HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-20
FIN A L
7:00 P.M.
October 20, 1993
Room 7, County Office Building
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) Consent Agenda (on next sheet) .
6) Adopt Resolution approving the issuance of up to $3,000,000 in revenue
bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of
Orange, Virginia, for the Benefit of Westminster Canterbury of the
Blue Ridge.
7) Public Hearing to receive comments on the local Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CRAS) , which defines the region's housing
needs, for use of HOME funds by the local consortium of counties and
the City of Charlottesville. The CRAS will identify the region's
affordable and supported housing needs and will outline a method for
meeting those needs. The CRAS will guide the use of Federal funds
received by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission from
the HUD HOME Program which provides grant funds to conduct housing
rehabilitation, new construction, assistance to first-time home
buyers and assistance to renters.
8) CPA-92-05. Towers Land Trust. Public Hearing on a request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to expand the Growth Area Boundary of the
Hollymead Community to include Regional Service, Office Service &
Low & Medium Density Residential uses. Area under consideration for
these designations is E of Rt 29N, S of North Fork Rivanna River, W
of Rt 785 and N of Proffit Rd (Rt 649) .
9 Public Hearing to receive comments on Community Needs and Priorities for
Fiscal Year 1994-95 County Operating Budget.
9~) Discussion: Reconsideration of action taken on C. Todd Shields,
ZMA-93-09 and SP-93-20.
1P) Approval of Minutes: May 13{A), and November 4, 1992; July 14, August 18
and October 11, 1993.
1) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
1~) Adjourn.
CON S E N T
AGENDA
FbR APPROVAL:
5.1 Resolution Proclaiming October 27 as "Unfunded Mandates Day in Albemarle
County" .
5.2 Resolution to accept Village Woods Lane in Village Woods Subdivision into
the State Secondary System.
5.3 Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Common-
wealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month
of September, 1993.
FbR INFORMATION:
5.4 Notice of Appointment of Albemarle Housing Coordinator.
5.5 Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for October 5, 1993.
5.6 Status Report on Visioning/Comprehensive Planning Process.
5.7 Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for Arbor Crest Apartments
(Hydraulic Road Apartments), for September, 1993.
5.8 Memorandum dated October 20, 1993, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., re:
Electronic Mail Messaging (E-mail).
t
Edward H. B in, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
David P. Bow rman
Charlottesvi Ie
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. umphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
MEMORANDUM
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning & Community Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk tJ,UU
October 21, 1993
Board Actions of October 20, 1993
Following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on October 20,
1 93:
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Mark Frankel, Joan Gilrain, Alice Stilwell and Gary Taylor, voiced support for ZMA-93-09 and
S -93-20, C. Todd Shields, and asked the Board to reconsider the requests.
Mary Anne Dilbone expressed the need for a new high school.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Resolution Proclaiming October 27 as "Unfunded Mandates Day in
A bemarle County". Adopted the attached resolution.
Item No. 5.2. Resolution to accept Village Woods Lane in Village Woods Subdivision into the
S ate Secondary System. Adopted the attached resolution.
Item No. 5.6. Status Report on Visioning/Comprehensive Planning Process.
The Board directed staff to look at bringing in some consultants or ftrms to discuss different or
n approaches to planning that the staff may not be aware. Staff is to include in the analysis what
uld be entailed, the costs and when such a presentation could be made.
*
Printed on recycled paper
emo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 21, 1993
Agenda Item No.6. Adopt Resolution approving the issuance of up to $3,000,000 in revenue
b nds by the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Orange, Virginia, for the Benefit of
estminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. Adopted the attached resolution.
Agenda Item No.7. Public Hearing to receive comments on the local Comprehensive Housing
fford-ability Strategy (CHAS), which defines the region's housing needs, for use of HOME funds by
t e local consortium of counties and the City of Charlottesville. The CHAS will identify the region's
a fordable and supported housing needs and will outline a method for meeting those needs. The CHAS
ill guide the use of Federal funds received by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
f om the HUD HOME Program which provides grant funds to conduct housing rehabilitation, new
c nstruction, assistance to first-time home buyers and assistance to renters.
Ms. Rellen Perry suggested that higher priority be given to housing needs of low income
. 'es with children.
Mr. Doug Frame informed the Board that AHIP is not being allowed access to HOME funds as
has in the past. In addition, HUD has ruled that AHIP will no longer be allowed to assist families
"th job planning and act as the general contractor for the client-family. HUD stated this was a
c nflict of interest. Congressman Payne is working with AHIP to try to resolve this situation. Mr.
F e asked the Board to contact Congressman Payne and lend its support of AHIP'
The Board directed staff to contact Congressman Bliley's office, in addition to Congressman
P yne's office, in support of AHIP. Mr. Tucker is to inform the Board if any further action, such as a
r lution, by the Board is necessary. The Board also directed staff to see if what Ms. Perry is
ggesting can be done.
Agenda Item No.8. CPA-92-05. Towers Land Trust. Public Hearing on a request to amend
t e Comprehensive Plan to expand the Growth Area Boundary of the Hollymead Community to
i clude Regional Service, Office Service & Low & Medium Density Residential uses. Area under
c nsideration for these designations is E of Rt 29N, S of North Fork Rivanna River, W of Rt 785 and N
o Proffit Rd (Rt 649).
APPROVED cPA-92-05 to amend the Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan to include the
ea north of Proffit Road, east of Route 29, South of the North Fork Rivanna River and west of Route
7 5 in the growth area boundaries of the Community of Hollymead. Recommendations for
elopment of this area to be included in the Plan are:
1. Limit access to Route 29 to three locations for the entire frontage from Proffit Road to
the North Fork Rivanna River. The Towers Land Trust property should be limited to
two access points to Route 29. The northernmost access point should be aligned with
the future access to the University Real Estate Foundation's (UREF's) North Fork
Research Park. Access should be prohibited from the Towers Land Trust site to Route
785.
emo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
October 21, 1993
2.
Consideration should be given to developing a Greenway along the North Fork
Rivanna River to protect environmental resources and provide recreational
opportunities.
Actual wording for the change in the Comprehensive Plan is to come back to the Board on the
c nsent agenda for approval.
The Board also stated that it wanted to continue deferring CPA-92-02, South Fork Land Trust,
u til the Meadow Creek Parkway issue is resolved.
Agenda Item No.9. Public Hearing to receive comments on Community Needs and Priorities
f r Fiscal Year 1994-95 County Operating Budget. Received; no action. Budget guidance from the
d will be discussed on November 3.
Agenda Item No. 9a. Discussion: Reconsideration of action taken on C. Todd Shields, ZMA-93-
o and SP-93-20. In the absence of Mr. Marshall, this item was deferred until November 3.
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Nominated Mrs. Humphris as the voting delegate for V ACo's 1993 Annual Meeting and
ated Mr. Bowerman as the alternate delegate. Voting Credentials Form has been forwarded to
Co.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the
eeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
George R. St. John
Amelia McCulley
J 0 Higgins
Bruce W oodzell
File
EREAS,
EREAS,
RESOLunON
UNFUNDED MANDATES
according to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (fLARC), Virginia's local
governments are subject to 391 Federal and state mandates; and
unfunded mandates on local governments have increased significantly in recent years; and
Federal and state mandates require cities, counties and towns to perform duties without
consideration of local citcumstances or capacity; and
in some cases mandates require local governments to redirect their priorities, to meet federal
and state objectives rather than community objectives; and
excessive federal and state regulations on local governments impose harsh pressures on local
budgets, often requiring increases in local taxes and fees, and/or reduced local services for
residents; and
S,
federal and state mandates too often are inflexible, one-size-fits-all requirements that impose
unrealistic time frames and specify procedures or facilities where less costly alternatives might
be just as effective; and
existing mandates impose harsh pressures on local budgets, often requiring increases in local
taxes; and
S,
the cumulative impact of these legislative and regulatory actions directly affect the citizens of
our cities, counties and towns; and
the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia School
Boards Association are working with localities, school boards and organizations across the
nation to begin a public education campaign to help citizens understand and then reduce the
burden and inflexibility of unfunded mandates, beginning with a National Unfunded
Mandates Day on October 27, 1993;
OW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle endorses the efforts of tht, Virginia
Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia School Boards
Association and their national counterparts, and supports working with the national groups
to fully inform our citizens about the impact of federal and state mandates on our governments
and the pocketbooks of our citizens;
B IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle plans to redouble efforts to inform members
of our Congressional and General Assembly delegations about the impact of federal and state
mandates and plans to work with the delegations to reduce the burden of unfunded mandates
on our citizens.
F itlLY BE IT RESOLVED that I, David P. Bowerman, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors,
do hereby proclaim October 27, 1993, to be "Unfunded Mandates Day in Albemarle County, "
in observance of National Unfunded Mandates Day.
:jo :} :} :} ::4
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted
b the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on October 20, 1993.
If i{,! leY Cd .'C,/"
Clerk, Board of County Supe~r;sors
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
i in regular meeting on the 20th day of October, 1993, adopted
t e following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the streets in Village Woods described on the
tached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 20, 1993, fully
corporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
t e Clerk's Office of th~ Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
unty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tion to add the roads in Village Woods as described on the
a tached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated October 20, 1993, to the
s condary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reauire-
m nts; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
quirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
d unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
sements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
corded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
rwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
ansportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris.
Seconded by: Mr. Bain.
Yeas: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs.
Humphris.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
C
- ~I c
:J
b 8
~I
c
..
E
.r..
0
~ .. ~
0<(
G (l)
~ r-i
.c: l-I
5: cO
s
(l)
0 ..0
~ r-i
(f) <r:
- i
0
E
0
-.;
(f)
III
'U ii
c ~
0
0
0>
(f)
0 "
-5 ~
0 "
n f
c
e 0 "
'"
- 0
:0
'U 6
c( .~
"U 11
0 R
., II:
0 S UJ
"0
f 0
0
CL ~
"
<I)
11 (l)
<{ ] co
cO
II) r-i
. r-i
0: liil OH
(f) ;>
~ >:
0: '6 c
0 1; .Q
LL '"
~ 'S;
(f) '6
Z ~ .n
:J
0 !! (fJ
E "' a
0 [ ..
r. E
0 u
:! oJ
c( -< z
~
r')
~ >
.... 0
rl ~ ..
0
..
~~~
e 0: ..
Vl ~
~ ~
o ..
U.
f, I
{J j
Ii
-' . 'M
6 c M
" .-< .-<
.,
U ~ 0
u 0
-< u
.
(.
2
. S
~
0-
J
tl
z
~
~
'i
u
.
j
~ g
~ Ii -
u 0
~ If'\
N
- ..;r
; I
0
::, N
~ '"
;; ;; ;; .. ;; ;; ;;
.. c. 0 to .. ~ I.
.. .. ~ ~ .. ..
U:l II. ll. ll. ll. ll.
.
~ c
;. '"
E'-< <Xl
Z i
H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
:?: ~ Y Y y 1 y t t .
~ +J l
(:: ~ 0 0 u u u 0 Cl
.- (l)
6 S ~ <Xl
'n (l) <Xl
U
u :> ~ I
-< cO N
1 P- I N
" ~ I
<I) 'H M
0 c:. ;; . .. . . . ..
;; ;; .. ;; ., ;; ~
(l) .~ 0 0 0 Cl 0 0
co 'i 'l 'l 'i 'l 'i 'i
"0 " " n " " " n
J:z.1 ;-} II II II II II II II
~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .~ II ~ " ~ ([ ~ II J It ~ If ~ cf
0 OJ b G 0 .. 0 ., 0 ., .f::!. -.; 0 o~
Ii: l- II U: 0- r>. Ii: o- n: Ii: 0- Ii t- Ii I~ Il Ii:. t- Il
UJ
"0
0
1 0
~
"
<I) (l)
15 co
. cO
f r-i (l)
~
Z r-i (::
'H cO
;> .....1
li ti - ... n ~ on c ""
a: z
.
..
C
~
u
~
~'
"'
.;
-;
,
.Q
!l
,
~
~
to
~
..
\:
c
>-
~
'0
I-
Z
Ut
:l'
J:
o
...
1=
-<
u.
o
z
o
t=
...
u
u:
t=
Ie
UI
U
..
>
..
"
1i
"
..
>-
l
'0
r.
c
'0
r.
u
l
t
~
~
o
~
t
(;
z
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of
p-lbemarle County, Virginia (IIAuthorityll), has been asked by
~estminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge (IIWCBRII) to approve the
'ssuance of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority
pf the County of Orange,' Virginia in an amount not to exceed
~3,OOO,OOO (IIBonds") to assist in the financing of WCBR's
~cquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately
V1,OOO square foot, 32-bed addition to the health care center
ocated in the west wing of WCBRiS retirement community at 250
Pantops Mountain Road (lIprojectll), in the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on October 14,
993i
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
986, as amended (the IICodell), provides that the governmental
~nit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity
ponds and over the area in which any facility financed with the
~roceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the
ssuance of the bondsi
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-1378 of the Industrial Development and
~evenue Bond Act, Chapter 33, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of
950, as amended (IIActll), provides that if a locality has created
~n industrial development authority, no industrial development
~uthority created by a second locality may finance a facility
ocated in the first locality unless the governing body of such
irst locality concurs with the inducement resolution adopted by
he industrial development authority created by the second
ocalitYi
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the County of Albemarle,
ITirginia (II County II ) and the Board of Supervisors of the County
IIBoard") has created an industrial development authority, and
(onstitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board
cpprove the issuance of the Bondsi and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
ssuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a
<ertificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement
lave been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Juthority for the benefit of WCBR, as required by Section 147(f)
f the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to
ssist in the financing of the Project.
2. The Board concurs with the resolution adopted by the
ndustrial Development Authority of the County of Orange,
irginia and approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial
evelopment Authority of the County of Orange, Virginia for the
enefit of WCBR as required by Section 15.1-1378 of the Act.
3. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not
onstitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds
f the creditworthiness of the Project or WCBR.
4. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary
ncome Tax Regulations Section 5f,103-2(f) (1), this resolution
hall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of
ts adoption.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
doption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
lbemarle, Virginia this 20th day of October, 1993.
of
SEAL]
j !t\l.r::' ,~
RESOLUTION
UNFUNDED MANDA YES
according to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (fLARC), Virginia's local
governments are subject to 391 Federal and state mandates; and
unfunded mandates on local governments have increased significantly in recent years; and
Federal and state mandates require cities, counties and towns to perform duties without
consideration of local circumstances or capacity; and
in some cases mandates require local governments to redirect their priorities, to meet federal
and state objectives rather than community objectives; and
excessive federal and state regulations on local governments impose harsh pressures on local
budgets, often requiring increases in local taxes and fees, and/or reduced local services for
residents; and
federal and state mandates too often are inflexible, one-size-fits-all requirements that impose
unrealistic time frames and specify procedures or facilities where less costly alternatives might
be just as effective; and
existing mandates impose harsh pressures on local budgets, often requiring increases in local
taxes; and
the cumulative impact of these legislative and regulatory actions directly affect the citizens of
our cities, counties and towns; and
the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia School
Boards Association are working with localities, school boards and organizations across the
nation to begin a public education campaign to help citizens understand and then reduce the
burden and inflexibility of unfunded mandates, beginning with a National Unfunded
Mandates Day on October 27, 1993;
OW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle endorses the efforts of the Virginia
Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia School Boards
Association and their national counterparts, and supports working with the national groups
to fully inform our citizens about the impact of federal and state mandates on our governments
and the pocketbooks of our citizens;
E IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle plans to redouble efforts to inform members
of our Congressional and General Assembly delegations about the impact of federal and state
mandates and plans to work with the delegations to reduce the burden of unfunded mandates
on our citizens.
INAlJ.Y BE IT RESOLVED that I, David P. Bowerman, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors,
do hereby proclaim October 27, 1993, to be "UnfUnded Mandates Day in Albemarle County, "
in observance of National Unfunded Mandates Day.
::-::- ::- ::- :;.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on October 20, 1993.
t ,.c
]' )). //
;QL( l,(/cZ/C(',
C erk, Board of County super:/::rs
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5841
PRESS
RELEASE
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors signed a resolution declaring October 27, 1993, as
nfunded Mandates Day,
The resolution calls for an end to unfunded mandates, which are laws and regulations passed by
t e federal and state governments that require local governments to meet their conditions, but do not
p ovide funds for them to do so.
"Unfunded mandates are a serious problem for us in Albemarle County," said Robert W, Tucker,
J ., County Executive. "Increasingly, programs that we would like to implement in Albemarle County
g unfunded, because of the flood of expenses required by new mandates from Washington or Richmond,
E en if the mandate is a beneficial one, it sets priorities for local funding without any local input."
Federal and state officials have issued such mandates with increasing frequency in recent years,
b cause federal and state revenues have been decreasing, By ordering local governments to provide new
s rvices, the federal and state governments can require the services and shift the burden of new costs to
t local government level. Ultimately, the cost is borne by the same group either way: taxpayers, Local
g vernment leaders have characterized such mandates as charging national and state bills to local
g vernment credit cards.
To bring attention to the unfunded mandates problem in local governments, the National League
o Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U, S, Conference of Mayors and the International
C ty/County Management Association have joined forces to declare October 27, 1993, as National
U funded Mandates Day. On that day, local governments throughout the nation will focus attention on
th problem of unfunded mandates.
In Virginia, this effort is supported by the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Association
o Counties and the Virginia School Boards Association, which have scheduled a news conference on
o tober 27, at 9:30 a,m, in front of Richmond City Hall, located at 9th and Broad Streets,
"It's time Virginia taxpayers woke up to the burden that unfunded mandates are placing on local
fi ances," said David P. Bowerman, Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, "This is
o e issue that we all agree on."
For more information on this topic, you may call the Albemarle County Executive's Office at 296-
For more information on the October 27 event in Richmond, contact Suzette Denslow at the
V' ginia Municipal League at (804) 649-8471, Leigh Ann McKelway at the Virginia Association of
C unties at (804) 788-6652, or David Blount at the Virginia School Boards Association at (804) 295-8722,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
lQ-l5.q3
AGENDA T TLE:
Unfunded Mandate Resolution
AGENDA DATE:
October 20, 1993
ITEM NUMBER'
Cf3. (OZD(S. J)
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Request
federal
October
Albemarl
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes (1)
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGRO
To bring attention to the unfunded mandates problem in local governments, the National League
of Citi s, the Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Association of Counties and the
Virgini School Boards Association have joined forces to declare October 27, 1993 as National
Unfunde Mandates Day. On that day, local governments throughout the nation will focus
attenti n on the problem of unfunded mandates. A press conference has been scheduled by
these g oups on October 27 at 9:30 a.m. in front of Richmond City Hall.
DISCUSSION:
The atta hed resolution calls for an end to unfunded mandates, or laws and regulations passed
by the f deral and state governments that require local governments to meet their conditions,
but do not provide funds for them to do so. Information on the state mandates that
specifi ally affect Albemarle County has already been forwarded to you.
The resolution also calls for the County to proclaim October 27, 1993 as "Unfunded Mandates
bemarle County". If the Board approves the resolution, a press release has already
ared that will go out to the local media on Thursday, the 21st.
DCO
Staff re ommends approval of the attached resolution on unfunded state and federal mandates
proclai ing October 27, 1992 as "Unfunded Mandates Day in Albemarle County."
93.163
. ~ --..._~.---
1 --"'-...
LU,./',
i "C)i\RD 0 'r.
.~_ F SUPER" Ii,'. ...._
--- -~~~,-~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
October 15, 1993
RE:
state and Federal Mandates
is a copy of a report concerning unfunded state and
deral mandates. In reviewing this report, you will note that we
ve not identified or itemized any educational mandates as I
derstand that Dr. Paskel is working on this matter independently.
is report is timely since the National Association of Counties
ACo) and the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) are working
develop grassroots publicity on unfunded mandates. As you know,
Co and VACo have declared October 27th as National Unfunded
ndates Day and we have prepared a recommended proclamation for
ur adoption on October 20th. We will also be preparing a press
r lease which will provide information regarding this issue for the
citizenry of this area. I have shared the report with Senator Robb
a d Delegates Van Yahres and Way since Senator Robb was very
i terested in this issue.
ould you have any questions concerning the report, please do not
sitate to contact me.
T,Jr/dbm
.190
tachment
:~~-;.~ ~ fiiJDq
"\('~
'\\~~ ;
t OFSIJpERV,jORS
\oQARD -
l~.~
REPORT ON STATE MANDATES
I. ntroduction
Al emarle County is not alone in feeling imposed upon by the increasing financial burden of federal and
st e mandates. The June 1993 Update of the Catalog of State and Federal Mandates on Local
G vernments published by JLARC lists 391 state and federal mandates that have an impact on local
go ernments in Virginia.
M st of these mandates across the state, as well as the ones that apply to Albemarle County, are in the
ar as of health and human services, education and public works. For Albemarle County, 180 mandates
ha e been identified that apply to general government programs and operations; the total cost of these
m dates is approximately $10.3 million dollars. This is the cost to Albemarle County government and
d es not include an additional $1.8 million collected in fees from Albemarle County citizens.
F Howing closely the outline and format of the JLARC catalog, this report provides information on the
m dates that apply specifically to Albemarle County. Attachment A lists all the identified mandates and
th ir associated costs, if known. Attachment B brings together information from the implementing
d partment or agency with respect to the need for the mandate itself or, in some cases, simply a more
e lcient method of implementing the mandate.
T e report also points out the difficulty of assessing the value or true cost of a mandate to the County,
si ce in the majority of cases the County might implement a similar process or standard with or without
a federal or state mandate. What becomes evident from comments throughout this report is that the
C unty does not oppose mandates in and of themselves. No one disagrees with the purposes behind most
o the mandates, which are often imposed to achieve a well-intended national or state goal. What the
ounty does disagree with is mandates being given to the localities by the federal and state governments
t implement with no accompanying funds and often within a narrow timeframe.
ach county department affected by state mandates was asked to respond to the list of mandates cited in
e JLARC study by answering the following questions: Is there a need for this mandate; does the
andate impact the department or agency other than cost; should the mandate be eliminated; and lastly,
uld the mandate be more efficiently implemented by the state? Responses to these questions are
s mmarized in Appendix B, pages i-xvi. The mandates and the responses are listed in the same order and
ategories as those listed in the JLARC report. Responses to the efficiency question are listed only if there
as an identifiable suggestion on how the mandate could be improved.
epartments were also asked to estimate the cost of each mandate on the County, on the State, or on any
ther source, ie. Federal government, fees, charges, etc. The costs of these mandates are listed in
ppendix A, pages 1-5.
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
n the subcategory of Public Health, there are a total of 15 mandates that have an impact on local
overnment, 13 of which have a fiscal impact on the county totaling $569,365. Six of the mandates are
ptional programs, which would reflect a local savings of$128,150 if they were eliminated, All are related
o the operation of the Thomas Jefferson Health Department and the local share required from Albemarle
ounty to operate the programs. The other share of the costs comes mainly from patient fees
1
. A 1 wandatcs arc dCCillC.d i1Cccssill) , including the optional ones, to provide adequate health services to
C unty residents; only one (#8) was recommended for elimination, since indigent hospitalization is
c nsidered a federal or state responsibility, not one of local government. Eliminating this program would
sa e $32,315. Only one mandate (#6) was recommended for an administrative revision.
ental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Services
T ere are eight mandates in the mental health subcategory representing an approximate fiscal impact on
th county of $630,000. However, the state share of the mandated services is $3.7 million or
a proximately 85% of the cost of delivering these services. Four of the eight mandates are considered
o tional programs, although they are optional only if you choose not to receive state funds for the
m dated service. All eight services are deemed necessary; none were recommended to be eliminated.
ARC identified 64 statewide social service mandates divided into three categories: social services
ministration, fmancial assistance administration and social services for the needy, Locally, social
s ices has the greatest number of mandates (49) with an annual fiscal impact on the County of
a proximately $820,000 dollars. Only 5 mandates were targeted as needing to be eliminated for a potential
s vings of approximately $40,000.
A number of the mandates are accompanied by suggestions or recommendations for streamlining or
a ministrative relief, many in the area of burdensome and unnecessary paperwork requirements. The
st te's attempt to automate the DSS offices may already be helping in this area, but more efforts are
n eded.
PUBLIC SAFETY
A identified by JLARC, there are 47 mandates imposed on local government in the area of public safety,
T ese are divided into the three categories of law enforcement and traffic control, corrections and
d tention and emergency services. At the local level, there are 23 mandates that have been identified as
h ving an impact on Albemarle County at a total cost of $356,250. Only 5 of the mandates are optional,
o are conditions of funding.
w Enforcement and Traffic Control
der Law Enforcement and Traffic Control, there are only 9 mandates with a total fiscal impact to the
C unty of approximately $40,000. In this area mandates have a relatively insignificant impact, since this
r fleets less than 1 % of the county's law enforcement budget.
orrection and Detention
Ithough there are only 7 mandates, the greatest costs under public safety are under the corrections and
d tention category, the total fiscal impa~t being approximately $272,000. Two of the mandates are
c nsidered optional or a condition of state funding.
T e local costs associated with the operation of the Joint Security Complex have not been included in this
alysis despite the fact that local jail operations must adhere to uniform operating and professional
s andards mandated by the Department of Corrections, Since jail operations would operate under the same
s andards with or without state regulation, the mandates in this case have not been considered an
a ditional fiscal burden imposed upon the locality, However, it is important to recognize that the share
o state funding for prison operations has not kept up with the increased demand for either staff or
o erational needs, causing both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to assume a greater
2
s are of the costs each vear,
S ven mandates affect the implementation of emergency services in the County, most of which are
d' ted toward emergency planning. As you can see, the fiscal impact of these mandates are minimal at
$ 1,500, with all mandates considered necessary for the provision of emergency services in the County.
PUBLIC WORKS
aintenance of Roads and Other Facilities
ARC identified 46 mandates related to transportation. However, since Albemarle County does not build
o maintain its own road system, only 9 mandates were identified under this subcategory for a total impact
o the County of $127,365. Since many mandate costs associated with private roads are passed on to
d velopers and absorbed into the total cost of a development project, the fiscal impact of a specific
m date, such as highway entrances, etc. are difficult to estimate, and, therefore, go undocumented in this
re ort.
S nitation and Waste Management
J ARC identified 26 mandates that address solid waste management facilities, sewage treatment plants,
p blic water systems, and hazardous waste management procedures across the state. Thirteen state
m dates have been identified that affect solid waste disposal and water quality programs in Albemarle
C unty, with a total annual cost of $760,000. However, the additional cost to County citizens in the fonn
o tipping fees and water and sewer fees paid to local service authorities is approximately $1.2 million.
N ne of the mandates are optional. Only two were recommended for elimination, One, the need for a
p nnit from the Department of Waste Management and two, the mandate to meet recycling quotas or
d adlines, Staff felt that the econontic incentives are not yet available to meet recycling quotas and that
th state mandates are ahead of the ability of markets to absorb recyclables. While we are meeting the
re uired EP A/state mandates for recycling, the cost of recycling is very expensive since there are very
fe markets available to off-set this expenditure with even a "break-even" market.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
J ARC has identified 37 community development mandates that address planning, zoning, economic
d velopment, housing and environmental protection, Fourteen of these identified mandates apply to
A bemarle County, 4 of which are considered optional. Two of the optional mandates, Section 8 and the
S'x-Year Road Plan are conditions of funding; the other two are mandates only if you have a zoning
o inance or wish to have certain streets taken into the secondary system.
e total cost to the County for these mandates is $329,770. However, considering the County's strong
phasis on comprehensive planning and environmental quality, it is uncertain as to how many would
implemented even if not mandated by the State.
PARKS, RECREATION AND LIBRARIES
andates for local parks, recreation and libraries are limited across the state, as well as in Albemarle
C unty. Only fourteen mandates were identified across the state, only 4 of which apply to Albemarle and
o of which are conditions of grant programs, There is no fiscal impact associated with any of these
3
nly 3 mandates have been identified statewide that pertain to support services provided to the judicial
s stem by local governments. For Albemarle, the total cost of the three mandates is $182,000, which is
e cost of providing support services and office space to the magistrate, juvenile court, circuit court, and
g neral district court.
ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT
dministration of the Judicial System
eneral Administration
ARC identified 48 mandates or administrative requirements that are spread across three categories:
g neral administration, personnel administration and financial administration. They include mandates on
e ections, constitutional officers, grievance procedures, uniform pay plans, employee leave and retirement
b nefits.
irty-two of these mandates affect Albemarle County for an estimated total cost of $6.3 million, the
g eatest cost being the mandated number of sick, annual and vacation days for local government
e ployees, Without this cost of $4.3 million, which in all probability would be incurred under a local
s stem, the total cost of the administrative mandates to local government is approximately $1.9 million,
one of the mandates are optional and none were recommended for elimination.
I . Interpretation
iting costs from the above categories, the total fiscal impact of state mandates on Albemarle County
g neral government is $10.3 million (see page 1, Appendix A). However, comments and
r commendations from the department and agency heads who are responsible for implementing these
andates indicate that simply taking away the state mandate may not save the County a like amount of
d llars.
F r safety, environmental, educational, and equity reasons, the majority of state mandates are viewed as
b neficial, if not essential, to maintaining the quality of life in Albemarle County, As shown in Appendix
, pages i-xvi, most responses indicate that the mandate is necessary, that it provides a basic service to
Ibemarle citizens, and that it should not be eliminated. Many statements indicate that the programs or
gulations would probably be in effect in Albemarle County even without the state or federal mandate.
. Summary/Recommendations
owever, even if the mandate is a beneficial one, the imposition of a state or federal mandate causes three
ajor problems: one, it does not account for Albemarle's capacity to implement the mandate; two, it does
n t account for the County's financial ability to pay for the mandate; and three, it sets priorities for local
fi nding without any local input.
nly 12 mandates were recommended by agency and department heads for possible elimination for a total
s vings to the County of $272,240. However, many recommendations were offered on more efficient
ays of implementing or streamlining the mandates. These should be seriously considered by state
a encies, if they are truly attempting to "reinvent government".
I summarizing the material in this report, there are six major conclusions/recommendations concerning
t e imposition and impact of state mandates on Albemarle County:
4
.. ",,"~"',~'''''' ............'4....__.....,.,..-....'.... .... '''''''''''''"''''',,. ....~, ""'." " c"" "'.~ "',,,,,"'''' ~ ~:-"~"".''''''''''''''''.' "_'.' .. __ ........,.., _'._ ,_. <, ,
No new mandates should be imposed on Albemarle County without accompanying state funds,
The majority of state mandates have either been imposed on localities with no accompanying
funds or with insufficient funds to cover the total cost of the mandate.
2 The state must keep up their fair share of the costs of current mandates as caseloads and operating
costs increase. The shrinking share of state funding for state mandated programs has a particularly
significant impact on growing communities, such as Albemarle. As an example, state funding for
human service programs has been flat over the past several years, reducing the long held ratio of
80/20 for state/local funding closer to 68/32.
3. Further study of the division of responsibility and fiscal accountability between state and local
governments is needed. Since the share of local funding for state controlled agencies, ie, sheriff,
courts, corrections, has increased over the past five years, while state funds have decreased,
Albemarle County should not be forced to contribute to programs over which they exercise little
or no control.
4, The legislative body should pay attention to the fiscal impact analyses prepared on proposed
legislation by the Commission on Local Government. Each year Albemarle County assists in this
effort by analyzing and reporting the potential fiscal impact of legislation on local government;
legislators do not pay attention to these reports, which clearly document the fiscal impact on a
locality prior to final passage of the legislation.
5. The state should focus on the desired outcomes of a mandate, rather than dictating all the steps
in the process to the localities. Enabling localities to determine the most efficient and effective
way to implenient a mandate based on local conditions and resources would encourage flexibility
and creativity at the local level that might set an example for the rest of the state,
6. State government should look at each mandate to determine if all the regulations and
administrative requirements are necessary. "Reinventing government" should mean streamlining
the administrative rules so that the process can be more efficient at both the state and local level.
