HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-07
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIN A L
MARCH 7, 2007
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1 . Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions.
5. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next page).
8. 9:45 a.m. Board to Board, Monthly Communications Report, School B03rd Chairman. (Moved to consent
agenda)
9. 9:50 a.m. - Transportation Matters
a. VDOT Monthly Report.
b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
10. 10:20 a.m. - Sun Ridge Road Improvement Project.
10:40 a.m. - Recess
11. 10:50 a.m. - Crozet Library Parameters.
12. 11:15 a.m. - Proposed Sallyport Design at County Court House, Sheriff Robb and Jim Camblos.
13. 11 :30 a.m. - RWSA Capital Improvement Program Presentation, Tom Frederick.
14. 12:00 p.m. - Closed Session.
15. Certify Closed Session.
16. Appointments.
17. 1:30 p.m. - Recess.
18. 6:00 p.m. - Reconvene.
19. Call to Order.
20. Pledge of Allegiance.
21. Moment of Silence.
22. Recognition:
a. Proclamation - Virginia Festival of the Book.
b. Resolution Honoring Returning Service Men.
23. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the County Executive's FY 2007/2008 Recommended Budget.
24. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
25. Adjourn to March 12,2006, Room 235,1:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: June 7 and July 12, 2006.
7.2 Resolution and letter in support - Crozet Meadows Revitalization and Expansion.
7.3 Bowen Property - Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area Boundary
to provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 55, Parcels 51 and 51A, located in the Crozet Development
Area.
7.4 Requested FY 2007 Appropriations.
7.5 Resolution to accept the realignment of Route 606 (Old Dickerson Road) into the State Secondary Road
System.
7.6 Appeal: SDP-2006-0071. Gillispie Preliminary Site Plan - Critical Slopes waiver/curb and gutter request.
(Applicant requests withdrawal)
FOR INFORMATION:
7.7 Copy of letter dated February 21,2007, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to William Rieley,
Rieley & Associates, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINA TION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map
71, Parcels 14, 15A & 20-White Hall District (Property of L. B. Disharoon LLC) Section 10.3.1.
7.8 Copy of letter dated February 9,2007, from J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places and
National Historic Landmarks Program, to Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, re: Skyline Drive in Shenandoah
National Park, Virginia, designation as a National Historic Landmark.
7.9 Board to Board, Communications report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board, dated March 7,
2007.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervi ors MeetinQ of March 7, 2007
March 9, 2007
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS membl rs were
present. Also present were Bob Tud er, Larry
Davis and MeaQan Hoy.
6. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters
Not Listed on the Agenda.
Dennis Rooker:
. Wanted to make sure the Board had eceived
the letter from Del. Steve Landes, alo hg with
the funding summary for the propose
transportation bill.
Sally Thomas:
. DEQ is installing an air quality monito near
Albemarle High School. David Slutzkw
expressed concern about the location for the
monitor, and said he would like to seE the
information that went into the decisior .
. Habitat for Humanity Building Supply ~tore will
be hosting a series of meetings and e ~ucational
programs on LEED design. Prepare letter for Chairman's signature.
. Board CONSENSUS to send letter to Governor Clerk:
Kaine requesting veto of HB 2128 (HI go)
concerning billboards.
Ken Boyd:
. He would like to give the Board IT embers
the opportunity to speak and mak~
observations and comments on tt e
proposed budget before the publi j.. hearing
begins.
. Discussed the issue of runoff (silt in
neighborhood lakes due to constr uction. Clerk: Schedule on agenda.
Concerns were raised by the ForE st Lakes
Homeowners Association regardi ng fill in
their lakes. CONSENSUS that st W makes
a report on a future agenda to ad ress the
drainage issue.
Bob Tucker:
. National Trust for Historic Presen at ion will
be presenting an award to the Cit I, and the
County at 12:30 p.m. this afterno( n.
6. From the Public: Matters not Listed on thE Agenda.
. Jim Grace, a resident of Forest Lakes , asked
the County for assistance in removing the silt
from their lakes which is caused byal the
construction in the area.
. Jeff Werner, spoke about ongoing iss ~es with
the FAA and Pleasant Grove Church ih
Earlysville. David Slutzky asked the ( ounty
Attorney to look into the assertions m de by Mr.
Werner and present a report to the B( ard.
7.2 Resolution and letter in support - Crozet I ~eadows Clerk: Forward siQned resolution and letter to
1
7.3
Revitalization and Expansion.
. ADOPTED the attached resolution ar d
AUTHORIZED the County Executive 0 sign the
Local CEO Support Letter indicating that the
development will help meet the housi g needs
and priorities of the County and, there fore, the
County supports the applicant's appli( ation for
tax credits.
Bowen Property - Request to amend the ~CSA
Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide w~ter and
sewer service to Tax Map 55, Parcels 51 ~nd 51 A,
located in the Crozet Development Area.
. SET public hearing for April 4, 2007 fl r this
request for public water and sewer service to
Tax Map 55, Parcels 51 and 51A.
· DIRECTED staff to do the necessary esearch
and set a separate public hearing to c esignate
all properties within the designated
Development Area for water and sewer service.
Requested FY 2007 Appropriations.
. APPROVED FY 2007 Appropriation t/2007027,
#2007056,#2007057,#2007058,#2CP7059,
#2007060, and #2007061.
Resolution to accept the realignment of Rbute 606
(Old Dickerson Road) into the State Secohdary
Road System.
. ADOPTED the attached resolution.
Appeal: SDP-2006-0071. Gillispie Prelim nary Site
Plan - Critical Slopes waiver/curb and gut er
request.
. ACCEPTED the applicant's request f< r
withdrawal.
VDOT Monthly Report.
. RECEIVED
Transportation Matters not Listed on the) genda.
Dennis Rooker
· A tree fell across Roslyn Ridge Road ~nd hit
the guardrail. He asked that VDOT re Dair the
guardrail and remove the remaining d~bris.
· Asked that VDoT communicate with tt e County
on proposed transportation bills befor ~ the
General Assembly and their impact to this
locality.
· He received a copy of the transportatipn
funding bill that had gone to the Gove nor, and
he would like to see a summary from VDoT of
how it would affect this locality. Mr. Sumpter
advised that it was premature for him 0
comment on the bill at this time.
David Slutzky
· At Hillsdale and Greenbrier, there is a broken
guardrail.
· Asked who was responsible for the in tallation
of and the upkeep of sidewalk in the u ban
area.
David Wyant
· Asked if a location had been decided bn for the
Advanced Mills BridQe. Mr. Sumptner said
7.4
7.5
7.6
9a.
9b.
2
Ron White to proceed. (Attachment 1)
Clerk: Schedule on April 4m agenda.
Amy Arnold/David Benish: Proceed as
directed.
Clerk: Forward copy of signed appropriation
forms to OMB and Finance, and copy
appropriate individuals.
Clerk: Forward resolution and Form AM-4.3 to
Greg Cooley. (Attachment 2)
Clerk: Forward comments to VDOT.
10.
VDoT is working to decide on one. C rrently
there are five to six possible alignme ts.
. Asked for the advertisement date on t e
preliminary engineering for the Jarma 's Gap
project. Mr. Sumptner said VDoT will let him
know once it is known.
. Asked if the pipe being laid at Jarman s Gap
Road was within the scope of the proj ct. Mr.
Sumptner said he will find out and ge back with
Mr. Wyant.
. Asked if all primary roads in the Coun yand
secondary roads that are eligible hav edge
striping. Mr. Sumptner said all primar roads
are, but only some secondary roads.
Sally Thomas
. At a prior meeting she commented on
Appalachian Power Company debris
their rights of way. She has spoken t one of
their representatives and was inform d that
they only clear debris when the right f way
appears to be tended, otherwise, it is eft as
fallen.
. Thanked VDoT for installing the guar rail in the
area of the park and ride at the Ivy Int rchange.
. Asked for a report on the progress of he Rural
Rustic Roads Program. She noted th t VDoT
has been sending out surveys to pro erty
owners so that they can evaluate the rojects.
. Asked if VDoT is using the Jones & J nes plan
for design of the Meadow Creek Park ay. Mr.
Jack Kelsey said that the basic plans eing
used for right of way acquisition are t e same
plans the Board endorsed approxima Iy two
years ago.
Lindsay Dorrier
· Discussed the traffic study for the B scuit Run
Development. CONSENSUS of Bo rd to
request a copy of the staff report w en it is
sent to the Planning Commission. r.
Rooker said he thinks it would be b neficial to
run a traffic model to show what co pletion
of the Sunset Road Connector woul do for
traffic in that area.
Ken Boyd
· Said he is also anxious to see the
Rustic Road plan. Mr. Sumptner s id VDoT
hopes to map out a plan with goals
targets its April monthly report to th
Alan Sumpter
· Repair to the bridge on Old Ivy Bridg
com lete this week.
Sun Ridge Road Improvement Project.
· APPROVED option number 2, partial oad
extension with drainage Improvement
of $109,700 (Attachment C) with a lit"
turnaround.
Crozet Library Parameters.
· APPROVED, b a vote of 5:1, for
11.
3
Wayne Cilimberq: Provide copy of Biscuit Run
staff report to Board.
OMB: Bring back appropriation form for
approval.
County Executive's office: Proceed as
approved.
a 20,000 square foot library withir the
current budget estimate.
12. Proposed Sallyport Design at County COL rt House. Clerk: Schedule on April 4, 2007 Agenda.
. DEFERRED to April 4th.
13. RWSA Capital Improvement Program Pre ~entation .
. RECEIVED.
14. Closed Session.
. At 1 :01 p.m., the Board went into clos ~d
session to consider appointments to E oards,
Committees, and Commissions, and t J"le
appointment of an administrative posi ion, and
also to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding a matter of probable Iitigati( n relating
to a construction contract, and also to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding specific
matters requiring legal advice relating to an
inter-jurisdictional agreement.
15. Certify Closed Session.
. At 2:45 p.m., the Board reconvened if to open
session and certified the closed sessi pn.
16. Appointments. Clerk: Prepare appointment/reappointment
. APPOINTED Seki Balogun to the Jefl erson letters, update Boards and Commissions book,
Area Board for Aging with said term tl expire update webpage, and notify appropriate
March 31,2009. persons.
. APPOINTED Shirley Copeland to the Jefferson
Area Board for Aging with said term tl expire
March 31,2009.
. APPOINTED Wallace McKeel to the Wefferson
Area Board for Aging with said term tl expire
October 20, 2008.
. REAPPOINTED Richard Lindsay to tl e
Jefferson Area Board for Aging with s ~id term
to expire March 31,2009.
. APPOINTED Leif Riddervold to the N I3tural
Heritage Committee with said term to expire
September 30,2007.
. APPOINTED Phil Stokes to the Natur~1
Heritage Committee with said term to expire
September 30,2007.
. APPOINTED Bryan Elliott as an Assi tant
County Executive, effective April 16, ~ 007.
17. Recess.
. At 2:48 p.m., the Board recessed.
19. Reconvene and Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p. rn. by the
Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS membe rs were
present. Also present were Bob Tuck ~r, Larry
Davis, Ella Carey, and Meaqan Hoy.
22a. Proclamation - Virginia Festival of the Bo I>k. (Attachment 3)
. PRESENTED to Nancy Damon.
22b. Resolution Honoring Returning Service M ~n. (Attachment 4)
. PRESENTED.
23. Public hearing on County Executive's
recommended budget.
. HELD.
24. From the Board: From the Board: Comm ttee
Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Ag ~nda.
4
I
~
. The Board had general discussion on the FY
2007/2008 Budget.
13. Adjourn to March 12, 2006, Room 235, 1: Do p.m.
. The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 I>.m.
/ewc
Attachment 1 - Resolution - Crozet Meadows I~evitalization and Expansion
Attachment 2 - Resolution - Route 606 (Old Di( kerson Road)
Attachment 3 - Proclamation - Virginia Festiva of the Book
Attachment 4 - Resolution Honoring Returning Service Men
5
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle i committed to ensuring that safe, decent, affordable, and
accessible housing is available for all residents; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle i committed to improving the livability of all neighborhoods
and access to support services by residents; an
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to preserving existing and promoting the
development of new affordable housing stock; nd
WHEREAS, the Jordan Developmen Corporation is applying for Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits to renovate 28 existing and construct 3 new low-income elderly rental units at The Meadows in
Crozet; and
WHEREAS, all proposed units in the d velopment will be restricted to households with incomes
at or below 60 percent of the area median inco e; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County ice of Housing proposes the use of Housing Choice
Vouchers to provide project-based assistance f r up to eight units with household incomes below 40% of
the area median income.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL ED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
supports the commitment of eight project-bas d vouchers to provide rental assistance for households
with income below 40 percent of the area medi n income.
6
ATTACHMENT 2
The Board of County Supervisors of Alt emarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day
of March 2007, adopted the following resolution
II> E SOL UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, Old Dickerson Road (ROI te 606) as described on the attached Additions Form AM-
4.3 dated March 7, 2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle Countv. Wirainia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for he Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\I'ED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportstion add Old Dickerson Road (Route 606), due to the
developer's relocation of the roadway, as descr bed on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated March
7, 2007, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ~oard guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easerhents for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certifieb copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transp( rtation.
7
ATTACHMENT 3
VIRGINIA F STIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS,
Albemarle County is committe to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling within and
outside its borders; and
WHEREAS,
our devotion to literacy and our upport of literature has attracted over 1,000 writers and tens
of thousands of readers to our RGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS,
the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF T, E BOOK celebrates the power of books and publishing; and
WHEREAS,
businesses, cultural and civic 0 anizations, and individuals have contributed to the ongoing
success of the VIRGINIA FESTI 'AL OF THE BOOK; and
hair man, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 through Sunday, March 25,
WHEREAS,
the citizens of the County of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE OK the best book festival in the country;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Kenneth C. Boyd,
Supervisors, do hereby proclai
2007 as the Thirteenth Annual
VIRGINIA F STIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage ommunity members to participate fully in the wide range of
available events nd activities.
8
ATTACHMENT 4
R '-SOLUTION
"Honoring the heroic service of
Ralei~h L. Anderson
for his participation, d~dication, courage and sacrifice
upon his retu n from military service"
WHEREAS, Raleigh selflessly gave of himsell and displayed dedication and devotion to his family and
friends, his country, state and surrounding community; and
WHEREAS, the dedication and sacrifices whict Raleigh exercised in this ongoing military effort will never
be forgotten; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle wishe~ to convey its respect and recognition to all of those
courageous county employees who ha\ e faced the opposition in the name of freedom not only for
our country, but around the world; and
WHEREAS, all veterans deserve our gratitu~e and praise for their selfless sacrifices, service and
commitment to duty on behalf of their c ~untry and fellow citizens; and
WHEREAS, the significance of what the men and women of the armed forces have provided for the
citizens of this nation should never be Llnderstated; and
WHEREAS, we will never forget all of the v'f3/iant men and women who still are risking their lives,
foregoing their own freedom and happiJ ess, in order to allow us to safely enjoy our liberty;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby honors and extends is deepest gratitude for the heroic service of Raleigh L.
Anderson in recognition of his courage( us military service.
9
I was at restaurant the other ay and noticed they were giving away
a free lunch. Wouldn't it be ice if you could offer county
taxpayers a free lunch! There is no such thing as a free lunch.
It is your task to fund the nee s of the county. The decisions made
at the federal level impact yo r task. The decisions made at the
state level impact your task. he decisions you have made in the
past impact your task.
Nevertheless, it is your task, 0 fund the needs of the county. And,
don't forget, the decisions yo make this year will impact your task
next year.
An over-reliance on rising re I estate assessments has been your
free lunch. Only it wasn't fre after all. I am pleased to see
conservation easements cove ing substantial portions of the
county, but did you plan on h w to make up the lost revenues?
Development continues, but id you plan how to pay for the
increased needs for services?
Real estate values are predict d to level out, NCLB performance
standards increase yearly. Yo r task will get more difficult every
year. And, don't forget, the d cisions you make this year will
impact your task next year.
Yes, the federal government eeds to fully fund NCLB. Yes, the
state needs to do its share. An , yes it's your task to find the
revenue.
I watched as the school super'ntendent, staff, and board members,
carefully weighed and reweig ed needs against allotted revenues.
The living wage initiative did 't survive the process. They have
sent you a bare bones budget. At a minimum, you need to fully
fund this budget. The last ite added was a restoration of $492,714
for teacher salaries. If you cut their budget, that will likely be the
first to go.
So let's talk about teachers fI r a minute. The average VA teacher
works 50 hours a week. Loo at our results, or do a driveby, that is
drive by an elementary schoo on a Sunday afternoon, and I think
you will see that Albemarle t achers are above average.
Nevertheless, use that figure f 50 hours during the school year,
with no paid time off, and co pare it to a 40-hour year-round
employee with the typical paid holidays. Teachers put in 15 more
days per year than the typical full time employee. The county's
compensation goal of paying at the bottom of the top quartile, of a
flawed market sample, doesn t reflect the work we do or the
successes we have.
I recently talked to a first yea teacher in the county who took a
$30,000 dollar per year pay c t to enter the teaching profession.
$30,000. We are lucky to hav her. I wonder ifher enthusiasm will
last when it sinks in that after 30 years of teaching, she will be
making less than she was at h r previous job in retail automotive
service here in Charlottesvill !
If you really believe in the sc 001 board goal of becoming a world-
class school system, your tas is to fund the schools full budget
request this year, and be prep red to do the even more next year.
