee and public meetings (Attac hments B and C ).
While the details of the rec ommendation are best explained with the presentation, staff has attac hed a map show ing
the recommended alternatives (Attachment D ). Staff notes that all of the recommended alternatives considered
have serious challenges . The preferred alternative (3) includes either a 4 lane or 2 lane road going through Pen Park
and possibly through Darden Towe Park. The Committee recognized there is considerable public opposition to the
connector going through the park s (see public comments in Attachment C ) and there are possibly s ignificant federal
hurdles in placing a roadway within parks that have received federal funding or for a roadway to be built w ith federal
funding through a park .
Despite those issues, the transportation modeling showed the roadway w ould have to be close to Route 250
to be effective and this alternative was c onsidered the only viable option available w hen weighing all of the
factors . Additionally, as shown on the graphic, the Committee has recommended planning for future
connections far into the future with Alternatives 1 and 2. Neither of thos e alignments was considered
effectiv e w ithin the Eastern Connector timeframe, but the lack of a better option clos er to Route 250 s parked
recognition that there is a need for planning further into the future for transportation improvements (e.g. 50 year
timeframe). Staff notes that both Alternative 1 and 2 also have signific ant issues and that there are potential
conflicts with the Southw est Mountain H istoric Distric t, Proffit Historic D istrict, and properties already in
qualified conservation easement. (Attac hment E). Additionally, these alternatives may c onflict with s ome
goals of the C ounty’s R ural Areas Plan. All of these issues would need to be further s tudied if there is
interest in planning for a future connector using either Alternative 1 or 2.
Cost estimates for each of the alternatives are identified in Attachment F. These estimates include the costs of
construction and right of w ay acquisition associated with each alternative and range from $40,000,000 to
$169,000,000. N o funding sources for these costs hav e been identified.
Finally, it is noted that the C ommittee decided against seeking additional public comment before presenting this
recommendation to the Board and Council. This decis ion was based on the Committee’s recognition that the public
sentiment on the recommended alternatives has already been heard and it was more appropriate to first review the
recommendation with the elected offic ials.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This s tudy has already been fully funded. If the consultant is required to provide additional services beyond the
presentations to the Board and Council, a contract amendment and additional funding would be required. If the C ity
and County decide to mov e forw ard with an Eastern Connector alignment, funding would be required for engineering,
surveying, permitting and right of way acquisition. Previous long range transportation studies done by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) estimated that $9 Million would be needed for that phase of the project. A
source for that funding has not yet been identified.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
The presentation completes the Committee’s task by providing a recommendation to the Board and Council. If the
Board and Council are interested in mov ing forward w ith the Committee’s recommendation, staff recommends two
options for proceeding:
1. Complete a more detailed analy sis of federal and state permitting requirements, as related to a road
though the park(s ) and across the river, to determine if Alternativ e 3 is viable. After reviewing this
information, if the Board and Council believe the permitting requirements allow a road to be constructed
through the park(s), a public meeting can be scheduled to receive comments on this proposed road.
2. Schedule a public meeting to receive comments on the recommendation. Following the public meeting,
if the Board and C ouncil are interested in proceeding, staff recommends an analysis of the federal and
state permitting process be completed and presented to the Board and C ouncil.
Following completion of the public meeting and analysis of federal permitting requirements, if the Board and Council
have interest in proceeding further, staff rec ommends possible funding strategies be identified before initiating a
design effort.