~
5
APPE NDIX A - STATE MANDATES
SUM lI1ARY OF FISCAL IMPACT OF STATE MANDATES
ANNUAL COSTS
STATE OTHER COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES $7,293,335 $715,648 $2,333,939
PUBLIC SAFETY $37,210 $20,696 $356,250
PUBL IC WORKS $0 $1,840,900 $887,365
COM fJlUNITY DEVELOPMENT $137,475 $35,000 $329,770
PARJoc S,RECREATION AND LIBRARIES $0 $0 $0
ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT $75.900 ~ $6,335.850
TOTAl&- FISCAL IMPACT $7,543,920 $2,612,244 $10,243,174
APPENDIX A - STATE MANDATES
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Hel Ith
1 Establ sh and maintain a health department
2 Provid~ communicable disease services
3 Provid~ child health services
4 Provide maternal health services
5 Provid~ family planning services
6 Provid~ environmental health services
7 Medic id nursing home screening and pre-authorizations
8 Participate in State/Local Hospitalization Program
9 Foreig~ travel immunizations and information (sliding scale fees)
10 Child I ealth services(inc.babycare,sickchild,lead testing,school service
11 Matefl al health services/outreach
12 Public "f1ducation/outreach on family planning
13 Gener. I medical services(gen.clinic,home health, outreach,)
14 Dental services
15 Serve ~s registrar of vital records and health statistics
Subtotal PI blic Health Services
*
Mental He~ Ith Mental Retardation and Substance Services
1 Establi ~h a community services board (CSB)
2 ProvidE audit and arrange legal services for CSB.
3 CSB's 'must have licenses to offer services.
4 CSB's must participate in Medicaid covered se"rvices
5 Must a ~prove planlbudget and provide 10% share,
6 ProvidE emergency,prescreening, and predischarge services
7 Insure interagency cooperation and coordination.
8 Must CI ordinate services for youth and families (CSA)
Subtotal ME ntal Health Services
Social Serv ces
Social Sf rvices Adminstration
1 Must dE stroy program records based on schedules,
2 Must Sl bmit staffing reports
Italics are op ional mandates
* asteriks denote mandates to eliminate
" ..."-,, -" --,"
ANNUAL COSTS
STATE OTHER COUNTY
27,500 22,500
64,450 21 ,000 53,550
67,650 59,000 63,350
42,900 34,000 43,100
30,250 16,000 33,750
122,100 23,000 99,900
8,250 3,000 6,750
32,315
14,300 18,000 17,700
20,000 6,000 50,450
5,500 4,500
3,850 3,000 3,150
29,550 56,000 56,850
44,000 15,000 86,000
9,000
$480,300 $267,500 $569,365
8,540 577
59 4
3,070,160 207,580
117,944 7,335
505,180 413,330
$3,701,883 $0 $628,826
3,400
23,690
1,390
9,675
APPENDIX A 1
,APPE DIX A - STATE MANDATES ANNUAL COSTS
STATE OTHER COUNTY
3 Locali ies must submit budget and fund a share of budget 1,065 435
* 4 Must ubmit an administrative plan 2,840 1,160
5 Must nsure and maintain confidentiality 41,320 16,880
6 Invest gators of out-of-family complaints must receive training
* 7 Must ave merit system for adm.staff
8 Must omply with civil rights regulations
9 Must onform to state policies for office space
Subtotal dministration $72,315 $0 $29,540
Financial Assistance Administration
10 Auxili ry grant program for SSI recipients 104,665 27,540
11 Must articipate in food stamp program 22,410 93,295
12 Must articipate in Aid to Dependent Children 184,815 75,500
13 Gene al Relief program to temporarily disabled citizens 108,870 57,640
* 14 Estab ish and maintain methods for preventing fraud/collection actions 31,653 12,929
* 15 Must i itiate collection actions on overpayments (included in #14)
16 Requi es reconsideration of financial grants by local boards 13,580 7,945
17 Must etermine eligibility for refugee assistance program 6,012 1,640
18 Must etermine eligibility for energy assistance program 35,354 8,510
19 Must etermine eligibility for medicaid clients 119,416 200,528 48,775
20 Must etermine elibility for Aid to Dependent Children 207,718 23,546
* 21 Must etermine eligibility for emergency assistance 3,775 1,540
22 Confo m to merit system for program/eligibility personnel (inc in #7)
23 Must ubmit reports on caseloads 1,262 515
24 Must ubmit expenditure reports 23,690 9,675
25 Must rovide record of decisions of local social service board 1,400 575
26 Confi entiality of clients (costs included in #5)
Subtotal inancial Assistance Administration $864,620 $224,074 $346,079
27 Defin s 7 broad mandated services and target populations 327,375 133,715
28 Provi family preservation services (incl.in # 29)
29 Provid child protective services 244,250 98,690
30 Provid foster care services 127,725 52,190
31 Provid adoption services 71 ,480 11,775
32 Must rovide evaluation prior to guardianship appointment
33 Must r port abandoned child to State DSS 4,615 1,885
34 Must rovide protective services to adults 78,785 32,180
35 Provid services to victims of spouse abuse/promote interagency coop.
36 Provid services to clients released from state hospitals 9,570 3,910
37 Must rovide home-based services, if funds a,vailable. 18,745 7,660
38 Provid child day care services to ADC families 98,690 19,125
39 Must perate JOBS program 177,170 12,855
40 Purch se day care services for low income families 99,560 18,980
* 41 Must evelop written agreements with community service board 995 405
42 Must esignate lead agency to coordinate local long-term care services.
43 Community based screening team for long-term services 42,720 17,450
* 44 Must rovide intake services 40,325 16,470
45 Must rovide case management services (costs identified in # 27)
46 Must s bmit reports on caseloads to DSS 1,262 515
47 Must pprove out-of-home and in-home day care providers 20,480 8,365
Italics are 0 tional mandates * asteriks denote mandates to eliminate APPENDIX A 2
APPE DIX A - STATE MANDATES
ANNUAL COSTS
STATE OTHER COUNTY
48
ystem for employees in social service programs(in #7)
articipate in Purchase of Service System
ervices for the Needy
18,165
$1 ,381 ,912
$3,111,152
$7,293,335
$0
$448,148
$715,648
7,420
$443,590
$819,209
$2,017,400
*
TOTAL HEAL H AND HUMAN SERVICES
PUBLIC SAF
Law Enfor ement and Traffic Control
1 Must r port arrests to Central Criminal Records Exchange
2 Must f 1I0w state regulations to access VCIN
3 Must r port certain crimes/offenses to UCR
4 Must r port missing children to Information Clearing House
5 Must r port terrorist acts to state
6 Certifi ation for unmarked vehicle license plates
7 If rece ve drug related cash/assets must conform to DCJS regs
8 Must istribute notices to crime victims on their rights
9 Mand ted equipment and methods to analyze breath samples
Subtotal w EnforcementlTraffic Control
unknown
$0
5,500
5,120
16,000
1,600
o
o
o
o
10,470
$38,690
$0
Correction and Detention
1 Must c mply with state staffing standards for Juvenile Court
2 Must rovide office space,utilities,furniture for Juvenile Court 34,050
3 Local j ils must comply with DOC regulations
4 Maint ance costs must be borne by locality 0 0 20,995
15 Must e tablish record keeping procedures
Re ional jail 37,210 5,060 2,495
Polce 0 0 180,000
16 Must p rticipate in a compliance audit every 2 - 3 years unknown 0 0
17 Local ersonnel must meet training requirements set by DJSB
reg onal jail unknown 9,246 4,555
poli e 0 0 64,000
Subtotal orrections and Detentions $37,210 $14,306 $306,095
Emer enc Services
1 Must a point director of emergency services
2 Must h ve annual emergency exercise/part-time emerg,manager
3 Must d velop emergency plan
4 Must h ve emergency plan to respond to nuclear accident
5 Must h ve emergency plan to respond to hazardous spills
6 Must s are of costs if federal declaration of major disaster
7 Must e tablish a local emergency planning committee
Subtotal mergency Services
TOTAL PUBLI SAFETY
0 0 4,300
0 6,390 6,390
0 0 775
(included in #3)
(included in #3)
0 6,390 11 ,465
$37,210 $20,696 $356,250
PUBLIC WOR S
Maintenan e of Roads and Other Facilities
1 Standa ds for state highway entrances
2 Local t afffic signs must conform to state standards
3 Requir s curb ramps at intersections for persons with disabilities
5,000
Italics are op ional mandates
* asteriks denote mandates to eliminate
APPENDIX A 3
APPE DIX A - STATE MANDATES
ANNUAL COSTS
STATE OTHER COUNTY
assk nancy
4 DOT nd localities must conduct rural planning assistance
5 Must nforce Uniform Statewide Building Code
6 Must ave certificate of operation for boilers/pressure vessels
7 Must scertain that contractors hold valid contrators licenses
8 Must aintain a pound
9 Must omply with Statewide Fire Prevention Code
Subtotal oads and Other Facilities
581,800 (fees)
$0
$581,800
1,000
13,500
107,865
$127,365
Sanitation and Waste Mana ement
" 1 Solid aste facility requires a permit from Dept. of Waste Management
2 Solid aste facility must receive grant site approval in 120 days
3 Must ave Board certified operator of waste management facility. (RWSA)
4 Comp y with Fed Resource Conser. and Recovery Act (next 5 years) 1,200,000 460,000
5 Locali ies must submit compliance within 120 days for certification
6 Locali ies must submit 20-year solid waste management plan 25,000
" 7 Must evelop and implement recycling programs 200,000
8 Must omply with hazardous waste management requirements 40,000
9 Repla e underground storage tanks (annual cost over 5-yr period) 60,000
1 0 Local ublic water systems must have a permit. 19.500
11 Contr I of the quality of wastewater discharge 14,600
12 Certif that activity does not violate state water quality standards
13 New s wage plants must meet public health/water quality objectives.
Subtotal anitationlWaste Management 0 1,259,100 760,000
TOTAL PUBLI WORKS $0 $1,840,900 $887,365
COMMUNITY EVELOPMENT
1 Must c eate a local planning commission 40,000
2 Must a opt a comprehensive plan (every 5 years) 20,000
3 Must a opt subdivision ordinance (includes amendments) 35,000 70,000
4 Adopt six-year Secondary Road Improvement Plan 4,000
5 Adopt verlay zoning to keep airspace free from obstruction
6 Must e tablish a zoning board of appeals. 29,700
7 Must a opt ordinance to control development of suibdivision streets 47,000
8 Prope y improvement plans by licensed/certified architect,engineer, etc.
9 Sectio 8 program must adminster according to guidelines. 137,475 30,470
10 Counti s must promote sufficient affordable housing.
11 Must b covered by erosion and control program 73,600
12 Loea/itf s must reimburse Dept. of Forestry for forest protection. 15,000
" 13 Land s bject to perpetual conservation easement taxed at use value.
TOTAL PLANN NGIZONING $137,475 $35,000 $329,nO
PARKS,RECR ATION, AND LIBRARIES ._
1 Use of V A Outdoors Fund must keep park open in perpetuity.
2 Use of and and Water Conservation Funds, requires park open in perpetuity.
3 Popula ions over 500 must employ state licensed librarians.
4 Must fo low standards, procedures and processes established by State Library Board.
TOTAL PARKS, ECREATION AND LIBRARIES $0
ADMINISTRATI N OF GOVERNMENT
Administrati n of the Judicial S stem
$0
$0
Italics are opt onal mandates
" asteriks denote mandates to eliminate
APPENDIX A 4
" ;.. :_,:, :~;",>,~' ,_;_'0', ',,"
APPE DIX A - STATE MANDATES
ANNUAL COSTS
STATE OTHER COUNTY
1 Locali ies must process payments to attorneys,jurors and witnesses
2 Must rovide support/quarters to magistrate and courts
3 Must rovide representation for indigents for local jail offenses.
Subtotal J dicial System
7,200
$7,200
General A ministration
1 Must lect Clerk of Court,Sheriff, Commonwealth Attorney
2 Shall rovide offices for Sheriff/Commonwealth Attorney
3 Must ave a electoral board and general registrar
4 Must rovide signs outside polling places for the disabled
5 Must dopt a voting machine or system approved by state
6 Must om ply with the Freedom of Information Act
7 Must omply with State Library Board microfilm requirements for official records.
Personnel Administration
8 Must stablish a grievance procedure
9 Adopt a personnel classification Plan
10 Must omply with ADA and anti-discrimination policies.
11 Locali ies shall provide two weeks annualleave,seven sick days and state holidays,
12 Must rovide pay for military duty up to 15 days
13 Must rovide a retirement system for employees
14 Must omply with OSHA rules and regulations
15 Must rovide benefits under Workers Compensation
16 Must rovide business applicants with staturory workers comp requirements
17 Must r port new hires to VEC within 35 days
Financial dministration
18 Must h ve a uniform fiscal year
19 Must f IIow a budget process of public hearings, pUblication
20 Must s bmit a financial report to Auditor,of Public Accounts
21 Requir d to have annual audit
22 Must c nform to Virginia Public Procurement Act
23 Comm ssioner of Revenue must provide taxpayer assistance
24 Asses ing officers must provide records to state for sales ratio study
25 Must 0 tain income tax returns and forward to state
26 Clerks must collect recordation taxes and taxes on wills
27 Treasu er must deposit state moneys promptly and submit statement
28 Must r assess real estate at certain intervals and at 100% of value.
29 Must aintain and publish inventory of all tax-exempt property,
30 Must p ovide notice of reassessment change,
31 Must r port and remit unclaimed property to State treasurer
32 Must r port abandoned property to state treasurer
33 Pay sal ries, expenses, allowances and office ~quip
of Con titutional officers (except Sheriff)
TOTAL ADMINI TRATION OF GOVERNMENt-
26,500
35,000
$75,900
ES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
182,000
$0
$182,000
115,040
90,000
10
4,000
37,500
Too early to estimate.
4,347,000
433,320
130,000
65,000
120,000
577,330
10,000
600
42,050
$0 $6,335,850
$7,543,920 $2,612,244
$9,926,635
Italics are op ional mandates
.. asteriks denote mandates to eliminate
, '''';?:''''''~'':.~;-7(:\c.-~~'(~<;~~~~
'l'II.~""C""''''''_'''''''''''''''"",......~_.",....__.,,.......,.,....,....-,..~.,.,._.~'_~,"._
APPENDIX A 5
THE DEPARTMENT/AGENCY RESPONSES TO JLARC INDENTIFIED MANDATES
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public H. alth
1, Establ sh and Maintain a Local Deoartment of Health
Need: Yes Having a local health department (even if most of the programs are handled through other means)
provides a focus for citizens and officials dealing with a vital component of government (to
protect health).
Elimi ~ate: No
2. Provi~e Communicable Disease Services
Need : Yes This mandate prevents communicable diseases of the public and individuals.
Elim nate: No
3. Provi ~e Child Health Services
Nee<l: Yes This mandate helps children develop optimally through prevention and early intervention. Much
of this mandate (children's specialty services and genetic screening) iscovered by State HD
budget administered by the state and not through the local HD.
Elim nate No
4 ProviHe Maternal Health Services
Nee~ : Yes Although the HD does not provide prenatal clinics (referring to UVa), it does provide other
relateq services which are necessary for good pregnancy outcomes to start children's lives as
optimally as possible.
Elim nate: No
5.
Provitle Familv Planning Services
Nee< : Yes This mandate helps assure that most pregnancies are planned or desired, thereby lessening the
impact on economic, social and educational resources of the community for child support.
Elim nate: No
6. Provitle Environmental Health Services
This mandate protects public health through education of the providers of meals and certain
personal services (day care, tourist housing, swimming pools, migrant labor camps, eater
suppliers) as well as the permitting and/or inspection thereof. It assures protection of ground and
surface water supplies by regulating on-site sewage disposal, sewage/septage
transportation/disposal and small water supplies. It also assures proper and thorough management
of biting animals and care of persons bitten to prevent rabies.
Elim nate: No
Effici~ncy of Mandate: The establishment of a strong licensing program for all soil consultants who would have to
meet strict criteria and modification of the state program to provide more review, oversight and
approval of private work, in place of directly doing all the evaluation and system design might
work. If the system rema~ns as it is, the state should increase fees to cover the full cost, not just
a token amount as now. Also, elimination of the licensing and inspection of motels (except for
food service and-pools) could provide a small amount of staff time to devote to other programs
with more public health significance.
Neec:
Yes
7, Provi~e Medicaid Nursing Home Screening and Medicaid Pre-Authorizations
Nee,: Yes Older and disabled persons, who might need medicaid to pay for long-term care, receive
professional evaluation and service planning directing them to the best/most cost efficient service.
Most medicaid pre-authorization for other items (except bus travel) is no longer done through
health departments,
Elim nate: No
APPEND X B
8.
ate in the StatelLocal Hospitalization Program
Yes Localities are required to provide funds for a share of total hospitalization costs for indigent
residents.
Although there is a need for hospitalization for indigent county residents, basic health care should
be a federal or state responsibility, not one of local government.
9, Prov' e Communicable Disease Services
Ne ed: Yes This mandate provides information and medical services to protect residents who travel out of the
country. This is a specialized service on which most medical providers are not trained or up-to-
date. It also provides low cost, accessible hepatitis B (for OSHA) and flu shots for large
segments of the community.
10, Prov de Child Health Services
N Yes This is the bulk of the home and school visiting done by PH nurSes to assist families in accessing
health care or related services to evaluate children's health needs and to educate parents about
raising healthy children. This program provides the onlv nursing service in Albemarle schools.
11. Prov de Maternal Health Services
N Yes Public education and outreach (though limited by demands of other programs) for improving
knowledge and services for pregnant women lead to more healthy children.
12. Prov'de Family Planning Services
Need: Yes Public education and outreach to improve knowledge of and access to pregnancy prevention has
profound social, economic and health benefits.
Elim nate: No
13. Provi e General Medical Services
Need: Yes These are the primary programs for adults and the elderly providing in-home care, care taker
education, monitoring. and support as well as public education and screening to prevent chronic
diseases and decrease poor health habits and health risks, Although there are other similar
services, they often do not reach or serve well the needs of lower income or disadvantaged even
though the HD serves all.
Elim nate: No
14. e Dental Health Services
Yes This mandate provides primary and preventive dental care to children of low income families with
continuity (unavailable elsewhere unless family can pay full cost) and emergency and limited
primary dental care to indigent adults.
Elim' ate: No
15. Serve as County Registrar of Vital Records and Health Statistics
Need Yes This mandate provides local access to copies of death certificates for legal and family needs.
Elimi ate: No
Mental Haith, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services
1. Establ sh or Join a Community Services Board
Need: Yes This is a multi-jurisdictional mechanism to plan for and provide services to the most vulnerable
citizens in our communities.
APPENDI B
11
',.,..:...;':..;>-,.;.:-<",'-,<;.....:u'"'"....-...-.:'''''~'''''. _..."".,._........,....".,_..,,............,.. '.
2. If Fi cal Agent. Must Provide Audit and Legal Services
Nee : Yes Audit and legal services must be provided to any governmental operation. In practice, Region
Ten has always arranged for and paid for their services.
3, Must Have a License to Offer Services
Yes Licensure provides for a basic level of protection and quality assurance to disabled persons in
need of services.
4. Must Participate in Medicaid Covered Services
N Yes Medicaid reimbursement now provides over $1,000,000 in services that would otherwise be paid
for through local and state appropriations.
Elim' ate: No
Eflicie cy of Mandate: Community Services Boards are working with the state to reduce unnecessary paperwork and
documentation.
5. A ro e Budl!et of the Community Services Board and Provide a Minimum of Ten Percent of Community Services
Bards Fundin
Ne Yes Community Services Boards are agents of the local governments they serve, and should be
accountable to them, but also receive at least minimal financial support.
Yes
Community Services Boards serve as the gatekeepers for state facilities; prescreening and
discharge planning are the basic tools necessary to assure appropriate utilization of inpatient
servIces.
No
6. Provi e Emerl!ency Prescreeninl! and Predischarge Planninl! Services
Elim nate:
7. Estab ish and Coordinate the Operation'of a Prescription Team
Need: Yes The "Prescription Team" is just a fancy name for interagency cooperation and collaboration, a
process that would go on in any event.
Elim
oordinate Services for Youth and Families to Access State Pool Funds (Comp. Services Act. 1993)
Yes Funds are needed from the state and locality to provide mandated services to at-risk youth and
families. This mandate also includes funds for all foster care placements which is a mandatory
program.
8.
Must
Need
Elim nate: No
SOCIAL
Social Se ices Administration
1. Must estro Program Records
Need Yes This mandate provides a system for record retention.
Elim' ate: No
Eflici ncy of Mandate: It takes months to get approval to destroy records through the system,
2. Must ubmit Staflinl! Reports
Need: Yes/No Some reports are needed/some are not
Elimi ate: NoNes Some could be eliminated through automation. Some of this is going on now at state level.
APPEND
111
~''''''.>l';.;I~''':'''7'''''''','f.'"~..-,.
-.-t...... .'......;~.,"_...__..,........,... __ ,................~~......"-",,' ~..~ ".._ ',<"OO_L. ~. ...~
Effic ency of Mandate: Through more effective automation,
3. Must Submit a Bud2et and Fund a Share
N Yes Submission of a budget is not necessary because we no longer develop a true budget. The state
sets the allocation in most programs with a few exceptions. However, it is important to state in
the code that localities will fund a share of the budget.
4. Must Submit an Administrative Plan
Ne No
Elim nate: Yes Administrative plans are tedious make work projects that are rarely used. True administrative
planning would be beneficial - i.e., tying the state strategic planning process into local strategic
plans.
5, Must Ensure Confidentiality
N Yes This mandate ensures privacy and safeguards specific to our records. It goes beyond the privacy
act which only speaks to collection of data.
Elim' ate: No
Em 'ency of Mandate: The confidentiality policy is in critical need of update, which is going on now. LWA's must
rely heavily on local staff attorneys. Each program also has separate guidelines within 63.1-53
because of federal and other state restrictions. Provision of clear policy would be helpful.
Administration
6. Wor erg Who Investi2ate Out-of-Familv Complaints Must Meet State Qualifications
Nee : Yes In litigious culture, training basis is necessary, Training is prctty uneven from agency to agency
now, which makes state certification positive.
Em iency of Mandate: Training time could be more efficient with fewer days away from agency.
7, Must Conform to a Merit Svstem
Nee : No
Er inate: Yes The county has its own system. However, elimination of this mandate may affect smaller
localities.
Em iency of Mandate: By allowing DDS to fully follow county personnel policies.
9. Must Conform to State Policies for Office Space and Facilities
Nee : Yes Cost is calculated into other mandates - "conforming" to space requirements gets into architects,
contractors, etc.
Eli inate: No
Effi iency of Mandate: Allow more local flexibility with "guidance" from the state. In essence they do this.
8. Must Comllly with Civil Rights Laws
Ne Yes
10. Mu t Administer Auxiliary Grant Program
N d: Yes This mandate provides assistance to financially needy residents, who could not qualify for a
nursing home, yet could not remain in their homes alone, even with some assistance.
Eli inate: No
Effi iency of Mandate: Simplify application to match SSI medicaid application.
11. Mus Participate in Food Stamp Program
Ne d: Yes This mandate provides a source for payment for food for low income residents.
IV
Eli inate: No
Emci ncy of Mandate: Automation -- which state DDS is doing. Use of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer Cards)
will be helpful.
12. Mus ParticiDate in ADC Program
Nee : Yes This mandate provides financial assistance to families with dependent children.
Eli inate: No
Effi iency of Mandate: Automation -- which state DSS is doing. Use of EBT. Better training is also needed,
Must Maintain Methods and Criteria for Preventinsz Fraud
Yes This mandate provides some accountability to the taxpayer. However, most "fraud" is really not
client pre-meditated but agency error or client not reporting changes (intentional after the fact).
Yes Until state fully funds the mandate.
13. Proszrams Who Elect to Provide General Relief Must Submit a Plan
Yes There is no other source of support for temporarily disabled citizens. Although many of them
qualify for SSI or SSA, SSI and SSA can take up to one year to process. GR provides interim
assistance.
Eli inate: No
Effici ncy of Mandate: The state gives localities a lot of flexibility with this program. Automation would be key
to being more efficient.
Effici ncy of Mandate: Automation -- also automation of old manuals, Emphasis on training eligibility worker on
good interviewing techniques to prevent fraud,
16. inancial Assistance Grants Must be Reconsidered kLocal Board
Nee Yes This mandate provides review of financial assistance at local level.
Elim 'nate: No
Effi 'ency of Mandate: By allowing more local discretion on how often a case should be reviewed.
17. Mus Determine Eligibilitv for Refugee Assistance Program
Nee : Yes This mandate provides short term assistance to refugee population that would not qualify for other
assistance.
Efficie cy of Mandate: Need better training and policy clarification on the program. Although in Albemarle the
population is very small, automation would be helpful.
18. Mu t Determine Eligibility for Energv Assistance Program
Nee: Yes This mandate provides heating and cooling assistance payments to vendors on behalf of low
income citizens.
Eli inate: No
Effi iency of Mandate: Better automation.
19. Mu t Determine Eligibility for Medicaid
Nee: Yes This mandates provides medical coverage for low income citizens. Also provides coverage for
categorically eligible citizens that are not part of the lowest income, i.e., pregnant woman,
children.
Eli inate: No
Effici cy of Mandate: Needs automation and better coordination between Dept. of Medical Assistance services and
Virginia State DSS office. No consideration of impact on locals when additional programs are
continuously added.
20. -FC Must Determine Eligibilitv for ADC Clients in Foster Care Program
Yes This mandates provides federal funding for categorically eligible children 10 the foster care
system.
APPEND X B
v
Automation.
21. Must Determine Eligibility for ADC Families for Emeflzency Assistance
N No
Eli inate: Yes Policy requires the use of other local resources prior to these funds, Usually Red Cross and
Salvation Army provide enough help. Additionally, the assistance is very limited.
Effici ncy of Mandate: Policy could supply more items for disaster victims; could use concurrently with other local
resources.
23,
24, Must Submit Exoenditure Reoorts for Financial Assistance Programs
Nee: Yes This mandate provides an accountable method of receiving reimbursement.
Er inate: No
Efficie cy of Mandate: Through automation. Reports could be done automatically if purchase system and case
management were more automated.
25, Loc Board Must Provide Minutes
Need: Yes This mandate provides historical information on decisions.
Elim ate: No
Effic ency of Mandate: Should keep on disk to take up less space and utilize a paperless system,
26. Ensu e Confidentiality
Sam as #5
27. es Seven Broad Familv Based Services and the Target Pooulations
Yes This mandate provides direct service assistance to citizens; provides for some protection of
children and adults, provides employment services to hard core population, and provides adoption
services to families who may not be able to afford a private adoption.
Eli inate: No, but should be funded fully.
Effi iency of Mandate: See 30, 31, 43,51,52,32,45,48,53,64,60.
Famil Preservation Services to Prevent or Eliminate Foster-Care and Out-of-Home Placements
29. CPS Must Provide Child Protective Services
Nee: Yes This mandate provides direct services to victims of child abuse and neglect.
Er inate: No
Effici ncy of Mandate: Automation of reporting, non-duplication of data entry. Only enter facts one time. Eliminate
the 14 day investigation report requirement. Requirement changed from "will" to "may" for on site visit
of abuse. Review policies to eliminate inefficiency and inconsistencies.
30, Must Provide Foster Care
Nee: Yes This mandate provides for local participation in the care of young citizens,
Eli inate: No
Efficie cy of Mandate: Careful consideration should be given to this mandate and how CSA impacts it. Could be
more integrated. There is now a duplication of paperwork and process.
APPEND X B
VI
31. Mu t Provide Adootion Services
Ne d: Yes Adoption Services are available at a lower cost at a public agency vs a private agency. However,
private agencies should also be used.
Eli inate: No However, adoption searches are now mandated to us (prior to this year the state did them). Must
be careful not to keep putting more on L W A's because private agencies should be doing most of
adoptions,
32. Mu t Assist in Evaluation Prior to Guardianshio Aooointment hY. Court
Ne: Yes Local DSS may be directly involved in the case and therefore would want full participation.
Also, the court could order services to be provided by our department and better that we are
involved with the evaluation of the person who will be a guardian. Rare for the court to do this.
El' inate: No
E ciency of Mandate: Professional guardians should be used.
33. Mu t Reoort When Child Has Been Abandoned hY.Non-custodial Parent to the State DSS
N Yes This speaks to the Division of Support Enforcement and has little impact on the local DSS other
than administration.
Eli inate: No
Effi iency of Mandate: Automated. Being worked on now.
34. Mu t Provide Protective Services to Adults and Conduct Investi~ations in Abuse and/or Neglect
N Yes This mandate provides for some protection of infirm or aged citizens either in their home of in
an institution.
35. Provide Services to Victims of Spouse Abuse and Promote Intera~encv Coooeration
Yes This mandate provides state grants to local shelter and technical assistance. Our costs in this area
are absorbed in case management mandate - see #53.
Eli inate: No
Effi iency of Mandate: Unknown, constraints of staffing - unless there's a pattern and children affected,
36, Must Provide Services to Persons Discharged From State Hosoitals
Nee: Yes This mandate assures .local citizens access - unless state picks up total cost of Auxiliary Grants.
Effic ency of Mandate: Make it a full state program and then we wouldn't have to deal with residency issues. Long
Term Care proposal may shift more clients to AG category which will impact locals greatly.
37. Must Provide Home-based Services to Extent that Federal or State Funds are Available
Nee : Agencies can choose or not choose to do more with this program.
38. Must Provide Child Day Care Services to Eligible Recioients of ADC
Nee: Yes This mandate provides child care funds and other resources to low income working families.
El' inate: No
Efficie cy of Mandate: Automation. Also need to provide incentives for better coordination at local level with
resource and referral agencies, Needs more front end notice to clients when they apply for ADC
aid. Also needs ability to plan for the services at beginning because client will be ineligible for
this service after 12 mos. 'However, the problem is that this would require additional staff time.
39. & JOBS - Must Ooerate the JOBS Program for Recioients of ADC
Yes This mandate provides some employment and training services to ADC recipients as well as
supportive services.
Elim' ate: No
Effic'ency of Mandate: Automation. Incentives for job placements,
APPEND B
Vll
"'-crr,,-',,,,,,,,,,,~,,~~~'N'_,,"-_~"'~'" .........._.""""...,',~ "_'~ P""~'~ ~.__.__._.
40, Loca De artments Ma Purchase Da -Care Services for Low-Income Families Families Contribute on a SIidin
Scale.
Need:
Yes
This mandate provides child day care to low income working families who would otherwise be
on ADC (many of them but not all-some would go the latch-key route or worse).
Elim nate: No
Effic ency of Mandate: Automation. Provide more local flexibility in service delivery.
41. Must Develop a Joint Annual Written A2reement with Community Services Board to Specify Services Provided
N Questionable
Er inate: Yes Monthly meetings don't provide significant contributions to either DSS or Region Ten clients.
Effici ncy of Mandate: Community Services Boards are aware of necessary services in community. Questionable
why DSS is needed, may be helpful in other localities.
42. Must Desi2nate Lead Agency to Coordinate Local Long-Term Services
Nee: No Not for our community, but for others may be useful. Is a necessary mandate except for those
localities that already do it.
43, Must Participate in Community Based Screenin2 Team for Long-Term Services
Nee: Yes This mandate assures that a person's rights are protected and that they know all the alternatives.
Eli inate: No
44, Must Provide Intake Services
Nee: Yes This mandate provides for emergency services for low income families and referral to the Health
Dept. of ESPT and Family Planning,
Temporarily suspend, until funding is made available,
45. Must Provide Case Management Services
N Yes Case Management services are an integral part of all the social work done in the agency,
Eli inate: No
Effi iency of Mandate: Automation.
46. Must Submit Reports on Service Caseloads to State DSS
Nee: Yes This mandate provides counts for funding of some programs.
Eli inate: No
Effici ncy of Mandate: Full automation - most automated now. General Relief and State/Local Hospitalization and
Foster Care Supervision cases are not automated.
47. Must Approve Out-of-Home and In-Home Providers (Day-Care)
Need Yes This mandate provides for some regulatory guidance for child care providers and foster care
providers.
Elim' ate: No Temporarily suspend, because state is not fully funding.
Efficie cy of Mandate: Contract to local Resource and Referral agencies -- if there were funds. Also model after
our own TAFF (Tri-Area Foster Families) for foster home recruitment and training. We go
beyond the mandate.
48, Must Have Merit System for Emplovees Handling Social Service Programs (see ifD
49. Must Partici ate in Purchase of Service System to Purchase Services for Approved Vendors
Need No
Elimi ate: Yes To allow local flexibility in development of a POS system.
Efficie cy of Mandate: The system is old and has not been reviewed for a while (to my knowledge). Just a review
would be helpful. It is also not automated.
APPENDI B
Vl11
PUBLIC SAFETY
rcement and Traffic Control
1.
ReDort Arrests to Central Criminal Records Exchan~e
Yes This mandate sets standards and other requirements for documenting, finger pnntlOg and
photographing arrested subjects. Allows for exchange of information on arrests among
jurisdictions.
Install AFIS terminals in every agency.
2, Must Follow State Regulations to Have Access to VCIN
N Yes Important functions of information exchange among jurisdictions: contributes to officer safety,
community safety, keeping track of felons, recovering property, locating missing persons, solving
cnmes.
3. Must ReDort Certain Crimes and Offenses to UCR
N Yes UCR provides valuable information for analysis, planning and comparisons, also participation in
the reporting process requires a high degree of quality control in record keeping.
Er inate: No
Effi iency of Mandate: More efficiency needed, but state is working on it.
4. Must Report to Missing Children Information Clearing House
Nee : Yes For finding children.
Eliminate: No
Efficie cy of Mandate: Allow officer discretion within guidelines when dealing with entry of data on chronic
runaways. The system can become clogged with notices about habitual runaways.
5. Must ReDort Terrorists Acts to State Police
Nee: Yes
Elim'nate: No
6. Must Certify Vehicle Solely for Police Work to Receive Unmarked Vehicle Plates
N Yes
Elim 'nate: No
7. Loca Law Enforcement Agencies Receiving Drug-related Cash or Assets Must Comply with Policies of DCJS
Nee : Yes
Elim nate: No
8. Offic rs Must Notify Victims of Crimes of Their Rights by,Distribution of Notices to Each Victim
Nee: Yes
Elim nate: No
9. State Re ulates Method and Eauipment for Analyzing Breath Samples
Nee : Yes This mandate heightens the level of professionalism of police work.
Elim nate: No
1. Must Com I with State Staff/Personnel Standards for Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts
Need: Yes State pays all staff expenses for this court.
APPEND B
IX
~^.........,..---_._.....-----~. -.._....--~.
2, Must Provide Office Space. Utilities. Furniture. Telephone for State Service Units of Juvenile Court
Nee: Yes
Elim nate: No However, if a mandated service is directly under state control, the state should assume 100% of
costs,
3. Local'ties Must have Jails that Comply with DOC Regulations
Nee : Yes This mandate establishes professional standards so that all jails and lock-ups operate the same
throughout the state. Jail would maintain these standards without state mandates.
4. Corre tional Maintenance Costs Shall be Borne bv Localities/Localities Shall Bear at Least One-Half of Costs of
Construc ionlRenovation
N Yes The maintenance of the facility, including preventive maintenance insures the integrity of the
facility for many more years and therefore saves the taxpayers from having to build a new jail.
5, Local Criminal Justice Aszencies Must Establish Record Keepinsz Procedures
N Yes Background information, making arrests, analysis for planning, building cases and solving crimes,
quality control of information, confidentiality. Records are beneficial.
6. Local Governments Must Participate in a Compliance Audit Once Each Two to Three Years
Ne Yes This mandate helps establish professionalism within the correctional system. By meeting the
compliance standards - localities avoid costly legal action cost. Optional for receiving state funds,
7. Crim' al Justice Personnei Must Meet Traininsz Reauirements hL Criminal Justices Service Board
Nee : Yes This mandate promotes increased skills, knowledge, capabilities, professionalism, and helps reduce
liability of agency.
Elim nate: No
Efficie cy of Mandate: Develop more satellite training courses and reduce the restrictions, but continue to monitor
in-house training efforts.
1.
oint a Director of Emerszencv Services
Yes In order to have a viable emergency operations program, you must have a plan and exercise it.
No exercise will be successful unless you have the full support of a local jurisdictional manager.
Elim nate: No
2. Must Have Full or Part-time Emerszency Proszram Manaszer. Perform an Annual Exercise
Need Yes It is essential that disaster exercises be conducted periodically to ensure that a jurisdiction is ready
for a real disaster. The emergency manager designs and conducts the exercises and writes the
disaster plan.
Elim nate: No
3. evelo and Maintain a Local Emergency Operations Plan
Need Yes The development 'of emergency plans is an important function of responsible government.
Elim nate: No
4. Pre e and Keep Current an Appropriate Emergency Plan for Area Response to Nuclear Accidents
Need Yes The development of emergency plans is an important function of responsible government.
Elim' ate: No
APPEND B
x
5, e Plan to Respond to Hazardous Spills or Releases
Nee Yes Chemical spills occur frequently and are this jurisdictions biggest threat.
Eli inate: No
. .6, Must Share Non-Federal Share of Costs for Declared Maior Disaster
Nee : Yes This mandate would require the locality to share in the costs of a major disaster, if it was declared
a major disaster.
PUBLIC WORKS
nee of Roads and Other Facilities
1. ces to State Highwavs Must be in Accordance with VDoT
is mandate has specific effect. New entrances are subject to this requirement and standards are based upon
s ety considerations, The cost is incorporated into the entire site development cost and would amount to an
i significant fraction of the entire cost.
c Markings Must Conform to VDoT Standards
T is mandate has speCific effect. New traffic signs, signals, and markings must conform to VDoT standards and
based upon safety considerations. This cost is only a slight fraction of the entire project cost of a road
e tension/construction.
3. Re u re that Curb Ramps be Constructed and Complv with VDoT Standards
T is mandate has specific effect. It costs $500 per location for the ADA ramps required. VDoT's current
i terpretation when establishing the' number of locations along a specific road section is excessive. At
p sent, ADA ramps are required to access areas where no sidewalks or pathways exist or ever will exist.
T is may encourage mobility impaired persons to attempt to transgress areas that are not suitable for their
u e and could mislead them into an unsafe situation.
T is mandate should be modified to limit the requirement to specific locations where sidewalks or
p thways are located or plan to be located within the right-of-way.
4. DOT and Localities Must Conduct Rural Planning Assistance
Nee:
5. Enfo e the Uniform Statewide Building Code
Ne: Yes To protect the health, safety and welfare of Albemarle County residents.
Elim nate: No
6. Must Have Certificate of Operation for BoilerslPressure Vessels
N Yes For safety reasons, should have boilers inspected according to State standards, or every three
years.
Elim nate: No
APPEND B
Xl
7, Asce ain that Contractors Hold Valid State Contractors Licenses
Need Yes To protect the interest of the Albemarle County residents.
Elim nate: No
Effic ency of Mandate: Eliminate some of the specialty classifications.
8. Must Maintain a Pound Facility
Need' Yes To protect animals as well as the citizens, some type of holding facility is needed. County
contributes to the SPCA, which makes up the majority of the costs of maintaining the pound.
9. Must Com 1 With Statewide Fire Prevention Code
Need Yes The cost to the public of unnecessary and preventable fires would be much greater if there were
no fire prevention code for new construction and an inspection program for businesses.
Elim nate: No
Sanitatio and Waste Management
1. Estab ishment of a solid waste facilitiy reauires a permit from Department of Waste Management.
Need No All facilities throughout the state must conform to state and federal guidelines and mandates for
environmental protection in order to operate. If they meet the guidelines, a permit in itself is not
necessary. It has been used as an additional means of obtaining additional monies from localities
in order to obtain approval to operate.