Steve gissendanner
434 985 3446 home
434 227 9563 cell
sgissend@k 12albemarle.org
President Albemarle Educati n Association
Crozet Libr ry Project
March 7, 2007
Issues to Dis uss
· Mixed Use D sign of Library
· Total Square ootage of
Library
· Potential Ph sing of the
Library Canst uction
· Budget Impa ts
· Next Steps
Cr zet Library Project
1
Potential of Mixed Use
· Potential be efits were
outweighed y concerns
focusing on ost,
complexity nd timeline
· A mixed use omponent is
provided by urrounding
infrastructure
· Temporary c mplementary
uses are pos ible if space
permits
C zet Library Project
Square Faa age Requirements
· Service Area definition
- Service area was
determined ased on library
standard of ix-mile radius
Cr zet Library Project
2
;>
3
Square Faa age Requirements
· Service Area definition
- Service are was
determined based on library
standard of ix-mile radius
· Projected P pulation
- Service are population was
projected b sed on several
scenarios
· Ultimate 20, 00 sq ft library
under a pha ed approach
is justified
Potential P
C Olet Library Project
· Construct 1 5 000 sq ft now
with planne expansion
between 20 7 and 2030
· Construct 20,000 sq ft now
and use extr space for
community uses until library
expansion is ecessary
Cr zet Library Project
4
Budget 1m acts
· CIP currently f nds a 15,000 sq
ft library
· JMRL has agreed to a funding
partnership of pproximately
$1.6 million to upport a 20,000
sq ft initial buil ing
· This funding p rtnership would
account for al but $129,406
necessary for 0,000 sq ft
building
C ozet Library Project
Recommendation
· Construct th 20,000 sq ft
building up font
· Use extra sp ce for
temporary c mpatible
community use until it is
needed for Ii rary
· Majority of a ditional cost
to be offset y library
commitment and savings
realized by a aided future
inflated build ng costs
5
Next Steps
· Schedule
· Required Ap roval Process
· Public Partici ation
· Future Board Issues
C Olet Library Project
6
COUNTY F ALBEMARLE
EXECUT VE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Meadows Revitalization and Expansion
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to support project-based vouchers to
provide local financial commitment; authorization for
letter in support of project
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Davis, Mr. White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
--
BACKGROUND:
The Meadows, located in Crozet and owned by Jorda Development Corp., currently consists of 28 housing units
designated for seniors. The existing financing for the pro erty through Rural Development (formerly the Farmer's Home
Administration) provides rental subsidies to 27 of the 28 u its. The owner proposes to transfer the ownership from Jordan
Development to Crozet Meadows, LP for the purpose of pplying for federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (L1HTC) in
order to rehabilitate the existing units and to construct 3 new units on the site. Jordan Development will be the general
partner in the LP. The Virginia Housing Development Au hority (VHDA), as the administrator of L1HTC, is required by the
Internal Revenue Service to provide localities an opportu ity to comment on developments under consideration for L1HTC.
Favorable comments supporting the application receiv the highest number of points in that category. In addition,
applicants for L1HTC may receive additional points for th ir project if there is local financial support.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Re idents
DISCUSSION:
The property currently known as The Meadows was rezo ed in 2004 to permit the expansion of the project. The rezoning
allows for an additional 38 by-right units. A prelimina site development plan, submitted in January 2007, has been
reviewed by Community Development. No major issues ave been identified, and it is not anticipated to require any review
or approval by the Planning Commission or the Board 0 Supervisors.
The owners have received approval from Rural Develop ent to expand the project with Rural Development continuing to
provide rental assistance to 27 of the existing units. The wner has requested that Albemarle County commit up to eight
project-based vouchers for rental assistance, with seven esignated to support newly-created units. All of the vouchers will
be restricted to those households with incomes below 40 0 of the area median income. The value of these vouchers over
a ten-year period is estimated to be approximately $48 ,000, which is recognized as a local financial commitment. A
resolution is attached for your consideration (Attach men A).
VHDA provided a form letter (Attachment B) that allows j risdictions to support the applicant's application for L1HTC. The
County's housing policy includes a number of recomme ded strategies that are relative to this project including
. Supporting projects seeking L1HTC
. Preserving existing affordable housing
This project will improve 28 existing units of affordable r ntal housing and create 38 new units with rents controlled for a
minimum of fifteen years by the IRS.
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Meadows Revitalization and Expansion
March 7, 2007
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
No impact on local funding. The commitment of project- ased vouchers is conditioned upon continued annual funding
from HUD for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt t e attached resolution that will allow for the commitment of up to
eight project-based vouchers once the development is c mpleted. In addition, staff recommends that the Board authorize
the County Executive to sign the Local CEO Support L tter indicating that the development will help meet the housing
needs and priorities of the County and, therefore, the C unty supports the applicant's application for tax credits.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Resolution to Support the Commitment of Project-b sed Vouchers
B - Local CEO Support Letter
Attachment A
RE OLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemar e is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is availab e for all residents; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemar e is committed to improving the livability of all
neighborhoods and access to support service by residents; and
WHEREAS, The County of Albern Ie is committed to preserving existing and
promoting the development of new affordab e housing stock; and
WHEREAS, the Jordan Developme t Corporation is applying for Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits to renovate 28 existing and con ruct 38 new low-income elderly rental units at The
Meadows in Crozet; and
WHEREAS, all proposed units in t development will be restricted to households with
incomes at or below 60% of the area media income; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County ffice of Housing proposes the use of Housing
Choice Vouchers to provide project-based a sistance for up to eight units with household
incomes below 40% of the area median inco e.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES L VED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors supports the commitment of eig t project-based vouchers to provide rental
assistance for households with income belo 40% of the area median income.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify t at the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the County Board of Supervisor of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting
held March 7, 2007.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Ave Nav
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Domer
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Attachment B
Local CEO Support Letter
Ma ch 7,2007
TO: Virginia Housing Development Authprity
601 South Belvidere Street
Richmond, Virginia 23220-6500
Attention: Jim Chandler
RE: LOCAL SUPPORT
VHDA Tracking Number:
Name of Development:
Name of Owner/Applicant:
2007-2 -38
Crazet Meadows
Crozet Meadows LP
The construction or rehabilitation of trozet Meadows and the allocation of federal
housing tax credits available under IRC Sec ion 42 for that development will help meet the
housing needs and priorities of ALBEMARJI--E COUNTY. Accordingly, Albemarle County
supports the allocation of federal housing ta credits requested by Crozet Meadows, LP for that
development.
Yours truly,
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
COUNTY F ALBEMARLE
EXECU
AGENDA TITLE:
Bowen Property - Request to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Request for public hearing to amend the Jurisdictional
Area Boundary to provide water and sewer service to
Tax Map 55, Parcels 51 and 51A, located in the
Crozet Development Area.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: x
INFORMATION:
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
REVIEWED BY:
~/'"'"
/~
i
STAFF CONTACTlS}:
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Benish; Ms. Arnold
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area d signation for water and sewer service to two parcels totaling an
approximately 2.048 acres located on the north side of ailroad Avenue (Route 788) at its intersection with Buck Road
(Route 789) along the northernmost boundary of the Cr zet Development Area. (Attachment A) The property is located
within the designated Crozet Development Area, in the hite Hall Magisterial District. The parcels are currently designated
"water only to existing structures." Given the location of e parcels within the Crozet Development Areas, and because of
a failing drain field, the applicant has requested to conn ct to public water and sewer. The requested connections would
be consistent with County utility policies. The properties djacent and to the north of the subject parcels are located in the
Rural Areas and are not currently served by public wat r and sewer. The properties across Railroad Avenue from the
subject parcels are located in the Crozet Development A ea and are designated for public water and sewer service. Near-
by parcels 46B and 49 are also located within the Devel pment Area, but are currently designated "water only to existing
structures". (Attachment B.) The Crozet Development rea drains into Lickinghole Creek which is located entirely within
the South Fork Rivanna River water supply watershed.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2.2 Increase the quality, supply, and protection of the C unty's water resources.
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of t e Crozet Development Area. Water supply in Crozet is provided
by the Beaver Creek Reservoir; wastewater service is cu rently being provided through the Crozet Interceptor and Moores
Creek Treatment Plant. The Comprehensive Plan pro ides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer
service to the Development Areas:
"General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, nd Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 114)."
"Provide water and sewer service only to areas ithin the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130)."
"Follow the boundaries of the designated Devel pment Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130)."
The Comprehensive Plan recommends serving the De elopment Areas with public water and sewer service. These
parcels are located within the Crozet Development Area, so designating them as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for
public water and sewer service would align with County olicy.
AGENDA TITLE:
Bowen Property - Request to amend the Albemarle Co nty Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
March 7, 2007
Page 2
Staff notes that while most of this part of the Crozet Dev lopment Area is designated for water and sewer service, there are
some parcels in the area with restricted designations or re not included in the Jurisdictional Area. In the future the Board
may want to consider amending the Jurisdictional Area t designate all properties within the designated Development Area
for water and sewer service.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner will bear the costs for water and se
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility ca acity should be reserved to support development of designated
Development Areas. Since this property is located withi a designated Development Area, the provision of both water and
sewer service to the property would be consistent wit the Comprehensive Plan public utility policy. Therefore, staff
recommends the Board of Supervisors set a public heari g date of April 4, 2007, for this request for public water and sewer
service to Tax Map 55, Parcels 51 and 51A. Furtherm re, staff recommends the Board direct staff to do the necessary
research and set a separate public hearing to designate all properties within the designated Development Area for water
and sewer service.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Bowen ACSA JA request Attachment A; context
B - Bowen ACSA JA Attachment B; JA desiqnations
Legend
Note: This mop is for display purpo es only and shows parcels as of 12/31/2004. See Map Book Introduction for additional details.
Aerial Imagery 2002 Copyright Commonwealth of VlTginia
_ Development Areas
L~-.J Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
o
900
1,800
3,600
5,400
Feet
7,200
J " ..~
I" ~'r
; ih:i'il ,<"'f.
~~- ~~- ~
1.)~
~.:
Bowen Property Tax Map 55, Parcel 51 and 51A
es only and shows parcels as of 12/31/2004. See Map Book Introductionfor additional details.
Aerial Imagery 2002 Copyright Commonwealth of Virginia
Feet
3,040
Legend
-'-'w
i. , _ , .; Development Areas
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
No Service
_ Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Structures
Limited Service
- Waterlines
...... Sewerlines
o
380
760
1,520
2,280
" ~~
i int,!1 '(1
-. ~- 4"~:" ,J
~ ""-'" l~,
.~~C-~
...:!..l>l.
Bowen Property Tax Map 55, ParcelS] and 51A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Requested FY2007 Appropriations
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2007
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriations #2007027,
#2007056,#2007057,#2007058,#2007059,
#2007060, and #2007061 totaling $201,946.23 for
the various local government and school.
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Breeden, Wiggans;
Ms. White
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Code of Virginia ~ 15.2-2507 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. However, any such amendment which
exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is
lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the
budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining,
etc.
The total of this requested FY 2007 appropriation is $201 ,946.23. It is anticipated that a budget amendment public hearing
will be proposed in April 2007 and these appropriations would be incorporated into it.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of seven (7) new FY 2007 appropriations as follows:
· Two (2) appropriations (#2007027 and #2007059) totaling $15,487.05 for grants received by the Commission on
Children and Families;
· Two (2) appropriations (#2007056 and #2007058) totaling $170,809.52 for various Education programs and
grants;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007057) provides $50,000.00 for funding of the Regional Transit Authority Plan from the
Board's contingency;
· One (1) appropriation (#2007060) in the amount of $18,105.00 for a Police Department grant; and
· One (1) appropriation (#2007061) to refund $2,080.66 insurance proceeds to Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company.
A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Appropriation #2007027, #2007056, #2007057, #2007058, #2007059,
#2007060, and #2007061.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Proposed Appropriations
Attachment A
Appropriation #2007027
$ 3,810.05
Revenue Source:
State Revenue
$ 3,810.05
The Commission on Children and Families, as fiscal agent for the Foothills Child Advocacy Center, has received
a grant in the amount of $3,810.05 to purchase the NCA Trak case tracking system. This system will assist in
compiling an efficient and accurate case tracking system to ensure service implementation and accurate record
keeping. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2007056
$18,900.00
Revenue Source:
Local Revenues (Donations/Grants)
$ 18,900.00
At its meeting on January 25, 2007 the School Board approved the following appropriation requests:
Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $12,800.00 from the Brownsville PTO. It
has been requested that this donation go towards the purchase of any instructional supplies needed at
Brownsville Elementary School.
Albemarle High School has received a donation in the amount of $150.00 from Mr. and Mrs. Scott Goodman.
This donation was made to defray the costs of a new teleprompter for the Broadcasting Department at
Albemarle High School.
The Albemarle County Public Schools has received a grant award from the Knights of Virginia Assistance for the
Retarded (KOVAR) in the amount of $5,950.00 for FY2006-07. This grant will facilitate a training program for
students with mental retardation to increase the knowledge capacity of these students to use public
transportation in order to access employment opportunities in our community.
Appropriation #2007057
$ 50,000.00
Revenue Source:
Board Contingency
$ 50,000.00
At its meeting on February 14, 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved the County's participating in funding for
the Regional Transit Authority Plan. The request is a one-time cost of $50,000.00 for the County with $5,000.00
used as a local match for a grant and an additional $45,000.00 to complete the identified scope of work.
Funding will be appropriated from the Board of Supervisors' contingency.
Appropriation #2007058
$151 ,909.52
Revenue Source:
Local Revenues (Grants/Donations)
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
School Special Revenue Fund Balance
$102,489.00
$ 8,866.00
$ 23,755.05
$ 16,799.47
The Teaching American History Grant is based on a partnership of five public school systems in central Virginia
(Charlottesville City, Albemarle, Madison, Orange and Greene Counties). The City of Charlottesville is the fiscal
agent and Albemarle County Schools will seek reimbursement for salary and compensation expenses incurred
in the amount of $89,689.00. The purpose of this grant is to create a sustainable, long-term project that will
become a model to share both teaching strategies and content-based activities as well as inform future historical
projects.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made grant awards to several Albemarle County Schools. Teacher
Incentive Grants were made to Hollymead Elementary in the amount of $1 ,786.00, Murray Elementary in the
amount of $300.00, Stony Point Elementary in the amount of $4,500.00, Wood brook Elementary in the amount
of $530.00, Monticello High School in the amount of $300.00 and Western Albemarle High School in the amount
of $300.00. These programs will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for
students with performing, visual and musical arts.
The Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded a Touring Grant to Hollymead Elementary School in the
amount of $1,150.00. This grant will assist with funding a Theatre IV performance.
The Henley Middle School Cultural Enrichment Program, formally the Frederick S. Upton Foundation Grant, has
received a grant donation from JP Morgan Company in the amount of $5,800.00. This donation will support
Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in funding artists-in-residence programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic
Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences for
students with performing, visual and musical arts.
Albemarle County Schools received additional funds from the Department of Education for Emergency Impact
Aid for students enrolled in our school division who were displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for FY06/07
in the amount of $23,755.05. The funds will be used to pay compensation of personnel, acquiring curricular
material and classroom supplies, providing basic instructional services and supporting services for displaced
students. There is also a local fund balance from FY05/06 in the amount of $16,799.47 and may be
reappropriated for FY06/07.
The Freas Foundation has awarded Jack Jouett Middle School with a grant in the amount of $7,000.00. These
grant funds will be used to purchase devices such as: laptops, SMART boards, digital cameras, still cameras,
document cameras and portable voting systems for classroom use. These devices will allow the school to
engage student learning through technology and assist with accomplishing specific goals.
Appropriation #2007059
$11.667.00
Revenue Source:
Local Revenues (Community Attn.)
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
$ 1,667.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 5,000.00
The Department of Criminal Justice has awarded the Commission on Children and Families a grant in the
amount of $5,000.00 in Federal funds and $5,000.00 in State funds, with a local match of $1 ,667.00 for a total
award of $11 ,667.00. This grant will be used to provide 200 service-learning sessions for 48 weeks for youth
who are at risk of gang involvement. The local match will be funded by the Community Attention agency.
Appropriation #2007060
$ 18.105.00
Revenue Source:
Local Revenues (Transfer from Police) $ 4,526.00
Federal Revenues $13,579.00
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in
the amount of $13,579.00 with a local match of $4,526.00 for a total award of $18,105.00. This grant will be
used to increase the recruiting and hiring of qualified police officers and will be accomplished through the
selection and training of a police recruiter, development materials, and participate in up to ten job fairs and
recruiting events in Virginia. The object is to increase the number of female, minority and bilingual police
officers. The local match will be provided through funds appropriated in the existing Police Department budget
and will require no additional local funding.
Appropriation #2007061
$ 2.080.66
Revenue Source:
General Fund Balance
$ 2,080.66
In May 2006, the County received an insurance reimbursement check in the amount of $3,561.66 for damage to
equipment at Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company as a result of a power surge. Of this amount, $1,821.00 was
for equipment used primarily by ACFR career staff and the remaining $2,080.66 was for equipment owned by
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company. Since the reimbursement check was receive,d in the previous fiscal year,
an appropriation is required from fund balance to reimbursement this amount to Stony Point.
The Board of County Supervisors of~lbemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
7th day of March 2007, adopted the follow ng resolution:
RE~ OLUTION
WHEREAS, Old Dickerson Road Route 606} as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated March 7, 2007, fully ncorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virainia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Enginee for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet tt e requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Reauirements of the Virginia Department ( f Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation add Old Dickerson Road (Route 606), due to
the developer's relocation of the roadway, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3
dated March 7,2007, to the secondary sys em of state highways, pursuant to 933.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reauirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that tt e Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necess ary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certifi ed copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Tnansportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
*****
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1 ) Old Dickerson Road {State Route 606l tram Route 743to .38 miles north at Route
743, as shown on plat record~d 06/07/2006, in the office the Clerk at Circuit Court
at Albemarle County, in Dee~ Book 3215, page 206, with a 60-toot right-at-way
width, tor a length at 0.38 mil~s.
Total Mileage - 0.38
De
ment
To:
From:
Division:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisor
Greg Cooley, Roads Engineer
Inspections
Date: February 26, 2007
Subject: Board Agenda - March 7, 2007
Road Resolution for Realignment ofR .606
-4.3 for the following roads:
Attached is the original of Additions Form
Realignment of Route 606
· Old Dickerson Road (State Route 606)
We would like to have this included on the Bo rd's March 7, 2007 agenda so that a resolution can be
adopted requesting VDoT add these roads into he secondary system of state highways.
If additional information is needed, please do n t hesitate to contact me.