If there is interest in including Alternativ es 1 or 2 in the C ounty’s Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that the
Board direct staff to develop and present to the Board an analysis of issues related to establishing a future road
alignment across cons erv ation easements and historic districts. After consideration of this analysis , the Board c an
make an informed dec ision as to whether either of thes e alternatives is viable and s hould be c onsidered for inclus ion
in the C omprehensive Plan.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A Eastern Connector Steering Committee Duty/Function Sheet
Attachment B Steering C ommittee Meeting Summary
Attachment C – Public Hearing Meetings Summary
Attachment D Committee Recommendation
Attachment E Alternative Issues
Attachment F C ost Es timation
Ret urn t o regular agenda
EASTERN CONNECTOR ALIGNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE
Duties/Function: This committee will work with a consultant to determine a minimum of three
alternative alignments that will provide a connection between US 250 east of
Route 20 and US 29 North between Rio Road and Profit Road. Study shall
provide a thorough assessment of issues related to each alignment and a
recommendation on preferred alignment based on analysis and direction
provided during project.
Membership: Members shall consist of the following:
1. One member, Board of Supervisors
2. One member, Planning Commission
3. One county citizen
4. Two staff members
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
SUMMARY OF PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS
EASTERN CONNECTOR CORRIDOR STUDY
Meeting Number and
Date
Primary Discussion Topics
#1 – Ja nua ry 19, 2007 Ste e ring Committe e Organiz a tion
Re vie w of proje c t sc ope of w ork a nd pre limina ry sche dule
Initia l round of public information me etings
Ide ntific ation of pote ntial sta ke holders to be inte rvie we d
Initia lly pe rc eived issue s a nd conce rns in study corridor
#2 – Ma rc h 9, 2007 Re vie w of Opportunities a nd Constra ints Ma p / Pla nne d
De ve lopme nts
Existing a nd future tra ffic conditions in study a re a
Proje c t Purpose and Goa ls
Pote ntial de sign c onc e pts
Pote ntial pa rtic ipa nts in stakeholde r interviews
Initia l round of public information me etings
Re vie w of othe r proje ct ac tivities (web site, logo, etc .)
#3 – Ma y 4, 2007 Curre nt a nd pote ntia l future traffic c onditions in study area
Forma t / c ontents of May 22 a nd May 24 public informa tion
me etings
Logistics for Ma y 22 a nd Ma y24 public informa tion me e tings
#4 – A ugust 24, 2007 Re vie w of public comments from Ma y 2224 public information
me etings
Re vie w of regional trave l de ma nd fore c asting mode l
e nhanc ements memora ndum
Pre sentation of 11 c onc eptua l a lte rnative s for te sting a nd
e va lua tion
Forma t / c ontents of Fa ll 2007 public informa tion mee tings
#5 – O ctobe r 5, 2007 Pantops Ma ste r Pla n re lationship to Ea stern Conne c tor Study
Re vie w of propose d proje c t purpose a nd ne ed
Re vie w of propose d a lte rnative e valuation c riteria
Disc ussion of 13 conce ptua l alterna tive s to be re tained,
disc arde d, or added
Forma t / c ontents of Fa ll 2007 public informa tion mee tings
#6 – N ove mber 19, 2007 Disc ussion of fina l group of four c onc eptua l a lte rnative s to be
prese nte d a t Novembe r 2829 public informa tion me etings
Forma t / c ontents of Novembe r 2829 public information
me etings.