Elim nate: Yes Can be certified by consultants.
2. Local Governments May Enact Ordinances for Solid WastelEstablish Criteria/Grant Site Approval in 120 Days
Need This mandate has no specific effect. Any location of a solid waste facility is subject to the
County Zoning Ordinance and routine site plan approval.
3. ave board certified operator of waste management facility,
4. Local overnments that 0 erate landfilts must com I with new Federal Resource Conservation and Recove
re uireme ts.
Need
Act
Yes
These mandates, although extremely costly to the County, are necessary to maintain safe ground
water resources for future generations. The costs of cleaning up the impacts from pollution are
in the long run far greater than the costs of prevention.
Elim 'nate: No
5. Loc Government Shall Inform Both the A licant and the De artment of Waste Mana ement of the Facili 's
Com lian e or Noncompliance Within 120 Days
This andate has no specific effect.
6. All V"r inia localities either indivdually or ioining together were to submit 20-vear solid waste managment plans l>.Y
Julv.L19 1.
T is mandate was met by the TJPDC. The staff time and print cost was approximately $25,000. While total staff
ti e from the jurisdictions within the PDe was not allocated at that time, the entire cost would have been from
$ 2,000 to $50,000. The updates required every 5 years should cost only a small fraction of the initial cost
(e timate $5-8,000).
7. evelo and Implement Recvcling Programs
No This mandate has a significant impact on the County, Altthough a mandate to recyle may
have encouraged jurisdictions to begin recycling earlier, most jurisdictions would have begun
APPEND B
Xll
to recycle anyway due to the economic disincentives of increasing tipping fee costs at
landfills. Mandates are ahead of the markets available to absorb the recycled material.
Albemarle County will be spending in excess of $100,000 per year to implement and support
this mandate.
10. Re u'red to Have a Waterworks Ooeration Permit
Ne: Yes It is desirable that Virginia have primacy over the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The
only way to fund this program was through a permit fee.
Elim ate: Option probably does not exist since it is based on Federal law.
Effic ency of Mandate: The key probably is to assure that regulations are reasonable, logical and implementable
rea1izi~g constraints that local entities have,
8. Local 20vernments DBt.reauired 1Q..comolv with hazardous waste management reauirements.
Ne : Yes The goal of this mandate is good, as the cost of cleaning up a hazardous waste spill or having
it contaminate ground water would be more expensive than the costs of preventative measures
in transporting, storing and disposing.
9. Re u red to U02rade or Reolace Underground Storage Tanks
N Yes This mandate has specific effect. The cost roughly to replace underground storage tanks is
$25,000 per location. This varies with size, age, and whether leakage occurred. The clean
up cost ranges depending upon the amount of leakage that is found.
Potential cost of cleanup would be far greater than cost of replacing them.
11. Re u red to have a Permit Authorizing Discharge From Facility to Surface Waters
Need: Yes This mandate is a Federal permit program administered in Virginia by DEO, A permit
program IS necessary.
Elim nate: No
Effic ency of Mandate: However, the requirements could be reasonable relaxed and made more reasonable.
12. Must Obtain a Certification that Activity will not Result in Violation
Need: These are project by project costs. Can be major for a reservoir project (i.e., Buck Mountain)
or minor for a stream pipeline crossing.
Elim nate: See below
Effic ency of Mandate: A State agency needs to become an advocate of water resource projects.
13. Re u red to Provide an Engineered Design for ID!Y..New or U~graded Facility
Need Yes Preparation of adequate engineering plans is a reasonable requirement and a logical first step
in completing a project.
Elim nate: No
Effic ency of Mandate: Sound judgment and reason should prevail in the review of material.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1.
a Local Planning Commission
Yes Proper administration of land use law/community development representing citizen interests,
ate: No
2. Ado a Comorehensive Plan for Land Use Develooment
Need Yes Most important policy document in county concerning its future growth and development.
Elimi ate: No. We would do this anyway.
B
X111
,3, Ado Ordinances Re~ulating the Subdivision of Land and its Development
Need Yes This mandate provides for orderly development of county.
Elim nate: No. We would do this anyway.
4. and Adopt a Six-Year Secondary Road Imt>rovement Plan
Need Yes This mandate allows local input and control over development of local road system.
Elim nate: No
5. Ado
Need
OverlaY Zoning that Keeps Specific Airspace Free From Obstruction
Yes This mandate provides protection of public health, safety and welfare as regards development's
relationship to airport operations; also, protection of public investment in airport.
We would do this anyway.
Elim nate: No.
6. Local ties with ZoninlZ Ordinances Must Establish a Board of Zonin~ Appeals
Need Yes A zoning board of appeals allows the public affected by a zoning decision to have a public
forum against arbitrary administrative decisions.
Elim nate: No
7. Ado
Need
an Ordinance for Control of the Development of Subdivision Streets
Yes This mandate assures development of road system in accord with public street requirements or,
in lieu of public, in accord with private street design requirements.
We would do this anyway.
Elim nate: No.
8. Estab ish a Procedure to Ensure that Plans. Specifications. or Calculations Prepared in Connection with
1m rovements to Real Property be Prepared ka Licensed or Certified Architect. Professional Engineer. Land.
Surveyor r Landscape Architect
Need Yes This mandate assures a certain level of professional expertise in developing plans, although
certification can be just a formality.
Elim nate: No
9. Secti n 8 Program Must be Administered Accordingly
Need Yes To follow the Section 8 regulations is a condition of receiving the funds. It is reasonable to
expect adherence to guidelines, but administrative paperwork/documentation is excessive.
Elim nate: Could opt not to administer the program
10. Prom te the Construction and Maintenance of Affordable Housing
Need No
Elim nate: No We have been developing this without a mandate.
are Reauired to be Covered kan Erosion and Sediment Control Program
Yes This mandate has specific effect. The Engineering Department has one EC officer and one
EC inspector specifically to enforce this mandate. However, without state mandate, the County
would enforce the same, if not stricter, guidelines in a similar program.
11.
12. Must Reimburse Department of Forestry for Fire Protection and Suppression
Need Yes Must have protection for forests. Charge for this protection is minimal based on .05 per acre
of privately owned woodland.
Elim' ate: No
13. Must Assess and Tax Land Subiect to Perpetual Conservation Easement at Use-Value for Open Space
Need No Land in Albemarle County may be taxed at use value if it is being used for agricultural,
forestry or open space. Do not need a perpetual easement to obtain use value.
Elimi Should be left to the discretion or incentive of the locality.
APPENDI B
XIV
PARKS, RECREATION AND LIBRARIES
1.
Administration Reauirements to Maintain Pards and Open Spaces for Outdoor Recreation
Yes This mandate could keep a future Board from closing or properly maintaining a park.
ate: No
2.
'n Park and Open Spaces for Outdoor Recreation
Yes This mandate could keep a future Board from closing or properly maintaining a park.
ate: No
3. Publi
Need
Elim
4.
Elim'
Librarians Servinll. Population Over 500 Must Employ State Licensed Librarians
Yes State licensed librarians insure more professional staff who are knowledgeable about new
library techniques and resources, thereby improving the overall general quality of libraries
across the state,
atin Librarians Must Follow Standards. Procedures and Processes of State Librarv Board
Yes State standards and procedures do not cause any excess costs or adminimstrative rules that are
not necessary for the proper management of a library.
ADMINISTRA TION OF GOVERNMENT
General dministration
1. Each i and County Must Elect a Treasurer. Clerk of the Court.Commissioner of Revenue. Sheriff and
Common ealth Attorney
Need Yes There will always be a need for financial administration, attorney's office and court services.
However, the configuration and administration of these functions responsibilities might be
different if under local control.
If under the direction of the state, this mandate should be fully funded by the state,
2. rovide Offices for Commonwealth Attorney and Sheriff
Yes Although services may be needed, the configuration of these two functions is outside of any
local control.
However, if the state maintains control over these offices, the state should provide full
funding.
3, Electoral Board and a General Registrar
Yes This mandate is a nice alternative to dictatorship,
Elimi ate: No
Effici ncy of Mandate: There are many minor laws and State Board of Elections policies that are unnecessary
but take up much time/re~ources.
4, Provi e Signs Outside Polling Places'
Need: Yes This mandate is necessary for public access and information.
Elimi ate: No
Effici ncy of Mandate: There are many minor laws and State Board of Elections policies that are unnecessary
but take up much time/resources,
5. Ado t for Use at Elections an Approved Voting Machine or System
Need: Yes Must vote on something. Ensures integrity of machines.
Elimi ate: No
xv
Effic ency of Mandate: The State Board of Elections could allow an incremental switchover to new and better
voting machines (as allowed in the Code) instead of forcing localities to spend major funds to
switch over all at one time.
6.
7. Must
Need
1 with State Librarv Board Reauirements for Official Records
Yes Good idea, since it defines exactly what departments need to keep, what can be thrown away,
and a timetable, County would need to hire someone to go back and document or categorize
all files and records. Once that was done, the job could be done by ongoing staff. In long-
term would save money for the County, since it would eventually reduce the number of
records being held in storage, and therefore reduce valuable storage area.
Personne Administration
8. MYn.
Need
blish I.. Grievance Procedure that Conforms to the State Procedure
Somewhat A grievance procedure is beneficial but final decision making by a fact finding panel,
similar to binding arbitration, is not beneficial.
Effie ency of Mandate: Eliminate the final decision making by a panel. Their opinion should be advisory to the
Board of Supervisors.
9.
t a Personnel Classification Plan for Service and a Uniform Pay Plan
Yes A classification plan is necessary to assure equitable salaries for different types of work.
ate: No
10. Must Abide hLState and Federal Anti-Discrimination Policv. Including ADA
Need Yes These mandates guarantee non-discrimination to all employees, including the benefits of the
new American Disabilities Act (ADA). It is to early to tell now beneficial this mandate will
be to disabled citizens.
11. Shall Annually Provide for each Emoloyee at Least Two Weeks Paid Vacation. at Least Seven Paid Sick Days
and Such olida s as are Prescribed hLState Law
Need Yes Beneficial to employees to have good salarieslbenefits, thus hopefully being more satisfied and
providing better services to citizens.
Elim'
12. Must Provide All Officers and Emoloyees with Paid Leave of Absence for Militarv Dutv
Need Yes Beneficial to employees to have good salarieslbenefits, thus hopefully being more satisfied and
providing better services to citizens.
El minate: No
13, Must
Need:
Elimi
14. Must
Need:
APPENDI B
rovide a Retirement System
Yes Beneficial to employees to have good salarieslbenefits, thus hopefully being more satisfied and
providing better services to citizens,
rovide for the Occuoational Safety and Health of Employees
Yes Beneficial to have safe working environments for employees and to protect their incomes if
they are injured.
XVI
.15, Must Provide Benefits to Workers for Iniuries or Occupational Diseases that are the Result of Employment
N Yes Beneficial to have safe working environments for employees and to protect their incomes if
they are injured.
No
16. Must Provide EmDloyers Reauestin2 Licenses to Conduct Business with Information Concernin2 the Statutory
Workers' om ensation Insurance Reauirements
N Yes Beneficial to have safe working environments for employees and to protect their incomes if
they are injured.
No
17. Must ReDort New Hires to VEC Within 35 Days
Need: Yes Beneficial for state to collect employment date from employers throughout the
Commonwealth. Minimal expense incurred.
Financial Administration
18. Must Have a Uniform Fiscal Year
Need Yes This is a good mandate.
19. Must Follow a Prescribed Bud2et Process with Publication. Public Hearin2s. etc.
Need Yes This is a good mandate for the public. Negligible costs involved.
20. Must Submit a Financial ReDort with the Auditor of Public Accounts Annually
Need Yes Useful expenditure; We would incur it without mandate.
21. Must have an Annual Audit Performed
Need Yes Useful expenditure. We would incur it without mandate,
22. Must do Purchasing in Accordance with Procurement Act or Adopt Alternative Provisions
Need Yes Useful. We would have purchasing department without mandate.
23. Must Provide Taxpayer Assistance to Prepare Tax Returns
Need Yes State provides funding for this service,
24. Asses ors Must Record and Make Information Available for Sales Ratio Study
Need Yes Good mandate. We would need to have something similar.
25. Clerk of the Circuit Court Must Collect and Deposit Recordation Taxes
Need:
26,
e osit All State Moneys
Yes Good mandate.
27.
eassess Real Estate at Certain Interval's
Yes Good mandate. - -
ake and Maintain an Inventorv and Assessment of all Tax-exempt Real Property and all ProDertv Immune
Estate Taxation
Y es We would do it anyway.
rovide Notice hLMail to Each Property Owner of ill!Y.,Reassessment or Change in Assessed Value of any
Yes We would do it anyway.
XVll
.30, Must Report and Remit Unclaimed Property to State Treasurer
Need Yes
31. Must Reoort Abandoned Prooerty to State Treasurer
Need Yes
32. Coun ies Must Pay Salaries. Exoenses. Allowances and Office Eauioment of Constitutional Officers (exceot
Sheriff) 8J d Sheriff will Reimburse Their Prooortional Share
Need Yes The costs of these services and equipment must be paid. However, since the state share of
reimbursable expenses has gone down in the past several years, the county has taken 00 a
larger share of the costs.
APPENDI K B
xviii
TO
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DJEuu[[R] @[f urn1~~~~OTI'TI'~[L
Department of Engineering
401 Me! ntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5861
OATE
Joe NO
ATTENTIOr"l
GENTlEME
E ARE SENDING YOU ~ Attached U Under separate cover via
o Shop drawings 0 Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples
o Copy of letter C! Change order 0
the following items:
o Specifications
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For approval 0 Approved as submitted
For your use [-~ Approved as noted
As requested CJ Returned for corrections
For review and comment [J
FOR BIDS DUE 19
o Resubmit_copies for approval
o Submit_copies for distribution
o Return_corrected prints
o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COpy TO
SIGNED:
Lb~ '?-U PPL
" enclo.ure. .re nol .. noled; '"nd'y nollfy u. .1 once,
.
,',,{:\ ,/~'/:;~:.-:. ""h~":'~
'.::;"f4' /". ~~i~~"i1.Jk,c"'-' .'
_jJ~_ '>\~ '., '\",~~' ,-~\ i<4~
c:::.../ ~.~> :,'" 13 8 \I B ",-,
,.:.C;'. ~ll{. ' ,<'-I ~' 0 B ,13 13 "
~~;:< f!~~~~:~[i] ~ ~~~.
.~.._ ",~l( . . ~.._~_~
- . ..
Wl odard Properties
December 8, 1993
~::'~
Ms. Ella Carey
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
---".:-,,,.,,,.,
--"""'''''-'''~'''''''''''''"''-='-''''''-'''''''''''''~'
~--
Re: Village Woods Road/village Woods Subdivision
Dear Ms. Carey,
We hereby request the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle
County, Virginia, adopt a resolution for the Virginia
Department of Transportation to accept Village Woods Road
into the State secondary road system.
s~;~~
R.A. Hawthorne, Jr.
304 Fourteenth Street N. W. Charlottesville, VA 22903
Fax (804) 293~2280 @ Phone (804) 971-8860
.4
, ,
Edward H B in, Jr
Samuel Mil er
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R Marshall, Jr
SCOllsville
David P, 80 erman
Chdrlottesv lie
Charles S Martin
Rlvanna.
Charlotte Y umphris
Jack Jouet
Walter F Perkins
White Hall
M'E M 0 RAN DUM
0:
Loretta Ruppe
Engineering Department
Ella Carey, Clerk -DuL--'
ROM:
October 21, 1993
Village Woods Subdivision
At its meeting on October 20, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
dopted a resolution to accept Village Woods Lane in Village
oods Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
ttached are the original and three copies of the adopted
esolution.
ttachments (4)
*
Printed on recycled paper
r
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
i , in regular meeting on the 20th day of October, 1993, adopted
t e following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the streets in Village Woods described on the
tached Additions Form SR-5(A} dated October 20, 1993, fully
corporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
t e Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
V'rginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
quirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
unty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tion to add the roads in Village Woods as described on the
tached Additions Form SR-5(A} dated October 20, 1993, to the
condary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
nts; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
d unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
sements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
corded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
rwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
ansportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris.
Seconded by: Mr. Bain.
Yeas: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Mrs.
Humphris.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
C
.
- ~I c
:J
"ll 8
~I
c
..
E
.c
0
~ as :J
0<(
as <1J
~ ~
.s:::. ~
:I: TO
S
0 <1J
.0
] r-i
(f) <I::
00- !
0
E
0
...,
(f)
as
'U 1i
c ~
0
0
III
(f)
0 "
-5 ~
0 ;;
-
., i"
c
e ~ :>
'"
:u 0
'U Ii
.:( .~
"U II
0 II
., u:
0 S UJ
"0
f 0
0
n. ::;:
:>
'"
b <1J
< ] bO
TO
10 r-i
, r-i
ex:: liit 'M
(f) ;>
~ -;::
0: '6 c
0 6 oQ
u. .,
~ 0:;
(f) :0
Z ~ .0
:J
0 !! (/)
i= ~ '0
0 E ..
.<: E
0 "
:! III
c{ 0( z
e
>
li
..
o
~
Ii I
.. j
~
--' .. .(")
c (")
~ ~ .-< .-<
.
U ~ 0
u 0
0( u
..
(0
~
. ':I
~
t-
I
tl
z
~
Ii
'ii
"
..
:i
~ g
~ {; -
u 0
~ l/")
N
- - ..;to
., I
;, 0
F? N
~ -::t
;; ;; ;; ;; .. .. ;;
n ,. 0 (0 ~ t. 0
a a . .. ..
fn n. n. n. n. 0- 0- n.
~ ,
,. -::t
H g?
Z
H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"
pv
1: 1 t Y ~ y t Y
~ ~
r:: ~ 0 0 CJ 0 u 0 0
,- <1J
li s ~ CO
U <1J CO
u :> ~ I
0( TO N
1 p.. I N
b ~ I
'" ~ (")
<:: .. .. ~ .. .. .. ..
OJ . . . ".; OJ L)
llJ '4:: 0 n Ll " 0 0
bO C 'i ~ ~ 'i 'i 'i 'i
"0 " " " " " u u
r.Ll ,-~ h h h II II II h
: ,I: ~ \: ~ \: \: \: \:
~ .~ lC ~ lC ~ " h II 6 II h II ~ I':
ij OJ b OJ t~ . 0 . " . 0 ~
u: Ii: u: n. u. i\ .:: II Ii It .:: o __
t- t- t- U. t- ,- ,- Q
UJ
"0
0
1 0
:s:
b
'" <1J
11 bO
.. TO
r: r-i llJ
01
Z .-I r::
OM TO
;> H
"ii <i - ... n ~ on '" ...
u: z
..
.
.
c
~
U
~
..
;C
,,;
~;
"
1>
!I
~
~
~
l'"
~
\:
c
>-
~
1i
t-
.Z
III
:i
1:
o
0(
t:
0(
u.
o
z
Q
0(
~
\!,
..
>
;;
.,
II
"
~
>-
k
1i
C
n
c
b
r.
u
i
t
~
,
L)
Ie
'"
U
!:
i)
z
,''<,prj "i 10-/'5.13
A,~~:'(:;' i"'iI'" riG ~~}Ol~_~L~'2 ')
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
i~, in regular meeting on the 20th day of October, 1993, adopted
t~e following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the streets in Village Woods described on the
a~tached Additions Form SR-S(A) dated October 20, 1993, fully
i~corporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in
t~e Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
V rginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
r~quirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements
of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
Cpunty Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Village Woods as described on the
a tached Additions Form SR-S(A) dated October 20, 1993, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code
o~ Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reauire-
m~nts; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear
and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
r~corded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
T ansportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Yeas:
Nays:
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
, .
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1) Village Woods Lane from edge of pavement at intersec-
tion with state Route 660 to end of cul-de-sac, record-
ed 3-22-88 in Deed Book 984, pages 420-423, with a
fifty foot right-of-way.
Total length 0.13 mile.
,";1''',1"
, !O'l5.'13
it! ',,) Q:,.ll>?P(5.3)
I~
State Compensation Board
Month of :SCplly)~< J ) "7'1:)
STATEMENT OF EXPENSES
.
Jerk, Circuit Court
- 0 -
718:2?,2rt
....._, (~
,de
Not Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
whi h the state Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
are not the total office expenses of these departments.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
JP.~15 '~3
This is to notify you that the Housing Coordinator position that was approved in the FY 93-94
budget as been filled. The new coordinator, Lynne Carruth, will begin work with the County
on Nove er 18.
Housing Coordinator
AGENDA DATE:
October 20, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
Q3.loW15. -~.()
AGENDA T
Albemarl
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Notice 0
Coordina
County Housing
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: no
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
Ms. Car
where s
her pIa
homeles
preside
housing
Beach f
uth comes to Albemarle County from the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission,
e has been working in the field of housing for the past four years. In addition to
ning and policy analysis function around housing issues, she has developed a regional
prevention program, coordinated a regional housing loan consortium, served as
t of their Fair Housing Board, and provided technical assistance to various local
programs. Prior to her work with the Hampton PDC, she was with the City of Virginia
r five years, also in the field of housing.
She has
as coor
program
individ
County.
had significant experience working with housing programs at the state level as well
inating a variety of community groups in her region to develop and implement housing
. The hiring committee feels that Albemarle County has found an extremely qualified
al for this position and that she will bring a high level of expertise to Albemarle
93.162
I~~-
iI f1 'II ~,
i il I
t I i
u ,1 i rq~:(
I'. L '.
BOAR --1 i
....:- 0 OF SUPERVISORS I
---
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IO-lo.Q3
SUBJECT
City/Cou
comprehe
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
AGENDA T
Process
Visioning/Comprehensive Plan
AGENDA DATE:
October 20, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
4:3'I02D(S.'=:,)
the
and
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: XXX
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
Cilimberg
BACKGRO
At the October 6th meeting Mr. Bain requested a status report on the planning for the
communi
PACC Te
joint v
outline
composi
#5) for
meeting
y vision forum and related comprehensive plan review process. A subcommittee of the
hnical Committee has submitted the attached proposal for the City/County/University
sion forum and subsequent comprehensive/master plan review process. The proposal
specific actions and a timeline. Two of these actions identify the role and
ion of an Advisory Committee (Item #4) and the use of facilitators/consultants (Item
the vision forum process. This proposal will be considered by PACC at their n~xt
on October 28.
Comment
Tucker
or suggestions from members of the Board are solicited and can be provided to Mr.
r Mr. Cilimberg.
RECO
Provide
ATION:
for information.
93.161
rnL~rn,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
C'VILLE CITY i=l
.
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVilLE
VIRGINIA
MEMO
Is process will have some cost involved for payment of expenses and honorarium and expenses
lated to space. food and information. These expenses will be equally shared by the three
j risdictions.
0: Cole Hendrix. City Manager
Bob Tucker. County Executive OffIce
Leonard Sandridge. University of Vlralnla
Satyendra Singh Huja, Director of Planning and Community Development
Wayne Clllmberg. Director of Planning and Community Development
.. 'Tom leback. Unlveristy Landscape Architect
October 6, 1993
VISIONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS
a follow-up of the PACC Policy Committee meeting. the technical committee appointed a
erlng committee for this purpose consisting of three of us to develop overaU prOgram.
ttached is an outline of the process we are proposIng for your review and comments before we
roceed with this. This also Includes a tentative schedule which may have to be lengthened if
ecessary.
e are also conslderln, Bruce Dotson of the Institute of Environmental Negotiations as a
rlmary facilitator for this process. We have made no commitment to him. nor has he consulted
Ith his supervisor. but he Is interested In assisting us If all parties wish hir:1 to do so. We will be
I terested In knowing if you have any objections to our proceeding with furtner diseusslon with
r. Dotson or If you have other alternative suggestJons.
e City and County are proceeding with their surveys and are trying to incorporate a few
c mmon vision questions as a one source of data for vision of ,the community. Please note that
is information will not be ready before the forums.
lease feel free to contact either of us if you have any questions. We hope you will be able to
lscuss this at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
C'I.ULL
VISIONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS
CllY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COUNTY/UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA'
OUTL,NE
Thr e parties have agreed to coordinate their comprehensive planning process with common vision. data
pro ile. schedule and format where possible. Following is the outline for this effort.
I. AGREEMENT TO COORDINATE
PACC has agreed to this effort.
2.
COMMUNITY SURVEYS
City and County are conducting sample opinion survey's.
Eaeh will eontain a few common questions relating to
vision of the whole community which could feed as information
into the vision statement.
3. COMMUNITY PROFILE
A common community profile will be developed to be used
as a common data base In comprehensive plans of three parties.
4.
PACC TECH STEERING COMMITTEE/ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The three member committee of the PACC Tech representing
CityfCountyJUniversity will be responsible for coordination
of this process of visioning and comprehensive plan. The committee
will work with an advisory committee of 6-9 people representing the
City/County/University administration and plannl", bodies and some
representation of a community at large. The committee will be
responsible for preparing a plan for the entire process including
activities. process and schedule. The steering committee shall
be as follows:
--City Director of Planning and Community Development
..-County Director of Planning and Community Development
...Unlversity Architect
Advisory committee will be as follows:
--Three members of the steerin, committee
--One member each of City and County Plannlna Commissions
--One member each of City/County/University Administration
--Three members of the community It.large.
(e.g. League of Women Voters. Blue Ridge Homebuilders.
Federation of Neighborhood Association)
September 1993
Oct.lJan. 1994
Sept.fOct. 1993
....
Sept./Ongoing
,"j 4.' "!I",' "..,..,.~llH
~ VILLI:. ~.L I
I WI '"" L..L.. VV
5. FACILITATORS/CONSULTANTS o ct.lNov. 1993
A primary facilitator for the process would be Idendfied
who in turn will Identify supporting facilitators.
facilitators for the process and the forum will be selected
from the community, if possible, The University of Virginia
could help in Identifying individuals who may be able to assist
It may also be necessary to have consultants for thIs process,
cost of which will be shared jointly by the three partles. After
the facilitators are identified, they will work with steering
eommlttee to understand the purpose and the
process, and agree on the mechanism for the forum.
6. COMMUNITY FORUMS Nov. 1993~an. 199~
The propOsal is to have two forums. The flrst forum will
be to gain Ideas from the wide spectrum of the community
In developing a common vision. The ,econd forum will be
to present the results and synthesis of: the first forum.
community surveys. and other data, as a draft of community
vision and to seek a!fir-mation of the direction.
7. VISION January 199~ "
The steering and advisory committee will work to develop
the vision, based upon the results of the survey'.,
forum. and other relevant Information and presented to the
community for wider input and affirmation.
8. APPROVAL OF VISION February 1994
PACC and each partidpant will take necessary steps
for approval. as appropriate.
9. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEWS Jan. 94/Feb. 9S
Each Jurisdiction will review and develop their
Comprehensive Plan, which will include common
vision, data, index. and format as appropriate.
The Committee will also explore the possibility
of a joint Comprehensive Plan document.
10. ADOPTION OF PLANS March 1995
Respective planning and governing bodies will
adopt the plan.
NOTE: Details of the visioning process will evolve based upon advice of primary facilitator and
other interested parties.
D.C.D.
10/6/93
'~'I"~"
J ~. .... ,'; I,; 'II'
~
.,
P.O. Box 334 ~
Belcamp, Maryland 21017
410-575-7412
'<, JO'l5.CJ~
93./d?lJ(S~-~
I ~
,\BC' flNN..JC lAL SERVICES. INC
Oe tober 12, .1993
rr,~, ~ @U W ~ -~,':~
,\D)r-~---l\\\
k,' , lW'
;:: J .
\:'" L~ .. . .';'~1 SQRS I
tBOAKU U _u_<
MI. Bob Richardson
Sevran Bank, N.A.
Pest Office Box 26904
R'chmond, Virginia 23261
Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Erclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
Plrsuant to Section 7(a} of the Deed Restrictions for the month
o September 1993.
I you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
a 410'-575....7412.
S'ncerely,
~~J;ifA'1!;nif!~
P oject Monitor
/ hm
.e closures
C _".~~'*,iW.,~..Yjt:"Q.l"'~.k, ~ ~
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
, '\ aCNe P'ROGRAM ftf.PORT
Monl" September YMf~
P'Opt"y: I rbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Project .: 051-35371
location: ( harlottesville, VA Num~' 01 Units 66
Subml"td ~y: Loretta Wyatt October 5, 1993 Effective 9/30/93
MaNger O.T.
Total Occupied 66
LOW! " INCOWE Bond Occupied
I. 18
The 101l0w Ing unlll P\lYC bc'Cn drs,gn.at.d as ..~, Incom." unlls
1 1 A....bor Crest Dr 2' Eleanor Blair 41
01,
2 4 Arbor Crest Dr 22 Beverly T. 'Lane 42
62,
3 5 Alrbor Crest Dr 23 Margaret L. Mawyer 43
OJ,
4 9 Alrbor Crest Dr 24 Virginia Burton 44
64.
S 12 A ~bor Crest Dr 2S G. Robert Stone 45
65.
6 14 A rbor Crest Dr 26 Evelyn Dover 4e
eo,
7 . 15 P rbor Crest Dr 21 Jane Wood 41
17,
a 20 P rbor Crest Dr 28 Evelyn Mandeville 48
, 61
9 24 P rbor Crest Dr 29 Gertrude Breen 49
H.
10 30 P rbor Crest Dr 30 Mary Cox Allen 50
70.
11 76 1 rbor ,Crest, Dr 3' Catherine S. Rahming~l
71.
12, 78 1 rbor Crest Dr 32 Ernest M. Nease S2
72
'3 84 rbor Crest Dr JJ Juanita Boliek SJ 73,
14 90 t rbor Crest Dr 34 Betty B. Elliott 54
74,
IS 92 rbor Crest Dr JS Dorothy H. Reese S5
75,
16 94 rbor Crest Dr 36 Sarah E. Fischer ~
76,
t 1 102 rbor Crest Dr :\7 Anne Lee Bullard S7
77,
lIS 106 I\rbor Crest Dr J8 Katherine T. Nowlen !la,
. 71,
19 39 S9 71.
~'O 40 60 10,
T ne en..n teS ',om p'rv.o\ls 'epa,! u'IIeclcd in the .bove hsllng .,.
D.I.llon. Addl1lon.t
t- H 1 . 11.
2 12 2 12.
3 13 3, 13,
4 14 4, 14.
5 15 5 15.
6 16 6 11,
7 \1 7 17.
. " I, "..
I 19 , ",
10 20 10. 20.
Effective September 30, 1993
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG As'sociates, Inc.
300 E. 'I.anba.rd Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Armr Crest Apa.rt1rents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pur~uant to Section 7(a) 'of the Deed Restrictions (the .Deed
Res~rictions.), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
Apr ill, 1983, between the Industr ial Development Author i ty of
Albemarle County, Virginia' (the .Authority.), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partner ship (the - Purchaser-), hereby cert if ies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the .project.), that as of the date
shown below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 18 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 48 .
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 27% .
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
October 5, 1993
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~~ ;'~~
Au horized Representative
I. J r,)c I' '-, --f'l "
Jri <,1' n ',!~l(i1U':l1 I ,-/ .-~ , ' .,
,..,~, ,,'D'10~ J3)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
DATE: October 20, 1993
RE: Electronic Mail Messaging (E-Mail)
most of you know, over the last 9 to 12 months, the County has
itiated an electronic mail system that has improved our
mmunication capabilities immensely. All middle and upper
nagement level staff in both local government and the school
vision can now communicate electronically and more efficiently
an through telephone communications or conventional mail system.
I would like to offer to all Board members, that would be
i terested, the capability of tying into our E-Mail messaging
s stem. This will allow you to communicate electronically with me,
a I of our department heads, the superintendent of schools, all
incipals and many others within our computer network. You need
ly a computer at home or office, a modem and the loading of our
Mail program into your computer (assistance can be provided to
u if necessary). If any of you are interested in tying into our
Mail system, please contact me. Someone from our Information
rvices Department will then assist you in accessing electronic
il.
T,Jrjdbm
.193
c Mr. Fred L. Kruger
~
~sibR I C.t1.J\r.r:
~ ~~.
c;. '<9 C.
~ 'a
of the /3lue ~idge
;, '>.,J .
,l~;~:;OF SUPERVlS~RSj
C. He ry Hinnant, III
Presid nt and Chief Executive Officer
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge appreciated the opportunity to speak to the
lbemarle County Board of Supervisors on Monday evening, October the 18th, and your
r solution to allow us to proceed with Industrial Development Authority backing of a bond
, sue of up to $3,000,000 through Orange County in order to facilitate the construction of a
n eded Health Center expansion,
I appreciate your understanding of the fact that Albemarle County has already issued
ell over your 1993 non-profit limit of $10,000,000, and that the City of Charlottesville has
a 0 issued all of their own non-profit limit, and therefore we are working at this time with
t e Industrial Development Authority and the Board of Supervisors of Orange County.
October 22, 1993
, David Bowerman, Chairman
Ibemarle County Board of Supervisors
4 1 McIntire Road
harlottesville, V A 22902-4596
Revenue Bond Financing for
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
As I mentioned in your meeting, the interest rates and the bond market have
s'gnificantly dropped in the last ten-day to two-week period, and this does mean that
estminster-Canterbury is exploring the business decision of following an alternate track as
r gards our financing. In the meantime, with the Health Center expansion being imminently
n eded, we are proceeding with the IDA-backed loan of up to $3,000,000 which you assisted
u with last evening,
Again, our thanks for your assistance and cooperation.
C H/kvc
Sincerely,. ~
-::?~~~
c. H. Hinnant, III
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
Robert Tucker, County Administrator
Da vid L. Richardson, Esq,
250 PANTOPS MOUNTAIN ROAD, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 TELEPHONE (804) 980-9100
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BrlJCC H C~-)f)(:,ii, \1"s Jan'8s E. Deese, Edwin E. Gatewood, Jr., Chairman, Joseph E. Gibson, James W. Grcvp, Mr:-~ ._;a~~le::; L .Jes:-. ..;p,
C;hwies ivl'ol!ywj LeiGh B, Middleditch, Vice-Chairman, Mrs, Cary N, Mcon, Jr.. Mrs Harrison ~Jesblt 'I, Joseph '.AI Richrr.o;1c,
Donald D, Sandridge, Mrs, Frederic W Scott, Stirling L, Williamson, Jr,
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Forrest R Marshall. Jr
Sco{fsville
Charlotte Y umphris
JacK Jouet
Charles S. Martin
Rlvannd
Walter F, PerkinS
While Hall
'October 21, 1993
r. David L, Richardson,
cGuire, Woods, Battle &
ne James Center
01 East Cary Street
ichmond, VA 23219-4030
II
Boothe
Mr. Richardson:
At its meeting on October 20, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
adopted a resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds by
the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Orange,
irginia, in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000, for the benefit
of Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. Enclosed are five
c pies of the resolution with original signatures.
/
Very truly yours,
~!it( 2d (J0-1[1"
~la w. Carey (
,
E closures
(5 )
c C. H. Hinnant, III
Richard E. Huff, II
*
Printed on recycled paper
*
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of
~lbemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"), has been asked by
f'iestminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge ("WCBR") to approve the
~ssuance of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority
pf the County of Orange,' Virginia in an amount not to exceed
$3,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist in the financing of WCBR's
~cquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately
~I,OOO square foot, 32-bed addition to the health care center
ocated in the west wing of WCBRiS retirement community at 250
[:>antops Mountain Road ("Project"), in the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on October 14,
993i
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental
~nit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity
~onds and over the area in which any facility financed with the
proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the
'ssuance of the bondsi
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-1378 of the Industrial Development and
~evenue Bond Act, Chapter 33, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of
950, as amended ("Act"), provides that if a locality has created
~n industrial development authority, no industrial development
~uthority created by a second locality may finance a facility
ocated in the first locality unless the governing body of such
First locality concurs with the inducement resolution adopted by
he industrial development authority created by the second
ocalitYi
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the County of Albemarle,
11irginia (" County") and the Board of Supervisors of the County
"Board") has created an industrial development authority, and
ronstitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the CountYi
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board
pprove the issuance of the Bondsi and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
ssuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a
~ertificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement
~ave been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
(DF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
j~uthority for the benefit of WCBR, as required by Section 147(f)
.
f the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended ("Virginia Code'l) to permit the Authority to
ssist in the financing of the Project.