Attachments
RESOLUTION DENYING CRIT CAL SLOPES WAIVER FOR PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT ON T MAP AND PARCEL NUMBERS
061KO-IOO-OO-OOOAO 061KO-IO-OO-OOOA2 (GILLISPIE)
WHEREAS, Brian B. Gillispie and Jenn fer M. Gillispie are the owners of the parcels identified as
Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 061KO-100-00-00 AO and 061KO-10-00-000A2 (hereinafter, the "Property");
WHEREAS, the Gillispies have a pendi g site plan (SDP-2006-071) proposing to construct a total
of seven condominium units on the Property that isturb a significant amount of the critical slopes on the
Property;
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code 9 8-4.2.3.2 prohibits any structure, improvement or earth
disturbing activity to establish a structure or impr vement on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater,
with limited exceptions not applicable in this cas ;
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code 9 8-4.2.5 authorizes the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors to waive of the prohibition of dev lopment on critical slopes upon consideration of the critical
slopes factors delineated in Albemarle County C de 9 18-4.2, and the findings being made under Albemarle
County Code 9 l8-4.2.5(b); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission onsidered and denied the Gillispies' request for a critical
slopes waiver at its December 12,2006 meeting, hereupon the Gillispies appealed that decision to the
Board of Supervisors which considered the matte at its February 7, 2007 and March 7, 2007 meetings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL D, that the Board of Supervisors denies the critical slopes
waiver for the proposed development on the Prop rty because it deems it not in the public interest and it is
unable to make any of the findings set forth in Al emarle County Code 9 l8-4.2.5(b) that are required to be
made in order to approve a critical slopes waiver, and the Board sets forth its reasons as follows:
1. The Board finds that the strict ap lication of the requirements of Albemarle County Code 9
18-4.2, rather than the granting of a critical slope waiver, would forward the purposes of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance and serve the public s ety and welfare. With respect to the movement of soil and
rock and the siltation of natural and man-made b dies of water that may result from the disturbance of
critical slopes, the intensive development of the operty would require that necessary drainage measures be
located within five (5) feet of the adjacent prope ies, thereby preventing adequate on-site perimeter erosion
and sediment control measures from being provi d to protect the neighboring properties. With respect to
the excessive storm water runoff that may result fr m the disturbance of critical slopes, the Gillispies failed to
adequately address this issue, which is a different issue from stormwater management under the Water
Protection Ordinance. The volume of water that ould be discharging from the Property and onto adjacent
properties would be increased because of: (i) the ntensive development of the Property and the resulting
impervious surface; and (ii) the proposed stormw ter management facility for the Property would create a
concentrated flow from a 30-inch pipe that woul flow directly onto an adjacent property.
The Board also finds that the Gillispies roposed no alternatives that would satisfy the purposes of
Albemarle County Code 9 18-4.2 to at least an eq ivalent degree.
2. The Board finds that the Prope contains none of the unusual physical conditions
delineated in Albemarle County Code 9 18-4.2.5( )(2). Requiring the Gillispies to satisfy the requirements
of Albemarle County Code 9 18-4.2 by not appro ing a critical slopes waiver would not effectively prohibit
or unreasonably restrict the use of the Property a d would not result in significant degradation ofthe site or
adjacent properties. Parcel06lKO-100-00-000A already has a single family dwelling on it. Parcel06lKO-
10-00-000A2 contains areas that are not in critic a slopes and, if the parcel was created prior to December 10,
1980, the establishment of the first single family dwelling on the parcel is exempt from the critical slopes
requirements as provided in Albemarle County Code S 18-4.2.6(b). In addition, as explained in Findings 1
and 3, adhering to Albemarle County Code S 18-4.2 would reduce the degradation to adjacent properties.
3. The Board finds that granting the waiver would not serve a public purpose of greater import
than would be served by strict application of Albemarle County Code S 18-4.2. Granting the waiver would
allow the Property to be developed so intensely that adequate on-site perimeter erosion and sediment control
measures could not be provided to protect neighboring properties, and the excessive stormwater runoff could
not be adequately addressed on-site to prevent degradation of adjacent properties. The Property could be less
intensely developed so that if a critical slopes waiver was required for a less intensive development, the
design of the Property could allow the criteria under Albemarle County Code S 18-4.2, including movement
of soil and rock, siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water, and excessive storm water runoff, to be
better addressed.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy ofa Resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of _ to _, as recorded below, at
a meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Ave Nav
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Domer
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
2
COUNTY F ALBEMARLE
Department of C mmunity Development
401 McIntir Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
February 21, 2007
William Rieley
Rieley & Associates
P. O. Box 2367
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Fax (434) 972-4126
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF P RCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS --
Tax Map 71, Parcels 14, 15A & 20 Whit hall Magisterial District (Property of L. B.
Disharoon LLC) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Rieley:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advi ory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 71, Parcel 14 has five (5) theore ical development rights; Tax Map 71, Parcel
15A has two (2) theoretical development ights. Tax Map 71, Parcel 20 is comprised of
two (2) separate parcels; A and B. Parcel is the portion of Parcel 20 derived from the
96-acre parcel described in Deed Book 1 8, page 188. Parcel B is the portion of Parcel
20 derived from the 42.25-acre parcel de cribed in Deed Book 126, page 242. Each of
these parcels has up to five (5) developm nt rights based on the size and availability of
building sites. The original parcels are sh wn on Sketch #1 and the 2 separate parcels
comprising Parcel 20 are shown on Sketc #2. The basis for this determination follows.
Our records indicate Tax Map 71, Parcel 4 contains 41.875 acres and 1 dwelling and
is in the Whitehall Magisterial District. Th property is not in an Agricultural and Forestal
District. The most recent recorded instru ent for this property is recorded in Deed Book
3305, page 110.
Our records indicate Tax Map 71, Parcel 5A contains 5.000 acres and zero dwellings
and is in the Whitehall Magisterial District. The property is not in an Agricultural and
Forestal District. The most recent recorde instrument for this property is recorded in
Deed Book 3305, page 110.
Our records indicate Tax Map 71, Parcel 0 contains 42.361 acres and zero dwellings
and is in the Whitehall Magisterial District. The property is not in an Agricultural and
Forestal District. The most recent recorde instrument for this property is recorded in
Deed Book 3305, page 110. The parcel is subject to ZMA 1968-16.
1:\DEPT\BCZS\Delermin of Parcel\2007\71- 14, 15A & 20 Dish roon LLC LOD-2006-45.doc
William Rieley
February 21, 2007
Page 2
Tax Map 71 , Parcel 14
The most recent instrument for Tax Map 1, Parcel 14 recorded prior to the adoption of
the Zoning Ordinance, December 10, 198 ,is recorded in Deed Book 282, page 15,
and is dated December 15, 1948. The de d conveyed 45.75 acres from Elizabeth D.
Foster, J. W. Foster & Janie E. Foster an Daisy F. Wood & William L. Wood to A. D.
Foster. The property is described on a pia by John T. E. Sims, S. A. C. that is dated
November 26, 1897 that is recorded with his deed. Based on this deed, the 45.75-
acre parcel is determined to be a parc I of record with five development rights.
Tax Map 71 , Parcel15A
The most recent instrument for Tax Map 1, Parcel15A recorded prior to the adoption
of the Zoning Ordinance, December 10, 1 80, is recorded in Deed Book 288, page 369,
and is dated April 4, 1950. The deed con yed 5 acres from Lucien Pugh and Eva Ann
Pugh to A. D. Foster. The property is des ribed by metes and bounds and by reference
to Deed Book 267, page 210. Based on t is deed, the 5-acre parcel is determined to
be a parcel of record Parcel with two d velopment rights.
Tax Map 71 , Parcel 20
This analysis for Tax Map 71, Parcel 20 b gins with Deed Book 282, page 83 that is
dated January 4, 1949. The deed convey d 50 acres from Nannie K. Cook, Roy S.
Cook & Virgie Via Cook and C. Granville oak & Julia B. Cook to A. D. Foster. The
property is described by reference to the djoining parcels and Virgin Run Creek. It is
further described as being a portion of the 96-acre tract conveyed by Deed Book 118,
page 188 and as a portion of the 42.25-a re tract conveyed by Deed Book 126, page
242.
Deed Book 118, page 188, dated J Iy 31, 1900, conveyed 96 acres from Martha
A. Tomlin to Nannie K. Cook. The roperty is described as lying on the old road
in Albemarle County about 2 miles orth of Batesville and as being the same
land conveyed to Martha A. Tomlin by Jannett and Nancy Baber. The parcel is
designated as Parcel 28 on Map 3 -165, the 1936 aerial map.
Deed Book 125, page 242, dated pril 1, 1903, conveyed 42.5 acres from R. A.
H. Foster and Sallie Foster to C. C. Cook. The parcel is described by metes and
bounds. County real estate records contain a sketch based on the metes and
bounds description.
Based on this deed, the 50-acre parcel s determined to be comprised of two
separate parcels- the portion of the 96- cre parcel located north of Virgin Run
Creek and the portion of the 42.5-acre arcellocated north of Virgin Run Creek.
These parcels are shown on attached ketch #2
The most recent instrument for Tax Map 71, Parcel 20 recorded prior to the adoption of
the Zoning Ordinance, December 10, 198 ,is a Deed of Exchange between Judith
1:\DEPT\BCZS\Delermin of Parcel\2007\71- 14, 15A & 20 Dish roon LLC LOD-2006-45.doc
William Rieley
February 21, 2007
Page 3
Barczy Gyurky and A. D. Foster & Vada . Foster that is recorded in Deed Book 607,
page 198, and is dated October 11, 1976. The transaction is shown on a plat by
Thomas D. Blue dated August 17, 1976. he plat shows Parcel "X", containing 4.403
acres, a portion of Parcel 20, identified as the Foster Tract and Parcel "yn containing
4.953 acres, a portion of Parcel 22, the G urky Tract. The resulting acreage is not
provided on the plat. Based on this dee ,each of the resulting parcels, including
Parcel "X," (portions of the 42.5 and
96-acre parcel described above) has u to five development rights. Each of these
development rights must be associate with a minimum of 2 acres containing a
building site. The actual location and a reage must be established in order to
determine the certain number of devel pment rights.
Subsequent Transactions
Deed Book 865, page 307, dated Decem er 20,1985, contains a Certificate of Plat.
The plat by Gary M. Whelan, dated Dece ber 20, 1985 shows the land of A. D. Foster,
Parcels 14, 15A & 20, containing a total 0 93.111 acres. The survey did not serve to
combine the parcels.
Deed Book 906, page 743, dated Octobe 27,1986, conveyed 3.875 acres from Betsy
Foster Jones, Executrix of the Estate of V da C. Foster to William H. Dollins and
Charlotte W. Dollins. The transaction is s own on a plat by Gary M. Whelan, dated
October 2, 1986. The plat states that the arcel is a portion of Parcel 14 to be added to
Parcel 13 on Tax Map 71. The residue is hown to be 89.236 acres. The plat notes that
no development rights are transferred wit the 3.875-acre parcel. It is determined that
this transaction did not serve to combi e the three subject parcels.
Deed Book 950, page 340, dated July 3, 987, conveyed 3 parcels from Betsy Foster
Craig, Executrix of the Estate of Vada C. oster to Carolyn Pali Delevitt. The property is
described as being comprised of Tax Ma 71, Parcels 14, 15A and 20, containing in the
aggregate 89.235 acres, shown as 93.11 acres shown on a plat by Gary M. Whelan,
dated December 20, 1985 recorded with Certificate of Plat in Deed Book 865, page
307. The property is further described, in art, as being the residue of the following
tracts:
Tax Map 71, Parcel 14, containing 5.75 acres and described by reference to
Deed Book 282, page 15, less the ff-conveyance of 3.875 acres described by
reference to Deed Book 906, page 743. The parcel is further described by
reference to the plat of record in D ed Book 865, page 307.
Tax Map 71, Parcel 15A, containin 5 acres and described by reference to Deed
Book 288 page 369.
Tax Map 71, Parcel 20, containing 0 acres and described by reference to Deed
Book 282 page 83 as modified by t e Deed of Exchange shown on the plat of
record in Deed Book 607, page 19 .
1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\2007\71- 14, 15A & 20 Dish roon LLC LOD-2006-45.doc
William Rieley
February 21, 2007
Page 4
This transaction had no effect on the
Deed Book 1140, page 630, dated Janua 15, 1991, conveyed three parcels from
Carolyn Pali Delevitt to John V. Rindlaub. The property is described as containing
89.235 acres in the aggregate and as bei g the same as was conveyed by the deed of
record in Deed Book 950, page 340. Thi transaction had no effect on the size or
the development rights of the parcels.
Deed Book 3305, page 110, dated Octob r 3, 2006, conveyed three parcels from John
V. Rindlaub to L. B. Disharoon, L.L.C. Th property is described as being the same as
was conveyed by the deed of record in D ed Book 1140, page 630. This transaction
had no effect on the size or the develo ment rights of the parcels.
The parcels are entitled to the noted dev lopment rights if all other applicable
regulations can be met. These developm nt rights may only be utilized within the
bounds of the original parcel with which t ey are associated. These development rights
are theoretical in nature but do represent he maximum number of lots containing less
than twenty one acres allowed to be crea ed by right. In addition to the development
right lots, the parcel may create as many mailer parcels containing a minimum of
twenty-one acres as it has land to make.
If you are aggrieved by this determination you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is iven, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a ti ely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be ta en only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be c mpleted and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~~
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copy: Gay Carver, Real Estate Superviso
Ella Carey, Clerk to the Board of S pervisors
L. B. Disharoon L.L.C.
2715 Farmington Heights
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Enclosed: Sketch #1 Original parcels of r cord
Sketch #2 Two parcels compri ing Parcel 20
1:\DEPT\BCZS\Determin of Parcel\2007\71- 14, 15A & 20 Dish roon LLC LOD-2006-45.doc
-\=
o
o
~
.
"
. \2
~
o
o
N
~
J
c
I
"2
f
~
~
~ ~ ~
~~~~
~I1IE(J>
JJ~~~
a~;~
l>~-
2
'"
I 1
! :
.
I ] i i
itl]]]I
· ~ i II 11 I
....
I.D
"'.
.
"
United States
epartment of the Interior
NATI NAL PARK SERVICE
849 C Street, N.W.
W; hington, D.C. 20240
IN REPLY REFER TO:
H34(2280)
FEB 0 9 2007
Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
40 I McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Boyd:
The National Park Service has completed the s dy of Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park,
Virginia, for the purpose of nominating it for d signation as a National Historic Landmark. We enclose a
copy of the nomination.
The Landmarks Committee of the National Par System Advisory Board will consider the nomination
during its next meeting, at the time and place i dicated on one of the enclosures. This enclosure also
specifies how you may comment on the propos d nomination if you so choose. The Landmarks
Committee will report on this nomination to th Advisory Board, which in turn will make a
recommendation concerning this nomination to the Secretary of the Interior, based upon the criteria of the
National Historic Landmarks Program.
If you wish to comment on the nomination, pIe se do so within 60 days of the date of this letter. After the
60-day period, we will submit the nomination d all comments we have received to the Landmarks
Committee.
To assist you in considering this matter, we ha e enclosed a copy of the regulations governing the
National Historic Landmarks Program. They d scribe the criteria for designation (S65.4) and include
other information on the Program. We are also enclosing a fact sheet that outlines the effects of
designation.
J. Paul Loether, Chief
National Register of Historic Places
and National Historic Landmarks Program
Enclosures
PROPER Y STUDIED FOR
NATIONAL HISTORI LANDMARK DESIGNATION
lNE DRIVE
ATIONALPARK, VIRGINIA
The Landmarks Committee of the National Par System Advisory Board will evaluate this property at a
meeting to be held on April 11-12, 2007, begin ing at 1 :00 pm in the 2nd Floor Board Room, National
Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massach setts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The Landmarks
Committee evaluates the studies of historic pro erties being nominated for National Historic Landmark
designation in order to advise the full National ark System Advisory Board. At its subsequent meeting
the National Park System Advisory Board will onsider those properties that the Committee finds meet
the criteria of the National Historic Landmarks Program.
Owners of private properties nominated for L designation have an opportunity to concur with or
object to designation, in accordance with the N tional Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 65. Any
owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object to designation must submit a notarized
statement certifying that the party is the sole or partial owner of the private property and objects to the
designation. Each owner or partial owner of pr vate property has one vote, regardless of the portion of the
property that the party owns. If a majority of p ivate property owners object; a property will not be
designated. Letters objecting to or supporting ominations may be sent to Mr. J. Paul Loether, Chief,
National Register of Historic Places and Natio 1 Historic Landmarks Program, at the National Park
Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., (2280), Washin on, D.C. 20240.
Should you wish to obtain information about th se meetings, or about the National Historic Landmarks
Program, please contact Historian Patty Henry t the National Park Service, at the address given above;
by telephone at 202/354-2216; or bye-mail at patty _ henry@nps.gov>.
~Co~ Board-to-Boa d
Public Schools March 7, 2007
Listening. Learning. Leading.
A monthly communications report from the A emarle County School Board to the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
Comprehensive High School Program of Stu ies Recommendations: The High School Program of
Studies is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure the Division is meeting the needs of all students, reflective of
changes in Virginia standards for public schools, an positions our programs among other top performing
programs in the educational marketplace. In Augus 2006, a steering committee composed of parents, school
counselors, teachers, students, principals, and instru tional coordinators, led by the Executive Director for
Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology, reviewed nd provided input in the development of recommended
changes.
Feedback on the committee's recommendations wa collected through the Division's website. In addition, the
Executive Director for Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology held information sessions at each of the
comprehensive high schools. Feedback was also pr vided by the County Student Council. All feedback was
reviewed by the Superintendent.
The School Board received and approved revisions 0 course offerings for the 2007-08 school year in December
2006. However, it was determined that additional ti e was needed to further review recommendations related to
grade point average, class rank, weighted grades, gr ding scale, course levels, and exams and exam options. Dr.
Moran presented her recommendations on these iss es at the February regular board meeting. The Board is
expected to take action on the recommendations at is March 8 meeting. For further details on the
recommendations visit the website at www.k12albe arle.or .