#7 – D ec e mber 14, 2007 Re vie w of c omme nts from N ove mbe r 2829 public informa tion
me etings
Disc ussion of fina l group of c onc e ptual alte rna tives pre sente d a t
Nove mbe r 2829 public information mee tings
Disc ussion of ne xt steps in study proc e ss
#8 – Februa ry 8, 2008 Re port on Charlotte sville MPO prese nta tion on Ja nua ry 23, 2008
VD OT lic e nse plate surve y re vie w
Conve rsion of tra ve l de ma nd mode l ADT data to pe ak hour da ta
Transit c onside ra tion options
Disc ussion of fina l group of c onc e ptual alte rna tives pre sente d a t
Nove mbe r 2829 public information mee tings
Disc ussion of ne xt steps in study proc e ss
#9 – Ma rc h 28, 2008 Disc ussion of Ma rc h 4, 2008 Charlotte sville City Council letter
Disc ussion of U S Route 250 c orridor improve me nt options
Disc ussion of ne xt steps in study proc e ss
#10 – April 25, 2008 Disc ussion of trave l demand se nsitivity of a lte rnative roadw a y
c ross se ctions
Group disc ussion of c onse nsus ele me nts
Disc ussion of ne xt steps in study proc e ss
#11 – May 30, 2008 Disc ussion of Pre limina ry Ste ering Committe e proje c t
re commendations
Group re vie w / disc ussion of dra ft prese nta tion to Boa rd of
Supe rvisors a nd City Council
Next ste ps in study proce ss
#12 – July 25, 2008 Group re vie w / disc ussion / a doption of prelimina ry ste ering
c ommittee proje ct rec omme nda tions
Group re vie w / disc ussion of dra ft prese nta tion to Boa rd of
Supe rvisors a nd City Council
#13 – Se pte mbe r 4, 2008 Group re vie w / disc ussion of dra ft prese nta tion to Boa rd of
Supe rvisors a nd City Council
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS
EASTERN CONNECTOR CORRIDOR STUDY
Meeting Date / Location Estimated
Attendance
Topics Presented
Ma y 22, 2007
Broa dus Me morial Ba ptist
Church
75 Project b ackground info rmation
Base y ear and forecast year preliminary traffic
analysis
Initial identification of en vironmentally sensitive
areas, local areas of impo rtan ce, community
facilities, historic and cultural resources, and
points of interest.
Solicitation of public inp ut on preferences,
concerns, an d other though ts about the project.
Ma y 24, 2007
Hollyme a d Elementary Sc hool
(re loca ted from Mortime r
Sutherla nd Middle School due to
sc heduling conflic t)
50 Project b ackground info rmation
Base y ear and forecast year preliminary traffic
analysis
Initial identification of en vironmentally sensitive
areas, local areas of impo rtan ce, community
facilities, historic and cultural resources, and
points of interest
Solicitation of public inp ut on preferences,
concerns, an d other though ts about the project.
Nove mbe r 28, 2007
Ba ke r Butle r Elementa ry Sc hool
70 Summary of project p urp ose and need
Discussion of preliminary travel demand analysis
findings an d conclusions
Discussion of potential range of conceptu al
improvement alternatives initially consid ered
Presentation of basic co ncept elements fo r Alts. 1
(Proffit Road Relocated), 2 (Polo Grounds Road
Connector), and 3 (Rio Road to Route 20 v ia Pen
Park)
Preliminary comparison of altern ativ es
performan ce
So licitation of p ublic comments relative to each
of the fin al conceptual altern atives
Nove mbe r 29, 2007
Albe marle County Office
Building
100+ Summary of project p urp ose and need
Discussion of preliminary travel demand analysis
findings an d conclusions
Discussion of potential range of conceptu al
improvement alternatives initially consid ered
Presentation of basic co ncept elements fo r Alts. 1
(Proffit Road Relocated), 2 (Polo Grounds Road
Connector), and 3 (Rio Road to Route 20 v ia Pen
Park)
Preliminary comparison of altern ativ es
performan ce
So licitation of p ublic comments relative to each
of the fin al conceptual altern atives
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT D
SUMMARY OF MAJOR PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
EASTERN CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Corridor Physical and Environmental Features
Alt. 1 – Proffit Road Corridor Proffit Historic District
Norfolk Southern Railroad
North Fork Rivanna River
Southwest Mountain Rural Historic
District
Route 20 Corridor
Alt. 2 – Polo Grounds Road Corridor Powell Creek Stream Valley
Norfolk Southern Railroad
Bentivar Community
Red Hill Historic District
North Fork Rivanna River
Southwest Mountain Rural Historic
District
Redbud Creek
Route 20 Corridor
Alt. 3 – Rio Road to Route 20 / Route 250
Corridor
Dunlora, River Run, Pen Park, Rio
Heights, Locust Grove, Key West,
Franklin, and Fontana Neighborhoods.