2. The Board concurs with the resolution adopted by the
ndustrial Development Authority of the County of Orange,
irginia and approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Industrial
evelopment Authority of the County of Orange, Virginia for the
enefit of WCBR as required by Section 15.1-1378 of the Act,
3. The approval o'f the issuance of the Bonds does not
onstitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds
f the creditworthiness of the Project or WCBR.
4. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary
ncome Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f) (1), this resolution
hall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of
ts adoption.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
doption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
lbemarle, Virginia this 20th day of October, 1993,
of
SEAL]
....
'\:: ~ n;,'~- ~__..,,'~ :~v~:- .t.~',~ "
_~~~~. ::,1 '
M G 'ILOODS'--- In' IS \\ ,,'
C UIREvv. ' ~ II';', le", .1--'
BATTLE&BooTHE \ II ,-_:::!.w::2--"c.--'.-
. \
to 'lS .C13
~:I07QI~l.0
"
tomac Plaza
North Fairfax Street
VA 22314-1437
One James Center
901 East Cary Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030
Phone: (804) 775-1000 (VoiceffDD)
Fax: (804) 775-1061
Direct Dial: (804) 775-1030
250 Avenue Louise, Bte, 64
1050 Brussels, Belgium
October 15, 1993
assocwted office:
P.O, Box 4930
Bahnhofstrasse 3
8022 Zurich. Switzerland
s, Ella Carey
I dustrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia
ounty Office Building, 4th Floor
harlottesville, Virginia 22901
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
ear Ms. Carey:
Enclosed are the following documents relating to the approval of the Westminster-
anterbury of the Blue Ridge revenue bond issue by the Board of Supervisors:
1, Transmittal Letter from the Authority to the Board;
2. Fiscal Impact Statement;
3. Certificate of Public Hearing; and
4. Proposed form of Board Resolution.
I would appreciate your placing this matter on the agenda for the Board's October 20
eeting, and circulating these documents as necessary to the members of the Board with
ur regular mailing,
If you have any questions concerning any of these items, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
I\~
David L. Richardson, II
/ an
nclosures
c : C, H, Hinnant, III
.
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") hereby
certifies as follows:
1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on
October 14, 1993, at 4:30 o'clock p.m. in Meeting Room 5-6 on the
second floor of the County Office Building at 401 McIntire Road,
in Charlottesville, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to
each Director of the Authority before such meeting. The meeting
was open to the public. The time of the meeting and the place at
which the meeting was held provided a reasonable opportunity for
persons of differing views to appear and be heard.
2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public
hearing on the application of Westminster Canterbury of the Blue
Ridge and that a notice of the hearing was published once a week
for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general
circulation in the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Notice"), with
the second publication appearing not less than six days nor more
than twenty-one days prior to the hearing date. A copy of the
Notice has been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. The names of the individuals who appeared and addressed
the Authority, along with a summary of their statements, is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true, correct and
complete copy of a resolution ("Resolution") adopted at such
~
~
meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present
at such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action
taken by the Authority at such meeting relating to matters
referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been
repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and
effect on the date hereof.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this 14th day
of October, 1993.
Secretary
Authority
ve opment
County, Virginia
(SEAL)
Exhibits:
A - Copy of Certified Notice
B - Summary of Statements
C - Inducement Resolution
.
,
EXHIBIT A
10/4/93
..
I ~T1CE OF ruSU{; HEARING
ON PROFOSED REVENue
BOND ANA.'lCING BY I....
DUSTR~ OeVElOPMENT
AUTHORITY Of AlBEMARlE
COUNTY. VIRGWIA
Nodve I, h8ntt~' ~ that 1M
Induetriel OtrvIJDpfT1It1t Authan..
ty of A1tMnwle County. ~ini.l'
(.Au~ wno.. add,... Ia
c/o Countr Ofb Builclng. 401
Mdntlre AMId. Ct.Iotteevtlle.
v. 22901. wiU hold . pubic
heama on behd of W...,.... i
stet' ~.. 01 the live
RJdGe ( . who.. ad-
d'... II ~ Mountain
Ro8d. C lie. VI~:
22901 t ~_tf~ the Au1hOt:It1
to appnwe I1e lUuance ~ the
IndUl1rtal De\'8IopnwJt Iwthon-
tY. at the County or Oranae. Vir-
ginia of up 10 13.000.000 of ita
,~ bandito ...... WCBA
In ~ng. GGnetructlr:ag and
equipping an approxima",
~.!J~ eq..... root. 32.... ad-
aiuan tEl the heal" CAN CIf'lter
located In .. ... wing at
wcew, NtiNment corrmJnIty !
at 250 ~ McuntIIin Ro.d. '1
In the County of Albemarle. I t\ '
The iaauance of nMInUe tJcnM
UteqU8&tedbvWCBRwiInot
cone.... . dtibt or D'-dae at
the ~ ... credit of "the Com- I
monweal1h of V1r;inI.. .../
Cowttr of ~. v.~
01' ItW County of Oranot~ VIr-
~nIII and IMihr the fII1Iti Md I
:;t~oFvt~~,
or IUIJ DOUtcaI ..bdlvilian,
ttweatwdbeDledaedtathe
parm-tof.udt banaL
1M pubic *":ich mar
be cDnIInued or mecl ..
be held at 4:30 o' p.rn. on
OctDw ,,, 1811. betin the
Auftolty. In M.~'!IiI Fbxn U
on the secand. flOor of lie
~ Ofb Buill,. at <<11
...... ~ n ~
vi'" ~ ~ f*U" w.r-
...... 1ft Ite IIIuince 01 the
bondI 01 .. --.tIon or ....
of..,plapa~~,., .
~ at'" end prl.1nt
hI8 .......
~O..~
AuhMtlrof~
Couritr. 'hginia
-
~
EXHIBIT B TO CERTIFICATE
Summary of Statements
C. H. Hinnant, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of
~estminster-Canterbury, and David L. Richardson, II, of McGuire,
~oods, Battle & Boothe, Bond Counsel, appeared before the
~uthority and described the proposed plan of financing.
i
.
\
EXHIBIT C
RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
OF A PROPOSED $3,000,000 BOND ISSUE FOR THE BENEFIT
OF WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY OF THE BLUE RIDGE
WHEREAS, Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge ("WCBR")
has requested that the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") approve the issuance of
up to $3,000,000 in revenue bonds by the Industrial Development
Authority of the County of Orange, Virginia the proceeds of which
will be used to acquire, construct and equip an approximately
21,000 square foot, 32-bed addition to the health care center
located in the west wing of WCBR's retirement community at 250
Pantops Mountain Road in the County of Albemarle, Virginia;
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Authority
regarding WCBR's request, and the Authority desires to recommend
approval of the proposed bond issue to the Board of Supervisors
f the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
UTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Authority recommends approval of the proposed bond
Ssue by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
irginia.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
doption.
Adopted this 14th day of October, 1993.
y, Industria Development
of Albemarle County,
.
~
October 14, 1993
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Charlottesville, Virginia
Industrial Development Authority
of Albemarle County, Virginia
Proposed Financing for Westminster Canterbury
of the Blue Ridge
Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge ("WCBR") has
requested that the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority"), approve the issuance of revenue
bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 ("Bonds") by the
Industrial Development Authority of the County of Orange,
Virginia to assist WCBR in financing the acquisition,
construction and equipping of an approximately 21,000 square
foot, 32-bed addition to the health care center located in the
west wing of WCBR's retirement community at 250 Pantops Mountain
Road ("Project") in the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached
hereto ("Resolution"), the Authority has approved the issuance of
the Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public
hearing on the proposed financing of the Project and has
recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct
of the public hearing and the action taken by the Authority,
(2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 15.1-1378.2, and (3) the form of resolution
suggested by counsel to evidence your approval.
~,,~ R ~ft'S'
Secret , Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
.
~
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING
Date: October 14, 1993
o the Board of Supervisors
f Albemarle County, Virginia
pplicant:
acility:
Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
Health Care Expansion
Maximum amount of financing sought
$ 3,000,000
Estimated taxable value of the facility's
real property to be constructed in the
municipality
$ 2,054,311
Estimated real property tax per year
using present tax rates
$
14,791
Estimated personal property tax per
year using present tax rates
$
o
Estimated merchants' capital tax per
year using present tax rates
$
o
Estimated dollar value per year of
goods and services that will be
purchased locally
$
233,085
Estimated number of regular employees
on year round basis
12
Average annual salary per employee
$
21,320
airman,
Authority
Virginia
Figures are based on expansion only)
I,
MCGUIREWooOS
BATTLE & BooTH E
Trans tomac Plaza
Suite 1000, II North Fairfax Street
Alexan ' VA 22314-1437
One James Center
901 East Cary Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030
World Trade Center
Suite 9000. 101 West Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-1655
The Army and Navy Club Building
1627 Eye Street, N.W,
Washington, DC 20006-4007
September 28, 1993
8280 reensboro Drive
Suite . Tysons Comer
McLean VA 22102-0346
Phone: (804) 775-1000 (Voice/fDD)
Fax: (804) 775-1061
Direct Dial: (804) 775-1030
TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Proposed Revenue Bond Financing for
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
by the Industrial Development Authority
of Orange County, Virginia
ear Ladies and Gentlemen:
As most of you are aware, Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge plans to
ndertake a $3,000,000 expansion to its health care center through the issuance of tax-exempt
'bank-qualified" revenue bonds through the Orange County IDA. Because Albemarle
ounty is over the $10,000,000 "bank-qualified" limit for the calendar year 1993, it was
ecessary for Westminster-Canterbury to approach Orange County to undertake the
mancing.
Even though the Orange County IDA will be the issuer of the bonds, federal law
equires that the Albemarle County IDA hold a public hearing on the proposed bond issue,
nd that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County approve the financing following the
ublic hearing. It will also be necessary for the Orange County IDA and Board of
upervisors to follow the same procedure before the bonds are issued.
Enclosed for your consideration is a proposed form of resolution for your October 14
eeting, as well as a Fiscal Impact Statement and a copy of a letter from the County
dministrator of Orange County indicating that the County is willing to undertake this
I,
Industrial Development Authority of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia
~eptember 28, 1993
I age 2
f nancing for the benefit of Westminster-Canterbury, If any of you should have questions
rl=>garding the enclosed documentation, please feel free to give me a call, I look forward to
rn.eeting with you again on the 14th,
Very truly yours,
D~
David L. Richardson, II
/~an
Inclosures
c~: C. H. Hinnant, III (w/enclosures)
,
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ABLEMARLE COUNTY
WESTMINSTER-CANTERBURY OF THE BLUE RIDGE
Distribution List
James B. Murray, Jr,
o Court Square
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
John Stewart Darrell
503 Faulconer Drive, Suite 6
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Thomas A, McQueeney
121 Indian Spring Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Bruce D. Rasmussen
500 Court Square Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
William J. Kehoe
301 Crestfield Court
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Arthur H. Baker
Box 266
Crozet, Virginia 22932
James R. Skove
Box 12, Arbor Park
Earlysville, Virginia 22936
James M. Bowling, IV, Esquire
St. John, Bowling & Lawrence
416 Park Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Lettie E. Neher
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
OF A PROPOSED $3,000,000 BOND ISSUE FOR THE BENEFIT
OF WESTMINSTER CANTERBURY OF THE BLUE RIDGE
WHEREAS, Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge ("WCBR")
tas requested that the Industrial Development Authority of
llbemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") approve the issuance of
lp to $3,000,000 in revenue bonds by the Industrial Development
luthority of the County of Orange, Virginia the proceeds of which
yill be used to acquire, construct and equip an approximately
~1,000 square foot, 32-bed addition to the health care center
ocated in the west wing of WCBR's retirement community at 250
Iantops Mountain Road in the County of Albemarle, Virginia;
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Authority
legarding WCBR's request, and the Authority desires to recommend
cpproval of the proposed bond issue to the Board of Supervisors
cf the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
lUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Authority recommends approval of the proposed bond
'ssue by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
'\irginia.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
c dopt ion.
Adopted this 14th day of October, 1993.
Secretary, Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING
Date: October 14, 1993
~o the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia
~pplicant :
bacility:
Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
Health Care Expansion
Maximum amount of financing sought
$ 3,000,000
Estimated taxable value of the facility's
real property to be constructed in the
municipality
$ 2,054,311
Estimated real property tax per year
using present tax rates
$
14,791
, .
Estimated personal property tax per
year using present tax rates
$
o
Estimated merchants' capital tax per
year using present tax rates
$
o
I .
Estimated dollar value per year of
goods and services that will be
purchased locally
$
233,085
.
Estimated number of regular employees
on year round basis
12
~ .
Average annual salary per employee
$
21,320
Chairman, Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia
Figures are based on expansion only)
_.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Box 111
ORANGE, VIRGINIA 22960
R, Duff Green, Chairman
WilLIAM G, ROBERTS, V-Chairman
V. RAY JO~ES
JOHN M. NOlAN
GROVER C. WILSON, JR..
A, TERRELL BASKERVILLE
County Administrator
Ph: (703) 672-3313
Fox: r703} 672-1679
(703) 972-1455
September 20, 1993
C. H. Hinnant, III, President and Chief Exec. Officer
Westminister-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
250 Pan tops Mountain Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Orange County Revenue Bonds
Dear Mr. Hinnant,
Thank you for your appearance before the Board of
Supervisors September 14th.
The Board of Supervisors has no objection to the Orange
County Industrial Development Authority issuing "bank
qualifying" revenue bonds for Westminister-Canterbury
up to the amount remaining for calendar year 1993.
You should have Mr. David Richardson contact County
Attorney Atwell W. Somerville to set up the procedure
for issuing the bonds. Mr. Somerville is also the
attorney for the industrial development authority.
Sincerely,
A. Terrell Baskerville
County Administrator
ATB/g
Enclosure
cc: Atwell W. Somerville
~avid Richardson
-
.
,
V
Ro~ting: File, AWS, W-C
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
P. O. Box III
Orange VA 22960
EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES
At a regular meeting of the Orange county Board of Supervisors held
September 14, 1993 beginning at 2:00 P. M. in the Gordon Building, 112
West Main street, Orange, Virginia.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
m :WESTMINISTER-CANTERBURY OF THE BLUE RIDGE- REVENUE BONDS
Mr. David Richardson and Mr. C. H. Hinnant, III, representating
wEstminister-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge requested the county issue
alproximately $3 million bank qualifying revenue bonds for expansion of
tle facility located in Albemarle County. They said that both Albemarle
Ccunty and Charlottesville had exceeded their quotas for such bonds and
tle facility would like for Orange County to assist in the program.
Tley also explained that revenue bonds did not commit the county to any
e penses or obligations nor reflect on its bond ratings. After
dscussion Mr. Roberts moved that the Board of Supervisors offer no
o jection to issuing bank qualifying revenue bonds for
WEstminister-Canterbury up to the limits available in 1993. Mr. Wilson
SEconded. Motion carried. Ayes: Jones, Wilson, Roberts & Green
At sent: Nolan.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A COPY,teste
~~
A. Terrell Baskerville
County Administrator
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
[Ii'-' \1'"'\ '\_2:.J_-2_----~,.._-~-
""'. _...-~-_.^---_. '
AGENDA T TLE:
TJPDC Re ional Consortium Comprehensive
Housing ffordability strategy (CHAS)
AGENDA DATE:
October 20, 1993
ITEM NUMBER:
Cl3./l).2O.0/h
SUBJECT
To recei
in the C
CHAS inc
establis
ACTION: ---1L-
INFORMATION:
on housing issues
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGRO
The Tho as Jefferson Planing District Commission (TJPDC) and its member localities
establi hed a regional housing consortium to increase affordable housing opportunities in the
region. A regional consortium is required to develop a Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strateg (CHAS) to address local and regional affordable housing needs. Regional consortiums
are ent tied to receive an annual allocation of HOME monies from HUD to support housing
initiat'ves within the consortium area. Last year the TJPDC consortium was awarded $570,000.
Each 10 ality in the consortium receives an equal share of the allocation. Attached is an
informa ion sheet from TJPDC which further describes the CHAS and the HOME program funding.
A local'ty within the consortium may hold a public hearing to receive public input/comments
concern'ng housing issues or specific comments regarding CHAS. That is the purpose of this
public earing.
DISCUSS
The pri
( a) reh
home bu
increas
needs g
ON:
rities for Albemarle County in the CHAS's Five Year Strategy are:
bilitate substandard owner-occupied homes; (b) increase opportunities for first-time
ers; (c) rehabilitate substandard renter-occupied homes and multi-family units; (d)
mixed-use, high density development in designated growth areas; (e) assist special
oups (elderly, disabled, homeless and single-parent families).
The reg'on-wide consortium priorities are: (a) foster cooperation within the region through
the use f affordable housing initiatives; (b) educate the public on the need for affordable
housing nd on programs available to assist low- and moderate-income residents; (c) establish
a regio al mechanism for disseminating information on affordable housing initiatives and for
evaluat'ng current efforts and policies; (d) coordinate new financial assistance for low-
income enters;
(e) est blish a regional loan fund for use by the region's housing non-profits.
The
ting priorities for the County generally are consistent with the recommendations of
ing Advisory Committee's report and are sufficiently broad in scope to accommodate
y of project types.
ATION:
n is required of the Board of Supervisors.
oard to hear and consider public comments
s no recommendations for modifications to
This hearing is to provide an opportunity
related to housing and the regional CHAS.
the CHAS.
93.160
\ SH,O$lIIIBdIlS :10 OW, 08 ,
l 1
@lID & n ID rl~j
09-2'3-'34 22:32
UNITED WAY CHARLOTTESUILLE
438 P01
'~
~ ~~~-~ r2knL"f dJ~
17/- -rl~ tJ' 7/!4hP ;;edit.r. ;Ikdi..-/ },1.1.
(~t,_ ", tJ~, .1.<'01- 5.2/3
M,lUU/ JJ.9/'P-172tJ
PRESS RELEASE
September 24, 1993
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
,,,>
( v"'11'M1'1l,J4ur11..,,'
For More Information:
William Wanner
Thomas Jefferson
Planning District
(804) 972-1720
PUBLIC INVITED TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPING
REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY
e Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commissiont servini the counties of Albemarle
uvann~ Greene, Louisa and Nelson and the City of Charlottesville announces th~
reparation of a regional Comprehensive Housing Mfordability Strategy (CHAS) to define
e region's housing needs. The CHAS will identify the region's affordable and supported
ousing needs and will outline a method for meeting these needs.
e CHAS will guide the use of Federal funds received by the Planning District from the
ousing and Urban Development HOME Program. Last year the Planning District
eceived $570,000 in HOME funds. The HOME program provides grant funds to conduct
ousing rehabilitation, new construction, assistance to first-time home buyers and assistance
o renters.
unds from the HOME Program are used in combination with local. state and private funds
to assist citizens whose incomes are below 80% of median family income. A family of four
residing in Albemarlet Charlottesville, Fluvanna or Greene making approximately $34,000
or less per year is eligible. In Louisa County a family of fOUf may make about $28t3oo per
ear and in Nelson Countyt approximately $26,000, to be eligible for the HOME Program.
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District COImnission will hold a public hearing at the
regular meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission: Thursday, October
7t 1993 at 7:30 PM in the United Way Building, 413 E. Market Stree~ Charlottesville, in the
Lime Room, Second FlOOf. to receive public assistance in the development of the CRAS.
Enclosure: tlPreparing a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District" .
...... /' I, /,.t" dl !' .f.' /I'" .1' T' C ~ N.a<<rn. (' ""._IU
l~"'I'1 ' Vfl.UW1,V~t"tjh' , .J...uVV'1f..,ntlA l .H'('''.~;/ i ys.r.l4f..t ({,"tA/.l_Uf . ~~ J ' ~, W"'"', 7
~ ~hV ~m<4'1 tD~
I ' 1-1::' f;.ur muW Pur. ~jJ2
(~!L--J 1/~M;JOj-52f3
~(U..v Jff/ 'P-J720
/J
( Cnrvnu..:J4L<171//
~
PREPARING A COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY
FOR THE
THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT
Ba k ound The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and its member
go ernments in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson counties and the City of
Ch lottesville have formed a regional consortium to address local and regional affordable
ho sing needs. The Planning District receives an annual allocation of HOME funds from
th u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development to support the affordable housing
ne ds of the region's low and very low income citizens. In order to remain eligible for
H ME funds and for other selected Federal housing programs, the Planning District must
pr pare a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CRAS).
at is a Com rehensive Housin Affordabili
ma.or sections:
? The region's eRAS has three
Community Profile - a description of the residents of the planning district, including
income, age and racial makeup, and a description of housing conditions in the
planning district. This section also contains a summary of the needs of low-income
citizens, the homeless and other special need groups as well as a summary of the
resources available to assist these citizens.
Five Year Strategy - this section sketches a five year plan for addressing the
planning district's affordable housing needs and establishes those needs that will
receive high priority,
Annual Plan - the Annual Plan details programs to be undertaken over a twelve
month period and describes the federal, state, local and private funds to be used in
support of these annual programs.
public is encouraged to participate in the preparation of the CHAS so that the most
ortant and pressing housing needs can be addressed with the available resources.
HOME Pro ram The HOME Program is administered by the U.S. Department of
Ho sing and Urban Development (BUD) and is a result of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Aff rdable Housing Act. The HOME Program funds must be used to assist citizens below
80 0 of the local median income, with emphasis on citizens below 60% of median income.
ALk7r~ Cvwn7j ) CltMtttu~.df:_} :!hw7vnruz (J''(1j, fKvnL C'tMY, Z~ (~\ JV~rVC~
Programs eligible for HOME funds include:
Housing Rehabilitation, both owner and renter occupied.
Property Acquisition,
New Construction.
Assistance to First-Time Homebuyers,
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance,
For the past year, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District received $570,000 in HOME funds
and expects an annual allocation similar to this amount. HOME funds must be matched
by non-federal funds equalling between 25% and 30% of the cost of the project.
A Brief Profile of Housine Needs in the Consortium The six localities making up the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District have significantly different housing needs, yet are all
affected by regional market forces. The following information on the region is from the
U.S. Census and is for the year 1990.
Single family homes increased as a percentage of the overall housing stock, with
owner-occupied homes in the majority, except in the Charlottesville. The percent of
owner-occupied homes varied from a high of 80% in Fluvanna and Louisa counties,
79% in Nelson, 77% in Greene, 64% in Albemarle, and a low of 42% in
Charlottesville,
Median contract rents ranged from $454 per month in Albemarle, $391 in
Charlottesville, $329 in Fluvanna, $314 in Greene, $283 in Louisa and a low of $206
in Nelson County. About one-third of the region's renters were paying 30% or more
of their income for housing.
Substandard housing - homes without complete plumbing - ranged from 714
substandard units in Louisa County, 680 units in Nelson, 501 units in Albemarle, 212
units in Greene, 167 units in Fluvanna and 40 units in the City of Charlottesville,
Poverty remains a pervasive problem in the region with 24% of Charlottesville's
citizens living in poverty, 15% in Nelson, 12% in Greene and Louisa, 11% in
Fluvanna and 8% in Albemarle, Single mothers, especially those with children under
five, have the highest poverty rate. Nearly 40% of all single mothers are below
poverty in the region, while the regional percentage of single mothers with young
children is 50%.
-- .
. .
. . ~
AHIP
Albemarle Housing Improvement Pro
700 Harris Street, Suite 101 . Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 . (804) 293-5708
September 17, 1993
Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Ibemarle County
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Va.
Jr., County Executive
,
..
22902
Bob,
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is
dating the local Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
HAS) for use of HOME funds by the local consortium of Counties
a d Charlottesville.
In this connection they are seeking input from affected
risdictions.
The AHIP board, earlier this summer, instructed me
e County to sponsor a Public Hearing on the local CHAS.
aff advised me today that the results of such a hearing
of timely use to them if received during October.
to ask
TJPDC
would
Accordingly this is to request that the county Board include
c nsideration of the local CHAS in one of its meetings before the
e d of October.
If your staff wants assistance from AHIP please have them
c ntact our Executive Director, Theresa Tapscott.
~re~
Doug Frame
President
-f~
EMORANDUM
lOtZO$
"qz'111L,J~17
" J~",~~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & communityLlJJ~
Development
October 7, 1993
CPA-90-02 South Fork Land Trust
CPA-92-05 Towers Land Trust
Comprehensive Study of Growth Area Expansion
he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
ctober 5, 1993, reviewed the comprehensive study of Growth Area
xpansion (attached). Based on their initial discussion of the
indings of that report, the Commission continues to recommend
pproval of the Towers Land Trust Comprehensive Plan amendment
equest. The Commission had previously recommended approval of
his request.
egarding the South Fork Land Trust amendment request, the
ommission recommends the Board defer action until the Meadow
reek Parkway alignment area is decided. The Commission had
reviously recommended denial of this request due to the
otential impact of some alternative alignments of the parkway.
he Commission will continue their discussions of the Growth Area
xpansion study at future worksessions including other requests
reviously made in the Hollymead area (UREF, Forest Lakes South,
thers). No further recommendations have been made to date
egarding general Growth Area expansions.
C/DBB/j cw
~ "
OCTOBER 5, 1993
DAVID B. BENISH
EXPANSION STUDY
ack round: During their review of the Towers Land Trust (CPA-
2-05) and the South Fork Land Trust (CPA-92-02) comprehensive
1an Amendment requests, the Board of Supervisors deferred action
nd directed staff to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the
eed and location for Growth Area expansion. CPA-92-05 and CPA-
2-02 would then be reconsidered by the Board of Supervisors
ithin the context of this larger evaluation. Staff was directed
o consider the Hollymead Community, Piney Mountain Village, and
rban Growth Area for possible expansions.
here have been a number of requests for Growth Area expansion,
articularly in the Hollymead area. These areas, along with
dditional areas as appropriate, were evaluated for expansion
otential.
he purpose of this study is to (1) determine need for expanding
rowth areas; and, (2) evaluate and recommend the most
ppropriate location(s) for Growth Area expansion if expansion is
eeded.
o determine the need ,for expansion staff has considered the
nticipated demand for both residential and non-residential land
ses for the next 20 years. Also considered were existing growth
anagement pOlicies/practices as well as market related concerns
n meeting anticipated land use demands.
he purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to set County government
olicy to help"guide public and private activities as they relate
o land use and resource utilization. It establishes a blueprint
or the County's future decisions on land use and development,
ransportation systems, public facilities and utilities, resource
rotection, housing and human and public services.
or this Plan, the~primary growth management policy is to direct
rowth to designated Growth Areas while conserving the balance of
he County for agricultural/forestal uses and other service
elivery and resource protection purposes.
n order to successfully achieve this policy the County must
ctively encourage anticipated growth to locate in designated
rowth Areas while attempting to direct growth away from the
esignated Rural Areas. A key to this effort is providing
ufficient developable Growth Areas to accommodate anticipated
rowth with an adequate degree of location and market
lexibility. These areas must also have the reasonable
apability of being served by essential public
ervices/facilities and utilities.
1
( t' 11
must be taken in developing the land use plan. The plan
attempt to balance between designating too little or too
land for development. Designating too little area will
end to limit the availability of land on the market for
evelopment and ultimately inflate that cost of land. On the
ther hand, designating extensive areas for development can
ncourage sprawl - a more scattered, less compact development
attern which is less efficient to serve in terms of facilities
nd services. It can also lead to owner speculation increasing
he price of all land designated, thus affecting development
osts. In the end, there is no exact science for establishing
his balance, which underlines the importance of a flexible
omprehensive planning process.
Areas: The study areas for possible Growth Area expansion
determined based on:
Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies
related to the growth management, land use and community
facilities.
The Open Space and critical Resources Plan.
Review of areas considered for Growth Area expansion during
the previous review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Preliminary work related to development of a utilities
master plan.
he Open Space and critical Resources Plan was utilized
xtensively. The Open Space Plan inventories and maps open space
nd environmental resources (steep slopes, floodplain, prime
gricultural/forestal soils) in the County that are important and
orthy of consideration for protection during land
se/development related reviews. The Open Space Concept Map is a
eneralized reference map for the entire County which identifies
ignificant resources and shows their relationship to larger,
.ntegrated systems of open space (See Attachment A). The "white"
r unmarked areas of this map represent areas of the county that
re void of significant open space or environmental resources.
he "white" areas adjacent to the existing Growth Areas with
imited erivironmen~l constraints and open space resources were
onsidered likely candidates for Growth Area expansion.
n evaluating the study areas staff considered: (1) environmental
esources/constraints identified in the Open Space Plan and other
ources; (2) transportation issues; (3) utility service
otential; (4) community facilities; and, (5) character of
xisting development.
he general study areas evaluated for possible expansion include
See Attachment B):
.
Expansion to the Hollymead Community/Piney Mountain Village
area (approximately 6,140 acres).
'-
2
~ ~~
· Expansion north and east of Neighborhood Three
(approximately 2,675 acres).
· Expansion south and east of Neighborhoods 4 and 5
(approximately 2,280 acres).
pans ion potential to the west of the Urban Area and Hollymead
restricted by the South Fork Rivanna River watersupply
servoir watershed. Also, expansion potential to the southwest
the Urban Area along Rte. 29 South is limited due to the '
untainous topography. Therefore, these were not considered as
potential expansion areas.
e Hollymead/Piney Mountain study area is where applications
ve been submitted for Plan amendments. The specific requests
e as follows (See Attachment C):
· Towers Land Trust - Request to add approximately 257 acres
to the Hollymead Community. This property is located east
of Route 29, north of the existing community boundary to the
North Fork of the Rivanna River, and west of Route 785.
Proposed land uses are low and medium residential (174 acres
with a gross density of 7.5 dwelling units/acre), regional
service (41 acres), office service (29 acres) and
neighborhood service (13 acres).
· Universitv Real Estate Foundation (UREF) - Request to
include within the Hollymead Community approximately 285
acres located west of Route 29, north of the existing
community boundary to the North Fork of the Rivanna River,
and west to Route 606. The request is for industrial
service land use designation to permit the development of a
525 acre research office park. UREF presently owns 240
acres of adjacent property to the south zoned PD-IP, Planned
Development Industrial Park, and LI, Light Industrial. All
properties are to be developed under one consolidated plan.
· Kessler GrouD - Request to add approximately 100 acres to
the Hbllymead ~ommunity for low density residential use.
The property is located north of Route 643, west of the
Norfolk-Southern Railway and east of the existing Hollymead
Community. This property would be developed as part of the
Forest Lakes South development.
· Donald Brown/Terrv SDaid - Request to add approximately 35
acres of land to the Hollymead Community between the
existing eastern boundary of the community and the west side
of Proffit Road to be designated for low density residential
use.
3
(
~'
11
South Fork Land Trust - Request to add approximately 30
acres to the Hollymead Community. The request is for
low-density residential use. The property is located north
of the South Fork Rivanna river, west of the Norfolk-
Southern Railroad, and south of Rte. 643. It is
approximately one mile east of the intersection of Rte. 29
and Rte. 643.
REED POR EXPANSION
r~he Land Use Plan provides direction for physical development of
he County. It recognizes existing land use arrangement,
:supporting facilities and physical development limitations and
dentifies areas intended to accommodate future development. A
ong standing goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to direct growth
nto designated Growth Areas which are those areas intended to
.~ccommodate future development. Therefore, Growth Areas should
pe sized to adequately accommodate anticipated growth. That
$izing must also allow sufficient market and location
Flexibility.
~esidential Area: The Plan applies no specific multiplier or
~ormula to determine the amount of developable land that needs to
)~e available for residential use. The Plan attempts to ensure
~hat sufficient acreage is available to accommodate the total
~umber of dwellings needed to house the projected population for
he planning period.
Population projections and estimates of dwelling units and
i creage needs are provided in the following table:
POPULATION PROJECTIONS/RESIDENTIAL LAND USE NEEDS
YEAR TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL DU'S* ADDITIONAL DU'S TOTAL ACREAGE NEEDED** SOURCE OF
POPULA TI ON
PROJECTIONS
1990 68 1n 25.958 ____u ------ 1990 Census
1991 69' 700 ------ ------ ------ CPS
1993 70,897 28,022 2,064 825 Plaming Dept.
Estimate
1995 73.760 29 154 1 132 453 VEC
2000 7'9.081 31 257 2 103 841 VEC
2010 90,148 35,632 4,375 1,750 VEC
2015 96,162 38,009 2,3n 951 Plaming Dept.
Projection
TOTAL .. 12.051
TOTAL z 4.820
*TOTAL POPULATION DIVIDED BY 2.53 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD EQUALS TOTAL D~LLING UNITS NEEDED
"ASSUMING AVERAGE GROSS DENSITY OF 2.5 D~LLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
4
~ ' ..
total of 4,820 acres are estimated to be needed to accommodate
e anticipated population growth and necessary dwelling units.
e current Growth Areas land use, inventory indicates that there
e currently 6,441 acres designated for residential use '
ttachment D). Of that total, 3,507 acres are in the Urban Area
d Hollymead/Piney Mountain Growth Areas.
ring the previous review of the Plan concern was raised by the
elopment community that insufficient land was available on the
rket. The concern was that while mathematically there was'
fficient area designated to accommodate anticipated
elopment, the amount of land on the market for sale and cost
the land limited opportunities for development. Although the
G owth Area was expanded in Neighborhood Three and the Rivanna
V.llage was added as a Growth Area, this situation may still be
p esent. (stony Point and Ivy were deleted as Growth Areas
d ring the previous plan review" and the Village of North Garden,
w.th 972 developable acres, has development limitations due to
c ncerns over the availability of groundwater. Also, since that
t.me (1988) a significant amount of land has been developed for
r sidential use. A total of 1,324 acres has been developed or is
u der development, mostly as low density subdivisions (Forest
kes, Forest Lakes South, Mill Creek, Mill Creek South, Lakeside
Reynovia, and Redfields).
ring the previous review of the Plan it was also noted that the
owth management efforts to capture growth in the designated
owth Areas (and discourage growth in the Rural Area) were not
tirely successful. The Growth Areas were not capturing
fficient growth. From 1983 to 1988, an average of 53 percent
all residential development occurred in the Rural Area.
ever, from 1989 to 1992, the average percentage of all
r sidential development occurring in the Rural Areas dropped to
34 percent (See Attachment E). Subdivision activity for 1992
also shows 675 lots, or 78% of the subdivision activity, occurred
i the Growth Areas, which indicates a continuance of this trend.
M ch of this development activity in the Growth Areas can be
a tributed to,major developments such as Mill Creek, Mill Creek
S th, Lake' Reynovia,; Forest Lakes, Forest Lakes South, Highlands
. <tI. .
a Mechums, Redf1elds, Glenmore and W1lton Farms Apartments.