Redistricting: On November 29, 2006, the School Board revised the timeline of four CIP projects and indicated
that it would be necessary to redistrict students in 0 er to alleviate overcrowding at Crozet. At the December 14,
2006 School Board meeting, the following projects hat have an impact on this redistricting were approved:
· Brownsville Addition - This project was m ved forward to begin design in 2007/08. The Board decided
to authorize a change in boundaries for Cro et students to use existing capacity at Brownsville and
Meriwether Lewis in order to reduce the ov rcrowding at Crozet next year.
· Crozet Addition - The project was replaced by Brownsville and moved to the out years of20l2/l4 except
for $440,000 in needed site work to separat car and bus traffic as well as provide new and replacement
parking, which is scheduled to begin design in 2008/10.
After the meeting in December, staff began work to develop a proposal for moving students from Crozet
Elementary School to other elementary schools in t e western feeder pattern. Principals from Crozet, Meriwether
Lewis, and Brownsville met with staff to discuss th process and helped with getting informational letters and
newsletters to their communities.
Staff met to review data and discuss issues egarding capacity of each of the three elementary schools,
Brownsville, Crozet, and Meriwether Lewi ; the numbers of elementary students in areas of proximity to
Meriwether Lewis and Brownsville; and th projected enrollments for the next several years. Staffwill
provide its recommendations to the Board fI r redistricting at its March 8th meeting. Information
regarding the proposal can be found on the eb at www.kI2albemarle.org.
School Division Calendar: At its February 22 meeting, the School Board approved a School Division
Calendar for 2007-08. Based on the approved calendar school will begin in Albemarle County on
August 22.
2007-2008 School Division Funding Request: At its February 15 special meeting, the School Board
approved submitting a funding request for the 2007-08 fiscal year totaling $166,714,753. This request includes
$151,360,557 in the School Fund Budget and $15,354,196 in the Self-Sustaining Budget. It assumes the county
property tax rate will not change and it is balanced to projected revenues. This funding request is based on our
statutory responsibility to advocate for funding that meets the educational needs of the county, a responsibility we
are meeting based on student achievement and community satisfaction data.
National Board Certified Teachers: Tim Howeth, ofB.F. Yancey Elementary School, Jane Shawn, of
Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, Dolores Reinhold, of Mary C. Greer Elementary School, and Janina Buechner,
currently teaching in Cambodia, have been named National Board Certified Teachers. This distinguished honor
recognizes the quality of the teacher in the classroom - not programs, student ability, school climate, or other
factors in education. It says to others, "This teacher seeks pathways to reach all students. This teacher expects
success from all students. This teacher accepts responsibility as a teacher leader. This teacher works to make a
difference in the school and greater community. This teacher is a quality teacher." To achieve certification, these
teachers submitted four portfolio entries reflecting professional practice, and completed six assessment items
covering relevant content and instructional theory. Currently, National Board Certified Teachers, nation-wide,
represent approximately 1% of the nation's teaching corps.
Math Work Session: In a shift to greater focus on Board governance, the Board has been piloting the use of
Board work sessions to gain greater understanding of critical issues facing the Division, identifying areas of need
and providing staff with direction in support of the Division's Strategic Plan. At its February 22 meeting, the
School Board held a work session which focused on the achievement gap and student engagement as it relates to
mathematics. Board members were provided an issue brief that contained information regarding mathematics
teaching and learning in four areas: evidence of student learning, student engagement, curriculum, and
instruction. Following the work session, Board members provided summaries of what they learned in the focus
groups, and requested that further information be provided at the March 8th meeting. Further information on the
work session discussion can be found on the website at www.kI2albemarle.org.
School Board Meetings: The next regularly scheduled School Board meetings are March 8 and March
22. A third monthly meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 26 to handle student conduct/discipline
Issues.
Allan D. Sumpter
Charlottesville Residency Administrator
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesv1lle, VA 22911
~ ."
CHARLOTTESVILLE E ESIDENCY MONTHLY REpORT
FEE RUARY 2007
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS ACTIO~ ITEMS
David Slutzky
. Signal synchronization and function stu dies still underway. Hillsdale/Rio Road has been added
to the list. Traffic Engineering Technicians are spending time at each intersection to analyze
timing and traffic flow. Materials have been ordered for the signal changes to Hydraulic
Road/Route 29. Work is expected to c( mplete by the end of April.
Ken Boyd
. Polo Grounds underpass - Verbal appn val has been received from the Railroad for installation
of two (2) convex mirrors. Expecting v1rritten confirmation to arrive any day. County staff has
been given supplier name to order mirr ~rs. Mirrors will be made from a polished stainless steel
material that is break resistant.
. Rural Rustics - Construction planning or '07 season is under development. This plan will be
provided to the Board when completed.
Dennis Rooker
. Meadowcreek Parkway - Status meeting with county and state officials along with VDOT
representatives scheduled March 8, 20(7, 10:00 AM at the Charlottesville Residency Office.
. Georgetown Road - The aerial survey i~ complete. Conversion of the data to allow design to
begin has started. This is expected to b~ completed by the end of April.
Dave Wyant
. White Mountain Road - Residency Ad Ininistrator has field reviewed this roadway. Spot
improvements to eliminate wash board'lng are scheduled for the spring. Other improvements
will have to come through placement ir the Six Year Plan. It does not qualify as a Rural
Rustic.
· Advance Mills Bridge - Meeting with ( ommunity to discuss possible alignments is scheduled
for April 24th.
Sally Thomas
· The concerns regarding brush cut by th~ power company along Route 29 South have been
reviewed. It is offVDOT right-of-way The power company has been contacted to advise
them of community concerns.
· Belair Market Signal along Route 250 Materials are ordered for this signal. Video detection
cameras will be installed. This work w 11 be completed by the end of April.
Page 1 of5
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CONSTRUCTION
Active Construction Projects
BP-7 A-OS (District wide bridge painting project)
. Project is complete pending removal of the sea container and minor site restoration at the Rte. 250
Bypass Bridge over Barracks Road.
Route 601, Old Ivy Road, 0601-002-6261, SROl (Emergency Bridge Repair)
. Bridge repair work on the west bound lane complete. Concrete barriers removed from the bridge
centerline and replaced with Group II Channelization Devices. One way east bound traffic is traveling
in the west bound lane crossing the bridge. This traffic pattern will remain during repairs to the bridge's
east bound lane. Anticipate project completion by middle of February depending on weather conditions.
Bridge Deck Patching and Joint Repair Service Contract
. Complete
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Albemarle County
. Route 22 / 250 Intersection Improvements, 0022-002-104, C501
R/W is currently being negotiated. VDOT met with county and Luck Stone to discuss construction.
After R/W is acquired and utilities are relocated, Luck Stone may construct the project under permit.
Route 631 Meadow Creek Parkway, 0631-002-128, C502, B612, B657
R/W phase update: Right-of-Way appraisals and acquisitions continue. Most recently, contact was
made with affected landowners in Dunlora and a meeting was held with the home-owners board of
directors to discuss impacts. Still on schedule for R/W to be clear by November 2007 and utility
relocations to begin. This project remains on schedule for a June 2008 advertisement.
. Route 631, Meadow Creek Parkway, UOOO-I04-102 (City portion)
Project funding update: Estimated funding shortfall at this time is $5.1 million. Potential cost
reductions and additional funding have been identified for $3.9 million leaving total shortfall at $1.2
million
. Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-158, C501
Survey update being scheduled to reflect new development and to finalize project estimate for Phase 1.
Proceeding with administrative adjustments as a result of phasing this project. Phase I cost, from Route
240 to Jarmin Lake Road estimated at $13,003,351. Phase II cost, from Jarmin Lake Road to Route 684
is $5,265,081.
. Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501
Aerial Survey completed. Data conversion for use in design is underway and should be completed in
late April.
. Route 643 Rio Mills Road, 0643-002-P76, N501
The curve has been staked in the field and a scoping meeting has occurred. Environmental has
evaluated impacts and residency staff is developing environmental permits and box culvert information.
. Route 769 Rocky Hollow Road, 0769-002-P89, N501
Grading has been suspended due to weather until spring on this project. Pipe work to continue as weather pe .lit~
Surfacing to occur in the spring of 2007.
Greene County
. Route 627 Bacon Hollow Road, 0627-039-195, C501
The project advertisement date will be set for the fall of 2007. The estimate has been revised and
funding for the project is in place.
Page 2 of5
PLANNII\G, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Land Development It~ms
Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application ~eview
Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions
New Entrance Plan Reviews
Total Permits Processed
Utility Permits Processed
Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted
Inspection of new entrance conducted
Miles of Street Accepted in the State System
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Albemarle - Completed
RTE LOCATION
1722 (Worth
XinQ)
29 Austin Dr
Albemarle - Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION
29 At Branchlands
29 Forest Lakes
29 Fashion Square Mall
1086 (Reynovia Lake Reynovia
Dr)
29
29
29
250
6
731 (Keswick)
1086
(Revnovia)
29
29
Various locations
Near 1-64
Fashion Sq/Shoppers
World
From Ivy to West Leigh
Main Street (Scottsville)
Fr Rt 250 to Rt 22
Reynovia Dr
Multiple intersections
Boulders Rd
29 Austin Drive
29 Boulders Rd
Greene - Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION
645 (Moore Dr) I Fr 33 to 29
I
I
REQUEST
Spee~ study
Revil w for guardrail at power
box ~ pole
REQUEST
Dual purpose lane
Add acks for int routes
Realign tracks for turn lanes
Paint center & edge lines
Revil w opticon sensors
Repl ce pavement markings
Reali~n tracks for turn lanes
Request center turn arrows
Paint centerlines
Paint center & edge lines
PlacE center & edge lines
Repa ir Opticon Sensors
ReviE w timing
ReviE w for guardrail around
POWE r box & pole
ReviE w timing
REQUEST
Post ~peed limit/safety mark
Virginia Department a/Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Total This
Month
3
6
8
88
12
7
107
.61
ACTION
Completed 2/19/07, not
recommending
Completed 2/8/07, not
recommending
STATUS
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/5/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To traffic 12/20/06
To Traffic 1/5/07
To Traffic 1/5/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
To Traffic 1/19/07
ACTION
To Traffic 1/19/07
Total This
Fiscal
Year
35
80
105
582
83
77
809
3.47
Page 3 0/5
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED
Albemarle County
. Patching operations completed on Routes 6, 20, 240, 250, 708 (Secretary Sands), 712 (Plank), 742
(Avon St Extd), 743 (Earlysville).
. Graded and replaced stone on Routes 606 (Dickerson), 611 (Jarmans Gap), 630( Green Creek),
643 (Rio Mills), 667 (Catterton), 671 (Millington), 672 (Via), 673 (Slamgate), 674 (Clark), 687
(Shiffletts Mill), 689 (Pounding Creek), 702 (Reservoir), 722 (Old Green Mtn), 723 (Chestnut Grove)
736 (White MtnlPughs Store), 745 (Poorhouse), 778 (Johnsons), 811 (Jones Mill), 825 (Yancey Mill Ln).
. Litter pickup on Rt 20,29,250,600 (Watts Passage), 643 (Polo Grnds), 649 (Proffitt), 729 & 732 (Milton).
. Cleared pipes and ditch work on Routes 29,659 (Woodburn), 665 (Buck Mtn), 678 (Decca), 684
(Mint Springs), 795 (Blenheim), and 1803 (David).
. Mowing Routes 20, 231, 606 (Dickerson), 614 (Garth), 671 (Millington)
. Tree cleanup on Routes 6, 20,602 (Howardsville Turnpike), 618 (Martin Kings), 620 (rolling), 626
(James River), 627 (Porters), 630 (Green Creek), 631 (Old Lynchburg), 633 (Heards Mtn), 712
(Coles Rolling), 717 (Secretary Sand), 726 (James River), 722 (Old Green Mtn), 795 (Blenheim)
. Snow Events worked on 2/1/07,2/6/07 and 2/12/07. Cleaned up equipment after each event.
. Bridge work on Rt 6.
Greene County
. Graded and replaced stone on Routes 626 (Snow Mtn),
. Ditch and pipe cleaning on Routes 610 (Toms), 621 (South River), 642 (Simms), 667
(Middle River) and 743 (Advance Mills).
. Mowing operations on Rt 810 (Dyke).
. Snow events worked on 2/1/07,2/6/07 and 2/12/07. Cleaned up equipment after each event.
. Bridge work on Rt 646 (Garth).
PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK - MARCH 2007
. Guardrail mowing, machining and patching on various routes in Albemarle and Greene County.
. Replacing pipes on Rt 691 (Jarmans Gap).
. Route 646 (Garth) bridge replacement work continues in Greene County.
Page 4 of5
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville. VA 22911
MAINTENANCE BlJDGET
III
r:::
~
:E
Highway Mai tenance Expenditures
20
- - Total Maint Budget
~Cumulative Budget
--C--Cumulative Actual
15
14.37
10
5
1.53
o
Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-O? Feb-O? Mar-O? Apr-O? May-O? Jun-O?
Page 5 of5
COUNTY
F ALBEMARLE
EXECU IVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Sun Ridge Road Improvement Project
SU BJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST:
Phase II Road Improvements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Shadman, Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2007
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
~~
(
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Board last discussed this potential road improvem nt project at the January 3, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting
(Attachment D). At that time, the Board considered tw primary alternatives (Attachments B&C) for providing public road
access to three undeveloped lots in this subdivision. At t e Board's direction, staff further explored the feasibility of providing
access to Lot 7 and Lot 14 from the current Sun Ridge oad cul-de-sac and Lot 8 through private driveways with or without
vacating the existing public right-of-way (Attachment A).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1. Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle Co nty Residents.
Goal 3. Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improveme ts to Address the County's Growing Needs.
DISCUSSION:
In addition to addressing the potential road improveme t itself, one of the primary questions from the Board's most recent
discussion of this matter was addressing drainage from a y future public or private road improvement. The stormwater runoff
from Sun Ridge Road is currently conveyed through th existing undeveloped public right-of-way and released across the
downstream private properties. The flooding and erosi n problems being caused by this runoff will be exacerbated when
homes and site improvements are constructed on these acant lots. Therefore, staff's opinion is that this issue will need to be
addressed with or without the construction of a road e tension. The cost of the drainage improvements is estimated at
$34,470.00 if done as a separate project and can be fun ed from the County's Stormwater Fund.
Beyond drainage improvements, staff also evaluated cre ting private driveways through the existing public right-of-way as an
additional alternative (Attachment A) to the two alterna ives previously reviewed (Attachments B&C). This option would
necessitate County issuance of a "license" to allow a pri ate driveway within the public right-of-way. Such a "license" would
specify the terms for private use of the public right-of-w y and release the County of any responsibility and liability for the
driveway. This option keeps all of the lots conforming to he Code and allows for a future vehicular, bicycle and/or pedestrian
connection. While the construction of a road extension may be considered the most ideal solution, this approach is reasonable
and may provide a basis to address similar issues in t e future without the expense of constructing new public roads in
unimproved right-of-way serving only a few citizens.
Since this option assumes Lots 7 and 14 would have d'rect access to the existing cul-de-sac, staff evaluated the existing
topography and potential development of the lots to ass re this assumption was feasible. Conceptual grading and access
sketches were prepared for the three lots (Attachment A). The evaluation revealed that Lot 7 may directly access the cul-de-
sac. However, Lot 14 slopes downward from the cul- e-sac at a slope of approximately 20 percent. For this lot to be
developed and directly access the cul-de-sac, the drjvew y grade would exceed 20 percent and exceed the County's standard
for "safe & convenient access". A driveway (100 ft. in len th) within the public right-of-way would be necessary to reach a point
where safe and convenient access to the building site m y be provided. To avoid the creation of a private street (serving two
lots), a separate and parallel driveway within the public r ght-of-way, as shown, would be necessary to access Lot 8.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Based on the determinations made for the Phase I proje t, this road project is not eligible for State funding. Under the first two
options below that were discussed at the Board's pre ious meeting, if the public street is extended, it would need to be
constructed privately or funded by the County as a one- ime capital improvement project. Under the third option below, the
driveways would be constructed privately, but the Count would provide access through the public right-of-way and address the
drainage cost. In each case, these cost estimates assu e the cooperation of the property owners to dedicate any necessary
public drainage easements.
Option 1 - Full Road Extension with Drainage Impro ments (Attachment B): $149,700 (equal to $169,000, minus the
current $20,000 balance)
· Provides access to the remaining undeveloped I ts (Lots 7, 8 & 14) in the subdivision through the extension of a public
road beyond lot 8. In addition, this option pro ides potential access to four additional lots if the road were further
extended through private investment.
Option 2 - Partial Road Extension with Drainage 1m rovements (Attachment C): $109,700 (equal to $129,700, minus
the current $20,000 balance)
· Provides access to the remaining undeveloped ots (Lots 7, 8 & 14) in the subdivision through extension of a public
road U/J to lot 8.
Option 3 - Private Driveways with Public Drainage Improvements (Attachment A): $34,470 drainage improvement
funded through Stormwater Fund; Privately funded riveways permitted through public right-of-way
· Provides driveway access to Lot 7 from the exist ng cul-de-sac and driveway access within the existing public right-of-
way to Lots 8 and 14
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors provide di ection regarding its preferred option for the Phase-II portion of this
project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Conceptual Lot Gradinq & Access
Attachment B KH&A 2005 Plan
Attachment C Alternate-1 Plan
Attachment D: Jan. 3, 2007 Executive Summary
FOR IllUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONl
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
-------;::
--- / /
---- /
~
/
~
LOT 8
Attachment A
~
LOT 7
---- ~ -/
1 J t 08 ! r OC
-------- -
.------
/
:> ~
ATT CHMENT A:
CONCEPTUAL l T GRADING & ACCESS
~2
10
~2
Vld
i:J:
-~
C(')
~:l
:l~
~;l
~
~~o
~~~
'Z!c"V
-l~~
~~
-<
[?
--
^
~-U
mI
-<)>
'en)>
Im-l
02....-1
;;;0-)>
ZOO
QomI
)>en~
enG)m
enZZ
O-U~
orl\J
en)>
'1 Z
l\Jen
o
o
(J"1
j ~
, ~. --- I ~ ~ ~
" N N c;:
I \11:-' +
IN...'"