Pen Park
Darden Towe Park
Rivanna River
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
SUMMARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
Eastern Connector Study Alternative Alignments
September 8, 2008
Alternatives/Alignment Options Total Estimated
Construction Cost
Public Lands
Estimated Rightof
Way Cost
Private Lands
Estimated Rightof
Way Cost
Total Estimated Right
ofWay Cost
Total Estimated
Alternative Cost
Alt. 1 Proffit Road Relocated $ 38,000,000 $ $ 26,000,000 $ 26,000,000 $ 64,000,000
Alt. 2 Polo Grounds Road
Alignment 1 $ 49,000,000 $ $ 17,000,000 $ 17,000,000 $ 66,000,000
Alignment 2 $ 72,000,000 $ $ 22,000,000 $ 22,000,000 $ 94,000,000
Alt. 3 Rio Road to Route 20
Twolane Roadway
3 Through Center of Pen Park $ 25,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 46,000,000 $ 50,000,000 $ 75,000,000
3A North side of Pen Park $ 50,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 16,000,000 $ 17,000,000 $ 67,000,000
3B South side of Pen Park Option #1 $ 29,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 40,000,000
Fourlane Roadway
3 Through Center of Pen Park $ 49,000,000 $ 7,000,000 $ 61,000,000 $ 68,000,000 $ 117,000,000
3A North side of Pen Park $ 115,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 52,000,000 $ 54,000,000 $ 169,000,000
3B South side of Pen Park Option #1 $ 68,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 17,000,000 $ 23,000,000 $ 91,000,000
3C South side Option #2 $ 66,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 22,000,000 $ 88,000,000
3D Modified center alignment $ 50,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 53,000,000 $ 61,000,000 $ 111,000,000
Note: All costs shown are rounded to the nearest $1.0 million and are in Year 2008 dollars
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Total Compensation Report
SUBJEC T/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Acceptance of market data for use in budget
dev elopment for FY 0910, subject to available
revenues
STAFF CONTAC T(S):
Tucker, Foley, Dav is, Suyes, Gerome
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 2008
ACTION: X INFOR MATION:
CON SENT A GENDA :
ACTION: INFOR MATION:
ATTAC HMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
B ACKGR OUND:
In November 2000, the School Board and Board of Supervisors approved a Total Compensation Strategy to target employee
salaries at 100% of market median and benefits slightly above the market. The adopted market approved by the Boards is
shown in Attachment #1.
This report details the supporting analysis for the recommendations to achieve the adopted Total C ompensation Strategy for
last year and for the Boards to consider in giving budget guidance to the County Executive and Superintendent for the
coming fiscal. These projections are presented to the Boards for their information regarding the FY0910 budget process. It
is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available revenues and Board direction. This report provides
information on:
1) Compensation Strategies
2) Benefits Strategies
Staff recognizes that due to the projected revenue shortfall, funding to support these recommendations may not be
available. H owever, this information is provided based on the Joint Board’s adopted process to maintain our Total
C ompensation strategy.
STR ATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County R esidents. By June 30, 2009, the Board of Supervisors and
general government employees will increas e collaborative efforts with the School Board and with employ ees of the schools
system to assis t the School Division to achieve recognition as a “world c lass education system.”
D ISCUSSION :
To maintain competitive compensation based on the adopted strategy, two separate, but related actions are required:
1) Ensure a competitive salary scale so that the County is able to attract and recruit new employees.
2) Ensure current employees are rewarded for performanc e by maintaining internal equity in their pay range and also
maintaining market competitivenes s for similar skills.
To adhere to the Boards' adopted strategy, the follow ing processes are implemented each year:
Step 1: Annually s urvey the adopted market to determine the salary scale adjustment implemented in those
localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
Step 2: Annually s urvey the adopted market to determine the average total salary increase granted to employees in
those localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
Step 3: This market data is analyzed to ascertain where the salary scales (both class ified and teacher) for
Albemarle C ounty stand relativ e to the adopted market and arrive at recommendations for next year’s salary
increases.