T is trend indicates that if land (and essential services and
u ilities) are available for large scale development, that
d elopment will likely take place in the Growth Areas.
development of the residential areas noted above have
sumed significant large land holdings within the Growth Areas
f r large scale residential development. CUrrently there are
fi e (5) large undeveloped areas still available within the Urban
A a and Hollymead for residential development. These include:
T 500+ "Belvidere" area north of Rio Road and east of the
No folk Southern Railroad (Neighborhood 2); 200+ acres south of
Fo est Lakes South in Hollymead; 600f. acre "Breeden" tract
be ween Route 20 and Route 631 at the southern end of
Neighborhoods 4 and 5; 150f. acre "Hillcrest" tract in
5
4 ·
eighborhood 4; and approximately 390 acres in two areas of
eighborhood 3 along Route 20. There is also approximately 70
cres of medium and high density area along Berkmar Drive
xtended in Neighborhood One in numerous smaller tracts.
inally, it should be noted that residential development does
ot, by itself, generate new population growth to any significant
egree. Population growth within the County is generated
rimarily by natural increases and in-migration fueled by
conomic activity. Designation of new residential areas,
herefore, is considered as an accommodation of those increases
hat are now projected.
on-Residential Demands: The additional industrial and
ommercial acreage needed to accommodate future demand is based
n employment projections and employment/area relationships
square footage/employee and square footage/acres).
o provide flexibility in location of industrial and commercial
and, the Land Use Plan, now attempts to designate at least
wo-t mes the estimated land use need. During the previous
eview of the Plan, staff recommended using a standard of three-
imes the anticipated demand to provide a greater inventory and
lexibility of land for non-residential activities. The
ommission and Board subsequently endorsed the "two-times"
tandard. Professional standards recommend anywhere from two- to
our-times anticipated demand.
taff has provided an analysis of non-residential land use
emands/needs based on providing both two-times and three-times
he anticipated demand (See Attachment F). Employment
rojections are based on national trends/projections for the year
005 provided by the Bureau of Labor statistics. Moderate growth
rojections have been used for all major industrial divisions
xcept for manufacturing. The highest national projection, which
s 0% (or no growth) for manufacturing was used because the major
mployers in Albemarle are characteristic of those industries
hat are considered growth industries (electronics, electrical
quipment; researc~~and testing services). The low and moderate
ational employment projections for annual percentage growth are
.9% and -.2% respectively.
ased on national trends for industrial employment, demand for
ndustrial land is not expected to increase significantly over
he next twenty year planning periOd. However, existing economic
evelopment efforts at the state level in association with the
niversity/UREF and private sector may attract additional land
se demand. Given current conditions, the existing land use
nventory of industrial service land (1,380 acres) appears
ufficient for the planning period.
t is projected that an additional 350 acres of commercial
ervice land will be needed by 2015. CUrrently, there are a
otal of 412 vacant developable acres designated in the Plan.
6
-.:.
.
ased on providing two-times the area needed, a total of 700
cres would need to be designated for the twenty year planning
eriod. Therefore, an additional 288 acres would need to be
.dentified. Based on providing three-times the area needed, an
dditional 638 acres would need to be designated. The existing
'nventory of developable land is adequate for periods up to the
ear 2000 under both the two-and three-times standard.
Mountain stud Area:
he Office Service land use designation has the flexibility to
ccommodate employment activities of both an industrial or
ommercial nature. A total of 90 acres of Office Service is
urrently avail,able for development in the Plan. Also, the
ffice/Regional Service Area in Neighborhood Three has been
pproved for the Peter Jefferson Place mixed use development
onsisting of 140 acres for Office/Service/Commercial/
esidentiaI uses (23 acres for commercial uses). A mixture of
ommercial Service land use designations and the Office Service
esignation should be used to provide the additional area needed
or commercial uses.
ALYSIS OF STUDY AREAS
ach of these areas have advantages and constraints to
ccommodate development. However, all three areas are considered
candidates for Growth Area designation.
area is generally defined as the area east of Route 29 and
outh and west of North Fork Rivanna River and Route 600 to its
.ntersection with Route 29. Two smaller areas west of Route 29
ere also part of the study area. They include the UREF property
orth of the current Hollymead boundary and the area just south
f the Hollymead boundary and east and north of Route 643. The
otal study area consists of approximately 6,140 acres (See
ttachment G).
xistin Develo ment: The area consists primarily of scattered
esidential development. Strip residential development exists
long Proffit Road, Route 643, Route 785 and a portion of Route
00. Subdivisions in the study area include: Terrybrook,
iverview:Farm, Bentivar, Fall Fields, Red Hills and Northwood
obile home park. ~The Proffit Community is also located in this
tudy area. The non-residential uses in this area include Better
iving Plant, Badger Powhatan, Oakwood Homes Sales & Office, and
nternational Auto Parts.
e S ace Ian: This area does not contain significant area of
.mportant space as defined by the Plan's concept maps other than
e stream valley of the North Fork Rivanna River and some
djacent tributaries. There is a small area of farmland and
orest just north of the North Fork Rivanna and west of Route
00. Also, the area north of the existing Hollymead boundary and
orth Fork Rivanna west of Route 29 is also shown as agricultural
rea.
ation: Primary access to this study area is provided by
oute 29 and Route 649 (Proffit Road/Airport Road). Other roads
ithin the study area are Route 643, Route 785, Route 600 and
7
~
II
The use of Routes 600 and 606 should be discouraged
ecause of the availability of alternative routes for access and
existing condition.
649, Proffit Road would provide the primary east-west
ccess through the study area. Most of Proffit Road is
onsidered non-tolerable. Significant development of the study
rea would likely require substantial improvements to the road
ue to the existing alignment and development along the road.
ealignment of some portions of the road would be necessary.
oute 29 improvements include widening of Route 29 from Hydraulic
oad to Route 649, Proffit/Airport Road. Other improvements
mpacting this roadway network in this area are the proposed
eadow Creek Parkway.
tilities: This study area falls into two drainage areas which
re divided generally by Rte. 649.
ORTH OF RTE. 649:
Water Service - Treatment is provided at the North Rivanna
water treatment plant and storage is provided on Piney
Mountain. 800,000 gallons per day can be withdrawn from the
river to provide water. This flow is not adequate to meet
the needs of the current growth area under build-out.
Although the water treatment plant has a design capacity of
2,000,000 gallons per day, its production is limited by the
800,000 gpd supply. To increase available raw water, Chris
Greene Lake may be utilized as a water supply impoundment
area and provide additional flow to the North Rivanna
treatment plan. Chris Greene Lake is currently a
recreational facility with a beach and swimming area. If
the lake were to become a water supply impoundment area then
the recreational activities would be incompatible. Also,
when demand exceeds raw water currently available from the
North Fork, all or part of this Growth Area demand can be
met through the existing urban water system with finished
water from South Rivanna. This would be realized by
utilizing the existing line on Rt. 29 and a booster station
to allow water to be pumped to a storage tank serving the
area, The No+th Rivanna Treatment Plant can continue to be
used or mothballed. With the ultimate addition of Buck
Mountain Reservoir, the raw water supply in the urban system
would be adequate.
The Growth Area is bisected by a 12" waterline along Route
29 and Airport Road which has the capacity to serve the
expansion area. Additional storage will need to be provided
to meet the peak domestic demand and to maintain the
required fire reserve. This storage tank may be located
within the Hollymead area or on Piney Mountain. (See
Attachment H).
Wastewater Service - The natural drainage of the Growth Area
north ~f Route 649 falls toward the Camelot/North Rivanna
River basin. Treatment is limited to 365,000 gpd at the
Camelot wastewater treatment plant. The ability to handle
additional flows will need to be addressed before build-out
of the current designated growth area occurs. The
8
'(
.
alternatives available are as follows: (1) gravity sewer
along the North Fork of the Rivanna River to the Rivanna
Interceptor; (2) a 'gravity sewer along the North Rivanna
River and pumping of the flow to the Powell Creek
Interceptor; or, (3) a pump station on the North Rivanna
River with a discharge to the Forest Lakes/Powell Creek
system. Depending on the final routing selection, upgrading
the Powell Creek Interceptor at select locations may be
required.
SOUTH OF RTE. 649:
~. Water Service - Water service to the Hollymead growth area
south of Route 649 is primarily provided by the South
Rivanna water facility. Water is fed through a 12"
transmission main along Route 29. If the Growth Area is
expanded east of Hollymead, this 12" transmission line would
be its primary water source of service. Expansion of the
South Rivanna Treatment Plant will be a natural consequence
of growth within the urban water system area.
~. Wastewater Service - The expanded Growth Area of Hollymead
south of Route 649 primarily drains to Powell Creek. A
major interceptor exists on-site with the capacity to serve
the Hollymead Growth Area. Treatment is provided at the
Moores Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Expansion
of that plant's capacity will also occur as a consequence of
urban, Charlottesville and Crozet growth. (It should be
noted that capacity in the Powell Creek Interceptor could be
diminished by pump-over from the northern portion of the
Hollymead Growth Area).
l~ommunitv Facilities: It should be kept in mind that the growth
panagement policy is to encourage anticipated growth in
c~esignated Growth Areas. While facilities may be impacted by
~ltimate development, those impacts would have to have absorbed
1iithin the system regardless of location. The intent of the Plan
s to concentrate development into Growth Areas to allow for the
.~ost efficient resource delivery while also protecting rural
cflreas .
Police - Hollxmead lies within the Police Department Sector
C response area. Response times from the headquarters
building are in excess of that recommended in the Community
Facilities Plan to an Urban Area (ten minutes). Twenty-
seven percent of all calls originate from the 29 North
Corridor. Officers regularly patrol this sector and if an
emergency call is received when an officer is partolling the
area, response time may be greatly improved.
The Community Facilities Plan recommends the location of a
police substation to serve the northern area of the County.
Based on service demand and existing roadway network and
traffic patterns, a location in the Hollymead Community
would hold the best potential to serve the area.
Fire and Rescue - The Hollymead area is primarily served by
the Earlysville Fire Department and secondary service is
provided by Seminole Trail Fire Department. Also, the City
provides supplementary 24-hour protection to the County.
9
~
.
The City generally responds with one truck to this area.
Response time in the Hollymead area is in excess of the
recommended response time in the Community Facilities Plan
to an Urban Area (five minutes).
Currently, aerial truck service is provided only by the
City. The City provides aerial truck service if the
required staffing is available and the truck is not needed
in the city. Estimated response time to the Hollymead area
is fifteen minutes. The community Facilities Plan
recommends the location of a new fire station in this area
to serve Hollymead and Piney Mountain.
At this time, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad
(CARS) provides ALS and BLS service to Hollymead. The
Earlysville Fire Department and the Seminole Trail Fire
Department also provide BLS service through its "first
responder" program. Responding with emergency medical
technicians (EMT's), they are simultaneously dispatched with
rescue squads. Estimated response time for CARS is thirteen
minutes. The Community Facilities Plan recommends a
response of four minutes or less. The Community Facilities
Plan recommends that related and complementary services be
located within one complex and centralized whenever
possible. Therefore, the possibility of a rescue squad in
conjunction with a new fire department will be considered.
Parks - Park service is adequate to the Hollymead areas.
Community park service is currently being provided by
Hollymead Elementary. The northern portion of the Hollymead
area is lacking in district park service; however, the new
Hollymead Middle School is expected to provide adequate
district park level service to the Community. County park
level service is provided through Chris Green Lake.
Librarv - The Northside Branch (Albemarle Square Shopping
center) is the closest library providing service to the
Hollymead area.
Schools - This area is currently located in the Hollymead
Elementary School, Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle High
Scho~l distriqts. This area will likely be located within
the new Hollymead Middle School district. It is difficult
to estimate enrollment at this time without more specific
information concerning the total number of units, and the
characteristics of those units including unit type
(apartment, townhouse, single family detached), size of
units and the like.
Build-out of this area would likely impact elementary school
facilities the most, with either expansion or redistricting
of existing schools and/or construction of a new school
required. The Long Range Planning Committee has determined
the need for an additional elementary school in the northern
portion of the County. The new middle school is already
under construction in the Hollymead area.
10
'"
.
Also, bear in mind that the Land Use Plan provided a blue
print for where development should be encouraged over the
long term (20 years). Review and approval of subsequent
rezonings should be based on the adequacy and availability
of necessary infrastructure and support services.
""omments:
The advantages of this study area for Growth Area designation
are:
- Accessed by Route 29, Airport and Proffit Roads, all
arterial roads.
- Convenient location to Charlottesville, University of
Virginia, and employment and commercial areas of the County.
Good access to these areas provided by Route 29, a principle
arterial roadway.
- Limited amount of significant environmental and open space
resources within this study area as defined in the Open
Space Plan.
- Existing water and sewer infrastructure can provide at least
some level of service to the study area in the short-term,
although upgrading of facilities and services would be
necessary to fully serve the study area.
- The study area contains large undeveloped land holdings void
of significant development constraints.
Limitations/constraints of the study area for Growth Area
designation are:
The potential high cost of upgrading roads serving the area,
particularly Proffit Road. The impact of such improvements
could be significant to adjacent properties due to the strip
development pattern along these roads (Routes 649, 785, and
643).
- The increased traffic generated could also necessitate
improvements to Route 20.
, ,1
~'
- Community facility needs: the probable need for additional
schools, fire/rescue and police services. There are already
existing deficiencies in these services to support existing
development.
This study area is capable of accommodating a variety of
non-residential and residential uses and densities.
Jeiahborhood 3 study Area:
~his study area consists of approximately 2,675 acres north of
the existing Neighborhood boundary along both sides of Route 20,
~enerally up to the boundary of the Southwest Mountain historic
cistrict near the intersection of Proffit Road with Route 20.
~one of the Southwest Mountain Historic District is included in
the study area (See Attachment I).
11
.....-.------,------ ~......-....._,_. ----.--- . -..--..--* -_.._---------- ----~-_.._..~.-.... -. . - --~---------
... The study area consists primarily of
cattered'rural scale development. These subdivisions are
ocated within the area: Key West, Franklin, and Redbud.
en S ace Plan: The Open Space Plan identifies three important
pen space features in this general area: 1) Southwest Mountain
istoric District; 2) Southwest Mountains; and, 3) the stream
alleys for Redbud Creek and an unnamed tributary. The boundary
or this study area is intended to exclude the Southwest
ountains and the historic district. Route 20 is designated a
tate Scenic Highway and a County Entrance Corridor Route.
rans ortation: This area is bisected by Route 20 North. Route
o would be the primary road access to this area. The alignment
f Route 20 consists of numerous vertical and horizontal curves,
ome with limited site distance. As development occurs in this
tudy area, the need for alignment improvements would be
ecessary. Most development along the road is located well off
he road. However, in some locations the development, mostly
esidential, is located close to the roadway. Other roads in the
rea are Routes 769, 626, 612, 610 and 769. All are dead end or
oop roads and all are considered non-tolerable with the
xception of Route 612. There are public roads within the Key
est subdivision. The ability to make necessary alignment
mprovements to Route 29 to support development and the impact of
hose improvements to the character of the area are important
onsiderations in determining whether to designate this area as a
rowth Area.
Water Service - Water Service is adequate to the existing
Neighborhood. Service to expansion areas will require
extending a transmission main along Route 20 North. An
existing main crossing Route 20 near Elks Drive is served by
the Pantops water storage tank. Ultimately, this line may
loop through Neighborhood Two and connect to the proposed
urban transmission main along Rio Road. Key West is
currently served by a privately owned community water
system. System upgrades may be required internally should
it beco~e necessary to connect it to the urban system. No
expansion designed to serve Key West is planned (See
Attachment J):'
Wastewater Service - Wastewater service can be made
available from the Rivanna Interceptor. Service in this
neighborhood will be considered as the need arises.
Police - The Neighborhood Three Study Area lies within
Police Department Section C - Beat 4. Response times from
the headquarters building to the study area meet that
recommended to an Urban Area (ten minutes). Officers
regularly patrol this sector and if an emergency call is
received when an officer is patrolling in this sector,
response time may be greatly improved.
12
-_._-~.-._----. .:.._..----- -
,
Fire and Rescue - This study area receives primary service.
from the stony Point Fire Department and secondary service
from the East Rivanna Fire Department. Also, the City
provides supplementary 24-hour protection and generally
responds with one truck to this area. Response time by the
County volunteer fire departments to the study area are in
excess of the recommended response time to an Urban Area
(five minutes). However, response time from the City fire
department to the southern portion of the study area
generally meets the five minute recommended response time.
At this time, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad
(CARS) provides Advance Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life
Support (BLS) services to the study area. Response time to
the southern portion of the study area meets the recommended
response time to an urban area (4 minutes). The Stony
Point and East Rivanna Fire Departments also provide BLS
service through the "first responder" program and are
simultaneously dispatched with the rescue squad.
Parks - County park service is adequate to the study area
and is being provided through Darden Towe park. However,
the study area is lacking in both community and district
park services. These type of park services are generally
provided through the elementary, middle and high schools.
Due to, the unlikelihood of an elementary school in this
immediate area, the Community Facilities Plan recommends
that Darden Towe park be upgraded to provide community level
park services to this area. The closest district level park
services will continue to be provided through Burley Middle
School.
Library - The Central Library (located in Downtown
Charlottesville) is the closest public library to the study
area.
Schools - This area is currently located in the Stony Point
Elementary School, Burley Middle School and Albemarle High
School Districts. It is difficult to estimate enrollment at
this time without more specific information concerning the
total number of units, and the characteristics of those
units includi~g unit type, size of the unit and the like.
.'
Comments:
· Advantages of the study area for Growth Area designation
are:
Convenient location for access to Charlottesville and
private and public services available in Neighborhood
Three.
Access provided by Route 20, a minor arterial road.
Water and sewer service is reasonably available through
the extension of existing service lines.
Several property owners have'expressed interest in
being included within the designated Growth Area.
13
...
. .
Limitations/constraints of the study area for Growth Area
designation are:
Cost, impact and feasibility of the improvements to
Route 20 to accommodate additional development of the
study area. Route 20 is designated a County Entrance
Corridor Route and state Scenic Highway. Improvement
may impact the character of the roadway.
The topography of the study area, particularly east of
Route 20, limits the developability of the properties.
Community facility needs: fire service may need
upgrading; community level park facilities and some
district level facilities would be needed; also,
additional elementary school capacity may be needed.
· Expansion, if designated for this area, should be more
oriented to residential use at low gross densities possibly
permitting higher net densities.
and Five stud Areas:
is area consists of approximately 2,280 acres (See Attachment
). The eastern boundary runs along the 600 foot contour
eginning at a point just south of Route 53 and running along the
astern side of Route 20 to just north of Marshall Manor
s division. The southern boundary runs along an unnamed
tributary to Biscuit Run. The western boundary runs along Route
631 and then the 600 contour, west of Route 631.
a sot tion: This area is accessed by Route 20 and Route 631.
ere are no other public roads within this study area. Avon
reet (Route 742) and Old Lynchburg Road (Route 781) may also be
pacted by development in this area. Old Lynchburg Road is
nsidered non-tolerable. Route 631 is now being widened to a
fur-lane roadway from the 1-64 overpass to approximately one-
ile south of Old Lynchburg Road. The remainder of Route 631 is
n rrow with horizontal and vertical curvature alignment problems.
rtions of this section are considered non-tolerable and would
quire upgrading should a significant level of development occur
the area with access to this road.
Route 631 and Route 20 are designated Entrance
orridor Roads. Route 20 is designated a State Scenic Highway.
e stream valleys along Biscuit Run and several of its
ributaries are identified in the plan. Much of the area south
f the existing Growth Area boundary is shown as important
farmland/forest area (prime soils for forestry activity).
arter's Mountain is to the east and outside of the study area.
ute 20 runs along the eastern boundary of this study area.
T ere are also alignment improvements which would need to be made
along the entire length of ~oute 20 from the study area to Route
53 should significant development occur in this area.
14
~ ' ltilities:
J. Water Service - Water service to the portions of the
Neighborhoods not currently serVed and to future expansion
areas will be provided by- the "southern loop". A major
transmission main, referred to as the "eastern branch of the
southern loop", is proposed and will link the Avon Street
and Pantops tanks. The western branch of the southern loop
is complete between the observatory Water storage Tank and
Avon Street. A water storage tank on Avon Street was
constructed allowing service to the entire Biscuit Run area.
As the property develops in the Neighborhoods, lines will be
extended at project cost. Ultimately another tank 'will
be built on Avon street and the eastern branch of the
southern loop will be constructed when flow is needed by the
City of Charlottesville. Additional storage to support
urban demand and maintain adequate fire reserve may be
required farther south in Neighborhood Four.
A smaller sub-system will be needed farther south on Avon
Street. Another smaller water tank ultimately may be built,
fed from the Reynovia pump station and serve the higher
elevations in the Biscuit Run area. This would be a
component of the water system which would have to be
provided in future development of the Biscuit Run/Forest
Lodge Estates.
As property develops, lines can be extended at the
developer's cost~nd should be sized adequately to handle
the ultimate service.
I . Wastewater Service - A major sewer interceptor was extended
across Rt. 64 with the capacity to provide service to these
neighborhoods. Extension along Biscuit Run is anticipated
with ACSA participation to oversize the lines to serve the
ultimate Growth Area. The southernmost end of the Biscuit
Run Interceptor is between Oak Hill and Mill Creek and
currently serves Mill Creek and Reynovia. This interceptor
can be extended to serve the expansion area with appropriate
sizing.
Communitv "Facilities:
.
Police - This study area lies within Police Sector A-beat-
2. Response time meets that recommended to an Urban Area.
Fire and Rescue - This study area receives primary service
from the Scottsville Fire Department and secondary service
is provided by the East Rivanna Fire Department. Also, the
City provides supplementary 24-hour protection. Response
time by the County volunteer fire department to this study
area is in excess of the recommended time to an Urban Area
(five minutes). However, response time from the City fire
department (Ridge Street) to the northeastern part of the
study area generally satisfy recommended response time to an
Urban Area. The Community Facilities Plan recommends the
location of a new fire station in the Southern Urban Area to
increase respons~ times to the area.
, 15
..
At this time, the Charlottesville-Alb~marle Squad provides
ALS and BLS the study area. Response time to the study area
is excess of that recommended to an Urban Area (4 minutes).
The East Rivanna Fire Department also provides BLS service
through its "first response" program.
Parks - Park service is adequate to this study area.
Community level park facilities are provided at Cale
Elementary.. District and County level facilities are
provided at Walton and Berkley Middle School, Darden Towe
Park, and Walnut Creek Park. PVCC facilities and open space
are also available for public use.
Librarv - The Central Library (located in Downtown
Charlottesville) is the closest public library to the study
area. The Community Facilities Plan recommends a branch
library in the southern urban area.
Schools - The area is currently located in the Cale
Elementary, Walton Middle School and Western Albemarle High
School Districts. It is difficult to estimate enrollment at
this time without specific information concerning the total
number of units, and the characteristics of these units
. including unit type, size of unit and the like.
ll"omments :
The advantages of this study area for Growth Area designation
~e:
Access provided by Route 20, a minor arterial road, and
Route 631, a portion of which is being reconstructed and
realigned to a four lane divided road.
- Generally good topography for development.
- The area consists of large holdings of undeveloped land.
- Water and sewer service can be provided to the study area
through the extension and upgrading of existing service
lines.
Limitations/constraints of the study are for Growth Area
designation are:
- The Open Space Plan identifies a large part of this study
area as prime soils for forestal activity.
- Route 20 and Route 631 beyond the current improvement would
likely require upgrading to accommodate additional traffic
from development of the study area. Both are designated a
County Entrance Corridor Routes and Route 20 is also
designated a state Scenic Highway. Improvements will be
costly and, in the case of Route 20, may impact the
character of the road. Old LynChburg Road and Avon Street
would likely receive additional traffic and may also. require
further improvements. Old Lynchburg would be difficult to
upgrade due to existing development along the road.
16
.
- The portion of the study area east of Roue 20 has
relatively limited development potential. Development in
this area could have a more significant impact on the
character of the Route 20 corridor than the value of the
holding capacity gained.
- community facility needs: existing fire and rescue to the
current Growth Area is inadequate. The Community Facilities
Plan recommends a fire station in this area.
This area is capable of accommodating a variety of residential
land use densities and some non-residential uses.
f UHKARY OP PINDINGS/COMMENTS:
The Land Use Plan is intended to provide direction to guide
general long-term decisions regarding the location and
character of physical development in the County. While it
provides the long term perspective, the timing and design
details (scale/density) of specific development proposals
should be evaluated at the rezoning stage when the impact of
development proposals can be evaluated. Designation as a
Growth Area does not guarantee that any development proposal
will be approved at any point in time, only that this is an
appropriate area for development to take place in the future.
Future development proposals would be subject to an evaluation
of the area's capability to support a specific development
proposal during rezoning review.
· While sufficient area exists mathematically to accommodate
population growth anticipated over the next twenty years,
additional residential areas provide flexibility which may be
necessary to continue to encourage development in the Growth
Areas and discourage development from occurring in the Rural
Areas. The Housing Advisory Committee Report has also
identified the designation of more residential areas as a
strategy to improve housing affordability by providing a
greater inventory of land available for residential
development, thereby creating a more competitive market for
land available for development.
. .
· Recent development trends indicate a greater percentage of
development is now occurring in the Growth Areas rather than
in the Rural Areas. . This appears to be attributed in large
part to the availability of larger scale residential
developments providing unit types and amenities which better
meet market demands. The opportunity to provide necessary
land to accommodate the continued planning and development of
these types of communities should continue. This will requ~re
that larger land areas be available to allow for larger scale
development. CUrrently, there are limited opportunities
remaining in HollYmead or the Urban Area for larger scale
developments to occur.
· While the existing inventory of developable industrial land
appears sufficient for the planning period, the total
developable land designated for commercial service uses is
insufficient for the twenty year planning period (it is
sufficient for the period up to year 2000) based on either the
17
-'. -.- ..-_......~..... -....- -;- :--.---....-.-. -_._-~_._----_._---~---_.__.._.-- -------~---._---------_._-------
L existing standard of providing two-times the anticipated
demand,or increasing the standard to allow three~times
anticipated demand for location flexibility.
· All three study areas contain areas that are appropriate for
consideration for Growth Area designation. While the total
acreage of all of the study areas is well in excess of what
would be necessary for development within the next twenty (20)
years and there are limitations (such as road capacity and
utility availability) that may affect timing of development of
these areas, the study areas seem to be the most logical
expansion areas for the County over the long-term (20 year
period and beyond). In terms of prioritizing the study areas
as the most desirable for expansion, expanding HollYmead north
of Proffit Road and east of Route 29, Piney Mountain east of
Route 29 to Route 600 and Neighborhood 4/5 excluding the area
east of Rte. 20 have the best potential. These areas are
considered the best primarily because of developability of the
land, road access, and opportunity/ability to be served by
utilities.
t should be kept in mind that the growth management policy is to
ncourage anticipated growth in designated Growth Areas. While
articular facilities may be impacted by ultimate development in
he identified study areas, those impacts would have to be
bsorbed within the community facility/service systems of the
ntire County regardless of location. The intent of the Plan is
o concentrate development in Growth Areas to allow for more
fficient resource delivery while also protecting rural areas.
COMMENDATION:
· The Towers Land Trust request (CPA-92-05) was deferred by the
Board of Supervisors to permit the study of Growth Area
expansion to be conducted. Based upon the findings of this
study, staff finds that the location of the Towers request is
an appropriate location for Growth Area expansion and that
there is reasonable justification and need for the land uses
proposed. Therefore, staff recommends amending the
comprehensive Plan to include the area north of Proffit Road,
east of Route 29, South of the North Fork Rivanna River and
vest of Route 7.5 in the Bollymead community.
.
This request would provide an additional l74 acres of low and
medium density residential area, 41 acres of commercial and 29
acres of office service. It was identified in this report
that additional commercial service area will be needed to meet
the anticipated demand by 2015. The Towers request would
provide 70 acres largely adjacent to an area already
designated Regional Service in the Comprehensive Plan (Route
29 and Route 649 intersection). This could meet some of the
long term non-residential land use needs. Timing of
development will be dependent on the availability and adequacy
of public facilities, utilities and roads. Recommendations
for the development of this area to be included in the Plan
are:
- Limit access to Route 29 to three locations for the entire
frontage from Proffit Road to the North Fork Rivanna River.
The Towers Land Trust property should be limited to two
18
I
--------- i
~
access points to Route 29. The northern-most access point
should be aligned with the future access to UREF's North
Fork Research Park. Access should be prohibited from the
Towers Land Trust site to Route 785.
- Consideration should be g~ven to developing a Greenway along
the North Fork Rivanna River to protect environmental
resources and provide recreational opportunities.
The Planning Commission had previously recommended approval of
this request to the Board of Supervisors.
The Board of Supervisors also deferred consideration of the
South Fork Land Trust request (CPA-92-02) until the completion
of this study. This area is not recommended for inclusion in
the Bollymead Growth Area primarily due to the impact of the
proposed Keadov Creek Parkway alignment as recommended by the
consultant vorking on the Parkway design. The Planning
Commission had previously recommended to the Board of
Supervisors denial of this request. The commission may wish
to defer a recommendation on this request until the Commission
and the Board have completed the review of the consultant
study of the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment.
Should the Planning Commission agree with other staff findings
as outlined in this report, staff will make recommendations
regarding the other requests and remaining study areas at the
next worksession. Unlike CPA-92-05 and CPA-92-02 which were
previously heard by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors, the Planning Commission and Board will have to
hold public hearing on these remaining areas.
.-
19
...
I ATTACHMENT A I
j;
LEGEND
M^-lOR STREAM V ALLEYS:
-
-
OPEN SPACE
CONCEPT MAP
.\Ibonwle COUIIlY. Vir&inia
J/6r '''' "..
-
-
-
-
-
-=:I
-
-
t
1
-
-
~ '--'.."
f~~~i;~':
... Study Area Boundary
.' ;'-~. c
-.:'1
~j
.<:~.
. ~ '.
.'-:',
"
, ,
i,,_ ~
. .
:-' :~,
. .,;,:.; ,-
.,,' .~. . :.;;~~~~;~.
'!~~~t~f
""i~\?..,~\L.r.~~
oJ,: <.~ ..;:~:~~:<~~,;}~"r'~~!
"', .~-:.,...~ ~ ..r~'.e1.:~~1.'---
;.".".,
. j.;~;.,
~I,."
~1.,~...
"
!ATTACHMENT B I
esignated Growth Areas and Study Areas for Expansion
5V'
~
UA'"
.
J , I .. ......,..'"
Albemarle County, Virginia
.:.:.::,. Village
.. ...
~~~~~ . Community
. Neighborhoods
m Study Areas
..
~~~,
~~~",1~"
Exi ting Growth Areas
8 Stu y Area Boundary
!.~;'~,'.. Ap lications
5/ f },
~l~
--ti x'
\ .
'"',
/1
fl
\1
,
<I
ATTACHMENT D
GROWTH AREA LAND USE INVENTORY, DEVELOPABLE LAND
GROWTH AREA VR LD MD HD NS CS RS OS IS, ORS
Neighborhood 1 0 41 30 0 12 49 0 30 0
Neighborhood 2 600 75 25 4 45 0 14 0 0
Neighborhood 3 398 78 90 7 20 56 0 0 236
Neighborhood 4 719 36 42 0 0 0 0 225 0
Neighborhood 5 307 37 103 12 10 40 2 0 0
Neighborhood 6 449 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0
Neighborhood 7 122 0 38 0 0 0 4 0 0
Hollymead 190 0 127 10 30 77 65 709 0
Crozet 640 154 0 12 15 0 0 214 0
Piney Mtn 5 20 0 0 0 0 0 203 0 -
Rivanna 897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Earlysville 246 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
North Garden 972 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 2115 3430 441 455 58 132 222 90 1381 236
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL - 6,441
.-
l.....~
'"
. . ATTACHMENT E
NEW DWELLINGS BY GROWTH AREA/RURAL AREAS
YEAR GROWTH AREAS RURAL AREAS TOTAL
1983 708 (66%) 357 (34%) 1065
1984 347 (48%) 378 (52%) 725
1985 323 (45%) 391 (55%) 714
1986 346 (47%) 391 (53%) 737
1987 227 (35%) 427 (65%) 654
1988 278 (41%) 395 (59%) 673
1989 962 (73%) 347 (27%) 1309
1990 469 (58%) 335 (42%) 804
1991 372 (61%) 242 (39%) 614
1992 602 (70%) 264 (30%) 866
*BASED ON BUILDING PERMITS
.
"
.'
-
... -- , - --
. . ATTACHMENT F
1985 1990 2000 2010 2015
EMPLOYMENT 1 EMPLOYMENT3 EMPLOYMENT4 EMPLOYMENT4 EMPLOYMENT4
INDUSTRIAL
Manufacturing 6,273 6,365 6,365 6,365 6,365
Transportation 435 393 428 466 487
Wholesale Trade 538 500 566 641 673
TOTAL INDUSTRIAL 7246 7 258 7359 7,4n 7,525
Building Square Ft 1,961,604 2,057,604 2,082,597 2,114,576 2,129,575
Developed Acres 2 510 522 528 536 540
Undeveloped Acres 1,109 1,381
Square Feet/Acre 3,846 3,942
Square Feet/E~loyee 271 283
CCJ4MERCIAL
Construction 1,124 2,213 2,505 2,836 2,995
Finance 1,168 1,628 1,861 2,127 2,268
Services 4,067 4,543 5,792 7,885 8,273
Retail Trade 3,105 4,576 5,331 6,211 6,n4
TOTAL ClJ4MERCIAL 9,464 12,960 15,489 19,059 20,260
Building Square Ft 3,551,855 4,096,155 4,894,524 6,022,644 6,402,160
Developed Acres 545 621 742 913 971
Undeveloped Acres 544 405
Square Feet/Acre 6,515 6,596
Square Feet/E~loyee 375 316
E~loyment for 1985 from corrected Virginia E~loyment Conmission data.
-I Undeveloped acreage is that acreage estimated to be vacant and developable. This acreage does not include
floodplain and 25% slopes.
E~loyment for 1990 from Virginia E~loyment data, and is not adjusted for possible location reporting
errors.
Sector growth dates are based on moderate national projections reported in "Industry Output E~loyment"
Monthly Labor Review, (Noventler, 1989): pp 24-41. 2015 projections based on BEA Report (1991) Moderate
National Projections (1988-2010).
1993 estimate of vacant developable commercial land.
ources: Square footage of non-residential land detenained by Albemarle County Department of Planning and
OIIIlUlity Development.
.-
-/
- -. ~ -. -.-- -..
"'!..CJII~1 .;....;.~~ It -........ l')\I''J11 n:.I__
I Growth Area Expansions I
'"' II _ ~'-' III;dl1
PINEY MOUNTAIN / HOLL YMEAD .....
. .. (" r
~. '---/
/'/
,.-'
... /
r- --17431
/' L__'
./
.... .b-~
....
'~'"
11
J;
. .---?
I.,.~-
_/'
l
~
~
~
~
"ifbl; 1 J
~.~.
0/"
..
Forks of the Rivanna River
" ..
'T. \
.....
\
'\
..
"'-/
Existing Growth Area
Study Area
IATTACHMENT GI
,"
[ 640Lo~
~ ( 0'
~
,- ~
(~fj401 \
t (
J :/
,{'~.~.'/" C-
o,",
"
,~
/;-
)/>1
, // ,<:'
, 'f~"
,~ '~-
/' ~
,
"'0
640
..\
~
-~,
"
"
'~
J~
r '-__ __ \
"-
~
j
A;,
~
c.;
IATTACHMENT HI
....
~ .
~,I'
~ Existing Major Water Line
B Existing Major Sewer Line
D General Location of Possible Upgrade
IATTACHMENT II
1 "'\-
I ~'"
I':~.I fi/ ~
~I Growth Area Expansions
NEIGHi30RH~obD THREE L
~. ,
r7
~Q
onfluence of the North and South
~ F rks of the Rivanna River
,-
'1". ./
\) '/
'-,a /
/
T
s-
'-
.~
-
,\'
~' . - -"':.
,,~"" ~/ - y-
'.........' //
'--_./ I
m ---1:
lliV .
MonllcclO
.
f:'M
~
Existing Growth Area
Study Area
(I 'ya', .I
0(1 . ~
:\' J~~
,
~
~
~,
~
- ~>---~-v-
/
........ .