UlNCO
I~;~
\
Attachment B
--
- -
--
- -
:' ,', -----
-,:--
-
~
~~S~~
~~...~~
"'!{!~2;v
>~02i
~6~
-l
t:l ;v
/Tl ~. I
:<,~
'1- \~.
(II .~
N
E ~~ ~~f
(;) . "Ill
u\!D*'
G~ 1Il tllQ.~'
~~eil ;;r-\.
~~~S~ 'l\~
'. . ....., ' . lO'~
~\\
~~\-
ii, n
\
\
\
\
\
\ '"
\ BO
\ ~~~
\ ~,.,
(')~
\ !Z!:l?o
\/-<
\
\
i ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ e -l
: i ~: ; j i~
~!Z!6-l=ii!! ~
-l !d22i ()
i
;g!a
ia~
21;
2a~
!ill'!Jo-lCS
~1'l~i~~
~~-~I;
~i- d
~<a l'!
i~8F~ ~
~-<~~~
!ijl~-l~
",-<i~S~-l
~zl=r-~ t;l
:-!~:J:l~
:~ !l!
~;ij ~
~~;l~
~;!~Il!
a~z",
_:J:1Il~
'"1~:J:
~!~f
~~~~
lIl>iiii
Q-l,.,r-
!lf~?o:<
i~~~
l8~~~
~;l~~~
:-'~--~
~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~~B!i
I~,(;)
,cSi
~;~;
il,~
. CII~;
i-<~~
i5-l~
~~II
. 5~
E:
~1Il
2~
~lf
,~~i'
'lI~j'"
~-~
~~-=
L
----
...z~~
::16;' ;.
1;-
~i~ ~ ~~~
..."'~8 ~I~
~~;; ~~;
~_ o/l!2
\
\ \
,.,,1':1\1 __
t,,,;~~.".. '.:'-
~~F\"
[3>
n:
"
--
Attachment C
j~
~~~
-- I K!i ~
\ Ul. 01
\ ~~!D
,t=",CI
\
-
-
--
"--
.-:.. '
--
\
\
\
\
\ II;
\ oi
\ =~
\/~
I U~
i'i ~ ~ i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II
~~ ~ 2~
~~~~2i i
I!a
a~
i~
5i!~g
2a~
:?>
~
~~e~i
~~"'~Q
ili~~
...
, ,'!~'.[_\!J..~ --
l!~~i~~
~g~ji~~
rlBs5Bc
~~~~QF: ~
~~~~i;;gi
~gi;i......
~~~~!~5
~ir%~ \;l
;jl;l~~...
iiiQ ~
z~ ~
il'~
e.t,
:l:lIli
ilsl<
~~~~
iii>iil~
li~~
o~~~
~:~~~
;-,5!__~
"'~8i~
~~~~i
~i;i
II~~
~ J~
jlll~~ 'i
i~~;$i )
j~~~ ::
~gl.
. I~
)>)>
r-l
-I-l
m)>
;:;uO
ZI
)>~
-1m
mz
=t:t:~
~w
)
--
---
,.,z~~
:::lS~~
~-f-
~~8~
~~. 8
~~88
...., ~
~ ~1
Attachment D
COUNTY CDF ALBEMARLE
EXECU1IVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Sun Ridge Road Improvement Project
AGENDA DATE:
January 3, 2007
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST:
Phase II Road Improvements
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Shad man, Kelsey
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The objective of the Sun Ridge Road Improvement Proje t was to upgrade an existing privately maintained public road so
that it could be accepted into the State system for mai tenance. The project was divided into two phases. Phase-I
consisted of replacing/widening the existing pavement from the Northfield Road intersection to the last driveway serving Lot
15 (Stacy) and improvements to the existing drainage sy tem. Phase-II was to extend the road within the existing public
right-of-way and along the existing graded but unpaved r< ad-bed to serve three remaining undeveloped lots of record, as
well as address improvements to the existing drainage s' stem. As the Board may recall, this item has been discussed a
number of times at Board meetings over the past sev ral years. Through these discussions it was concluded that
expending funds on this project was reasonable because of the fact that a public right of way had been dedicated for the
subdivision road, but the road was never built by the (eveloper. At the time, the County did not have a road bond
requirement and therefore was not able to guarantee that the road would be completed. Given these unique
circumstances, the Board approved moving forward with his project. However, that commitment was limited at the time to
a total cost of $150,000.
Plans were prepared for both phases of the project a nd bids were received February 1, 2005. Unfortunately, the
complexity of the Phase-II drainage issues increased the broject cost above the budget approved for the project. Based on
bids received, the total cost for both phases of the proje~t came in at about $177,000, excluding any unforeseen costs
associated with the design, easements and construction of stormwater improvements. Priority was given to the public
health, safety and welfare of the residents along the existing portion of the street. Therefore, the County pursued the
construction of the Phase-I improvements only. The Pha e-I project was completed in August 2005 and accepted into the
State System April 2006. The total cost of the Phase I project was about $130,000 leaving an unspent balance of
approximately $20,000.
An inquiry was recently received about the status of Pha lie II and staff was asked by Supervisor Slutzky to estimate the
current cost of the public road extension and to explore p( ssible alternatives. The purpose of this executive summary is to
outline the full cost and scope of the Phase II extension nd to explore several alternatives.
,
I STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1. Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle Co~nty Residents.
Goal 3. Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvemer ts to Address the County's Growing Needs.
DISCUSSION:
Oriainal Phase-II Desian Plans (Kimlev-Horn Assocs. 20C 5): The January 2005 Phase-II design plans provided for a 350
foot extension of the Phase-I public street (18' wide), included a cul-de-sac at the 'T' intersection of the existing
undeveloped public right-of-ways (see Attachment 2), an< drainage improvements to adequately convey storm water runoff
to an existing culvert under Huntington Road. Staff has generated a construction cost estimate of $169,700.00 based on
these design plans (Attachment D).
In the course of considering alternatives, staff determine that Tax Parcel 62A 1-F-1 0 (6.96 acres), just beyond the limits of
the potential Phase II project, is zoned Residential (R2) a d could be subdivided to create four new lots along the existing
undeveloped public right-of-way (see Attachment A). hile not a part of the Phase II project, if the road were further
extended at the cost of the developer of these lots, suc a development proposal would allow for the extension of Sun
Ridge Road to the existing Wakefield Road (Rte.651). This future private improvement, made possible by the full
extension of Phase II, could benefit the County by encour ging the future infill or redevelopment of this parcel and providing
an opportunity to complete the interconnection to Wakefi Id Road. However, this interconnection is not currently identified
in the Comprehensive Plan as a specific transportation i frastructure improvement.
Alternate #1: As an alternative to the full extension show in the Kimley-Horn Associates design of Phase II, Alternative #1
minimizes the street extension to that necessary to se the southernmost undeveloped parcel (Attachment C). This
alternative limits the street extension to approximately 60 feet and takes advantage of the existing road fill and the
depression on the west side to provide the new cul-de-sa . The drainage improvements provided in the Phase-II Design
Plans would still be necessary, but the shortening of the treet and relocation of the cul-de-sac could achieve a $40,000
reduction in the construction cost. However, this alterna ive requires the cooperation of the property owners to dedicate
additional public right-of-way for the cul-de-sac and publ c drainage easements.
Alternative #2: As an alternative to provide adequate acc ss for the development of two of the three undeveloped lots, Tax
Parcels 62A1-0F-7 and 62A1-0E-14 have frontage off he current Sun Ridge Road cul-de-sac and therefore can be
developed as of today, pending VDOT approval of a dri eway. It is important to note that the third parcel without street
access, Tax Parcel 62A 1-0F-8, would not have the minim m frontage required by Albemarle County Code 918-6.4.1 under
this alternative, and there is no legal basis for a waiver to 1I0w access over a private driveway for this third parcel. Access
over the undeveloped public right-of-way is not permitte under current regulations. Even if permitted, staff would have
concerns that private driveways located within undeve oped public rights-of-way would create issues of "perceived
ownership" and could not be authorized without a publi hearing required before the County could transfer any public
property rights now held by the County.
Finally, if the County were to decide not to participate i the further extension of this road, a "private street" could be
extended from the limit of the Phase-I project to serve t e three undeveloped lots. The use of a "private street" would
require authorization of the Planning Commission per Co e ~ 14-233A Since this street is located within the "development
area", Code ~ 14-412 would require this street to be an u ban section (curb & gutter). Therefore, the Commission would
also have to grant a waiver (per Code ~ 14-225.1) to use t e "rural private street" section consisting of 14 feet of pavement
(grade exceeds 7%) with shoulders and ditches. The ublic right-of-way would need to be vacated by the Board and
replaced with a private street easement. Lastly, the thr e properties served by the private street would need to record
documents declaring their obligation to maintain the priv te street. A private street would have to be constructed using
private funds; public funds could not be used in this circ mstance.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Based on the determinations made for the Phase I proj ct, this road project is not eligible for State funding. The road
extension would need to be constructed privately or fun ed by the County as a one-time capital improvement cost. If
funded as a one time capital project, the alternative cost would be as follows:
Phase II - Full Extension - $149,700 (equal to $169,00 , minus the current $20,000 balance)
· provides access to the remaining undeveloped lots in the subdivision and provides potential access to four
additional lots if the road were further extended hrough private investment
Phase II - Alternative I - $109,700 (equal to $129,700, inus the current $20,000 balance)
· provides access only to the requesting subdivisi n to serve the undeveloped lots
Phase II - Alternative II - $0
· provides access from the end of the current roa to two of the three remaining lots
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors provide dire tion regarding the Phase-II portion of this project. Specifically,
should staff proceed with the final design and constructi n of Phase-II and which street option should be pursued?
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Sun Ridqe Road Map
Attachment B KH&A 2005 Plan
Attachment C Alternate-1 Plan
Attachment D Phase-II Construction Estimate
~
..
Cl\
..
N
ell
:
10)
Cl\
..
N
ell
..
,
,
..
-
...
.
..
Cl\
..
,
..
VI
go
~
,
."
'"
m.
Cl\
"':'
..
VI
:ll
z~/
~
C'
(l)
3
~
iD
()
o
c:
::l
.:<
G)
en
~
0'
Cl\
"':'
..
10)
"
J>
-
"'''
~H
~ ~~
: ~ il
~ Q~!
~ ~;~
~~-~~~
~s.a~g
~~~~
litrp iU 31
~g~~
Ui!
.:(_0 II> =r
-Q~ i ro
I ~D II_I 0
~g>~~.~~~g'~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ ~ ~. i i
~g.-<~~~(JlcE~tnm
Q-<$'~g3. fJ)~ a
5:~~(I)m~ :tJ
Q) rn:J ~
0. '" '"
'" '" <
o
~.
g ~ ~
0. 0 '"
'" ~ ~
g?~
CD CD
., .,
3 3
'" '"
() G)
=r CD
~~ tQ
=~ III
CD ;::::\l~
~ Q.. g cr
Ji2:~~
<iilNlii
;..::\l"cn
~~ ~
8 ~.
N '"
.
Cl
(l)
!il
3
0'
5!l
50
N
o
o
'"
-
.,/0' ~"
( g~~ 1 ~!:::l~
\Oli;/il 8 Sill"!
I-~NW!!! gg.-i~
tnl;lE ~.t'~
<:: <<~:::
tn tnzw
---~ ---
\
\ \
\ \
,,-
(~~91 _
~ .~ ~ It -
~t:Jl5
ut~
llltnl1l \
~.c;:U') \
!::j'~ \
Ou~ J j
1-'" t/
~ -:;- -
I- ____
VI..;.e:,..}_-
(::~"~ \
( ~~. \
~ h~~ \
\ "-11'15"- \
I ~I-o.~ \
~~~l5 \
<~IIl~ \
: ~~~~ 1 \
l ilii~5 \ \
i j~!~ l) \
> ,,111 8 e
( ~~~2~ \
> ~<~oo \
0-:ll_~~8 :~j \
-----------::---C_
-- \
\
--- \
\
--
~(k:~ i
g)~;J \
'" -on I
); C:;, I
~~~ ~
~--~,.;
G~~.~
::>:J::J:A:J:
I!'o.o.~o.
~l5l5g
~~~i
~!!!<~
~~~;;
~~:J:lll
~~i~
~ili":S
~~~~
~.g~
~ ~~
ili ~~
I.()
o
o
CJ)C\l
Z '.
<(CJ)
C\l.....J()
'0..0
I-ZCJ)
Z(!)CJ)
~-<(
:cfBoes
()OZ
<(-0::
1-10
I-W:c
<(CJ),
<(>-
:CW
a.......J
~
::::.:::
~---
~~dl
0_ %0.
I a:ol5C11l5
\ ~l5wl5w
\ "'!l,z co
r~ B";~"
\, ~!~~~
\,' , a~,
- m -'~ ~! o~ ~
\ c!i~~ ~ ~lt ~
);0> , '3
\ \ gi~~; 0.
- - 0", -'..
~ ~~
~ ~~
a: IIlCl
----
-- -
ri=~~
.F~ )
~~ ox l
Ff 15 \
~t;;~ \
g~!!1 )
0(,;= }
r~J
CI)_~----
w /::1
w G "'J
1-<(
-z
(f)-
LL<(
LLtr
00
r--
c'"
~j .
~~5~
~~!I
~~>-~
~~"'I
~;~,
~ <C~
dii
21i1~r;j J
'" I!! .8
~d~!
\
\ \
\.
'<~
11
8~::l;1;
g 81l~
~n~
<c~1Il;
I;;",z...
------.....,
- - ----
o >I:f~;:
~ ~-Jj~~
geii1"~>-'"
ox<"'>"'!l>-
]~~~~~~
ll!-l)("~"~
l:S"">I-R
lIli:=~~~~
c ZlX CU
I- -~,::ifc
>- ~d!1i:Q'
~ ~~ij12~
;:;el~al>!~l!I
!fi~~lIlb
('t)
I ......
1-=1:1:
Zw
WI-
~<(
IZ
U~
<(w
1-1-
I-....J
<(<(
~~~i-"
~H(;1i
~~l'Jg
~~~I
'"
!ji~~
!ei~
~ili:J:!:
"'z .~
~~~I
.ul:S
~ ~~
ili ~~
!!1
!
L..---~
~
...
~~~~~
15C1lQ.
~15~1515
8~~~~
~
<i!i?~
~~15
~~~
~i?~
gig:
~I !
~ li~~ ...
~ ~::~i~
B ~ ... ili .. ....
.... Z Q.. 0
~ 15 15 LoJ
~ ~ ~ i
~
~a~i~
lll-'~ i~a~i
'~o:-.i ~~ o~
~..", '" ~~
'\~ i g
g'd R:!! n'
g'"
~ ~!
J: ~G1
~
r
\
S~~... \,
~!u \
~\
~ \
\
\
\
\
\
\
--------------
\
~."'~ \
~~~ I
;J;~"' I
~ H
~~~ L
I
I
Sunridge Extension Phase 2
Cost Estimate to Complete Phase 2 with Detention Added
Prepared by Thomas Garrison, Jack Kelsey, Greg Harper
December 14, 2006
This estimate is based upon the following:
1. Bid Documents by Kimley-Horn Associates
SITEWORK Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
General
Mobilization (1'/o qt Est Cons.tr..lctiof'J) 1 L.S. $10.000.00 $10,000.00
Construction SIBjI(60(Jl 1 L.S. 53,000.00 $3,00000
Recore SUNS..,.. 1 L.S. 53,000.00 53,000.00
SUO-lotal $16,000.00
Demolition
Reroove e-xistin\,;l concrete ditcn s&ction alonQ' HlJf'ltfngtcn 200 L.F 510.00 52,000.00
Tree removal 4 EA $300.00 $1.200.00
Relccata ShMS 4 EA 5300.00 $1,200.00
Plug exisltng culVert 1 EA 52,000.00 52,000.00
SuiHctal 56,40000
Earthwork
Sitlil prep, c!.EJ.anng and grubbing 1.00 AC, 53,500.00 53,500.00
Srl~ Fence 800 L.F. 50.97 5776.00
Intel Protection 1 EA. 5S00.00 $300.00
Rocl< CI1eCl< Cam 6 EA. 5300.00 51,800.00
ConslruCtion Entrance 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00
Cut. Fill. Compact(1 S% ftu1f) 279 CY $15.00 $4,185.00
Excess Cut (not usEtd for tilt} 997 CY 51.08 51,076.76
Excess cut !oaaad S97 CY $9.55 $9,521.35
Excess cut haoied 5 miles. 12 cy tt'.;Ck 997 CY $12.15 512.113.55
Final Gradins 3,240 S.Y. 50.15 $486.00
S&eding and Mulcn (hydro seed) 3,240 $Y $0.66 52,138.40
SuoAotal $37,397.06
Storm Drainage
14"x23~ culvert un<:ief drweway (rcp I::llpe and trench excav.) 37 L.F $65.53 $2,424.61
8aCKfilr witn 57 slone 5 CY $45.50 5227.50
ConCl9la Ditctl Excavate 210 IF $0.66 $138.60
Concrete Ditch Section 210 l.F. $25.00 55.25000
D!-7flilet 1 EA. $4,700.00 $4,700.00
24" Goncrete Flared End Sections 2 EA, $2,500.00 $5,000.00
Rip-Rap 25 CY 5100.00 52.500.00
Misc. Fitting$ 1 l.S. 52,000.00 $2,000.00
SutHotal $22,24071
PAVING uantitv Unit Unit Cost Current Total
On Site Paving
Asphalt PSvtl1Q (8" Base) 1,100 SY S8.37 $9,207,00
Aspnait Paving {2" SM.9.5aj 1,100 SY $10.56 $11,816.00
Signing ana Stnoijng 1 l.S. $1,500.00 51,500.00
4" snould-er 780 l.F. 57.00 $5,460,00
Erosion ContrOf Matting 1,553 SY $1.56 $2.578.68
Adjust Water Vaive heights 3 EA S200.00 $600.00
SutHcUlI $30,961.88
Phase 2 Base Bid I $106,599.45 I
HuntinQton Road {Alt #2) ( uantitv Unit Unit Cost Current Total
Remove existing culvert under HUfttlnglon 70 l.F. $10.00 S700.00
19"X30''' culvert under Hunnngton {rcp c.pe arid trench excavati-onJ 68 l.F. $85.00 S5.780.00
Bac.Kfilt with 57 S~C"8 15 CY 545.50 $682.50
30" Concrete Flared End Sections 2 EA. 52,500.00 $5,000.00
Sawcut exis-ting c~vert unaer Huntington 140 l.F. $2.00 $280.00
Huntlng10n Road p.atcn 1 l.S S6,500.00 56,50000
Huntington Read T raffle Control 1 l.S. $5,000.00 S5,OOO.00
Sub~otaI ... $23,942,50
Phase 2 Sub-Total $130,541.95
Contingency (30%) $39,162.59
Phase 2 Grand Total . $169;704;54
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Library
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2007
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALlREQUEST:
Discussion on Establishing Parameters for the
Crozet Library Project
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Catlin, Graham, Garrison
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
/""
LEGAL REVIEW:
Yes
REVIEWED BY: ,M /
I
BACKGROUND:
The Crozet master planning process identified a new and expanded public library in downtown Crozet as a critical priority to
provide a focal point for community activity and to help catalyze expanded opportunities for new and existing downtown
businesses. The master plan envisions the library serving as an anchor for a revitalized downtown Crozet, a major public
sector investment and a visible presence that will help support critical infrastructure improvements like parking, sidewalks,
and the new Main Street.