Step 4: Obtain data on what other organizations are projecting for salary inc reas es for the next fiscal year through a
compensation database (WorldatW ork, Eastern Region). This data is used to project the merit increase
percentage and develop the teacher scale, including step increases.
In March 2004, the Joint Boards adopted compensation strategies for different positions to address competitiveness in
certain areas as follows:
1) Teachers Target market position at top quartile of adopted market.
2) Positions recruited from outside of our adopted market Identify competitive market as the spec ific localities within
our adopted market that may also be competitors for those positions. This subset of our adopted market should
address cost of living issues and target competitive market position. These localities represent areas that are in
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) both above and below Albemarle C ounty in cost of liv ing and currently
include: Hanover C ounty, Loudoun County, City of Charlottesville, Prince W illiam County, Spotsylvania C ounty,
Chesterfield County, City of Chesapeake, James City County, and City of Roanoke.
Section 1: Board Adopted Process for Compensation Strategy: Market A nalysis and Projections
Last year, the initial projections based on the Joint Board adopted process presented in October were to increase the
classified salary scale by 3%, classified merit increase of 4.35 % and fund teacher increases by 4%. However, as our
adopted market c onsists of other localities that were also facing revenue shortfalls, in December and January, staff collected
revised salary projections on their increase amounts. While many localities were unsure as to their salary increase
projec tions, the data indicated that most localities were planning lower salary projection amounts than previously indicated.
Based on that information, the recommendations were revised and adopted as follow s:
1) 2% increase in classified scale.
2) 3.35% merit increase for classified staff.
3) Design teacher scale to meet market and distribute 4.0% along teacher scale.
The follow ing information is provided to both Boards to consider regarding development of the FY0910 budget.
Step 1: FY0809. Survey the market to determine if the scale adjustment implemented for
classified/administrator and teacher pay scales achieved the strategy.
Classified/Administrator Scale Adjustments Target median of adopted market
A c ompetitive scale is important in attracting new hires. For classified employees, the scale adjustment impacts
new hires and any employees with pay rates that might fall below the new minimums. The Albemarle C ounty scale
was adjusted by 2% in FY0809. In reviewing the salary scale data for FY0809, our adopted market’s median scale
adjustment w as 2.5 %. However, we started last year at 0.76 below market, therefore our current scale remains
below market by 1.26 %.
Step 2: FY0809. Survey the market to determine if the total salary increase implemented for classified pay
achieved the strategy.
Classified Total Salary Increases Target median of adopted market
Our salary increase for the FY0809 merit was 3.35%. The median salary increase amount implemented by our
adopted market in FY0809 was 3.63%. H ow ever, we started last year at 0.35 below market, which results in our
0809 salaries remaining below market by 0.63%.
Teacher Scale Adjustments Target top quartile (75th percentile) of adopted market
For teachers, the scale adjus tment impacts actual salaries. Data indicates that our teacher scales are in the top
quartile at the following steps: minimum, 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, and 30 years. Although w e did not quite reach
the top quartile at both T15 and T20, we are very close. This is s hown in Attachment # 2.
Step 3: Projections for FY0910. Based on current market position and scale/salary projections, determine the
changes necessary to achieve the Board approved strategy using the WorldatW ork, Eastern R egion data.
Classified/Administrator Scale Adjustments
The scale adjustment impacts new hires and any employees with pay rates below the new minimums.