: : , ' , , , ' , , 'r'"--""
..-....../
~ ~ )>/
:..;/'
~
[!] Existing Major Water Line
El Existing Major Sewer Line
I2J General Location of Possible Upgrade
,\
,~
64
'-
,fI) Existing Growth Area
G:TI Study Area
!ATTACHMENT KI
......,
Carler MII"\
iJEJ / .
(7'35
/
,.-<
.~. )
c;
ille
r
CMtef M tn.
F,T.
/'
......... -----./J
/"
79'~
/
[!] Existing Major Water line
EJ Existing Major Sewer Line
!illd General Location of Possible Upgrade
:
~,
10-5-93 (Work Session 5:l5)
1 \"i'
),,:/
OCTOBER 5, 1993 - WORK SESSION
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a Work Session
on Tuesday, October 5, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice
Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom
Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development and Mr. David BeniSh,
Chief of community Development.
The Work Session began at 5:15 p.m.
.~
"
Growth Area Expansion Study
The question before the Commssion was that of growth area
expansion. Staff explained that the Board was requesting
that the Commission "look at the big picture of all the
possibilities and to advise them, accordingly," on two
specific CPA's which the Commission has already acted upon:
CPA-92-05 for Towers Land Trust and CPA-92-02 for South
Fork Land Trust. (The Commission had previously recommended
approval of Towers and denial of South Fork.) In addition,
the Board "would like (the Commission) to look at the whole
report in full and comprehensively come back with a
recommendation."
Mr. Benish presented the staff report.
Commission comments:
JOHNSON: "Growth in some form is necessary, but I submit
that growth management can be to establish an environment
which supports development by the private sector and does
not necessarily mean that you have to designate a specific
area by dictate. Historically, we have not experienced
overwhelming success in the development of our growth areas.
The success has been as a result of a very few major
developers. I'm suggesting that this should be a
consideration, not just by this Commission, but that this is
a major subject to be taken up with the Board in what we
identified previously as a philosophical review of the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. I would like to see
the Commission go on record again as requesting such a
meeting with the Board as soon as possible because these are
coming up time and time again. I'll mention an example of
what I'm referring to as to whether or not this designation
of growth area vs. another method of setting up an
environment within which the private sector can operate and
choose their own growth area. No. 1 - We're not going to
10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15)
2
put infrastracture in any growth area; if it's there now,
fine, but we can't afford to do it. ... No.2 - Actual
experience in one of the developments here is that low area
was purchased by the developer at $3,500/acre. The
developer took a risk but with tentative, verbal support of
the Board. He then made the application for the appropriate
zoning. The developer was then, ultimately, able to sell
the property for $250,000 to $350,000/acre and with the
(profit) he was able to put in the necessary infrastructure.
I think this is an example that needs to be seriously
considered by both the Board and the Commission together as
to how we want to approach this growth area, because once we
go ahead and designate it, the price goes from $3,500/acre
to $20,000, $30,000/acre."
,;
y
JOHNSON: Referring to a recent change in the Code in
relation to affordable housing: "If we set up an
environment in which the private sector can appropriately,
efficiently and economically operate, then prior to
designating a growth area, developers can come forth with
preliminary site plans which can be reviewed and within
those preliminary site plans, I believe we do have the
authority to address a percentage, or location or
availability of affordable housing. Affordable housing is
defined as that which does not cost more than 30% of annual
income."
JOHNSON: "If what I've stated seems like it might have some
substance, then with respect to the two applications before
us, I think we have a prime example where the developer has
decided it is economically feasible for him to operate
there. He has taken the lead and it's not just going'out
and designating area on the 'if come. '" If the Board can,
prior to taking the final action for rezoning, get a
preliminary site plan, not binding but with his ideas and
what he intends to do, then that would give a much better
basis upon which to accomplish the rezoning. In the case of
the Towers, I would be in favor of that for reasons I have
just stated." Regarding the South Fork request, he felt it
could be postponed until the Board has made its decision on
the Meadow Creek Parkway or could be approved "pending
disapproval of the Meadow Creek Parkway by the Board." He
concluded: "I think both of these qualify...for a developer
determining that it is economically feasible and desirable
for him to proceed now. The only thing I think would be
lacking is a preliminary site plan."
BLUE: He expressed disagreement with much of Mr. Johnson's
remarks. He felt the development referred to by Mr. Johnson
in his beginning remarks (Glenmore) had created a lot of
controversy because it was a "leap frog." He pointed out
that the developer bought the land and then "bribed the
County" by offering to pay for the extension of the
infrastructure. He felt it had created a lot of problems.
.
.
10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15)
3
He felt it was the role of the Planning Department to
prevent that sort of situation. He did not agree that
growth area designation drives up the cost of land. He felt
the County could do a better job of planning where
infrastructure can and should be extended. He also noted
that designation of growth areas offers some guarantee to
the public that if they choose to live outside growth areas
they can be reasonably sure they will not be in an urban
area. He felt the approach currently being followed was the
correct approach rather than letting the market define where
growth areas will be.
BLUE: "It seems to me in good planning we ought to be
trying to expand out from our urban areas along the natural
routes of gravity sewer whenever possib;te. ... Wqy do we
keep pushing out 29, where, even if we go with this tonight
and I voted for it before (i.e. Towers Land Trust), we're
pushing over the drainage area. Everything there has got to
be pumped and we're either going to have to put in bigger
pumps or put in a long gravity sewer. Going south and
northeast of town the infrastructure is easily extended with
gravity sewer and fairly good roads and we have the other
advantage of not adding to the traffic burden on 29. ... We
ought to be, instead of just stripping up 29, thinking about
expanding out and keeping the urban area a little more
compact. It seems to me that might be good planning and
might be worthy of more consideration."
Mr. Johnson felt the differences in his and Mr. Blue's
approaches might be cause for an overwhile review with the
Board of "how we approach this thing." However, he did not
think the two pending applications should be delayed. .
Mr. Johnson pointed out that the question of transportation
will have to be addressed if Towers and South Fork requests
are approved.
HUCKLE: "I am thoroughly in favor of having growth areas
and am happy to see that growth has been taking place in
growth areas. I think we really need to bite the bullet on
this transportation thing. We have seen what happens with
the Meadow Creek Parkway, where if development takes place
first, before the road, then people don't want the road. ...
We need some parallel roads. How can we make sure there
will be roads arid we won't be back in the same predicament
of having opposition to roads which are needed." She
suggested waiting until "there are enough applicants to chip
in on this road and prove that there is a need for it rather
than going at this backwards."
GRIMM: He expressed agreement with Mr. Blue's comments
regarding the concept of a growth area. "As representatives
of County government we need to provide some leadership in
determining where the growth areas should be in order to
.
.
10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15)
4
provide a lead for people who want to then come and do the
development. That's what planning is all about.1I
There were brief comments about the sewer service to the
northern part of the County and the lack of sufficient water
to run the sewage treatment plant. Because of the
possibility of pumping water from the river, Mr. Blue again
stated that he felt it was very important that the Board
make a firm decision as to whether or not Chris Green Lake
will ever be used as a reservoir, because if is not it could
be used to supplement the sewage treatment plant. It was
Mr. Blue's opinion that it is highly 'unlikely that Chris
Green Lake will ever be used as a water supply lIand all we
have available is what's in the river.1I Mr. Grimm agreed it
was important this decision be made. M~. Huckle:felt the
use of Chris Green Lake should not be IIforeclosedll because
it is lIa very important ace in the hole.1I Mr. Blue did not
think it would make much difference in the event of a severe
drought because if other sources are dry, Chris Green will
be drying up also.
JOHNSON: He suggested that before discussing the issue of
growth areas at length comments should be sought from
developers given the fact that they will be expected to help
finance the infrastructure. He asked the question: IIHow
are we going to accommodate growth if we can't (afford) the
infrastructure? (Mr. Grimm agreed costs would have to be
shared by the County and developers.)
JENKINS: He pointed out that the County has been going
through this same exercise for 20 years and lithe rural areas
have been fussing about the tax rate to support this .
growth. II
HUCKLE: Referring to an area along Rt. 20, Ms. Huckle asked
if it wouldn't be "more logicalll to develop that area since
it has access to water and sewer and is in close proximity
to Interstate 64. (Mr. Blue recalled that the Board of
Supervisors had declined to make that area a growth area
twenty years ago because of the belief that Rt. 20 IIwasn't
designed for that kind of traffic.1I Mr. Benish confirmed
that the biggest constraints are road access. (Mr. Johnson
felt the constraints of Rt. 20 "were nothing when compared
to the roads in the northern area.")
NITCHMANN: IIBefore this growth thing goes forward, in some
future sessions, I think we certainly need to have some
discussion on the expansion of the growth area on 250 East.
Then you get the expansion of the urban ring situation which
continues to grow out from the center.1I
..
.
10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15)
5
Recommendations
It was agreed more work sessions would be needed to study
the growth area question. Mr. Johnson suggested that staff
develop a schedule for work sessions which could be sent to
the "appropriate authorities" so that they can offer their
input.
Action on CPA's
BLUE: "I would be relatively comfortable with recommending
what we had before with the exception that the Meadow Creek
Parkway is slightly different now..:I just hate to stretch
them out. On the other hand, even with the Towers, your
argument sounded good to me that we alr~ady are going to
have to do something to upgrade the utilities there so we
could go ahead and support our original recommendation on
the Towers Land Trust without getting outselves into a
pickle, so to speak, that we end up approving something that
requires more utilities than we are able to provide. I
think we ought to do a lot more study. I agree we ought to
have some experts here on both transportation and utilities
to help us decide on the whole thing on the growth areas,
but I, frankly, don't know how I feel about what we should
do about the Towers now. I have already decided once and
voted in favor of it and I don't think I have learned
anything tonight that would make me change my mind about
that."
Mr. Johnson expressed interest in changing the action taken
on South Fork "since there has been some discussion of
Meadow Creek and see if we couldn't recommend approvai on
the assumption that the Meadow Creek Parkway in that area
will not be approved by the Board." (Mr. Grimm questioned
the ability to make that assumption.) Mr. Blue questioned
how Mr. Johnson's suggestion would help the applicant since
"he could still be hanging on for years while we are fussing
about the Meadow Creek Parkway." Mr. Jenkins felt the issue
of the Meadow Creek Parkway should be finalized before
taking action on the South Fork request.
Mr. Nitchmann questioned the boundaries shown on the map.
Staff explained this was "just a start" and the Commission
could adjust them after further study.
In relation to Towers, Mr. Nitchmann asked "if the experts
have fully covered the utiity aspect, consideration of
roads, future school needs, etc." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed
that none of those issues have been ignored.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA-92-05 for Towers Land
Trust be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval and that CPA-92-02 for South Fork Land Trust be
deferred until the resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway
question. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
..
.
10-5-93 (Work Session 5:15)
6
Discussion:
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Cilimberg stated
it was his understanding the applicant intended to present a
full site plan at the time of the rezoning. Mr. Cilimberg
interpreted it was the Commission's intent that either a
proffered plan or a planned development be offered. He
felt that was in line with the applicant's plans. It is at
that time that the Board and Commission will have to satisfy
their concerns about utilities, transportation and public
services.
HUCKLE: "Let the record show that l' still feel this is
premature until the utilities Master Plan is completely
finished and until some real considerat+en is giv~n to the
transportation problem. I think w~ would be making another
irresponsible mistake to add more growth to the area which
it's unable to manage now."
Mr. Nitchmann stated he might feel that way too if not for
the fact that the property is already contiguous to a growth
area and is a natural extension of that area. "Those are
battles we are going to have to fight down the road once we
see site plans, ect.
GRIMM: "The only way we'll ever get adequate roads out
there is through development. It won't happen any other
way; it never does. We cannot pay to build a road in a
wilderness. "
The previously stated motion passed (5:2) with Commissioners
Huckle and Jenkins casting the dissenting votes.
Mr. Cilimberq's Summarization of the Commission's
Recommendation to the Board
"You looked at these 2 proposals within the context of the
overall Growth Area report and your action was taken based
on that knowledge, but your are reserving any comments on
the full growth area expansion question until after
additional work sessions and public hearings. You want to
address the philosophy of the designation of growth areas as
opposed to some other approach, transportation adequacy,
cost efficiency, and the opportunity for utility expansion;
and you want to get input on transportation and utilities as
well as possible developer comments. II (The Commission
confirmed this was accurate.)
The work session ended at 6:50 p.m.
..
l,..".,. ,k;,
t
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Albemarle County Planning Commission
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
No ember 17, 1992
Gr at Eastern Management Company
c/ Don Wagner
P. O. Box 5526
Ch rlottesville, VA 22905-0526
RE CPA-92-05 Towers Land Trust
De r Mr. Wagner:
Th Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on November 11,
19 2, deferred the above-noted request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
ex and the Growth Area Boundary of the Hollymead Community to include Regional
Se vice, Office Service and Low and Medium Density Residential uses. The area
un er consideration for these designations is east of Route 29N, south of
No th Fork Rivanna River, west of Route 785 and north of Proffit Road (Route
64 ).
s petition was deferred to be heard no later than September 30, 1993.
Board requested that staff undertake a study of the entire area including
Hollymead Community, Piney Mountain Village, the South Fork Land Trust
uest, UREF's property and the urban growth areas. This was done with the
erstanding that this request will supersede work planned on the next five
r update of the total Comprehensive Plan.
should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action,
do not hesitate to contact me.
unity Development
"
( ,--:
Distributed to Board: ---,_':':.~::-
-j.t ~ 1 i :,' (~,,'l
A d It t' '- ! . - I ' /
gen a ,em '.0, __--1.....:.,"__ !,,_..:~
'"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Depl. of Planning & Community Development
40] Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 229024596
(804) 296-5823
o tober 21, 1992
G eat Eastern Management Company
coDon Wagner
P. O. Box 5526
C arlottesville, VA 22905-0526
CPA-92-05 Towers Land Trust
Mr. Wagner:
e Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
tober 20, 1992, by a vote of 5-2, recommended approval of the
ove-noted amendment to the Albemarle County Board of
pervisors.
P ease be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
w'll review this petition and receive public comment at their
meting on November 11, 1992. Any new or additional information
r garding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the
Bard of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
h aring date.
have any questions or comments regarding the above-
please do not hesitate to contact me.
B. Benish
of Community Development
Lettie E. Neher
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
.
e
e
TAFF PERSON:
LANNING COMMISSION:
OARD OF SUPERVISORS:
DAVID B. BENISH
OCTOBER 20, 1992
NOVEMBER 11, 1992
TOWERS LAND TRUST
HOLLYMEAD EXPANSION
QUEST
a request to expand the HollYmead Growth Area north of
Road (Route 649), east of U.S. Route 29, west of Route
85, and south of the North Fork Rivanna River. The total study
rea consists of approximately 450 acres. The Towers Land Trust
equest consists of 257 acres. The proposed land uses include
egional Service (41 acres), Office Service (29 acres),
eighborhood Service (13 acres), and Low and Medium Density
esidential (174 acres). Attachment A is the current Hollymead
and Use Map which also depicts the proposed expansion area. The
pplicant's request is Attachment B. Attachment C is the
pplicant's conceptual plan for development.
ACKGROUND
his request was originally submitted in 1989 after adoption of
he updated Comprehensive Plan. During the review of the Plan, a
umber of requests to expand the Hollymead Growth Area were
roposed by the landowners. The Board of Supervisors decided to
dopt the Plan as proposed at that time without modifying the
ollymead boundary and advised the applicants that, after the
lan's adoption, their requests would be considered as part of a
omprehensive evaluation of the Hollymead Growth Area for
xpansion. Five requests were submitted which were located in
ithin three general areas adjacent to Hollymead. These became
he study areas evaluated by staff (Attachment D). The five
equests are as follows:
niversit Real Estate Foundation UREF - Request to ir~"lre
ithin the community boundary approximately 285 acres locQted
est of Rt. 29, north of the existing community boundary to the
orth Fork of the Rivanna River, and west to Route 606. The
equest is for industrial service land use designation in order
o permit the development of a 525 acre research office park
onsisting of 3,000,000 square feet building area. UREF
resently owns 240 acres of adjacent property to the south zoned
D-IP, Planned Development Industrial Park, and LI, Light
ndustrial. All properties are to be developed under one
onsolidated plan.
Kessler Group - Request to add approximately 100 acres to
the community for low density residential use. The property
is located north of Rt. 643, west of the Norfolk-Southern
Railway and east of the existing Hollymead Community. The
1
e
e
intent according to the applicant would be to develop this
property along with other adjacent land already within
Hollymead under a planned development approach.
Donald Brown - Request to add approximately 24 acres of land
between the existing eastern boundary and west of Proffit
Road to the community to be designated for low density
residential use.
Terrv Spaid - Request for low density residential land use
in the area between the existing eastern boundary and
Proffit Road. The total area is 11 acres.
Towers Land Trust - This request to add approximately 257
acres to the community.
~he Kessler Group, Brown, and Spaid requests are potentially
mpacted by the Meadow Creek Parkway-Timberwood Connector
~lignment and should not be considered until the Meadow Creek
Parkway study is completed. The UREF proposal may be resubmitted
by the applicant in the near future. UREF is aware of the
~ommission's and Board consideration of this request.
Prior to the Board's review of the HollYmead expansion, the
~ower's Land Trust indefinitely deferred their amendment request.
~his deferral was based in part on the staff's and Planning
Commissions' recommendation to not amend the Plan until certain
~tudies had been completed and issues resolved. The Board of
Supervisors decided not to amend the Hollymead Growth Area until
~he following studies/issues had been completed on resolved:
.
~.
a.
Development of a Community Facilities Plan;
Development of a County Open Space Plan;
Development of a fiscal impact model and analysis of the
County to determine impact of growth on the County;
Resolution of the Route 29 Bypass location;
Resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway lor~rirn.
~.
D.
t has been the County's position that requests for expanding
~ollymead or significant changes in land use designation in
~ollymead not be considered until the above-noted items are
completed. Once this work is completed, a comprehensive
evaluation of the HollYmead/Piney Mountain area would be
~ndertaken.
~owever, based on recent decisions by the Board to consider and
~dopt amendments to the Hollymead and nearby Piney Mountain
Growth Areas, the applicant believes this is no longer the County
policy and has requested Board consideration of the request.
2
e
e
liUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS
As noted above, the County policy concerning the expansion
to Hollymead had been not to consider major expansion or
land use changes until all issues/studies had been completed
or resolved. However, the Board has recently approved two
major amendments in this area (new Industrial Service
designation in Piney Mountain and new Regional Service,
Office Service, High Density Residential west of Route 29
and south of Airport Road).
All but two of the five issues/studies identified have been
completed. Only the fiscal impact model and analysis and
Meadow Creek Parkway alignment still need to be completed.
The Meadow Creek parkway does not directly impact this site,
although the evaluation of the Timberwood Parkway
alternatives may be impacted by this expansion.
Sewer capacity is now available at the Camelot treatment
plant to support some level of development in this drainage
area. However, both water and sewer service will need to be
upgraded in the ultimate demands in the existing designated
Growth Area (Albemarle County Service Authority comments are
Attachment E). According to the Albemarle County Service
Authority, adding this area under consideration into the
Growth Areas will not precipitate the need to expand water
and sewer service. That is already dictated by the
requirements of the existing growth area. An incremental
increase in the size of any new facilities will need to be
provided for the expanded growth area.
The Open Space Plan designates the stream valleys of the
North Fork Rivanna River and Flat Branch for consideration
for protection. Both are perennial streams affected by the
current WRPA buffer requirements. Because U.S. 29 is a
designated entrance corridor route, a buffer area is also
recommended along the route. OtbA't'l.d '~e the bulk of the area
is not shown as containing signi~i~~nt open space resources.
All areas identified for possible protection can be
incorporated into development plans for the area.
Police, Fire and Rescue Service currently do not meet the
recommended response times for service to the Hollymead
Community. Development of a Police Satellite Station in the
northern portion of the Urban Area or Hollymead community is
currently recommended for funding in the CIP. Also under
study will be the location of a new fire station, possibly
in the Hollymead area.
This expansion area is currently located in the Hollymead
Elementary School district and will also be served by the
new Hollymead Middle School and Albemarle High School. It
3
.
e
e
is difficult to project enrollment without knowing more
detail concerning the type of development (breakdown of
current type, size, rental/owner). However, high and low
projection would range from 350 to 1,380 pupils with
ultimate development of the site.
It should be kept in mind that the growth management policy
is to encourage anticipated growth in designated Growth
Areas. While facilities may be impacted by ultimate
development, those impacts would have to have absorbed
within the system regardless of location. The intent of the
Plan is to concentrate development into Growth Areas to
allow for more efficient resource delivery while also
protecting rural areas.
p. Route 785 is currently considered non-tolerable. Although
recently paved, the road contains some deficiencies in
geometric (curvature of alignment and road width) .
Depending upon traffic splits and access points to public
roads, Route 785 and Proffit Road may need upgrading.
36,000 to 40,000 vehicle trips could be generated from the
proposed development. Primary access would be anticipated
on to u.s. 29. Ultimate build-out of this area will likely
require additional improvements to U.s. 29 north of
Airport/Proffit Road. Interchanges are a possibility at
major intersections on Rt. 29.
~. Additional residential areas have been identified by as
being needed by staff during the previous review of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Advisory Committee Report
has also identified the designation of more residential
areas as a strategy to improve housing affordability by
providing a greater inventory of land available for
residential development, thereby creating a more competitive
market for land available for development.
with the recent approval Qf ' Plan amendment to provide 50
acres of Regional Servi~d _n HollYmead, the Land Use Plan
now contains two-times the anticipated demand for Regional
Service uses. This is the standard established in the
Comprehensive Plan for providing the total area for
non-residential land use designations. There are now only
two sites in the Land Use Plan in excess of 25 acres
(Neighborhood 3 on U.S. 250 East and the new Hollymead
site). This proposal provides a logical extension of an
existing Regional Service Area with a good location relative
to major road intersections, and one that meets most of the
Comprehensive Plan standards/guidelines for the location of
commercial uses.
4
e
e
The Neighborhood Service is not seen as being necessary to
serve this area given the proximity of the proposed regional
service area and the existing commercial zoning along u.s.
29 in the Piney Mountain Village.
The Office Service designation provides a logical and
appropriate transitional use between a major
commercial/service area and residential areas. However, the
total area being requested is in excess of that anticipated
to be needed. The Office Service designation is considered
to be a designation which accommodates employment generating
uses, and is seen as being similar to the Industrial Service
designation. There is sufficient area now designated in the
Plan to support employment generating uses.
~COMMENDATION:
Staff continues to believe a comprehensive evaluation of all
requests to modify the Hollymead Growth Area should be
undertaken upon completion of the fiscal impact model
development and analysis and the Meadow Creek Study.
Should the Commission and Board choose consider this
request, staff opinion is that this area is an appropriate
location for expansion of the Hollymead Community for the
land uses proposed with the following changes:
-Delete Neighborhood Service designation along u.S. 29;
-Limit access to u.S. 29 to three locations for the entire
study area. The Towers property should be limited to two
access points to u.S. 29. The northern most access to U.S.
29 should be aligned with the future access to the UREF
Office/Research/Industrial Park.
-Specific location of low, medium and high density
residential should be identified within the residential
area. Staff has identified a deficiency in land designated
for High Densi~v R~sidential use in the Growth Areas.
Consideration ~r. u~d be given to designating High Density
Residential area within this expansion area.
~TAFF ANALYSIS
Site suitability - This area is located north of Rt. 649, east of
~t. 29 North, and south of the North Fork Rivanna River. It
~onsists of approximately 450 acres of land available for
~evelopment.
SlODes - About 15 acres of critical slopes were identified mostly
along stream valleys. Most is located adjacent to North Fork
~ivanna River floodplain.
5
e
e
- Approximately 30 acres of 100 year floodplain were
from HUD and FEMA maps, mostly along the North Fork
o 0 ra h - The site lies within the drainage basin of the North
ork Rivanna River watershed, below the intake point. The area
onsists of rolling topography consisting of moderate slopes.
ome drainage areas exists with associated steep slopes.
oils - Soils generally consist of Elioak, Glenelg, and Hazel
oam and Fauquier silt loam. Soils have few limitations for
evelopment. Stream valley areas limited by critical slopes and
hallow depth to bedrock.
xistin Land Uses - Existing uses in this area consist of:
uilding supply store; truck sales dealership; one church;
ursery, bank, mobile home park; scattered single-family
esidential development along Rt. 785.
tilities - (See ACSA comments, Attachment E). The Camelot
ewage Treatment Plant and North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant
erve the Growth Area north of Airport/Proffit Road. There is
xisting capacity available in the Camelot plant to accommodate
ome short term demand. However, the plant is not adequately
ized to service the ultimate build out of the existinq Growth
rea located within its drainage area (primarily north of
irport/Proffit Road). Eventually, the plant will have to be
liminated and replaced with a sewer interceptor or pumping
tation/force main to the Powell's Creek interceptor.
his area would be served by the North Rivanna Water Treatment
lant. Although the plant capacity is adequate to serve ultimate
evelopment, raw water supply is inadequate. Additional water
ould be needed to serve the existing Growth Area. Additional
ater supply can be provided from either Chris Greene Lake or
hrough a connection to the South Rivanna water system. Swimming
ould have to bp prohibited at Chris Greene Lake if it were to be
sed as a ~~~,r supply.
he proposed expansion will not precipitate the need to expand
ater and sewer service. Expansion of service are already
equired under the existing Land Use Plan for HollYmead and Piney
ountain. However, the expansion will affect the extent of
dditional service that will need to be provided.
oads - The proposed expansion area is bounded by U.S. 29, Rt.
85, and R.t 649 (Proffit Road). U.S. 29 Currently carries
7,000 vehicle trips per day north of Airport/Proffit Road.
oute 29 from Airport/Proffit Road to South Fork Rivanna is
cheduled to be widened to six lanes beginning in FY1995-96. The
orthern access to u.S. 29 is not located at an existing
rossover.
6
e
e
~oute 785 is currently considered non-tolerable by VDOT.
~lthough recently paved the area still substandard road
~eometrics. Route 785 carries 315 vehicle trips per day.
Proffit Road from Worth Crossing to just east of Jefferson
~illage is considered non-tolerable. Proffit Road carries 4,332
~ehicle trips per day.
Community Facilities:
Police - Hollymead lies within the Police Department Sector
C response area. Response times are in excess of that
recommended for the urban area (ten minutes). Twenty-seven
percent of all calls originate from the 29 North Corridor.
The community Facilities Plan recommends the location of a
police substation to serve the northern area of the County.
Based on service demand and existing roadway network and
traffic patterns, a location in the Hollymead Community
would hold the best potential to serve the area. Funding
for construction of such a station (possible government
satellite facility) is scheduled for FY1995-96.
Fire and Rescue - The Hollymead area is primarily served by
the Earlysville Fire Department and secondary service is
provided by Seminole Trail Fire Department. Also, the City
and County have a contract where the City agrees to provide
supplementary 24-hour protection to the County. The City
generally responds with one truck to this area. Response
time in the Hollymead area is in excess of the recommended
response time to Urban Areas (five minutes) .
Currently, aerial truck service is provided only by the
City. The City provides aerial truck service if the
required staffing is available and the truck is not needed
in the City. Estimated response time to the Hollymead area
i~ fifteen minutes. The Facilities Plan recommends the
location of a new fire station to serve HollYmead and Piney
Mountain.
At this time, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad
(CARS) provides ALS and BLS service to Hollymead. The
Earlysville Fire Department and the Seminole Trail Fire
Department also provide BLS service thorough its "first
responder" program. Responding with emergency medical
technicians (EMT's), they are simUltaneously dispatched with
rescue squads. Estimated response time for CARS is thirteen
minutes. The Community Facilities Plan recommends four
minutes or less. The Community Facilities Plan recommends
that related and
7
e
e
complementary services be located within one complex and
centralized whenever possible. Therefore, the possibility
of a rescue squad in conjunction with a new fire department
should be considered.
Parks - Park service is adequate to the Hollymead areas.
Community level service is currently being provided by
HollYmead Elementary. The northern portion of the Hollymead
area is lacking in district park service; however, the new
HollYmead Middle School is expected to provide adequate
district park level service to the Community. County park
level service is provided through Chris Green Lake.
Librarv - The Northside Branch (Albemarle Square Shopping
center) is the closest library to provide service to the
Hollymead area.
Schools - This area is currently located in the Hollymead
Elementary School, Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle High
School districts. This area will be located within the new
Hollymead Middle School district. It is difficult to
estimate enrollment at this time without more specific
information concerning the total number of units, and the
characteristics of those units including unit type
(apartment, townhouse, single family detached), size of
units, and the like. However, low and high enrollment
projections range from 350 to 1,380 pupils, with the likely
total enrollment anticipated somewhere at the mid-point of
these extremes.
Build out of this area would likely impact elementary school
facilities the most, with either expansion or districting of
existing schools and/or construction of a new school
required. An additional elementary school in the northern
portion of the County has already been considered as a mid
to long-term need by the Long Range Planning Committee for
schools. The new middle school is already in the planning
and development stage in the Hollymead area. An evaluation
of high school capacity and expansion is anticipated to be
undertaken in the next fiscal year.
poncerning Community facilities, it should be kept in mind that
he growth management policy is to encourage anticipated growth
n designated Growth Areas. While facilities may be impacted by
~ltimate development, those impacts would have to have absorbed
~ithin the system regardless of location. The intent of the Plan
s to concentrate development into Growth Areas to allow for more
~fficient resource deliver while also protecting rural areas.
8
e
e
en S ace Plan Anal sis - stream valleys are identified along
he North Fork Rivanna River and Flat Branch. Both are perennial
treams which would fall under the WRPA buffer requirements. A
reenway corridor along the North Fork should be considered if
he Hollymead/Piney Mountain Growth Areas are expanded.
are no important agricultural or forestal soils in the
oute 29 North is a designated entrance corridor. There is one
istoric site in study area 2: the Laurel Hill Church.
designated buffer is shown in the southwest corner
egional service designation in Hollymead Community.
pon the ultimate land uses designated in this area,
ay not be necessary.
based on the
Depending
this buffer
bulk of the area is not identified as containing significant
pen space area. All areas identified for possible protection
an be incorporated into development plans for the area.
ONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
he entire site currently lies outside the boundary for the
ollYmead Community. The applicant is requesting an amendment to
he comprehensive Plan to include this area within the designated
rowth area of Hollymead.
his project proposes a significant scale of development for both
ommercial and residential development, therefore, this report
ill review the residential and commercial aspects of the project
eparately.
esidential - A total of 174 acres are proposed for low to
edium residential with a gross density of 7.5 dwellings per
cree At this density, a total of 1,305 dwellings could be
eveloped, housing a total of 3,100 residents. At this time, the
pplicant has not specified the unit type or other design aspects
f the residential area. Generally the higher density
evelopment will likely be between u.s. 29 and the internal spine
oad.
esidential Land Use Standards in the Comprehensive Plan
rimarily focus on more detailed design issues and are not
elevant at this stage of review.
primary concern of staff related to residential development is
he availability of adequate low density residential areas in the
ounty to accommodate market demand for low density, single-
amily detached housing. staff has also identified the need for
dditional high density areas, due to development of existing
and designations.
9
e
e
he growth management goal in the new Comprehensive Plan promotes
combination of: (1) growth areas to support future growth; and,
2) conservation of rural areas for resource protection purposes.
he Plan states that this and future plans must make adjustments
hat can influence development patterns to better meet growth
anagement goals, including the addition of growth areas.
arly in the discussions of the revised Plan, the Planning
ommission discussed enlarging existing growth areas to help
ttract building activity away from the rural area. A concern
as the great reserve of potential rural area building lots as
ompared to the growth areas' dwelling unit potential. In
articular, low density areas were determined to be lacking in
he existing growth areas. Expansion areas were added to the
rban Area, Crozet, and North Garden. The Board of Supervisors
upported these recommendations and further analyzed other
xpansion areas. However, in its final decision the Ivy and
tony Point Villages were deleted as Growth Areas. The Rivanna
illage was added in 1989. As a result, the imbalance of rural
rea to growth area dwelling unit potential (estimated in 1990 to
e a maximum 54,500 lots in the rural areas versus a range of
5,400 to 39,900 dwelling units in growth areas) still exists.
onditions present when the Planning commission began reviewing
he Comprehensive Plan in 1987 still exist. An existing and
uture rural/growth area development imbalance remains.
esidential development in the rural area continues at a rate
verage 40% of total new residential development annually. Recent
evelopments such as Mill Creek, Mill Creek South, Forest Lakes,
nd The Highlands at Mechums River, have helped maintain the
rowth Area percentage of total development at 50 to 60 percent
ver the past few years. With the development of the UREF
esearch Office Park, there will be additional demands for
ousing, and potential pressure for more development in the rural
reas.
ommercial - This request includes 41 acres of regional service
otentially accommodating 450,000 square feet of building area
nd 29 acres of office service accommodating 350,000 square feet
f office space.
pecific recommendations of the Land Use Plan for commercial
ervice areas in Hollymead are as follows:
o Reqional service on Route 29 North at Route 649. This
area is intended to serve commercial service needs for
the Hollvrnead community. the airport. and Route 29
North traffic. This location is expected to
accommodate multiple uses for future commercial
development convenient to a variety of users.
10
e
e
o No commercial uses on either side of Route 29 UP to
the entrance of the existinq Hollvmead Subdivision.
It is the intent of the plan that the larqe regional
use area south of the Rivanna River not extend north of
the river on the east or west side of Route 29.
Service areas as shown in the plan are sufficient for
the foreseeable future.
rrhe applicant has stated that the existing regional service area
~vailable in this area is inadequate to serve future needs and is
equesting the additional area as an expansion of this regional
~ervice area. From a locational standpoint, this area is
~enerally consistent with the recommendations for concentrating
~egional service activity in the Route 29/649 area.
rhis proposal's consistency with the commercial land use
~tandards of the Plan are as follows:
o Locate commercial zoninq districts only in ~lanned
qrowth areas.
This is a request to include this area within the
Hollymead growth area boundary.
o Concentrate and cluster hiqhwav-oriented commercial
activities to minimize traffic hazards and adverse
visual impacts.
This proposal basically extends the existing regional
service area at Route 29 to the north.
o Provide linear landscape areas alonq public roads and
property line.
Plans for the PUD have not been developed.
o Accomplish rezonings to a commercial designation f~~
site of three acres or more under a planned
development zoninq desiqnation accompanied by a
transportation analysis plan.
The applicant would be developing this project under a
Planned Unit Development approach. A transportation
study has not been provided for this development,
therefore, specific impacts from this regional service
area cannot be determined. Traffic estimates are that
36,000 to 40,000 vehicle trips per day would be
generated from this area, approximately 23,000 of which
would be generated by the regional service and office
service activity.
11
e
e
o Employ commercial office uses as transitional areas
between residential areas and heavier commercial or
industrial areas.
An office service area is shown as a transitional area
between the regional service and residential sections
in the proposed PUD. However, no transitional area or
buffering is indicated between the regional service
area and the existing residential areas to the east.
recent approval of the Regional Service area east of
.S. 29, south of Airport Road, the reservoir of designated
ommercial land in the Land Use Plan is currently at two times
he anticipated need for commercial land which is the minimum
atio recommended in the Comprehensive Plan to provide adequate
ocation flexibility. The additional 41 acres would take the
'nventory slighlty above this two times demand ratio.
ith the recent approval of a Plan amendment to provide 50 acres
f Regional Service in Hollymead, the Land Use Plan now contains
wo-times the anticipated demand for Regional Service uses. This
's the standard established in the Comprehensive Plan for
roviding the total area for non-residential land use
esignations. There are now only two sites in the Land Use Plan
'n excess of 25 acres (Neighborhood 3 on U.S. 250 and the new
ollYmead site). This proposal provides a logical extension of
n existing Regional Service Area with a good location relative
o major road intersections, and one that meets most of the
omprehensive Plan standards/guidelines for the location of
ommercial uses.
he Neighborhood Service is not seen as being necessary to serve
his area. Given the proximity of the proposed regional service
nd the existing commercial zoning exiting along U.s. 29 in the
iney Mountain Village.
om rehensive Plan Amendment Criteria - The followin~ ,.-~ staff
omments regarding the consistency of this proposal witu the
riteria established for review of Comprehensive Plan amendment
equest (See Attachment F for criteria). The applicant has not
rovided specific comments regarding these criteria.