Following a public meeting and extensive citizen input regarding the location of the new library, the Board of Supervisors
selected the Harris/Amato property which emerged as the downtown site which best fulfilled the intent of the master plan
for the new library location.
Guidance is needed from the Board of Supervisors on several issues to continue progress on the library project, which is
proceeding concurrently with several other major downtown Crozet infrastructure projects including the Phase I and Phase
II sidewalk and streetscape projects and the downtown zoning study project.
Summary of Major Library Project Milestones to Date:
. Downtown library endorsed by adopted Crozet Master Plan - December, 2004
. Purchase of Harris property for establishment of new Main Street - March, 2006
. Selection of project architect - September, 2006
. Contingent contract on Amato property - September, 2006
. Consultant meetings with stakeholders on library site - September, 2006
. Public meeting on library site selection - October, 2006
. Board work session on library site selection - November, 2006
. Purchase of Amato property - December, 2006
· Topographic surveys/alignment studies for Crozet Avenue and Main Street - initiated January, 2007 - ongoing
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal Three: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County's Growing Needs
DISCUSSION:
Before the library can move ahead through the necessary rezoning and preliminary design stages, the Board's guidance is
required on several critical decision points. While the Board's input and direction will be solicited at several future stages of
the project to discuss issues such as LEED features and establishing any necessary design parameters, the following
issues require speedy resolution to keep the project on track:
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Library
March 7, 2007
Page 2
. Mixed use design of the library
. The total square footage of the library
. Potential phasing of the library construction
Potential of permanent mixed uselcommercial component to the project
There has been inquiry into the feasibility and desirability of creating a permanent mixed use, commercial component to the
library project. Staff has considered this possibility with input from the consultant and library officials and identified both
benefits and concerns with regard to a mixed use component which are included in Attachment A.
The library project as envisioned by the Master Plan and the CIP, and as outlined in the consultant contract and discussed
during the public input sessions, was a dedicated public facility that was meant to anchor downtown activity and, along with
accompanying infrastructure, encourage private sector partnerships in bringing about commercial development
opportunities. Given the considerations included in Attachment A and their potential to add to the cost, complexity and
timeline of the project, staff believes the best approach for the library project is to focus the public sector role on providing a
quality library facility and improved infrastructure (including sidewalks, streetscape, widening Crozet Avenue, new Main
Street) that will catalyze private sector investment in downtown Crozet. Constructing the library in a timely way to realize
the benefits outlined in the Master Plan is the County's highest priority.
However, there is the possibility that a temporary complementary use could be accommodated in the building if the
decision was made to build initially to a size that would leave space not required immediately by the library. There are a
number of complementary uses, including functions like community meeting space, arts and crafts displays, historical
displays, Crozet visitors center, etc., that have been identified as possible needs for downtown. Library officials have
indicated a willingness to consider these types of temporary uses within the library building. The process of identifying and
analyzing an appropriate temporary use could happen within the current planning and design timeframe. Staff would
suggest a number of parameters to guide selection of any such potential complementary use to include factors like:
· Compatibility with the library's mission and operations
· No significant additional design or construction requirements/costs
· Easy conversion to library space if it was needed in the future
At this stage, a decision regarding potential temporary complementary uses depends on the total square footage
constructed and whether or not all of the space will be needed when the library opens.
Square Footage Requirements for the Library
A final determination must be made regarding optimal size of the library. In order to assist the Board with this discussion,
staff has outlined a method developed in coordination with the Jefferson Madison Regional Library to determine the square
footage required to meet the needs of the new Crozet Library. That methodology is included in Attachment B. As a point
of reference, the current Crozet Library is 1,900 square feet in size.
The two critical factors in determining square footage are the service area for the library and the projected population in
that service area. After the population to be served is determined, the current standard for calculating total square footage
is .7 square feet per person. The library has indicated this is a minimum standard, but this is the current standard used in
the Community Facilities section of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Based on the analysis in Attachment B, staff has
concluded that an ultimate 20,000 square foot library is justified for Crozet. However, based on the population projections,
staff believes that a phased approach of some type is also justified.
Staff analyzed several scenarios related to service area and population, and even under what would be considered the
"worst case", or largest service area and projected population to be accommodated, the full need for a 20,000 square foot
library will not be met until the year 2027. These results have been reviewed with library officials. While these projections
would suggest that the initial 15,000 square foot library currently budgeted in the CIP will begin to be exceeded in 2013,
viewing this library as a piece of the larger system is important to keep in mind regarding the timing for expansion. While
planning is based upon the projected service area in and around Crozet, the close proximity of Charlottesville and several
other library branches to a large portion of the population served by the new library is an important factor in considering the
timing of Crozet Library's ultimate expansion. Given this factor, staff feels that planning for expansion between 2027 and
2030, when the population fully justifies it, is one possible approach.
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Library
March 7, 2007
Page 3
However, a second option is to construct a larger building up front, using some of the space for complementary uses that
don't create impacts to the design/construction project and don't conflict with the library's primary mission until the space is
needed for library functions. If the eventual goal is a 20,000 square foot building, there would be a construction cost
savings by building the space now rather than at inflated costs 10 or 15 years in the future. This approach would allow the
library to consolidate the programming aspects of their function on one floor which is their preference and dedicate the
downstairs level to a temporary community-oriented use, and then transition that downstairs space into public meeting
rooms and community space associated with the library when the need arises. If the Board believes this is a desirable
option, additional funding would be necessary.
Budget
Because of the Library Board's desire for a 20,000 square foot library building initially, library officials have agreed to enter
into a funding partnership with the County that would provide the additional funding needed to build a 20,000 square foot
facility up front. They have agreed to accept financial responsibility for the books, originally budgeted at $1.2 million, and
for half of the furniture and furnishings, originally budgeted at $710,200. Their total financial commitment to the library
would total approximately $1.6 million. This commitment would free up all but $129,406 of the original budget needed to
construct the additional 5,000 square feet. In addition, this would allow somewhere between three and five thousand
square feet to be available for community use until it is needed by the library. A comparison of the original budget estimate
and the budget that would result from the Library's proposal is included in Attachment C. As the attachment indicates, the
original budget estimate totals $8,521,069 and in addition to land purchase and contingencies includes $1,904,799 in
furniture, fixtures, equipment, and books. Actual construction cost is estimated at $4,419,600 based upon a 15,000 square
foot library at $254 per square foot. Architectural fees are included at $585,850 and includes a fairly extensive design
process for the library, including community input, and consideration of green building design.
Schedule
Because of the coordination needed with phase two of the Crozet streetscape project and the establishment of the new
Main Street, the design process for the actual library is not scheduled to begin for a several months. A schedule that
ensures coordination of these three infrastructure projects is currently being developed and will be provided to the Board in
the future. Over the past several months the Board has indicated its desire to be involved in considering design standards,
value engineering and green building principles. As a result, staff will schedule future review of the library project with the
Board as the design process begins.
Required Approval Process
No decision is required by the Board at this time regarding the zoning approval process required for the library project. The
Board should be aware that staff is assessing the best way to proceed with the rezoning of the site. While the current
zoning on the property is appropriate for the library use, there are issues like setbacks and height allowances that need to
be addressed through a rezoning. If the progress and timing of the downtown rezoning project currently underway meets
the library project schedule, then the appropriate rezoning will be accomplished by that larger overall rezoning. If the need
to rezone for the library project occurs more quickly than completion of the overall downtown rezoning, the library project
will require a Neighborhood Model District rezoning in order to create the type of two-story, urban form library envisioned in
the Master Plan. If that is the case, the library rezoning will be coordinated with the work of the overall downtown district
consultant's work to insure a consistent and complementary approach.
Public Engagement/Participation
The library project remains a very visible and highly anticipated project in the Crozet community, and every effort will
continue to be made to keep residents engaged in the process. The rezoning process mentioned above will have its own
built-in public process that will involve public work sessions and public hearings at the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisor levels. In addition, the consultant's planning and design process has a very strong public participation
component to help determine programmatic and design elements. The Crozet Community Advisory Council and other
stakeholder groups will continue to be key participants in the public process. The Jefferson Madison Regional Library and
its staff and advisory groups are represented on the project team by John Halliday and Tim Tolson, who serve as liaisons
between the consultants, County staff and library stakeholders, including the Library Board.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The primary purpose of this agenda item is to determine if the Board believes the currently planned 15,000 square foot
library should be expanded to build 20,000 square feet up front. As mentioned, the library is willing to enter into a funding
AGENDA TITLE:
Crozet Library
March 7, 2007
Page 4
partnership to support the 20,000 square foot library by assuming responsibility for the book expenses and half of the
furniture and fixtures. This commitment would offset all but $129,406 of the cost of increasing the library by 5,000 square
feet.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the analysis of service area and population projections, staff recommends planning for a 20,000 square foot
library. Given the construction savings that can be realized by building the necessary square footage upfront together with
the library's commitment of approximately $1.6 million to keep the project close to its original budget, staff recommends
that the building be designed and built at 20,000 square feet with the understanding that the space beyond what is currently
required by the library be dedicated to a temporary compatible community-focused use until it is required for library
functions.
Regarding mixed use, staff believes the concept of mixed use is being achieved through the establishment of Main Street,
improvements in the Crozet Avenue streetscape project and providing additional community parking. The library project
when completed will also provide significant community meeting and gathering space that will service a variety of functions.
Adding additional mixed use options given the complexities of coordinating the currently planned complementary
infrastructure will increase both time and cost to a project that already has high expectations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Potential of permanent mixed use/commercial component to the project
Attachment B - Square Footage Calculation for the Library
Attachment C - Crozet Library Budget
Attachment A
Potential of permanent mixed use/commercial component to the project
Benefits:
. Helps the library function as a multi-dimensional destination point
. Potentially meets various community needs
. Provides downtown space for commercial ventures
Concerns:
. Expanding the scope of the library project to encompass a permanent mixed use component would change the
nature of the project to the extent that it may require a new consultant bidding and selection process and a new
site selection process including public input
· There is already significant complexity in integrating and coordinating the library project with the other
infrastructure improvements planned and underway for downtown Crozet - the addition of a commercial
component would create additional layers of planning, design and approval that could slow down the project
· Sharing space with a commercial use would complicate the design process and create requirements that would
add to the complexity and cost of the project, for example:
o Determining whether to design generic tenant space and then build out at a future date or trying to secure
a tenant in advance and building to those specifications
o Integrating design and construction of tenant space with the needs of the library project
o Developing a construction budget and financing for the commercial space
o Meeting building codes, including fire codes, to adequately arrange and separate the uses
o Addressing differing insurance needs for mixed uses
o Determining fair and equitable ways to separate handling utilities and services including electricity, water,
trash collection, etc.
· Because of site constraints, any significant square footage beyond the 20,000 already assessed for the library
would have to be added vertically to two floors of library height, creating what would effectively be three or more
stories on the Crozet Avenue street front. Building construction and foundations, parking needs and the budget for
the facility would also be significantly impacted with additional floors.
· A permanent mixed use component to the project would expand the facility beyond the 20,000 sq ft maximum
upon which the consultant's site analysis was based
· The County would have to enter into a lease arrangement with the IDA or some other type of entity in order to be a
landlord, and would assume responsibilities for managing a landlord/tenant relationship in a building without any
county staff on-site
· If some portion of the library building is used for a for profit entity, it could impact the project's ability to be financed
by tax-exempt financing approaches
· Leasing commercial space or providing a commercial service could place local government in the position of
competing with private sector businesses that might also be trying to provide space or services
· A shared commercial use could conflict with the library's mission and programming and could distract from the
building's primary purpose as a library - would hours, days of operation impact security and other library operations
· Adding a commercial use to the library could complicate the parking situation
Attachment B
Square Footage Calculation for the Library
Service Area
First, a service area was determined for the new library. The Jefferson Madison Regional Library approach for determining
library service areas encompasses that area that falls within a six-mile radius around the library location. When a six mile
radius is drawn with the Harris/Amato site as the center point, the circle includes the Crozet Development area and
adjoining rural areas. The circle cuts across a number of census blocks, which are the standard unit of measurement for
population. In order to make sure that the broadest potential population was included as a starting point, this methodology
went beyond the geographical area delineated by the six-mile radius circle and included the full area for all census blocks
that had any portion included in the circle as illustrated in Attachment A. Thus the initial service area represented in this
methodology extends beyond the standard six-mile radius and includes significant portions of western, northern and
southern Albemarle County in addition to the Crozet development area.
An assessment of this initial service area indicates several mitigating factors that should be considered. One census block
in Ivy that contains a significant level of population is also contained within the service areas for other libraries, which
causes a double or triple count of that population if that area is also included in the Crozet service area. It is reasonable to
assume that at least some portion of those residents would continue to use the downtown library facilities that they are
currently using Portions of two census blocks are also contained in what has been defined as the service area for a future
southern library which is currently in the CIP for construction in 2014. Even if that date is pushed back for a period of
several years, it seems clear that at some point within the next 15 years we can anticipate construction of a new library in
the southern area that will impact the service area of the Crozet library as it is broadly defined above. This assumption is
further supported by the fact that those census blocks are centered along Route 29 South which provides a much more
direct transportation link to the southern library than any access west to Crozet.
Population Proiection
The next step was to determine future population for the designated service area considering the mitigating factors
mentioned above. The service area contains both the Crozet development area and also surrounding rural areas, which
have significantly different rates of growth. While projecting population trends twenty years into the future is a challenging
and inexact process, staff has attempted to provide projections for planning purposes based on historic trends and realistic
assumptions.
The starting point of population for the Crozet development area in 2006 is 4798, based on a comprehensive analysis
conducted by the County's GDS staff in cooperation with a committee of Crozet residents. The starting point of population
for the rural areas outside of the development area in 2006 is 14,286 based on U. S. Census data. Thus the total starting
point for the population projection for the service area is 19,084.
Staff calculated anticipated population growth by using a 5% growth rate for the development area (which is consistent with
the 12,500 in 20 year figure used in the master plan) and using a 0.5% growth rate for the rural areas, (which is one-third of
the overall growth rate for the county since rural area growth accounts for 1/3 and development area growth accounts for
2/3 of the county's overall growth). The Jefferson Madison Regional Library standard, which is also utilized in the
Community Facilities section of the County's Comprehensive Plan, is to plan for .7 square feet per person in determining
total square footage.
i
Q)
I)
c
l!!
~
i5
i
L~~
(j)
8
<D
o
o
N
J
<Il'
~
<Il
rn
&!
.e!
<Il
~ ,~
: l'Il
!,e ~.
I...J ..0
I..... ~
~i-I--
o
U t-
o - i I en
g 1 I~'
~ 1 N
I ~
1 I
~t
1 I::'
, 'N
I : l.O_
I : co
I
l!)1
co .
I L.{')I
ai
l!)
o
o
N
<"i
I'-
'<t.
m
C!-
.....
1'1
Il'l
ai
0 Il'l 0, 0 0 0 ~~--~gi~l~ 0
0 gl 0 0 0 0
0 M <D. 0 '<t ....
0 '<t N '" ..; , Il'l "1' ..;
'<to <D - <J)'('t') N
Il'l en ' l!) 0 Il'l ~ I'- <D N Il'l
Il'l '<t co '<t '<to M
CD ..; CD I
CD
:::::..
o
Il'l
I'-
'<t
o
Il'l
CD
ai
o
o
o
..;
!
,
- -- -<-------<------+----- 011--;-
al 0' 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 01 al
0' 0 0 0 0 1'1' 0 0 0 0, al :g.,
CD 0 Il'l <D <D. O. 1'1 O. N. O. 1'1 Il'l
C!- o co en N I'll ., ..;
..; <D <D ail en I'- '<t OJ ....
.... Il'l, l!) 0 co l!) N N ....' al 1'1
1'1 Il'l: co '<t '<t al.. ~I .... '<t I'-i .... Il'l.
Il'l Il'l ..;
aj '<t co
!
II)
~I ;t
~,~ lij
I)! l'Il ,S
3 ! t.) u..
Oc-~-,
(/) i ! i
- --~----+..-
CUi
Oi
I-
II)
"0
C
;j
u.. -g!W
'0 l'Il' oll
Q) ...J <
II)~
:::J
!
I
I
o 0)
o Cii
~a::
wCii
i:L:
.8i
<Il.
oil
c,
'Q.'
r3'
'"
,'0
C
~
.l!l
II)
o
t.)
c
o
..
I)
2
Ui
c
o
t.)
--1---,----
en
~~
~:s2ro
t:1 rn -9
o c.. -"
g> ~ 0
~ l'Il s:
'5 '3 2
OJ CJ) enl
~
~
....
s
o
I-
. 0)
. c
C 0
Ql ..c:
E 2-
.~ 2
S',?;
"'C .~
C I)
l'Il 5l
li'l en
... c
::J 'i::
>< ';:
~ u:: .