Adopted Market Salary Scale Median: 2.5%
Albemarle Scale R elative to Market: 1.26%
WorldatWork projection for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 2.6
FY0910 Recommended scale adjustment: 3%
Classified/Administrator Salary Inc reas e (merit percentage)
Adopted Market Median increase: 3.63%
Albemarle Salary Increase R elative to Market: 0.63 %
WorldatWork projection for Eastern Region (including Virginia): 3.3%
FY0910 Recommended increase: 3.93%
Teacher Scale and Teacher Average Salary Increase
The teacher scale is based on the projected total increase obtained from W orldatWork. This survey projects a 3.3%
salary increase. Any increas e would include the step increase. Our strategy regarding the teacher scale has been
to target $1000 above at minimum. Specific scale recommendations will be brought forth as part of the budget
process.
Section 2: Benefits Strategy: Projections for Medical and Dental Insurance Premiums
The Joint Board adopted benefits strategy is to maintain a benefit program that is slightly above market. As the medical plan
is a critical component of the benefits pack age, the plan design and employee premium levels of our medical plan are
carefully reviewed every year.
FY0809 Plan Year
Medical Our medical insurance costs (both the Board contribution and employee premiums) increased by 8% this year.
The annual Board contribution amount for full time employees is $6648. There were no plan design changes for this plan
year.
D ental Our dental insurance costs (both Board contribution and employee premiums) increased by 6%. The annual Board
contribution amount for full time employees is $238.
FY0910 Plan Year Projections Medical and Dental
Based on claims data and reserve balance, along w ith trend information provided by our benefits consultant, Tom MacKay
w ith Keiter, Slabaugh, Penny & Holme, LLC, our estimated medical cost increase for FY0910 is 12%. Our dental insurance
cost increase is estimated at 5%. As we have just s tarted the new plan year, staff will continue to monitor claims
experience and develop rec ommendations for both plan design and premiums as part of the County Executive's and
Superintendent's budget proposals.
B UDGET IMPACT:
In light of the anticipated revenue shortfall, staff has provided s everal scenarios to be used in determining the degree to
w hich the Total Compensation strategy can be achieved in the FY0910 budget. Projections are inclusive of salary and
benefits.
Classified Employees Merit Increase Local Government School Division
To be provided after Sept payroll
3.93% increase (merit projections included)$1.81 million Still being calculated by School Division
2.93% increase (merit projections included)$1.43 million Still being calculated by School Division
2.00% increase (across the board, no merit projected)$0.85 million Still being calculated by School Division
N ote: Local Government projections maintain frozen positions
Teacher Increase (Step and Scale)To be provided after Sept payroll
3.93%Still being calculated by Sc hool Divis ion
2.93%Still being calculated by Sc hool Divis ion
2.0%Still being calculated by Sc hool Divis ion
R ECOMMENDATIONS:
Please note: Staff is not providing a recommendation at this time. The projections below are based on the Joint Board
process and adopted strategy.
1) 3% increase in the classified salary scale.
2) 3.93% merit increase for class ified staff.
3) Fund teacher increases to reach and/or maintain top quartile (3.3%) to be distributed along the scale.
4) Continuation of a longevity increase for teachers and lump sum merit increase for clas sified employees.
5) Anticipate a 12% increase in medical plan cos ts.
6) Anticipate a 5% increase in dental plan costs.
A TTA CHMENTS:
1 – Competitive Market
2 – Teachers Scale Top Quartile
Return to regular agenda
Albemarle County
Adopted Competitive Market
Augusta County Hanover County
City of Charlottesville James City County
City of Chesapeake Loudoun County
City of Danville Louisa County
City of Harrisonburg Madison County
City of Lynchburg Montgomery County
City of Roanoke Nelson County
City of Staunton Orange County
City of Virginia Beach Prince William County
City of Williamsburg Roanoke County
Buckingham County Rockingham County
Chesterfield County Spotsylvania County
Fauquier County Albemarle County Service Authority
Fluvanna County Martha Jefferson Hospital
Greene County UVA Health Systems
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
2008-2009$35,000$40,000$45,000$50,000$55,000$60,000$65,000$70,000$75,000$80,000$85,000Min5 years10 years15 years20 years25 years30 yearsTop QuartileAlbemarle