RITERIA A: The general location of this request is considered
o hold potential as an expansion area for Hollymead in regards
o location and physical characteristics of the area. The
rimary constraint to expansion to this area is the availability
f adequate water and to serve the ultimate development of this
rea sewer service, and adequacy of existing roadways to
ccommodate additional traffic, particularly in regard to traffic
enerated from the commercial and office activity. Development
12
e
e
f the UREF Industrial Park will increase the need for more
esidential to the population growth associated with that
evelopment. This area could provide a reasonable location to
eet that housing needs.
riteria B: In regards to the proposed residential development,
his proposal would tend to support the County's growth
anagement goal by providing for additional residential areas
ithin a designated growth area and discouraging growth in the
ural area. However, it is difficult at this time to determine
hether the proposed residential development would provide the
ype of housing which is now being provided in the rural area,
hereby drawing development away from the rural areas.
he growth management goal emphasizes the need to promote the
fficient utilization of the County resources, this includes the
iscal and land resources of the County. In this regard, the
iming/phasing of development and ultimate build out should be
aken into consideration. The applicant has not provided a
pecific phasing of development and build out.
urrently Route 785 and Proffit Road are considered non-
olerable. Route 785 was recently paved, but still contains some
ubstandard road gemoetrics (curvature of road). Additional
mprovements will probably be necessary on Route 785, Proffit
oad, and Route 29 to maintain an adequate level of service on
hese roads, however, a traffic analysis has not been done for
his development, to date. A traffic study would be required
ith the submittal of a rezoning request. Three access points
re being shown for the Towers request, two on U.S. 29 and one on
t. 785. The northern most access is not located at an existing
rossover. This access point should be aligned with the existing
rossover to the north across from the UREF Research Office Park
ccess. All access to U.S. 29 from this study area should be
inimized. Approval of the expansion area may impact the
onsideration of Timberwood connector alternatives to the Meadow
reek Parkway.
tility and Community Facilities have already been addressed
reviously in this report. Sewer capacity is now available at
he Camelot treatment plant to support short-term demand for
ervice within this drainage area. However, both water and sewer
ervice will need to be upgraded in the ultimate demands in the
xistin designated Growth Area (ACSA comments are Attachment E).
ccording to the Albemarle County Service Authority, adding this
rea under consideration into the Growth Areas will not
recipitate the need to expand water and sewer service. That is
lready dictated by the requirements of the existing growth area.
n incremental increase in the size of any new facilities will
eed to be provided for the expanded growth area.
riteria D: Compliance with County plans and policies have been
13
e
e
~ddressed throughout this report. The applicant has not
submitted a traffic study for this project. This will be a
~equirement of a rezoning request.
~riteria E: Development of the UREF Airport Research Office Park
Will likely increase the demand for housing and need for
~dditional residential areas for the County. Further review of
~he employment projections and land use allocations as part of
~he UREF proposal will determine whether there is a need for
additional industrial, office, and commercial land use
~esignations.
~--------------------
~ttachments:
~ - Current Hollymead Land Use Map
B - Applicant's Request
~ - Applicant Conceptual Plan for Development
b - Previous (1989) study Areas for Hollymead Expansion
~ - Albemarle County Service Authority Comments
F - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria
14
~ACHMENT A I
............- ~.-
.-1::/, "-..../
I
./
/f \
v-- \.
I
"
\ ./
\ ~ I
}
)
) I~~
/ I
(
,- i
/
J
/
r-~
,~1
'-, '''"- -{ \J
Cl "
",,-- r' - ,"" J
~---
\
'''\
v
ommunity of Hollymead
,1 '-\
--j' 1.,'-
I
i
r'\
\
( ~
l...,
"
\
-...... _....~
)
(
,---.('
----.~. ......... ....
'\
'"
-,"-.
,,",-
\...
'-
0________
/
/
,?j"- '-,
'~~"
LAND USE PA TTERNS
:~~\~1 OFFICE/REGIONA, L SERVICE
,>~ ~J
~""~ :j
l'~ OFFICE SERVICE
__ J Wt11NDUSTRIAL SERVICE
l','::,::) REGIONAL SERVICE
-
e
I ATTACHMENT B I
GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY
POGT O~~ICl!; Box II.Slt!!
CHA~L.OTTE.Vll..LI!:. VI..aINI.... 2.:2.liIOI:I.OI!l2E1
GEN!"AL. OFFICE
PRO~tRTY MAN.G~M!NT
TtL.ECOF'IER
.r 8041 2~e'4 t 41
(80412~e'4109
(B0412lil3-SHI7
November 26, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimber;
Director of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA ~2901-4S96
Dear Wayne:
Re: CPA-89-03 and ZMA-89-l1
Towers Land Trust
In February 1990, we formally requested a deferral of the above
listed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. This
wae done in recognition of staff's concern about the need for infor-
ation which would come from various County studies that were then
in progress and a decision on the U. S. 29 by-pass question. At the
time of our original deferral request, we stated that we would con-
sider further deferrals, and, as a result of subsequent discussions
ith Staff, we have several times agreed to leave the request.s on
old pending completion of ongoing Staff work.
e have for some time been aware of staff's position that pending
roposals for significant changes near the Hollymead community
hould be considered simultaneOUSly, along with any other recom-
endations staff might have for the area. That continues to seem to
s to be the most appropriate approach. We are now concerned, how-
ver, that apparently because of a possible impact on providing
anitary sewer servi~p to the airport the Board of Supervisors has
xpressed an intetebc in reviewing one of the pending proposals in
dvanee of Staff's comprehensive recommendations for the area. As
ou are aware, the Flat Creek area of the Towers Land Trust property
s also important for Sewer, for both the northeast quadrant of the
ntersection of Route 29 with Airport/Proffit Roads which we want to
ring into the growth area and for some of the land already in the
rowth area on the west ~ide of Route 29.
iven this situation, we request that our proposals be put on
ohedule for review by the Planning Commission as soon as possible
nd that Board of Supervisors consideration for our requests be
imultaneous with any other major Comprehensive plan Amendments
ndjor Zoning Map Ame~dments for the Hollyme~d area.
OItVEr..OPMII:NT . CONST..UCTION . ~IN""NCE: . M....NAOEMII:N...
-'
. ,
.
,
/
"
e
e
LAW OFFICES
PAX?ON, SMITH, GILLIAM & SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GEORGE ARRISON GILLIAM
WILLIAM ASSIE SMITH, ..JR.
W. STEPH N SCOTT
LARRY ..J, .ELWAIN
ROGER C, ILEY
CHRISTIN C, CHAPMAN
ROBERT ..J KRONER +
POST OFFICE BOX 2737
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
(804) 296-2161
FAX (804) 293.2073
418 EAST WATER STREET
C. ARMONDE PAXSON
(IQ05-1976.)
WILLIAM MASSIE SMITH
( 1920-1987)
April 28, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
J hn T. P. Horne
D rector of Planning
C unty of Albemarle
4 1 McIntire Road
C arlottesville, VA
and community Development
22901-4596
Re:
Comprehensive Plan, NE quadrant of inter-
section of u.s. 29 and Proffit Road
closed herewith is our revised request for revisions to the
aft Comprehensive Plan for the Hollymead Community. As stated
your letter of March 23, our previous request for revisions
re specific in nature, and related only to tax map parcels 32-
and 32-20A through -20A4. In pursuing this matter with staff
d listening to comments made by members of the Board of
pervisors during Comprehensive Plan work sessions, we have
cogr.ized that the scope of our proposed revisions should be
panded ~---:jerably.
e possibility for good development is enhanced when governing
dies and developers can work with large parcels of land and
an well into the future. That possibility now exists in the
ea we are discussing, and it is appropriate to start the
anning process now so that when the need for development
terializes (in this case, certainly well within the 20 year
mprehensive Plan horizon) the Comprehensive Plan foundation in
t is area will be in place. Otherwise, the demands for service
w'll result in small, inefficient and un-integrated piece meal
d velopment similar to what is now occurring at the Route 29N/33
i tersection in Ruckersville.
.. .
e e
John T. P. Horne
Director of Planning and community Development
County of Albemarle
At: ril 28, 1989
Page 2
Although your letter gives us a year to "submit a rezoning
at:plication and concurrent Comprehensive Plan Amendment request
fer the proposal" we have so~e concern because a rezoning
at:plication can be submitted only by a land owner or contract
ptrchaser and the Comprehensive Plan changes which we believe
ale indicated affect property owned by others. Therefore, due to
tie normal limitations on applicant requests for Comprehensive
P an changes, we feel it is prudent to make our request to the
Beard now, during the period for public input and prior to the
ferthcoming public hearing. We will be prepared to make an oral
p esentation at the public hearing.
WE understand that approval of our proposed Comprehensive Plan
rEvisions would not in any way constitute an approval of rezoning.
WE will subsequently prepare rezoning applications which will be
p esented under the planned development sections of the
o~dinance.
WEa appreciate all of the help and cooperation we have received
f om you and your staff. We would be glad to meet with you or
o her staff members concerning our request.
Very truly yours,
George H. Gilliam
E1cl.
c f,. l>"embers of the Board of supervisors (w/ encl.)
. '
e
e
PROPOSED REVISION
FOR
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY MAP
IN THE
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1988-2010
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
April 28, 1989
F'gure One herein shows proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan
mcp for the Community of Hollymead. A summary of the proposed changes
aId our rationale for them follows.
S
YF
PROPOSED CHANGES
1. The Regional Service area in the NE quadrant of Route 29/649
intersection should be substantially increased. Because of their
small size, the other three quadrants around the intersection do
not comply with the criteria set forth in the Draft Comprehensive
Plan for Regional Service. The NE quadrant currently has some
regional service uses and is the only quadrant where there is
enough undeveloped land which is under common control or can
reasonably be brought under common control to qualify for Regional
Service status.
2 Along the east side of Route 29, north of the Regional Service
Area (1 above), there should be an Office Service area. The need
for Office Service is created by the proximity of the airport.
3 Along the east side of Route 29, between the Office Service Area
(2 above) and the North Fork of the Rivanna, there should be a Me-
dium Density Residential area. The Board has discussed the need
for more residential land availability in the Hollymead Community.
4 A small Neighborhood Service area should be provided at an
entrance from Route 29 into the Office and Residential area for
the convenience of employees and residents respectively.
5 The next area to the east, between the areas listed above and Rt.
785, should be designated Low Density Residential.
S The areas described in 1 through 5 above should be included in the
Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area. A portion
of the area near Route 649 is already included.
7 The next swale to the east! between Route 785 and an un-named
private road, should be designated Low Density Residential. This
area should be included in the ACSA jurisdictional area for at
least water. Public sewer is also a possibility, but would
require a pump station.
8 There should be further consideration of the Route 29 cross-overs
between Airport Road and the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
.' .
9
The alignment~ Meadowcreek parkway.sho~ be revised to continue
northward, eventually crossing the North Fork of the Rivanna River
which would help alleviate traffic on Route 29.
DSCUSSION OF RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED CHANGES
1 Re: Enlargement of the Regional Service Area in the NE Quadrant:
Table 46 on page 209 in the Draft Comprehensive Plan indicates
that an area for Regional service should be 30+ acres and should
contain a minimum of 250,000 s.f. of regional uses such as major
department stores. The map for the Community of Hollyrnead has no
scale, but by enlarging a copy of that map until the distances
between intersections matches the appropriate county tax map, it
is possible to make a reasonable determination of the parcels
included within the area proposed for Regional Service. Figure 2
herein is a product of such a determination. It is a composite of
the relevant tax maps and the comprehensive plan map, and shows
the many separate parcels within the proposed area for Regional
Service.
Neither the SE, SW or NW quadrants approaches 30 acres in size.
Moreover, very few of the parcels within the quadrants are under
common control and many are already developed with other than
reqional uses includinq residential in Airport Acres. It is not
reasonable to combine the quadrants to reach the 30+ acre size, as
a reqional service area divided into small parcels on separate
quadrants of a major intersection would create traffic havoc as a
Reqional Service area.
For all of the above reasons, including the plan's own criteria in
Table 46, the existing uses of the property, and uses which might
reasonably be expected in the future, these three quadrants can
not be expected to promote the appropriate regional services which
the Community will require.
within the NE quadrant, on the other hand, the truck dealership
and building supply business already existing are on the
Comprehensive Plan list of typical Regional Service uses. More
importantly, within the area we are proposing for Regional Service,
there is available for development a large undeveloped parcel,
well in excess of the 30 acre minimum required by the criteria.
The combination of the proximity to the airport, the already
designated industrial and residential growth areas in the
Hollymead Community and growth further north in both Albemarle and
adjacent counties will combine to create a need for such Regional
Service well within the 20 year span of the Comprehensive Plan.
This is confirmed by the present activity at Forest Lakes,
other areas east along Route 649, recent activity in Greene
County, and the announced long range plans of the University of
Virginia Real Estate Foundation to construct a research park
employing 6,500 or more people.
e
e
Sufficient Reqional Service facilities in the Hollvrnead qrowth
area would siqnificantlv reduce the future increase in traffic
between Hollvrnead and the Charlottesville urban area which. as
discussed bv several members of the Board at its Januarv 25. 1989
work session is a very desirable and almost mandated qoal.
2. Re: Office Service Area and Medium Density Residential Area:
Many businesses desire t'o locate near airports for the convenience
of traveling employees and business visitors. Office parks have
recently developed near airports in many virginia and North
Carolina cities including Richmond, Roanoke, washington,
Greensboro, Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte. The Draft Comprehensive
Plan map includes 25 acres of Office Service south of Route 649
between the airport and Route 29. However, this area is not under
common ownership or control. The area we are proposing has better
access to Route 29 and is not only under common control, but is
also under common control with the proposed adjacent Regional
service and Residential areas and could be developed in a manner
complementary to them under a Planned Development scheme which
gives the County significant input as to design, scale and
amenities.
3 The Board has discussed the coming residential crunch at
Hollymead. The density of existing and currently planned
residential development is far short of the Draft Comprehensive
Plan Map expected densities. For instance, as discussed by the
Board and staff during the January 25 Work Session, Hollymead is
currently being developed at less than 2 units per acre which was
identified during that discussion as being far less than what is
needed to support projected job growth in the Community.
Additional residential areas will clearly be needed to support the
existing areas designated for business growth, and there are
obvious advantages to providing them close by.
4. Re: Neighborhood Service area near Route 29 entrance:
This area is intended for convenience shopping, beauty and barber
shops, service uses, etc. to serve the residents and employees who
wish to stop in on their way to and from home and work.
5. Re: Low Density Residential Area west of Rt. 785
The reasons for this residential area are the same as for the
Medium Density area discussed in 4. above. There is already one
residential development as well as several individually built
houses within this area.
e e
6. Re: change in Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional
area:
Flat Creek drains the area between Route 29 and Rt. 785. It also
drains a major portion of the Draft Comprehensive Plan growth area
to the west just across Route 29. The only practical location for
the sewer main to serve this drainage basin is along Flat ~reek
through the property we are requesting be added to the Hollymead
Growth Area. Given that fact, it is only reasonable to include
the entire basin in the sanitary sewer jurisdictional area.
pumping stations and a force main will be needed to pump
wastewater back to the 18" main in Forest Lakes, and the easement
which will be needed for the gravity main along Flat Creek could
also serve for the force main.
Water is currently available along Route 29 and along Route 649 to
Jefferson village and Meadowfields. It should be made available
to the proposed growth area in the NE quadrant.
7. Re: Low Density Residential Area east of Rt. 785:
This is a logical expansion of the Hollymead residential area
which will be needed well within the 20 year life of the
comprehensive Plan. This area is outside the Flat Creek drainage
basin and a separate pump station would be required for
wastewater. Water is available along route 649 at Jefferson
village and Meadowfields. There are already several residences in
this area.
8 Re: U. S. 29 cross-overs.
There are 6 cross-overs between Rt. 649 and the North Fork of the
Rivanna River, shown as numbers 1 through 6 on Figure 3. The
current Draft Comprehensive Plan proposes that cross-overs number
3 and 5 be eliminated. Ideally, cross-overs should be provided at
intersections. For safety reasons, they must obviously be located
where these is good sight distance in each direction and should be
reasonably spaced.
Of all the existing cross-overs, number 3 has the poorest sight
distance and the greatest grade separation between the northbound
and southbound lanes. We agree it should be eliminated.
Cross-over number 5 on the other hand has excellent visibility in
both directions. The northbound and southbound lanes are at the
same elevation and the adjacent topography will allow good access
to both sides of Route 29.
e
e
We understand that the current Draft comprehensive Plan proposed
the deletion of cross-over 5 because of its proximity (approxi- '
mately 600') from,cross-over number 6. Cross-over 6 was built as
a part of the detour during construction of the new bridge over
the North Fork of the Rivanna River and, while it currently serves
no particular purpose, it was left in place to serve the proposed
road from the University of virginia Real Estate Foundation
property. Topography and the proximity of Flat Creek and a loop
in the river are such, however, that it will not be practical to
provide a full intersection providing access to the east at cross-
over 6.
It is our belief that cross-over 5 should be retained. It is the
existing intersection which provides the best possibility for
providing easy access between the large undeveloped areas on the
east and west sides of Route 29. The proposed road from the UVA
Real Estate Foundation property could be located slightly further
to the north to provide the desired separation between the two
cross-overs or access to the Foundation property could be at
cross-over 5.
Final resolution of the cross-over question will require inter-
action between various involved landowners, the County and VDOT,
and we plan to make more specific recommendations on cross-overs
as a part of our rezoning request
9. Re: Extension of Meadowcreek Parkway to cross the North Fork of
the Rivanna east of u.s. 29:
Extending Meadowcreek Parkway as shown, with appropriate access
from the proposed developments, would greatly enhance its value as
an alternate route for local traffic in the Route 29 corridor.
with a single large property owner immediately to the north of the
River, it would be appropriate to show the Parkway Extension
continuing North from the River thereby alleviating even more
future Route 29 traffic congestion. Two alternative locations for
this extension are shown on Figure 1.
e
e
.'
, .(
I
: If
---r . :\
, ' I! '-
I
"I
'\,:.! II
r!
\~
,,1
, j.
/
!
\
"---~
(
{
)
,.,
~_ t
.
.. .,.
.1' .
\ ~,
.
L.
........
.'
,/
,
\
SCALE IN Ff.ET
100 0
- ~ ~l
l--lL"-.Ul~ 2-
ecr---
"00
,.00
1400
J
f< (-. I (j A1AL S.:;- 1(, (J' t IE..
p~ /) fl.Ir i:r C/trf/'/2-~/-IcAJrl t/E// PL(}tV'
-.-.--- .--.---.------.---.-- ------
... ~\' 4....;t I
...
e
7
/= I ~ L-' It tE. 3
--. '- - .-' '.'-- '.. .---
CIZ.C?~.r&v f?tf.:S
e
e
~TTAC8~ENT c]
...c "d ci 2
~ ro ~J
o ~ ';;:
z e ,{
...:::'~ 5
o u
::c
'"
Ll~ j!~
:;::: il
" i~~;
1'-
;\(
Hl
;/
%;
!,
1
~
'1i
u
o
U
E
.X
:;:
/'7.../. ___-.1."':.'
..I
Iii:
;11
'f';'i " --",.' '
i("~~, --, 'JC__'., ,.- ',I
1'\"\ \;"
, .
'I: : \ -'" ' ,\-... i
I i1\ l.,," '"
,~:~i'b
Ii:
11'1 ,
I: __.
'I
1:.-
'I' '!
i. !~-~ '... /:
I' 'I '
I il--,---.'.-' '
."_ " 1 /' '. .
- -!lIIV' "--':/ ,.. .
11---.-, -
.J '. L /~
1/
"
.j.'
-..........
':. i
" ... I ~
"
0--.. I .
f
I
iiLhj~~djHjjH1
,
fJ,~ifl~
~1 ~:
:J :: .
j :: .:..;.:..;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ~!r:':':
;' ::,.:.h;, J,
~"1 > ~~i:.~~ ':.~~:'. 'i ~~
'-" ' ,.;. '. n. d ,q""
~; ;. :.:~:~~::;~;~:~:~21~~
::1; ,':; , ~ ; i
\: I::: \ I ~ \ I ~ i i:: d J
.,.,......'.....,.
.."............-....
;\
Ie
-ii
::::::::::::::::::
r
!; l.U
,Iii!!;
'Sdlllllllllllll
.: II i;;!i ill II iI ilj
f:i;:iiinnnnn:~
,........--.....
q
H
f:
; -,
'~.~~_'~1.!_~
~)
',1-'
; ,
I
J]
;(6
,-.
, '
.--
I ATTACHMENT D I e
I'
drl..~
\
~-.
KEY:
APPLICANT
REQUEST
;g&
j(jl
~tt?~~l
-::-~.~,.r..,oo-I
-..-C.-.. . ;; J,c ',=-. t!
-;-~c,.~'~
'/--,
'>-"~/ \
,t,/ -I-....
~ "-.---.
/ ~
/
/
STUDY
,AREAS
, I ATTACHMENT EI
'AL BEMARLE 4tOUNTY SERV~E AUTHORITY
PO Eox 1009 401 MciNTIRE RD CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22902 (80L) 296-5810
. .
. ...,,,, .,..,<:;\ , :.- : ')
,"'~':.'~ ~'~J1~ i :s ~,o:"..'~.,..
OC1 03 1992
?' ~,< l\':~,;K},:Y:.?T.
October 8, 1992
".",,~tl"~.._
(';,);;.1" .'
MIr. David Benish
C~ief of Community Development
Albemarle County Office Building
C~arlottesville, Virginia 22901
OCT U j;
?L'\~J\~!-'
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests - HollYmead
D~ar David:
You have requested comments regarding water and sewer
service to three areas under consideration for inclusion as
growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan. My comments will
refer to the numbered study areas in your request.
study Areas 1 & 2
Both areas lie north of Airport/Proffit Roads and would
be served by the North Rivanna Water Treatment Plant and
Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant. We previously provided
you with an analysis of water and wastewater requirements for
the area north of Airport/Proffit Roads and the North Rivanna
River bounded by Route 606 on the west and Route 785 to the
east along with the requirements of the existing Piney
Mountain Village. This analysis predicted a daily water
demand of 1,546,000 gallons upon ultimate build out under the
currently proposed land uses. The North Ri vanna Water
Treatment Plant is capable of treating almost 2,000,000
gallons/day but is limited by safe yield from the North
Rivanna River of 800,000 gallons/day. Presently, the average
daily water production at the plant is approximately 177,000
gallons/day. As you can see, this plant is not operating
close to its capacity. Ultimately, additional water will be
needed in this area. Our projections indicate that it will be
necessary to make additional water available in this area to
meet the future demand of properties wi thin the present growth
area. The originally intended source of additional water for
this water treatment plant was Chris Green Lake. Should the
decision be made not to utilize Chris Green Lake as a drinking
water supply water could be pumped into this area from the
South Rivanna water system. These two systems are presently
tied together but valved off at Airport Road.
e
e
r. David Benish
ctober 8, 1992
age 2
The average daily wastewater demand in the study area
previously defined was estimated as 1,225,200 gallons/day.
The existing Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant has a rated
capacity of 365,000 gallons/day and current flows are
approximately 90,000 gallons/day. The unused capacity in this
plant was previously reserved for certain properties but that
restriction has been lifted and sewer capacity is immediately
available. Eventually, this plant will have to be eliminated
and service provided from an interceptor sewer or pumping
station/force main to deliver wastewater to the Moores Creek
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Service Authority is
committed to proceeding with one of these options when the
existing plant nears its maximum capacity. As is the case
with water, the existing wastewater treatment facility is not
adequate to meet the demands of the existing growth area.
You specifically asked our opinion of the most effective
means of providing utility service in this area and their cost
implications. For providing additional water service, the
question of whether Chris Green Lake will remain a
recreational facility with swimming allowed or become a
drinking water supply where swimming will be prohibited has
not been answered and is a key component in any study of the
true cost of providing additional water. As for sewer, a
number of options exist ranging in cost from $2,660,000 to
$5,770,000. The appropriate option can vary depending on
where the growth boundary is drawn east of Route 29. The most
expensive option serves the greatest area (the entire drainage
basin) and will have the lowest operating cost.
In summary, the addition of these areas under consideration
into the growth area will not precipitate the need to expand
water and sewer availability. That is already dictated by the
requirements of the existing growth area. An incremental
increase in the size of any new facilities will need to be
provided for the expanded growth area.
study Area 3
Adequate water and sewer capacity is available.
If we can provide you with any additional information
concerning these study areas please let us know.
B:dmg
ve~ yours.
J. W. Brent
Executive Director
. ,
.
_
_IATTACHMENT F\
C ITERIA FOR THE REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
". .
A. The Comprehensive Plan provides a long-range guide for direction
and context of the decision-m~king process for public ~nd ppiyate land
use. The Compr8hensive Plan i3 g8n8ral in nature rather th3{l.,attcmpting
to dentify specific geographic locations. The Land Use Map of the Com-
pre ensive Plan suggests the selationship of recommended uses to general
are Proposed amendments to the Land Use Map should be reviewed for
com liance wi~h the general plan rather than area-specific or parpel-
spe ific requests for a change in the recommended use. The purpose of the
Lan Use Map is to provide and plan for a balance of land uses, equipped
_wit adequate utilities and facilities, in a comprehensive, harmonious
man er. Any proposed change in the Land Use Map will be evaluated for pro-
tec ion of the health, safety, and welfare of" the general public rather
tho. the proprietary interests of an individual.
B. The merit of Comprehensive Plan amendment requests shall be
lar ely determined by the fulfillment of support to the IIGoals and Objec-,
tivesll &f"€04+-i()Q.. i-&-Ch*~ and the "Plan Standards" outlined in Gho.~~
the Comprehensive Plan.
C. A primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map
is to facilitate the coordination of improvements to the transportation
ne work and the expansion of public utilities in an economical, efficient
an judicious manner. Comprehensive Plan amendments which direct growth
aw y from designated growth ~reas shall be discouraged' unless a~equa~e
ju tification is provided. Amendments to the boundaries of growth ~reas
ma be considered appropriate if the request is comprehensive, proposes
to follow a logical topographic or man-~ade feature and is supported' by
ad quate justification. No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be con-
si ered in areas where roads -are non-tolerable or utilities are inade-
qu tc unless the improvement of those facilities is included in the.
Co'prehensive Plan amendment proposal.
D. Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be evaluated for
ge eral compliance with adopted County plans, policies, studies and
ordinances and to determine if correspondi~g cha~ges are necessary.
E. Except as otherwise provided, the follo~ing conditions ~ay be
nsidered in the evaluation of a request to amend the Comprehensive
an.
1. Change in circumstance had occurred; or
2. Updated information is available; or
3. Subsequent portions ,of the Comprehensive P.lan have been adoptee
or developed; 'or ,
~. A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible; or ,
5. The preparation of the Plan 0.3 required by Article 15.1-~~7
of the Code of, Virginia was incomplete or i~correct infor-
mation was employed.
.. ,
Lea ue of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
413 East Market Street. Room 203. Charlottesville. VA 22902
Phone: (804) 972,1795
October 20, 1992
Re:
Albemarle County Planning Commission
League of Women Voters
CPA-92-0S Towers Land Trust (Hollymead Expansion)
Until recently, the County's policy concerning the expansion of the Hollymead Community
was not to consider ComprehensIve Plan amendments to enlarge the growth area until
certain studies/issues had been completed and resolved and then to consider all :proposals
simultaneously. In 1989 the Towers Group agreed with that policy and deferred Its request
to expand the Hollymead Growth Area.
Now the applicant is rightly concerned that the County might move ahead on yet another
proposal affecting the area before there is an opportunity for a comprehensive review of
recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan. The County did not wait for the
completion of three critical studies before it approved major amendments in Piney
Mountain and Hollymead Growth Areas.
The staff report states that because of the County's actions to adopt those amendments, the
applicant believes that it is no longer County policy to require the studies before it
considers requests for expanding Hollymead or significant land use changes. Therefore,
the applicant has requested consideration of its proposal for expanding the Hollymead
Community.
It seems to us that the key issue before you tonight is to answer the question:
Is it still the County's position that requests for expanding Hollymead's
growth area not be considered until the five studies/issues have been
completed or resolved?
The League believe that the answer should be "yes."
We have consistently opposed previous amendments because several studies were missing.
Stilllackin~ is the development of the fiscal impact model and analysis of the County to
determine rmpact of growth on the County. WIthout that document, it is difficult to see
how the County can evaluate various proposals for change and the financial costs to
taxpayers, to water/sewer customers, to future developers and businesses, and to our
quality of life.
If the answer is ''yes,'' then the top priority should be to press forward immediately to get
that fiscal impact study completed. Then this applicant's proposal should be considered
simultaneously with any others that are hovering in the background. _
( (;'Y+)
....a rwn art isan or8anizat ion aecricatea to tfie yromot ion of infannea and' act iye yart icfpat ion of citizens in 8ClVernment.'
.. .
.
-2-
If he answer is "no"--that those studies and a comprehensive evaluation of all requests for
endments are not necessary--then the Count;,:' should at least develop some other
idelines which are fair to everyone. Or we will just muddle through and, in the process,
o e sight of the cumulative impact of more land zoned for commercial and industrial use
th we'll ever need and wonder why it costs so much to provide services for education, for
e ansion of water / sewer facilities, for transporation., police, and fire protection, etc.
e urge you to support a position that promotes a comprehensive review of these
a plications and makes use of studies considered vital to decision making.
'\ .
. .....:.-..:.'\
.,,,.:; ~, ""10".
fl:' ",".)
"', I, ~ :.~
,. .\
!~': : ~ ~. \,
~\ ~ . ~~)' ;.;
"~~,~~{~;~:{}:;'
RECEfVED
UCT 1 ,) 1992
> ,,1 .~ , Planning Dept.
COlvIM.Ol\ \VEAL111 of VIRG.lNIA
RAY 0, PETHTE
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOfHATION
r 0 BOX G 71
CULf'EPU1, 22 701
13 October 1992
THOMAS F, FARLEY
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. David B. Benish
Chi f of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Cha lottesville, VA 22901
RE: CPA-89-03 Towers Land Trust
Route 29
Dea Dave:
I have reviewed the information provided regarding a revision
of he Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed change
wou d expand the community of Hollymead east of Route 29 and north
of rofitt Road (Route 649).
My review assumed that the parcels surrounded by the submitted
pro osal would also be developed to a level consistent with the
adj cent land. In addition, I have discounted the trips generated
by all of the land uses by 10% to account for internal trips.
Dev lopment of the area to the densities and land uses mentioned
wou d create 36,000 external trips based on ITE Trip Generation,
Fif h Edition. Some of these trips would be oriented toward the
nor h, but most would probably have either origin or destination to
the south. This amount of traffic would have a significant impact
on he transportation network of Albemarle County.
The traffic levels generated by this proposal would in all
lihood have a detrimental effect on roads. To ameliorate this
ct, several of the following improvements would be necessary:
1. Additional widening beyond current plans or
restr iction of access to Route 29 to grade separated
interchanges for Seminole Trail south of Profitt Road.
2. A direct connection from this region to the
Meadowcreek Parkway that would not utilize Route 29.
3. General improvements
widening, improved curves)
from Route 29 to Route 20.
(pavement widening, shoulder
to Profitt Road (Route 649)
4. Extension of existing 6-lane improvement plans for
Route 29 to the North Fork of the Rivanna River.
.'
TRANsrOf\TAI10N 1011 TH[ 71sr UNTUI1Y
. ,
In addition to the some of the above, access to Route 29 from
area would have to be strictly limited and controlled,
erably utilizing a single interchange rather than several
alized intersections. Coordination with transportation
ovements on the west side of Route 29 could be crucial, but may
e to be a roadblock due to the approved location of the major
llel facility on the UREF parcels. Finally, this proposal
cou d accelerate the need for the 3 interchanges planned for
Sem'nole Trail (Route 29) at Rio, Greenbriar, and Hydraulic Roads
as ell as construction of the Route 29 (Alternative 10) Bypass.
A complete, detailed traff ic impact study will have to be
itted by the developer for a more comprehensive review of this
osal prior to rezoning.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Comprehensive
Amendment. I hope you find the above useful. If you have any
or wish to discuss this further, please call me at (703)
Sincerely,
,/
I
il; ,,/~, ",----/-
{_----.... rJ '-- --
. obert W. /Hofr ichter
I~ransporta\ion Engineer
c: R. c. Lockwood
..
/
, ,:...., /
J
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundat~CEIVED
112 BOAR'S HEAD PLACE. SUITE 250 M t:.
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22903
; " L.-'
.' ~ f
OCT 1 4 1992
DAVID K_ WESTBY
Execullv Director
P'an~L~~te~pt.
FAX (804) 979,1767
October 9, 1992
Wa ne Cilimberg
Dir ctor of Planning and Community Development
Alb marle County Planning Department
Cou ty of Albemarle
401 cIntire Road
Cha lottesville, V A 22902-4596
Dea Mr. Cilimberg:
writing regarding a 525 acre tract owned by the University of Virginia Real Estate
dation "UREF", The land was purchased in 1987 at which time 240 acres were zoned
PDI and 285 acres were zoned RA. By the end of 1987, UREF had selected the Continental
Dev lopment Group as developer for the property. Shortly thereafter, UREFand Continental
beg n working with the County to have the entire property zoned PDIP.
UR F withdrew its request in 1990 pending the outcome of certain studies requested by the
PIa ning Commission and Board of Supervisors. During this time several other land owners
in tl e area had made requests for inclusion in the growth area of the Comprehensive Plan.
Wh n UREFwithdrew its request it wasmy understanding that when the County was prepared
to c nsider expanding the Growth Area, all requests from property owners in the area would
be c nsidered simultaneously,
I ha e received a notice from your office that Towers land Trust h~s submitted a request to
ame d the Comprehensive Plan to expand the Growth Area Boundary of the Hollymead
Co munity. On behalf of the Real Estate Foundation, I ask that our original request,
ared by the firm of McKee/Carson, dated November 6, 1989, be considered concurrently
the request by Towers Land Trust.
Our request is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The site has accessibility to arterial roads;
county water and sewer are available on site;
the site is compatible with the adjacent PDIP zoned land to the south, and
the site has the natural boundary of the Rivanna River to the north.
sion of the UREF request in the Comprehensive Plan amendment will not accelerate the
pac of development or create additional development in the County, The southern portion
oft e UREF tract which is currently zoned PDIP allows for development of 6,800,000 square
feet. UREF has submitted a concurrent request for rezoning the whole parcel (PDIP) which
pro fers total development on the entire 525 acre tract to a maximum of 3,000,000 square feet.
Ap roval of the UREF request will allow the development of a master plan for the complete
site nd will result in an environmentally sensitive design which will provide a planned setting
for usiness growth in the County for the next 25 years,
Tha k you for your consideration of our proposal.
Sincerely,
DK /cm
Lea ue of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
413 East Market Street, Room 203, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (804) 972-1795
November 11,1992
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
League of Women Voters
CP A-92-05 Towers Land Trust (Hollymead Expansion)
e League of Women Voters has consistently supported the County's policy concerning the
e pansion of the Hollymead Community-not to consider Comprehensive Plan amendments to
e arge the growth area until certain studies and/or issues had been completed and resolved and then
t consider all proposals simultaneously. In 1989 the Towers Group agreed with that policy and
d ferred its request to expand the Hollymead Growth Area.