~ ~- 2
~.a 5-
~I OE ~
'8'.z t.)
'"
l'Il
~
'"
,I)
Ii
en! Q)
c ~
,_ :J
> :t::'
- c
<Il ~
..c: :J
CJ) u..
,
----,---r-
<D
tq
'<t,
'<t'
WI
(ij
'0
I-
;~!
i~!
!
J+
1
I
_"U' ...1
en ,
'<t'
(")
"';
l!)
Vi
Q)
E
;j
'0
>
al
'<t
~
0:
lXI'
(ij
'0
I- ,
Ql
II)
c
8-
><
W
si
'0.
l'Il
u
~
:E
ATTACHMENT C
~
'"
@
.,..;
<Ii
o
o
o.
l!)
....
.E
i ro ro 1ii
.il! i
, ~ ~i @I ro i
~ I il j I j i ~
~I @)I ~: ~ ~,~
:J: 51 Q.)I ~ 9:' 5
<( :z:; I 'E ~. t.) t.)
.S ~'Q.) co '"'0 en
wr38..cI~~
~, ~ 's,::J l.g :J
~I ui S'i~! ~ ~
'0, <Il ",'. '01 0) -;:;;
0)'1..... 0>1 Q) en ~;::
'O"'~''O.E..
.;; I 8 :J I ';; ',- 8-
e!c :B:e'1i) 0
VI, Cl. 0 U. c.. Q.) c..
.a!2gQ)~2~
~cu'-2urnco
!!2 .~ i ~ , 'c I -5 R ~
j~fQ~1 S :::J
;-1" ,
I ,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed Sallyport Design for the County Circuit
Court Building
AGENDA DATE:
March 7, 2007
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request of the Sheriff and Commonwealth's
Attorney for $113,000 of additional funding to modify
the construction of the Circuit Court building
sallyport project
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Shadman, Lilley
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
f
BACKGROUND:
In Fiscal Year 2005/2006, $350,000 was appropriated for the construction of a vehicle sallyport for the County Circuit Court
building at the Court Square on East High Street. The justification for this project was to address the Sheriff's security
concerns in the transferring of prisoners from the jail to the court. The current method calls for the prisoners to be off-
loaded from the transportation van onto High Street and escorted into the building either through the existing breezeway or
into the main door and down the hallway, potentially endangering visitors and working staff within the building and exposing
the Sheriff's personnel to a few moments of having to escort prisoners through the unsecured, open area of a public street.
During the design phase for the project, staff and the architect and engineer presented a concept for the sallyport to the
Sheriff, which was approved. (Attachment A) The City of Charlottesville's Board of Architectural Review (BAR) also
approved the design. Before the advertising for bids occurred, the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office and the Sheriff
suggested a change in design. (Attachment B) This change increased the architecture and engineering costs and
postponed the bid due to the necessity of going back to the BAR for approval of the re-design. It was agreed by staff, the
Sheriff and the Commonwealth's Attorney that this addition to the project would be bid as an option. No bids were received
on the first advertisement. A re-bid effort realized three bids. The apparent qualified low bid is $285,399 for the
construction of the sallyport and $81,928 for the alternative work proposed by the Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney.
We currently have a project balance of $289,985, which will cover the base bid with a very small contingency. To complete
the revised project as requested by the Sheriff and the Commonwealth's Attorney, an additional $113,000, including a
contingency, would be needed.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
County Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of
public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
There are several important issues to consider in determining whether or not to appropriate an additional $113,000 for this
project. The Commonwealth's Attorney's primary justification for the suggested addition to the basic sallyport is to
eliminate the view of escorted prisoners walking down the breezeway past the tinted windows of several attorneys and a
conference room. It is felt that the view of prisoners walking past these windows would be unsettling to the attorneys and
to those in the conference room, particularly victims that are being interviewed. The Sheriff's justification for the tunnel
addition is to have the prisoners completely under cover from the time they exit the van until they enter the building, thus
reducing the necessity of posting a guard on the knoll of the yard and protecting the Sheriff's personnel and prisoners
during inclement weather. The basic sallyport, as designed and originally approved, eliminates the initial primary security
concern identified by the Sheriff in the fall of 2002, which was to prevent the unloading of prisoners onto the public street in
the midst of pedestrian traffic and in an unsecured surrounding.
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed Sallyport Design for the County Circuit Court Building
March 7, 2007
Page 2
Another issue to consider in allocating additional money for this project is the long range plan for renovating the interior of
the area now occupied by the Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney once the Sheriffs Department moves into the new
J&DR Court facility currently under construction. The CIP has projected funding in Fiscal Year 201 0/2011 for renovations
that could include moving the attorneys' offices and conference room away from the view of prisoner traffic.
Staff is also in the process of securing estimates for the replacement of the existing breezeway windows to include small
arms grade bullet proof glass with opaque tinting. Not only would this be considerably less expensive than the building of
the proposed tunnel, but this funding could be secured from building maintenance money. However, with this option, there
may be a disturbance of the natural light that the attorneys now enjoy.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There would be no impact on the budget if the original sallyport project moves forward.
For the tunnel addition requested by the Sheriff and the Commonwealth's Attorney, an additional allocation of $113,000
would be necessary.
If the tunnel is not added, the concerns of the Commonwealth's Attorney could be addressed within five years by
relocating the office spaces during the renovation design process. In addition, the immediate issue of prisoners
walking past the windows could be addressed with window replacement and tinting from maintenance funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff supports the basic sallyport option to be constructed to eliminate the off-loading of prisoners on a public street and to
provide the security originally identified by the Sheriff in 2002. However, staff requests guidance from the Board regarding
whether the Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney alternative proposal and additional allocation of $113,000 is the
preferred option.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Original design
B - Proposed design
v
~ ~~~~~~~~ E. HIGH ST.
,y/ ~y'0y' "y^-. 0",y' ,,/
~~,(<:,.y~~~~~ ___ (E) BRICK PAVEMENT
J "'y~,,^ '<y"-y^-'v ."v>r-------
V (y"y"v "<,..o~7'
~~~~~3: r- (E) CONe. SIDEWALK
~ ~~~~~~~>-
~~~~/),/\~~^-. ",y~~~V~~~"" Y' 0/'" Y':->'?X/~'\/>...0~Y
~~~ ~~~~~~~~0~
"</'v-. v ~ v"<~'~>::~ _ );:~Ay'" ,,<y< 'V .r y y. n V Y>.. ~ ^'Y y< y
-~~~~~~~~~
^' YW y'''y ^- (-..
~ y~~y~~~ ~ V- (N) BLACK IRON GAlE
~ ~~~~~~y~~ ~
0< V;::V?::y' ~~ ""
t- 4 Y,v y' v
.J I 12'-4" I
~ idJ
Attachment A
4'-0.
15'-8"
\ 1'-4"
-'---'-
>-
~
W
N
W
w
Q:
CD
C,!)
z
F
<n
x
w
(N) BRICK
PAVERS, TYP.
L ""SlING MECHAMCAl
EQUIPUENT ',..D7
FG._
o-~
~
-
1"---
I~ '""-
z
<i:
0::
o
DRAIN
CT. SQ. SALL YPORT
ORIGINAL DESIGN
VI
E, HIGH ST.
'.
EXIST. MECH.
EQUIPMENT YARD
/
"'" /
X
/ \
/ \
/ \
"
ADDED PEDESlRlAN
.. lUNNEl
CT. SQ. SALL YPORT
PROPOSED DESIGN
Attachment B
...,t~ & Sf",
;~~~~C..'
:,1 it \b
,-
~~~ESV\\\t
RIVANNA WA ER & SEWER AUTHORITY
695 MOORES CREEK ANE . CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902-9016
(434) 977-2970 . FAX: (434) 293-8858 . WEBSITE: WWW.RIVANNA.ORG
ME ORANDUM
TO:
THE ALBEMARLE COUN Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM:
THOMAS L. FREDERICK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RIV A
WATER & SEWER AUTH RITY
SUBJECT:
RIV ANNA WATER & SE ER AUTHORITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
DATE:
MARCH 2, 2007
Each year the Rivanna Water & Sewer Autho ity updates its Capital Improvement Plan and publishes
a new five-year plan that lists proposed impro ements to its water and sewer system and the estimated
costs ofthe improvements. This plan reflects he Authority's longer-term vision, its needs, regulatory
trends, and market trends. The newest propos d plan was introduced to the Authority's Board of
Directors on February 26,2007 and will be co sidered for Board approval on March 26. The plan is
ambitious but considered essential to meet the ever-increasing challenges of increasingly more
stringent unfunded or underfunded state and fi deral mandates, rehabilitate or replace aging assets, and
meet the future service demands necessary to ulfill the objectives ofthe County's and City's
Comprehensive Plans.
Attached for your convenience is a financial s mmary of the proposed Capital Improvement Plan.
The entire document is available on our websi e (www.rivanna.org) by clicking on "Board Meetings",
then clicking on the February 26, 2007 Board eeting.
The entire five-year program is the largest ev r proposed by the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority at
just over $118 million. The largest projects i the plan include a new Ragged Mountain Dam ($37
million), a major upgrade to the Moores Cree WWTP for nutrient reduction ($34.6 million), and a
new Meadowcreek Sanitary Sewer Intercepto ($13.4 million). For the Moores Creek WWTP, a
separate "place holder" order of magnitude es imate of $6 million is included for odor control
improvements that will be defined in greater etail after an engineering evaluation is completed this
summer.
As you are aware, the Authority has submitte a JPA permit application for the Community Water
Supply, based on a 50-Year plan, and is expe ting final action this summer. Staff is currently
completing a phasing plan, but work of the pr posed "in-stream" flow releases during interim phases
of the plan is still in progress. We are hoping to have the phasing plan completed within the next
month, but this will depend on the success on on-going discussions with the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and The Natur Conservancy.
The Authority has applied for a Virginia Wat r Quality Improvement Fund grant and submitted a
preliminary engineering report to DEQ addre sing the details of a proposed upgrade to the Moores
Creek WWTP. We are currently waiting for edback from DEQ on the content ofthe report, a
proposed grant offer, and grant performance r quirements. We have been informed that any grant
offer to us will be limited to 60% of the costs EQ determines is eligible (nutrient-related), but the
extent of eligibility is still subject to interpret tion, and we expect any grant offer to be contingent
SERVING CHARLOTTE VILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
upon sufficient appropriations to the WQIF b the General Assembly. Appropriations to the WQIF
have now reached approximately $500 millio in total after a recent appropriation by the legislature,
but the total costs of nutrient plant upgrades aCross Virginia in the next few years is believed to be in
excess of $2 billion, so we encourage all Supflrvisors to actively lobby for additional funding to the
WQIF. With respect to the nutrient upgrade r~rogram, I would like to add that this is by far the most
ambitious undertaking in a compressed timefrfime in Virginia's history. Many experts in the
construction industry are questioning if there re enough qualified construction firms available to
address the number of projects DEQ is attemp ing to enforce, inclusive of the nutrient issue as well as
all other programs. We are already seeing sigps of significant inflation in construction bids that would
reflect a market where demand exceeds suppl , and we are watching this trend carefully. In addition,
many changes and interpretations regarding tt e nutrient program are coming from Richmond on an
almost daily basis that adds to uncertainty abo~t how to proceed to implement this program. As an
example, less than two weeks ago the legislatl re gave the DEQ Director the authority to deny a utility
a WQIF grant ifthe Director determines the u ility can more cost-effectively buy nutrient credits from
another utility instead of building a plant upgrl:lde. It remains very uncertain how DEQ will apply this
newly obtained authority over local projects.
Another program for the Authority that is exp cted to be significant over the next several years is an
upgrade to the Authority's sewer transmission interceptor pipelines. Many of the Authority's
interceptors were purchased by the Authority rom the City or ACSA when the Authority was formed
in the mid-70s, and many of the piping systerr s were built in the ca. I 950s and are now approaching
the end of their useful lives. In 2005 the Authprity committed to perform a Comprehensive Sanitary
Sewer Study that is currently on-going. This I ngineering study, to be completed this year, will
address the capacity and current use of all inte ceptor lines and serve as a master plan for cost-
effective improvements. The first of the inter eptor improvements will be the Meadowcreek
Interceptor that currently runs along Meadow f=reek from near the Emmet Street/250 interchange to
the Meadowcreek Golf Course area. Other improvements will be prioritized as the ongoing study is
completed, and we expect to engage in negoti tions with the ACSA and City to define allocations and
future use of all Authority interceptors once th~ study data is complete.
With respect to sewer interceptors, I also wan to mention that we are looking for the best possible
ways to make these improvements as friendly 0 the surrounding environment as possible, and see this
program as a way to promote cooperation on ! reenway preservation and use and other related
programs. We are also aware of the interrelatipn between this program and future land use, and [ am
pleased to tell you that in my judgment, communication and cooperation between our staff and the
staffs of ACSA and the County Community D~velopment Department is excellent. We want to playa
supportive role, while recognizing the role anc authority of the County, as further supported by the
ACSA, in making these decisions.
I appreciate the opportunity to share this infonjnation with you and look forward to your questions.
cc: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execu ive
Attachments - Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority roposed CIP Financial Summary - Pages 26-28
S:\Board\Board of Supervisors\CIP 030707.doc
2
l l l l
I I ~ i
= ...
~
co co co co co co
= co co co co co
co co co co co co
r-: r-: = .... = :6
III M ~ III ~
r-- "": <>'l ..,.
..; ;:;; !oI'l !oI'l <>'l
;:;;
l l l l l
l i r-- I i
N
"t -
... - - ~
tII'I ... ~
tII'I
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
= CO CO CO CO = CO CO CO CO
iii = = = 'is = = = = =
..,. ..... co co ~ ;; co co ..,.
=l. 'oC 'oC r-- <>'l III ;:;; III
M .... "'" "'" "'" ..... "'" "'"
"'" !oI'l "'"
l I l I l I I ! l I I
III ! 0 ffS i
~ ... 1\
~ &; ~ ... ...
- ... . tII'I tII'I
"'" tII'I
~
~ ..,. ..... CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ~ CO
< - ..... CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
"!. M =l. CO =l. CO CO CO CO =l. CO
~ ~ :! III ffS CO 'is iii .,; = co iii
M co co M ..... r-- III III r--
M - "'" M III tII'I M <>'l <>'l <>'l <>'l
~ !oI'l <>'l <>'l !oI'l !oI'l
;;;;J
rJ'J ~ C\ ... I ~
!i ~ \0
~ ~ tII'I ~ N
< ...
;; -
~ tII'I
U
Z
< :! CO CO CO CO CO CO ..... CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
Z CO CO CO CO CO CO ..... CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
'oC = CO CO CO =l. CO M CO CO CO CO =l. =l. CO CO CO CO =l. CO CO
~ .,; = ..; = .,; M = 'is ..; = = = - III .... = .,; = CO = =
~ OC OC CO = CO ;: CO - 0-. M OC CO ~ ..... M CO :;; III M III OC
=l. ..,. r-- C'l. M 'oC ;:;; 'oC "!. r-- =l. M ..... III !oI'l !oI'l !oI'l III
III .,; l"'i' - !oI'l !oI'l <>'l <>'l - ..; ;:;; <>'l <>'l <>'l <>'l <>'l <>'l
<>'l M <>'l <>'l <>'l <>'l
<>'l
t- I
III ~
III ~ f ... ::I ril
~ III .l:l I
'-= III ~ .. I
... .. .!II a
.1 ~ III .. .. I III .Ill Ii
i Q III .. III
.. is '" .. III J .llI
.. ~ I
Q jC i ~ l:l. ~ I it
jC ... 1
- .. i 'tl ~ all g .. l g :
.. .. .: III a l:l.
'-= ,J ... ..
.. .. QCI ... ! .. Ii ... '1Il III
.. . ) 5 ~ III Ii
if: if: i ~ .s :E .. .. 1 i 1 ~
'-= III Ii i :I ,J I e .. ! .Ill
Ii Ii ~ .s 0 :$ . :a ~ '-= .I c
a . III 'Ill J .l:l ! III ~ G. i f 2t III III
= .. ril III ~ ,J .. ril .. i 1I
.s ! ril l:l. S J-
III III Ii '" III l:l. ~ Ii !
i i .. .. -< lO ... ~ ii Ii l:l. ..' .. foil ';
15. a III
.~ .. foil III III ... ril all ::I .i a ... = t1 '1Il
III III Ii ~ ~ ,J ~ III : .. ill . t i III
I III .. ~ .. Ii .. ,.;) ~ ~ ,J is
~ III ! ri .5 . 'is. .!!! a .. .. ! ~ d i 2! all
. ~ s i. ! a a:-
ll:; = t- t- III i ! .. .Ill
"Cl i l:l. III III III .. 'ail i
j ! Iii III II .. jC ~ 6 J
a .s s 0 .1= ~ III l:l. t I
0 ::I i t:l
'-= E E ~ = C\ ~ . ~ ~
~ .. M J ~ -I a i
II -S .. a a
oN .. J ! -s ... ! 1
~ ~ III .! ! III III Iril3 = II f:! Jl iN
i ~ & & .. ~ ~ a
0 0 ril..-< = ril
N "<T -0 0 N '" :! V) -0 r- oo :::: 0 N
M V) r- ~ N N N
~ I.
i l
N
V!l ....
V!l
Q Q. Q Q
Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q
-= -= -= -=
Q Q l"l Q
~ I,Q ~ Q
..) "'" .,. N
"'" "'" "'"
~ I I I I I
~
V!l
~ .... N ~
~ ....
~
Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q
-= -= -= -= -= -=
Q Q r-- Q Q Q
~ III I,Q 'I). - -
..) "'" "'" ;; - "'"
"'" -
"'"
~ ~ ~ I I I !
:1l <= ~
.... ~ ....
~ .... ~ ~ V!l
V!l
Q <= Q <= Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
=;, Q Q Q Q Q Q Q =;, - Q Q Q =;,
Q .,; \IS -= r-:' -= N -= Q N -= -= g- Q
.,. l"l r-- III Q .,. .,. ~ ~ I,Q .,. Q ~
"'" "'" N N l"l "'" N r-- ... "'" r-- -
"'" "'" "'" "'" "'" "'" N "'" "'" "'"
"'"
~ ~ ~ i ~ ! i &t N
.... .... r-
III ~ ('.l
~ III I
~ ....
~ ~ "'"
Q
Q
=;,
Q
.,.
"'"
Q
Q
Q
.,;
l"l
"'"
Q
Q
Q
'I.
.....
"'"
DIl
III
'15
~
J
..
a
..
~
.c:I
Ii
~
.
Q
Q
Q
-=
III
.....
""
Q Q
Q Q
Q =;,
\IS Q
III III
- .....
"" "'"
Q
Q
Q
r-:'
Q
l"l
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
.,.
"'"
Q
Q
=;,
N
.,.
.....
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
Q
l"l
""
...
III
.2l
~
.5
a
'S
III
Cl
:a
f
...
~
a
~
-<
~
..
.~
...
j
.IIIl
!
IJ
..
j
...
III
...
Ii!
...
1iI
is.
=
..
~
..
a
f
Ii!
a
'"
~
:f
i:l
i
.IIIl
CI
~
....
~
S
l"I.l
a
~
J
r:l
.=
..
CI
=
III
~
.!!
:=
:s
.
.c:I
=
III
!
~
~
~ ~
.~ !
... :f
j i
~ ~
~ ..
= i
j t
~ t
~ ...
;:JIl'$
... III ..
.SIJ
~~~
be",
:a ClIo ~
~!~
.i
ri
t
'"
!
III
-!
III
:.
"
w
...
III
E
..
a
II
~
...
III
.!!
~
.!!!
'"
is
'S
CI
Cl
:a
I
...
~
~
j
..
III
:.
"
w
..
a
f
~
~
~ t.rl "-C) r- 00
N N N N N
Q
Q
=;,
Q
oc
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
Q
.,.
~
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
I,Q
~
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
~
r--
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
r--
I,Q
"'"
Q
Q
=;,
Q
Q
-
"'"
Q
~
N
I,Q
...
.....
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
.,.
r--
.,;
"'"
Q
Q
=;,
Q
l"l
I,Q
.,;
N
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
I,Q
N
"'"
JIl
III
...
!
~
~
a
...
..
s
i
a
III
...
.IIIl
!
IJ
t
'"
~
I
..
..
!
i'
t
Ii!
w
CI
~
.!!
l"I.l
f
l:
II
III
CI
i
i
..
~
s
...
III
2l
,
~
~
ClIo
jC
s
i
=
'"
j
.
i
III
I I
~ S !
s s l
I I I
.IS ! !
I ~ E I
J .:I 1!i
'i ~ \Jfi
j J J!I
=-
Il
!
i
i
J
t
...
JIl
CI
..
a
~
..
=-
E
...
..
s
ClIo
t
a
Jl
..
..
!
l"I.l
I
l"I.l
~
)
i
~
~ 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N
N M M M M M M M M M M ~ ~ ~
M ....
.... ....
Q
Q
=;,
Q
~
"'"
Q
Q
Q
-=
Q
Q
\IS
"'"
Q
Q
Q
.,.
Q
;:;;
li
i
tV
l:
ii
eo
~
..
1:
=
~
..
Cl
!
! 1
.:I ~.
~ t
! ~
~
".., '-0
.... ....
I
...
...
~
<=
<=
~
-
oc
<=
aO
M
...,
l I
~ ~
...
~ a
<=
<=
~
-
M
"'l
~
M
...,
...
III
"'t
~
<= <= oc
<= <= ....
<= ~ M
e '-C ;i
t"l M
t"l ..., "'l
""" <=
;;
0 $ 00
09. C"l
... 0
~ ...
~
<= <= <= oc
<= <= <= ....
<= ~ ~ <'t
'is <= '-C ....
'-C t"l M ::
;; t"l """
""" aO
-
;;
-
.
u
a
=
:c:
.;
.II! ...
.5 ...
! = ...
.
." = ~ ~
-< ~ f i
I =
= '; ~
0 :=; ..
";J li = =
=
. 0
A ..!!l :c: :c:
&1 A. !! !!
.. ~ ! CIJ CIJ
A A !
.....1: ! iii
~~~ ;I ;I
I;,.l.!l A. A.
00 0- 0
.... .... or.
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
VIRGINIA FE TIVAL OF THE BOOK
Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and
storytelling within a d outside its borders; and
our devotion to lit my and our support of literature has attracted over
1,000 writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA
FESTWALOFlli BOOK;and
the VIRGINIA FES IV AL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books
and publishing; and
businesses, cultu,., and CIVIC organizations, and individuals have
contributed to the 0 going success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE
BOOK; and
the citizens of the C unty of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have
made the VIRGIN FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in
the country,'
NO Jt; THEREFORE, I, Kenneth C Boyd, Chair11Uln, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Sup .sors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 21,
2007 throug Sunday, March 25, 2007 as the Thirteenth Annual
VIRGINIA FE TIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourag community members to participate fully in the wide
range of avail Ie events and activities.
Signed and s aled this 'f' day of March, 2007.
CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE B lARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
ALBEMARLE PROPERTY TJ~X RATE PLUMMETS TO $0.58
Virginia State Law Reauires Drop in Rate to Offset Rising Assessments
Will Supervisors Keep This Rate or /Raise It?
STATE LAW REQUIRES A REDUCED TA> RATE
It's the little-known secret of county governme t: When tax assessments rise, the tax rate must
fall-IT'S THE LAW.
~ --:- Albemarle County
/ . ;-- '7' ~t->-..z" T""..."GJid
"!" ..of. . . ~ h-I-"- .
. ! ~ ", '";i ~".f-: .t ;':t'-.,;:
1'1- - ~"-.,,' \"l-;' i;"
I. . "r;~ . ~." F'!J .
I ' ~;.;.,' 1; ~~I:l
. " '. " . * . "j . ~J4 " ""
1\ ',," .r ~ ~ .. .. rv.:
. _)({.. Yo:' '" \'" ., ,.,:
w,. ,. .. ~ m -l" .!.
,
-;- .. .. .. .. ';;;- ..'
~ .. ~ v I.)
,j" .,{
--
ThE Code of Virginia, 9 58.1-3321, states (in part):
"When an} ... assessment... of real property by a county,
city or tow h would result in an increase of 1 percent or more
in the total rea/ property tax levied, such county, city, or town
shall redu( e its rate of /ew for the forthcoming tax year so as
to cause sl1ch rate of levy to produce no more than 101
percent of I.he previous year's rea/ property tax levies, unless
subsectior, B of this section is complied with ..."
ThE law is generous: it provides an extra 1 % bonus,
and it doe~ n't consider new development in the calculation.
This mean p the new (lower) rate is applied to a larger base of
property (growth), so that more tax money is collected to
account fo that growth.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TODAY IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY?
Good question! If you read the law and do the math, our tax rate in Albemarle County - after the
January 2007 assessments - automatically rec uced from $0.74 per $100 of assessed value, to a new,
lower rate of $0.58. This lower rate is the new rate, unless Supervisors vote to increase it this spring.
How DOES "SUBSECTION B" OF THE SIrATE LAW FACTOR IN?
Another good question. Subsection B states (ih part) that 'The governing body of a county, city, or
town may, after conducting a public hearing... increase the rate above the reduced rate required in
subsection A above if any such increase is dee med to be necessary .., "That means the supervisors
must call for and hold a special meeting if they want to raise the rate from its current $0.58.
BUT DON'T WE NEED MORE MONEY?
With population growth, yes, we do. The state law creates more money with its 1 % bonus and with
more property being taxed. And of course we want to provide the highest educational value and the
best in necessary government services. But w~ need to ask the question: "How much is too much?"
Consider what happened just two years ago..
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST ASSES5 MENT. IN 2005?
Before the 2005 assessment, our tax rate was ~0.76. The rise in assessments automatically lowered
the rate to about $0.62, and then the supervise rs voted to raise it to $0.7 4-a 19% tax increase!
That's an increase about triple population groVitth and inflation combined!
WHAT HAPPENS Now?
We predict some Supervisors will begin saying they want to "lower" your tax rate to $0.72 or even
lower by invoking Subsection B and voting to change the rate. At the current rate of $0.58, here's
what those new rates reallv mean:
Current Rate: $0.58 Supervisor's New fRate:
Current Rate: $0.58 Supervisor's New f1\ate:
Current Rate: $0.58 Supervisor's New f1\ate:
$0.70
$0.72
$0.74 (the old rate)
Increase: 20.7%
Increase: 24.1%
Increase: 27.6%
Paid for and Authorized by the Albemarle Cm nty Republican Committee, Keith C. Drake, Chairman
2160 Viburnum Court. tharlottesville, Virginia 22911-9059
434.974.1617 . 434.974.7305 (Fax) . AlbemarleRepublicans@adelphia.net
ALBEMARLE PROPERTY TAX RATE PLUMMETS TO $0.58
WHAT CAN I Do?
A lot. Contact your Supervisor-today. They do listen. Call them, write them, and email them.
Tell them YOU know the tax rate is now $0.58, and that with prudent fiscal management, a modest
increase of two to four cents is sufficient to meet our true needs.
Kenneth C. Bovd (Chairman) -- Rivanna District
675 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
434-977-9981
kboyd@albemarle.org
Lindsav G. Dorrier, Jr. - Scottsville District
P.O. Box 818
635 Valley Street
Scottsville VA 24590
Office: 286-9399, Home: 286-2528
Fax: 286-9390
riverstreet4444@yahoo.com
Sallv Hvde Thomas - Samuel Miller District David Slutzkv - Rio District
889 Leigh Way 2417 Northfield Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901 Charlottesville, VA 22901
(434 )295-1819 (434) 989-5888
sthomas@albemarle.org dslutzky@albemarle.org
Contact the Albemarle Board of Supervisors using the following group email: bos@albemarle.org
David Wyant (Vice Chairman) -- White Hall District
P.O. Box 81
White Hall, Virginia 22987
434.823-5818
dwyant@albemarle.org
Dennis S. Rooker - Jack Jouett District
1421 Sachem Place, Suite 3
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(434) 977-7424
Fax (434) 974-7600
dsrooker@earthlink.net
Write a Letter to the Editor. Today! People do read them. The more letters the newspaper receives, the
more Albemarle Taxpayers will know about this state law.
COpy this flyer, and qive it to your friends. neiqhbors, co-workers. church and club members. The more
people that know, the more likely the supervisors will be to vote for a modest, acceptable increase.
Join the Albemarle Republicans! We always need volunteers to help spread our conservative message
of smaller government, sound fiscal management, and personal responsibility. Call or email us today:
434.974.1617 or AlbemarleRepublicans @adelphia.net.
Never ForQet: It's OUR money. not the Qovernment's!
Paid for and Authorized by the Albemarle County Republican Committee, Keith C. Drake, Chairman
2160 Viburnum Court · Charlottesville, Virginia 22911-9059
434.974.1617 . 434.974.7305 (Fax) · AlbemarleRepublicans@adelphia.net
Feb 22 2007 1:41PM
" l
540-456-6628
Pn' _~____
Henry and Elizabeth Hyatt
8604 Whis lefield Fa~ Road
Afton, irginia 22920
Emai~-hh a t@metro lexinc.com
Teleph ne-540-456-6625
To: Kenneth Boyd, Linds y Dorrier, Dennis Rooker,David
Slutzky, Sally Thom s, and David Wyant
Re: Property Assessment Increase and Tax Rate
We are owners of a 456 ac
the Greenwood area of the
keeping this beautifu1 fa
it_ In 2005, we placed 12
conservation easement whi
subdivision. Our intent i
easement in the future wi
subdivision rights_ The r
is deeply disturbing. ~No
app~ies_ Our assessment i
the 74 cent tax rate resu
$4,706, and at 72 cents--
~good" news that our asse
instead of the 30% County
taxes wi11 increase by 24
rate results in a $737
e farm, Whistlefie1d Farm, in
County. We are dedicated to
m intact and not subdividing
acres of the fa~ in a
h permits no deve~opment or
to add to this conservatlon
h no further development c:>r
cent reassessment of our fa~
good deed goes unpunished"
creased by $636,000 which at
ts in a tax increase of
4,579, and this is with the
sment only went up 24%
average, and of course, our
to almost $25,000-a 72 cent
ction.
You can't have it both . These kinds of tax
increases wil1 only force onservation minded owners:
like us to face the econom'c reality that conserving
our properties are not a ~ in winn for us, the County
and the public. Now we mus consider subdividing and
putting conservation easam nts on the back burner.
Other owners will do the s e. These oversized tax
increases result in a huge disincentive to the
conservation of rural land
The County p01icy of a fix
rate decreases, is poor p
bUdget/taxation process de
Progress editorial is righ
increase in assessments Ii
current taxation policy
in revenue-very simi1ar to
d tax rate, or nominal tax
lie policy. The
cribed in the attached Daily
on point. With a huge
e this year and last, the
u1ts in a windfall increase
the excess profits in recent
Feb 22 2007 1:41PM
· a
540-456-6628
p.3
years by the oil compani It appears your
inclination is to spend he windfall instead of
reducing the tax rate wi h moderate increases in
spending_ The money from the windfall seems to be just
to tempting to spend, an we recognize there are worthy
places to spend the wind all. Unfortunately, the tax
increase at or close to he current tax rate is simply
too large for many prope ty owners, and not just people
in our situation, but th owners and landlords of
"affordable housing", mo erate and fixed income elderly
owners, small business 0 ers, and owners subject who
receive modest wage incre ses. In fact, we own an
affordable rental propert (currently unrented) and the
assessment increase on th's property at 74 cents would
increase the real estate axes by $38 per month-
resulting in a rental rat increase of 5% just to pay
for the tax increases--th fixed tax rate system is
directly in conflict with your policy of encouragin9
affordable housing.
Thank you for your ideration.
Feb 22 2007 1:41PM
. ,.
540-456 6628
p.~--
EDITORIAL
1
.tSut they areOlscussmg these moves
: in tandem with program '<needs,"
For budget planning purposes, officials
first should knock the tax rate back to
. the amount necessary to generate the
· cutrent level of revenue. Then, with that I
, amount of money in mind, they should
consider needs, and what services can be
.i supported with that amount of revenue.
New or expanded services are sought?
Then they should he justifiE-'<i.
Better yet, officials should go to zero-
based budgeting. That means that not
just new or expanded.services, but rath-
er every service and program must justi-
. fy its existence each budget year. Offi-
. ciaIs start from the theoreti,cal position
, that no services are needed, and every
.. program, new or old, is reviewed afresh.
It's a demanding. discipline, but one that
restrains the bureaucratic tendency of
program expanSIOn.
Meanwhile, Albemarle officials should
also realize that annual aSS4~ssments
won't solve the problem. Increasing the
frequency of assessments doesn't ad-
dress the fundamental ofinereased as-
sessed valu-ations, which in turn raise
,-: property owners' tax payments. (Renters
; pay these increases too, as rising costs
.. are passed along to them.)
Tax assessments rose an average of
29.8 percent over two years. That's an
annual rate of 15 percent a year.
Few of us receive pay raises at 15 per-
cent a year. Many residents don't even
get paid - they live on fixed incomes.
In the long 'run it matters little wheth-
er the bill amounts to a-15 percent hike
for one year or 30 percent for two years.
Many of us simply can't afford to keep
paying these kinds of taxes, period.
When Our incomes don't rise enough.
to allow us to pay these rates, we often
have to find the money by cutting the
family budget somewhere.
Supervisors and councilors .should
take the same approach.
A6
';., h... I I ~)
The Daily Progress
Assessments
V5. tax rates
They're lOoking at this thi~g all
wrong.
Eyeing higher assessments,
city and county officials should think
about how much to "give back" to the
taxpayers - as if increasing tax revenue
is the natural order of things, that the
money is theirs to control and that a cut
in the tax rate is an act of beneficence..
A cut in the tax rate should be auto-
matically assumed. It should be the
default position, the starting point for
the Charlottesville City Council and the
county boards of supervisors when view-
ing skyrocketing property assessments
that will cost taxpayers significantly
more money unless something is done.
That doesn't mean the county and city
must never raise taxes. Sometimes
increases will be justified.
But it does mean that government
leaders will look at tax rates.first and
foremost from a different perspective.
They will see taxes from the perspective'
of the stressed property owner, and they
will see themselves as conservators of
the taxpayers' money Only after they are
immersed in this mind-set should they
. think about raising tax revenue.
. It's a subtle difference we're talking
abou there.
It's not that city and county leaders
are insensitive to the plight of taxpayers.
Already they are discuS1!iing whether, or
how much, to lower the tax rate so as to
ease the burden of higher assessments.
In Albemarle supervisors also say that a
move to yearly assessments, rather than
every other year, will ease the'pain.
Ronal L. Kerber
3365 St ny Point Road
Charlottesv'lle, Virginia 22911
(43 ) 975-5227
(434) 25-7881 Cell
Albemarle County Board of Supe tsors
Albemarle County
Charlottesville, VA
March 6, 2006
Dear Supervisors:
The proposal to use the recent 300 increase in the property assessments as a
budget windfall is irresponsible. T e idea that the county government budget
needs are tightly linked to prope value increases is ridiculous. Fiscally
responsible county supervisors sh uld consider building a budget from a
zero base instead of taking a wind fall from tax payers. Anyone responsible
for running any kind of organizati n knows that by setting priorities,
establishing options and driving D efficiencies there are many opportunities
within anv budget to deliver a bett r service. For example, if all agree to
fund teacher pay raises, that is de rly an acceptable priority. Some say the
county population wants more se ices, at what cost? ... who pays? .. . and
what services are not valued and n ed termination? Finally, the county
already has sources of new revenu from new development and construction.
Yet, our county government is pro osing a tax increase, after many previous
tax increases, that is much higher t an the growth of the Consumer Price
Index (inflation), the county popul tion or any other reasonable metric. You
say you want affordable housing, s you can walk the talk by first having
affordable taxation. So let's all de and fiscally responsible county
government.
~J//4
f6~id L. Kerber
Albemarle County