D ring the last year, however, the County abandoned that position when it approved major amend-
nts in the Piney Mountain and Hollymead Growth Areas. In approving those changes, the County
d. not wait for the completions of the critical studies deemed necessary to determine the impact of
g owth on the County-the Fiscal Impact Models and Analysis and the Master Utilities Plan,
I each case the decision was made on the basis of a perceived urgent issue: in the first instance, to
p ovide jobs; and in the second, to provide affordable housing. As a result we do not know what
e ect those revisions will have on costs to tax payers, to water and sewer customers, to other devel-
o ment in the 29N Corridor businesses, and to our quality of life.
B t no urgent issue exists today that would warrant the County's ignoring a sound policy it adhered
to for almost three years. We can understand the frustration of the applicant, who has deferred this
re uest several times, pending the completion of the five studies.
T e Towers Group's land may well be the appropriate location for the expansion of the Hollymead
owth Area, but their request should be a part of a comprehensive review, considered along with
th University Real Estate Foundation's (UREF) amendment and any other proposals for the area,
F has already asked that their request be re-activated. The application will have an effect upon
th Towers Group's development because it will detennine to what extent additional housing, indus-
tri 1, commercial, and office spaces will be needed.
H wever, in addition to the lack of studies and questions about the Timberwood Parkway, there are
ot er reasons why this request should be deferred. There are just too many unknowns. They include:
· a transportation evaluation has not been provided, making it difficult to evaluate the
impact on development.
· police, fire, and rescue services to the area are currently inadequate.
over
.....a nonpa tisan organization dtu[icatea to tFie yromotion of informea and' active yarticiyation of citizens in government."
. no buffering is indicated between regional services area and residential areas.
. types of residential development and its relation to school enrollment area are unknown.
. questions remain about water and sewer facilities. This development will not" precipitate"
the need to expand water and sewer services, which are needed to serve the existing growth
areas, but water and sewer facilities being planned will have to be increased in size to
provide for additions to the growth area.
The staff reports notes that the primary constraint to expansion along the 29N Corridor is " the
availability of water and sewer and adequacy of existing roadways, particularly in regard to
traffic generated from commercial and office activity." These are serious considerations that
must not be ignored.
The League urges you to defer this request-but to press for a prompt completion of the
necessary studies so that a comprehensive review of these applications can be undertaken
simultaneously.
Thank you.
. n buffering is indicated between regional services area and residential, areas.
. es of residential development and its relation to school enrollment area are unknown.
. q estions remain about water and sewer facilities. This development will not" precipitate"
th need to expand water and sewer services, which are needed to serve the existing growth
ar as, but water and sewer facilities being planned will have to be increased in size to
pr vide for additions to the growth area.
The s aff reports notes that the primary constraint to expansion along the 29N Corridor is " the
avail bility of water and sewer and adequacy of existing roadways, particularly in regard to
traffi generated from commercial and office activity." These are serious considerations that
must ot be ignored.
The ague urges you to defer this request-but to press for a prompt completion of the
neCes ary studies so that a comprehensive review of these applications can be undertaken
simul aneously.
Th
fl\
I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902,4596
(804) 296,5823
June 18, 1992
stephen M. Melton
South Fork Land Trust
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: CPA-92-02 South Fork Land Trust
Tax Map 45, Parcels 22C and 98A
Dear Mr. Melton:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
June 16, 1992, unanimously recommended denial of the
above-noted Comprehensive Plan amendment. Please be advised
that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review
this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on
July 15. 1992. Any new or additional information regarding
your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
hearing date.
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~tly-
Ken Baker
Senior Planner
KB/jcw
cc: Lettie E. Neher
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
KEN BAKER
JUNE 16, 1992
JULY 15, 1992
CPA-92-02 SOUTH FORK LAND TRUST
Reauest: To amend the Comprehensive Plan to include
approximately 30 acres known as South Fork into the
Hollymead Community Growth Area (See Attachment A).
Proposal: Proposal to change the land use designation of
approximate 30 acres from Rural Areas to Low Density
Residential (1 to 4 dwelling units per acre). This area is
located on Rt. 643 approximately one mile east of Rt. 29
North (See Attachment B) .
Background:
During the update of the Comprehensive Plan a number of
requests were proposed to expand the boundaries of
Hollymead. These included Towers Land Trust, University
Real Estate Foundation, the Kessler Group, Donald Brown, and
Terry Spaid (See Attachment C). Staff identified a number
of issues and planning efforts which need to be resolved or
undertaken before an adequate review of Growth Area
expansion could take place. These include:
1. Development of a Community Facilities Plan;
2. Development of an Open Space Plan;
3. Development of a Fiscal Impact Model and analysis to
determine impact of growth on the County;
4. Resolution of the Route 29 Bypass location; and
5. Resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway location.
Based on staff findings, the Towers Land Trust, UREF and the
Kessler Group deferred consideration of their requests until
the above noted could be resolved. The Planning Commission
and Boa~d of Supervisors agreed with staff's findings, and
decided not to approve an amendment to the Plan for the
remaining requests.
Since that time it has been the Department's position that
requests for expansion or changes in land use changes in
Hollymead not be considered until all the above-noted work
is completed. Remaining is the adoption of the Open Space
Plan by the Board of Supervisors, development of a fiscal
impact model, and resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway
location.
1
The Towers Land Trust has requested reactivation of their
amendment proposal based on recent Board actions to
entertain amendments to Hollymead (CPA-90-03 Wendell Wood -
deferred by the request of the applicant) and Piney Mountain
(CPA-92-01 Wendell Wood - approved by the Board of
Supervisors). To provide consistency in reviewing
Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, staff has indicated
with the Board of Supervisors concurrence that the Towers
request as well as other recent requests listed previously
be reviewed as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the
Hollymead Community. The Planning Commission, at its March
31, 1992 meeting determined that the South Fork request
should be reviewed in conjunction with the overall
re-evaluation of the expansion to the Hollymead Community.
The representatives of Towers Land Trust have recently
requested deferral of their request to address certain
issues unrelated to this request. Staff decided to wait
until these issues could be resolved before presenting
recommendations to the Planning Commission on the overall
re-evaluation of the expansion to Hollymead. However, the
applicant for South Fork requested the Planning Commission
still review its request. Staff feels that with the limited
area and general nature of this request, it would be
appropriate to evaluate it individually.
Character of the Area: The area is undeveloped with a large
area of floodplain and a limited area of critical slopes. A
wooded area exists on the southern portion of the tract.
The Rivanna River is located along the southern boundary of
the property and Powell Creek is located along the eastern
portion of the property. The County's Water Resource
Protection Area Ordinance requires a lOOt vegetative buffer
along both the Rivanna River and Powell Creek.
Of the 30 acres to be included in the Growth Area it is
estimated that approximately 16 acres are developable - void
of wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplain. The largest
contiguous area of developable land is approximately 6
acres. The Growth Area boundary would generally follow the
360' contour line that runs through the property on the west
and south, Powell Creek to the east and Route 643 to the
north (See Attachment D).
The area does not lie within the Albemarle watersupply
watershed. There are no agricultural/forestal districts or
historic properties located in close proximity of the area.
Soils:
Elioak Loam and Hazel Loam are the predominant soils in the
developable areas. Elioak Loam is deep and well drained.
Permeability and water capacity are moderate. Surface
runoff is medium. Bedrock is generally at a depth of more
2
than five feet. Hazel Loam is moderately deep and
excessively drained. Permeability of the soil is moderately
rapid. Available water capacity is low. Surface runoff is
rapid. Bedrock is generally at a depth of more than five
feet.
Comprehensive Plan:
A. Meadow Creek Parkway
The Comprehensive Plan recommends development of the
Meadow Creek Parkway and associated collector roads to
provide more direct access to the Urban Area and
downtown Charlottesville (p. 184). The parkway is
planned to be a four lane road with grass shoulders,
and bike path. These elements are expected to be
contained within a 150' right-of-way with partial
control access. The Open Space Plan (draft), recently
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and
under review by the Board of Supervisors, recommends
that buffer areas be provided along the Meadow Creek
Parkway (p. 46).
The ultimate alignment of this parkway has not been
determined. The County has retained a consultant
(Sverdrup Corporation) to analyze current proposed
alignments and provide preliminary engineering and
environmental analysis for each. From this information
the County can better determine the most favorable
alignment for the parkway. Work is expected to be
completed by Fall, 1991.
Current proposed alignments of this Parkway include:
(1) Comprehensive Plan alignment, developed by
Gloeckner & Osborne, Inc., which shows the proposed
parkway impacting South Fork; and (2) the
Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) which
shows the alignment on the east side of the Southern
Railroad causing no direct impact on South Fork (See
Attachment E & F).
B. Buffer Area
This possible expansion area is located south of the
Hollymead Growth Area. The Comprehensive Plan states
"The area between the southern boundary of Route 643
and the South Fork of the Rivanna River is to remain in
open state as a buffer between the Urban Area and the
Community of Hollymead. This boundary is critical as
it preserves the distinct identity of the Community
from the Urban Area and prevents continuous development
from the city along Route 29 North to the North Fork of
the Rivanna. This area is included in the Rivanna
Greenway corridor and provides an opportunity for
3
passive recreational uses (p.183)." Also, the Open
Space Plan (Draft) indicates a greenway corridor along
Powell Creek.
Development on this tract is expected to be away from
the Rivanna River and Powell Creek and nearer to Route
643 due to the expansive floodplain. The owner of
South Fork has indicated willingness to provide an
easement along the Rivanna River for a greenway
corridor. The owner has also indicated the possibility
of considering an easement along Powell Creek for the
same purpose.
Zoninq Historv:
· SP-90-35 Covenant Church (June 19, 1990) approved 800
seat church on 10 acres zoned Rural Area (See
Attachment G). This request was approved with a
condition that the property would be limited to a joint
entrance serving the church and the residual acreage
(which includes the 30 acres under review). The
applicant has agreed that South Fork will be accessed
by this joint entrance. The Board of Supervisors, at
its meeting of February 12, 1992, approved inclusion of
the Church parcel in the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for both
water and sewer service.
· SP-90-107 Unity Church (January 16, 1991) - The Board
of Supervisors denied a request for a 300 seat church
located on five acres. (This five acres is a portion
of the 30 acres now under review - See Attachment H).
The Planning Commission had recommended approval of
this item at its January 10, 1991 meeting. The Board
of Supervisors denied this request primarily based on
the Comprehensive Plan's Meadow Creek Parkway alignment
severely impacting this property.
Availabilitv of Water and Sewer:
This property is not located within the ACSA jurisdictional
areas for water and sewer service. The applicant has
indicated that a request will be made to include this parcel
into the ACSA water and sewer jurisdictional area. A water
line would have to be extended from Route 29. The Powell
Creek Sewer Interceptor is located on the South Fork
property and connection to this line would eliminate the
need for septic fields. Wastewater facilities including the
Powell Creek Interceptor and downstream Moores Creek
Interceptor have adequate capacity to handle all wastewater
generated from this development (See Attachment I).
4
Water facilities are sized adequately to handle demand
created from this development.
As mentioned above, the adjacent Covenant Church property
has been granted water and sewer jurisdictional area
designation.
TransDortation:
This segment of Route 643 had an average 620 vehicle trips
per day in 1990 and is currently tolerable. As mentioned
earlier, staff estimated that approximately 16 acres are
developable. Given a development density of 1 - 4 dwelling
units per acre it is estimated that between 16 - 64 units
can be constructed. Depending on the ultimate number of
homes constructed, this development would generate between
160 to 640 vehicle trips per day.
Fire and Rescue Service:
The Seminole Trail, Earlysville, and City Fire Department
respond to structure fires in this area. The Community
Facilities Plan recommends an average response time to fire
emergency calls of five minutes or less in Growth Areas.
Below are the estimated response times for each fire
department:
Fire Department
Response Time
Seminole Trail
City (250 Bypass Station)
Earlysville
5 minutes
8 minutes
8 minutes
The Community Facilities Plan recommends a new fire station
be constructed in the Hollymead area to serve the Community.
The Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad responds to
emergency calls in this area. Also, both Earlysville and
Seminole Trail fire stations participate in the "first
responder" program which simUltaneously dispatches emergency
medical technicians with the rescue squad. The Community
Facility Plan recommends an average response time to
emergency calls of four minutes or less in the Growth Area.
Estimated response time of the Charlottesville Rescue Squad
is 7 minutes. The Community Facility Plan recommends a new
rescue station be considered in conjunction with the
construction of any new fire station in the Hollymead
Community.
A possible fire/rescue site exists on the Forest Lakes South
property adjacent to Rt. 29 North and the proposed entrance
to Forest Lakes South. Response to South Fork from this
location would exceed the recommended response times in the
Community Facilities Plan for fire and rescue service.
5
Police:
This area lies within Sector C of the County's Police
Department Sector system. Response times from the County
Building to this area are in excess of recommended response
times in the Community Facilities Plan; however, if officers
are patrolling in the area response times can usually be
achieved. Recommended response times to all emergency
police calls throughout the County is ten minutes.
Twenty-seven percent of all police calls originate from the
29 North Corridor. The Community Facilities Plan recommends
locating a substation within the Hollymead Community to
reduce response times to this corridor. Such a station has
been listed in the Capital Improvements Program for possible
siting at the entrance to South Forest Lakes.
Schools:
School aged children residing in this area currently attend
Hollymead Elementary, Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle
High School. The HollYmead Middle School is expected to
open in the fall of 1994. At such time middle school-aged
children will likely attend this school. As mentioned
earlier, staff has estimated that approximately 16 acres can
be developed. Given a development density of 1 to 4
dwelling units per acre between 16 to 64 homes can be
constructed on this property. Depending on the ultimate
number of homes constructed, this development is estimated
to generate the following number of school children:
School
(Possible # of Students)*
Elementary School K - 5
Middle School 6 - 8
High School 9 - 12
9 - 37
3 - 13
2 - II
* MUltipliers based on a 3 bedroom single family detached
home.
Parks:
The Hollymead Community Growth Area is currently lacking in
District Level Park Service; however, once the middle school
is completed recreational service will be adequate to this
area. Currently, Community Level Service is being provided
through Hollymead Elementary and County Level service by
Chris Greene and Rivanna Parks.
Librarv:
Library service to this area is adequate due to the close
proximity of the Northside Branch Library at Albemarle
Square.
6
Availabilitv of Low Densitv Desiqnated Land in the Hollvmead
Community:
According to the 1991 Annual Report of the Comprehensive
Plan there are 317 acres of developable low density land in
the Hollymead Community Growth Area.
Recommendation:
As mentioned previously, the final alignment for the Meadow
Creek Parkway has not been determined. The possibility
exists that the final alignment could impact this property.
The consultant is currently analyzing various propos~d
alignments and will be providing preliminary engineering and
environmental analysis. From this information the County
feels the ultimate alignment can be better determined.
Expected completion date of this work is Fall, 1992. Also,
the Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan text (Draft)
stresses the importance of this area as a buffer area
between the Urban Area and Hollymead. The Open Space Plan
text (Draft) also makes a specific recommendations for the
buffering of Meadow Creek Parkway. The Board of Supervisors
is currently conducting worksessions on the Open Space Plan
and a decision concerning the Plan should also be made this
summer.
staff feels that any recommendation at this time for
inclusion of this property into the HollYmead Community
Growth Area is premature until at least the above mentioned
planning efforts are resolved (Meadow Creek Parkway/Open
Space Plan). These efforts are expected to greatly enhance
staff's ability to appropriately evaluate this area.
Therefore, staff recommendation is that the South Fork area
not be amended into the Comprehensive Plan at this time.
7
CHARLES WILLIAM H LJRT
'1..a
IATTACHMENT Al
VIRGINIA LAND COMPANY BUILDING
F'OST OFFICE BOX 8147
CIlAHLOTTES\'ILLE, VmCINIA 2290b
,.i~~ii\i3Q3t1
rarch 2,1992
AREA CODE BD4
TELEPHONE 979'B1B1
FAX 296'3510
RECEIVED
HAR 2 1992
r. David Ben'i:,.;h
ept, of Planninq & Community Dev,
o 1 r,~ c r Ii ti [' C0 1< 0 .') d
(har'lottesville, VA 22901
Pl.J\NNING DEPT.
F, E : Corn p r' e hen S I v E:' P 1 .'1 n /I, m E? n d rn e n t: "_; 0 u t 1'1 f U i' k, R (J U t.. e 6 4 J
ear David:
r outh FOi'K ..- !oc>cllJ,d withill or:I" (1) Illi l,~ of d "JC'\,-'E']UPE!(j r'uI'al
, rea c all e d Ben t.i va r ,3 n dad ,i ,'j c r:' [', I t (1 l h (-" H 0 'I 1 ~I mea d C; r 0 'A' l h are ,3
end P h.:oJ co e I I ':;, [ F' () r' e ~3 t l" ,'1 !" C' ::; , r I, ". 1 d n d tot hen 0 r' tho fRo ute
43, directly across from South Fork is low density resicential
ccording to the Comprehensive Plan and public/semi-public
nstitutional to the northwest.
m u rob j e c t i ve 'i s tor e que s t t hat the C orrr p r' e hen s i ve P 1 a n be
mended to encompass South Fork into the Hollymead Growth Area.
t the same time we would also request that South Fork be
ncluded ln the Albemarle County Service Authority's
urisdictional area. South Fork is certainly harmonious with the
urrounding area and will in no way be a detriment to the
$! >< i s tin 9 n a t u r a 1 b u f fer' and 9 I' 0 w t h are a:os ,
I\S mentioned above, South Fork 'is located on Route 643 which is
ess that one (1) mile from U.S. 29 and is a tolerable road. The
Powell Creek Inter'ceptor' 'is located on this property and will be
erving the Covenant Church of God that owns 10 acres that was
~riginally a part of South Fork, The Covenant Church of God site
~as just recentlv included ill the /\lbemar'le County ~;ervice
~uthority's Jurisdictional area. As mentioned above we are
e que s tin 9 t 0 a 1 sob e 'j n c: 1 u d e din the S e I" v ice Aut h c)[' i t Y , s
urisdictional area since the Powell Creek Interceptor is located
~n the South Fork property and the ability to connect to this
ine would eliminate the need for septic fields, We feel that
his would be create a more desirable and healthy environment.
bouth FOI~k will be
hat will also serve
\:!ntr'ance,
accessed by
the c hu r' c h ,
'_:H1 i n tel' n .3 1 r 0 ado f f
therefore constituting
Route
only
643
one
Realizing the interit of thF~ Compr'E~h(?ns'ive Plan to keep a buffer
hat imcompasses the area from the south side of Route 643 and
h e Sou t h F' 0 r~ K 0 f t Ii e R i \/ ,"1 n n a 1\ i \/ ("! I'. 'N Fe' f p (-' 1 ':) 0 U t h For' k w 0 u 1 d not
i In pac t t hi.o ,Cj t d 1 1
SC.luth fCol'k CO(l,c' i,-,;t uf c.l"IlI",:>," 1111,,1 n1V ?[: ,c,C"'fc','~ t.hat (:31) be
cJcve'lo[H?cl c;il',(,c, the ilia ur'itv r;! Iii'.' ],jl)cl l'.: 111 .J floucJ plain that
',;10 I"/C?'=: .il''; ;-, 11':111,11",,1 hurfe?I', \/C'I',/ fc'\~' tl'('{?'" wuuld h,3VC' to be
1'(::'rrIOVE'~cJ t.0 ,'lee Ce'::;::: \hi:_, [,H'Opel't,V dl1d with :::;(''/<1('1' ,=lvi-lilable. even
r e \iJ e ,.' 'i' Eo' E' '0 I,V U I J 1 r.I h ,'1 V (,' t: U 11 c,' I' f:,' III () V E' d t_ 0 b u i 1 d sin c: e nos e p tic
system would be l'equil'E::"d. The' l'iVE~I' bottoln land vvould r'emain
pasture/crop or recreational land and still serve as a natural
buffer as mentioned above. The owner of South Fork intends to
w rk with the County of Albemarle to provide for as easement
along the river for a greenway to allow for expansion of
r creation along the river.
Scuth Fork is unique in that
proximately 30 acres surrounded
ffer (flood plain) area, We can
i c1uding this relatively small
C mprehensive Plan as a growth area
Albemarle County Service Authority's
it
is virtually an island of
by residential and natural
see no impact of any sorts by
tract of land in the
and also including it in the
jurisdictional area.
T e Meadowcreek Parkway proposed alignments are just that,
proposed. Of the three (3) alternate plans that have reviewed,
t 0 (2) (G&O & County Plan) impact South Fork by going along the
e ster"n s'ide just above the flood plain 1 ine and cl~oss-ing f~oute
63 between the church pr'oper't:y allCJ r'~r', F. A. Iachetta, The
t ird plan (CATS) shows the alignment on the east side of the
S uthern Rail Road going across the back of Bentivar, thus
C' using no impact on South Fork. It is my understanding that the
c rrent estimate by VDOT to advertise for bids to construct the
p rtion of the Meadowcreek Parkway between the Bypass and Rio
R ad is not until 1999. Ithth all of t.he above cons'idered, it is
o r opinion that the Meadovvcl'cek Parkway should not come -into
play in our request to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
P ease review t.he above
h sitate to call if
a' d i t ion a 1 i n f () I' mat -i 0 n ,
along with the attachments
can answer any questions
and do not
o r' p r () v ide
T Clnk you VC"r'y
a r p li c a ti 0 n ,
much
for'
your'
'-]~:;s.i~-;tance
l n
F'iling
this
S nCE'I'E'-: 1 y,
J/ ,
, ..' t;;2;~ ~- )j/ )/ (.
~) \ F: p h p n M, Me 1 tOil
/' /'
, (~/ '-----,,,
Er c '1 ()SUI~e
~; M/mrn
BEMARLE
t ...... 32
COUNTY
47
.~
seA I.. IN :.~ T ~_
SECTION
46
PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS
/. ~ ~~~ ;~":':' I ATTACHMEN~ C I
i{';'
':'l / \ /
/
/
-~ -I
~I
I ATTACHMENT D I
Flood
Plain
Cri tical
Slope
D evelopa hIe
Land
-;..&
o
'VI'
~
'?o
is'
348
...,
..~
~I..
~
[ATTACHMENT FJ
--f-~
o
\>'
~
'?o
~
X3'8
.,
""
~
~MARLE
COUNTY
I ATTACHMENT GI
,/.
'"
...
...
47
...
...
'"
'.6
+
1 91
\ 9'A
\
""e
-~~..-
-,
SECTION 46
.LBEMARLE COUNTY
IATTACHMENT HI
[~~,j ':;-
~O" ,.
--
:)0 ---~
..
'"
....
. 47
"'
"'
on
) 1'~
SP-90-107 UNITY CHURCH
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
S AU IN "'f.[T
62
CHARLOT TESVI LLE
AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS
SECTION 46
_._-~
IATTACHMENT II
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
To
FROrv
DATE
RE:
MEMO
Ken Baker, Department
J.W. Brent, Executive
of Planni,~ & Irmmunity
Director W tU JO
jI
B 1992
Development
r'~~ .::,~,.
~- t~ I>-D
,.~~: ~~} t;:' '
June 9, 1992
,JUN
South Fork
:' ~\:'i\Ut,!G DEPT.
Sanitary sewer service is readily available to this
proposed development and water service would be available
if the pipeline were extended.
It is my opinion that the Albemarle County Service
Authority would oppose a proposal to create a community
water works to serve this proposed development and would
discourage use of individual wells.
Also, the staff would not endorse a "sewer only"
jurisdictional area if it were proposed that these lots be
served by a private water source but connected to public
sewer.
J.W.B
JWBjlbt
J
""-'"
/2e Uf 'r<~~- i OJ 2'1'13
Understanding the Budget Process
The majo purpose of budgeting is to formally convert the
County's I ng range plans and policies into services and
programs. he budget provides detailed financial informa-
tion on the osts of services and the expected revenues for
the upcomi g fiscal year. The budget process also provides
a forum for review of progress made in the current year and
for a revie of the levels of service provided by local
The budg t is divided into three major parts, each with
separate d cuments and public hearings. The Operatin~
Bud~et is t e total and complete budget used to finance all
of the day t day operations oflocal government and schools.
The total op rating budget consists of several major sections
including g neral government operations, school operations,
school debt service, CIP transfer, and the City-County reve-
nue sharing Funding for this budget is derived from taxes,
fees, licens s, fines, and State and Federal revenue.
I Bud is used to completely describe the
operations f the County's schools. The School Budget is
prepared th Superintendent's office and is approved by the
School Boa d. The schools have their own budget calendar
which is se arate from that of other budgets. Funding for the
School Bud et is derived from transfers from the Operating
Budget, fee, and intergovernmental revenue (i.e. State and
Federal fun ing).
The it m v m t is used to pur-
chase or fin nce the construction of capital goods from the
building of schools, parks, and roads to the upgrading of
computer a d phone system equipment. Funding for these
projects is 0 tained from bond issues (long term debt which
is only borr wed for the building of school projects) and from
transfers fr the Operating Budget.
What re he t te r uOr men ?
The Com onwealth of Virginia requires that all localities
meet certain budget guidelines. All localities within Virginia
must have fiscal year beginning on July 1 and ending on
June 30 an must approve a balanced budget. The School
Board must approve the School Budget by May 1 or within
15 days of ceiving estimates of State funding, whichever
shall later occur. The Board of Supervisors must approve the
Operating Budget and set the tax rate by July 1. The adoption
of the Operating Budget and the tax rate requires the Board
to hold a public hearing and to advertise this hearing no less
than 7 days in advance. Although these are the minimum
State requirements, the County has traditionally adopted the
budget byApril15 in order to establish teacher contracts and
to set the personal property tax prior to the tax bill mailing
date. The official appropriation of funds generally takes
place prior to July 1.
When are the budfet decisions made and how can I
participate in the process?
The County each year develops a schedule of events which
describe the dates of public and Board participation in the
budget process. Each year the Board is asked to approve the
schedule of the budget process in order to establish firm dates
for meetings and provide the public with as much notice as
possible. Listed below is a copy of the tentative budget
schedule.
Budget Schedule
Oct. 20 - Public Hearing on Budget Needs/Priorities
Nov. 3 - Budget Guidance from Board of Supervisors
Nov. 17 - Public Hearing on CIP
Mar. 2 - Recommended Budget Distributed to Board
Mar. 9 - Public Hearing on Recommended Budget
Mar. 14, 16,21, & 23 - Board Worksessions
Apr. 6 - Public Hearing on Proposed Budget/Tax Levy
Apr. 13 - Board Adopts 94/95 Budget/Sets Tax Levy
What is the budget process?
The County's Operating Budget schedule begins on Octo-
ber 20 with a public hearing on the community's needs in the
coming fiscal year. On November 3, the Board provides the
County Executive with financial guidelines for the develop-
ment of the budget. In the middle of November, the County
Executive's Office develops budget instructions, based upon
the Board's guidance to the County Executive, and sends
these instructions to all departments. In the middle of Decem-
ber, all departments must submit budgets to the County
Understanding the Budget Proc~ss
Executive's Office. From the middle of December to the
middle of January, the executive staff reviews budget re-
quests and develops budget related questions.
In January through February, all departments are scheduled
to meet with the executive budget staff to review and answer
all questions relating to their budget requests. From these
discussions, the executive staff develops recommendations
ranging from the funding of new programs to the reduction
of funding of current programs. On February 16, the School
Superintendent submits the School Budget to the County
Executive and the executive staffreviews the School Budget.
At the end of February, the County Executive makes the
necessary adjustments to balance the budget and staff prints
the County Executive's Recommended Budget. This budget
is presented to the Board on March 2 and a public hearing on
the County Executive's recommendation is held on March 9.
After the public hearing on March 9, the Board begins a
detailed review of each area of the budget and recommends
specific cuts or additions to the County Executive's Recom-
mended Budget. After all the budget changes have been
agreed upon, a public hearing on the Board of Supervisors
Proposed Budget and the tax rate is tentatively scheduled for
April 6 and the adoption hearing is tentatively scheduled for
April 13.
How much is the current budget (FY 1993/94)?
The total operating budget for the County of Albemarle in
FY 93/94 is $96,710,332. This total expenditure is divided
into the functional areas listed below:
Expenditures
General Government
Schools
Debt Service
Capital Program
Revenue Sharing
Other
23,249,764
61,985,940
5,667,631
1,360,000
4,319,236
127,761
96,710,332
A visual representation of this funding is listed below in a
pie chart.
Revenue
Sharing
4%
Debt Service
6%
General
Government
24%
Capital
Program
1%
Schools
65%
What are the maior categories Q,{ expenditures for,
General Government?
General Government is broken down into 7 major func-
tional areas: Administration, Judicial, Public Safety, Public
Works, Human Development, Parks and Recreation, and
Community Development. The Administration functional
area provides oversight of overall county services via the
County Executive's Office and the Board of Supervisors,
provision of information technology and data processing via
the Information Services department, legal advice from the
County Attorney, payroll, tax assessment and collection,
accounting, and purchasing for the county from the Finance
Department, and the registration of voters by the Registrar.
The Judicial area includes all court related services from
the serving of warrants, to prosecution, to the actual running
of the courts themselves. Funding is provided for the each of
the local courts, the Circuit Court, the General District Court,
and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The Clerk
of the Court, Commonwealth Attorney, and the Sheriff are
also funded in this functional area.
Public Safety includes all Police services such as patrol,
investigations and animal control, but it also encompasses
other areas as well. Emergency Operations (E-991), fire
prevention services, inspections, supplemental funding for
the rescue squads and volunteer fire departments, a~d fund-
"'f_ ''0
Understanding the Budget Process
ing for loca agencies such as the SPCA, Joint Security (the
regional jai ), and other related agencies are also included.
The Publi Works area performs the duties of public build-
ing mainte ance and custodial services, water resources
manageme t, erosion control, and engineering oversight of
residential nd commercial construction within the County.
Departmen s include Staff Services and Engineering.
The Hum n Development area includes Social Services,
the Health epartment, Region Ten Community Services,
and fund in for many local social service agencies. The
services pr vided include the oversight and implementation
of State an Federal social programs, the provision of local
health serv ces, the provision of mental health services,
outreach se ices, transportation services, services for the
elderly, an funding other local social benefits.
Parks an Recreation includes the Parks and Recreation
department the regional library, and various local cultural
and recreat onal agencies. The services provided include
park maint ance, the summer swim programs, the commu-
nity center, he teen center, athletic programs, and resources
for local ag ncies such as Piedmont Council of the Arts, the
Virginia Di covery Museum, and the Literacy Volunteers
program.
The final unctional area is that of Community Develop-
ment. The d partments in this area include Planning, Zoning,
Redevelop ent and Housing, the Soil and Water Conserva-
tion office, and the Cooperative Extension Service. The
services pr vided include zoning enforcement, long term
planning fo community development, review of develop-
ment applic tions, the implementation and development of
housing pro rams, funding for local transit, the provision of
extension s rvices, and funding for other services provided
by local ag ncies.
Where do the Revenues come from?
Most of the revenues come from local taxes such as prop-
erty taxes, personal property taxes, business licenses, and
other fees. More than 66% of the County's budget is paid by
local taxpayers. Below is an illustration of the revenue stream
for the County.
Other Local
Revenue
Other
Revenues
Local Property
Taxes
Federal
Funding
How have the expenditures changed over the long
term?
The total budget of the County has grown over the past
several years, however much of this growth since 1988 is due
to 2 major factors; inflation and population growth. Since
1988 inflation has increased by more that 27%. During the
same period the County experienced more than a 15% growth
in population. On the next page is an illustration of the
County's budget since 1988 and the costs of inflation and the
costs of population growth.
How have the revenues chanved over the lonv term?
The major way that revenues have changed over time is that
the State and Federal funding, as a percentage of the overall
budget, has decreased dramatically. On the next page are 2
pie charts, one from 1988 and one from the current year,
which illustrate the relative decline in State revenues and an
increase in the County's dependence upon local revenues.
Understanding the Budget Process
Expenditures
100,000,000 T
I
!
,"-., ".-
__..-_"., ~.,.,... "".T'
. - .. ~
-",. ',',_ _J'_ 'TO'-"
~,----....'-" _..-.,.,..,.,.~,..- ., '
90,000,000 -
80,000,000 -
f 70,000,000
~
'0
c 60,000;000
-.",~-~","._'.....,~-.... ..'._~._~".,~.~-,...~....-"'.~_.~,'~ +..~-"~.. q ""'....., -,- ~.... ,-
_:,E;2:1~27E~:;;~~tC!2~~~~2Y~j~~~J,~;
",~_"_",,, . ,_"., '.;~."" "-",",",,*.," '-""_ "'-:_~,,:,.," o-,~.'__';__ ,.-:> ,~.~ ....;.:,~,.~'t:--,;,~.\..;"-:-;..;~:1;.~~;..~.~~~~;".~,;.~._,"7,:-"::-'Z;,,~;;.,,...... ---:T"':"'~:'-"-::"-"':;~'~>' .'~....,.'" :;::#;;A:~'
50,000,000
-)~. .~~ .~ ~ -,~;~.~.:~:-:, .-,;.._,;;"';"::'.~::'::'-' '~>:'-~' ~:~",~',,':'~~':::'---.-- -"== ,~~. ~. -~~:-~~., :~..:-:- ~~i4,~.~~~-~;_;~~~7",~:i_ ~:'"':'--;1:=,~;~'::' ~:~;~~:ii::::L>~--~ :~,~:~':';:::.:';:::~:~~~ .../
. ~.;_~_.. ._', .".L ;:;~~,.~:':~::',~'.,_:~:;; ..;~:~~::~~;~:~;";~_<';:;,;~~ r~:~'--:~;~ ~~ __.i~-_,~~ '-~-~~~-;-_:';----.;. "'-''--''
.":"""~___;;t.,:;,,.-- - - ,;_,~.-,>",_:;,-~-","~.;;.~.~.--,'.---,~ -- _u - .- - - ,.... ----- - -
.-._-.";.;--.'-..-.....~~.-
:~t-:~';':';:"'-;' ,~,,:,''3'',;''''~
30,000,000
1988
Cost of Growth
40,000,000
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Fiscal Year
1988
1994
Federal
Revenues
2%
Federal
Revenues
2%
State
Revenues
35%
Local Prop
Taxes
39%
State
Revenues
27% ~<
_~:.~;.b_-
-' -'''-
Local Prop
Taxes
47%
.
Other Local
Taxes,
24%
Other Local
Taxes
24%
, "
----;7
Ice i!.-l2.t' vet!
/7 <(
bed-
/ fZ19-j
c~_
League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
413 East Market Street. Room 203. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (804) 972-1795
October 20, 1993
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Towers Land Trust: To add approximately 27 acres to the Hollymead Community. Proposed
land uses: low and medium residential 174 acres; Regional Services 41 acres; Office Services
29 acres; Neighborhood Service 13 acres.
T e League has struggled over how to approach this request of an applicant who has had its proposal
b fore you for over four years. A year ago we urged support of the Planning Staff's recommendation
t r deferral of this request so that instead of a piecemeal review, a comprehensive evaluation of all
r quests to modify Growth Areas could be undertaken after completion of the Fiscal Impact Model
a d a resolution of the Meadowcreek alignment. These two things were the last of the studies and/or
is ues the County has deemed necessary before considering enlarging Growth Areas. The Board set a
S ptember 30, 1993 deadline.
T day we have an evaluation of some eight possible Growth Areas for which we congratulate the
st ff for all its efforts, but no Fiscal Impact Model. And last night's action of the Planning Commission
Ie ves the meadowcreek Parkway location in limbo.
T e Towers' project proposes a significant scale of development for both residential and commercial
u e-3,l00 dwellings (Staff Report, Nov 11, 1992). Traffic estimates are that 36,000-40,000 vehicle
tr' s per day would be generated, some 23,000 of which would be by the regional and office services'
ac ivity.
It eems to the League that this is the very kind of proposal that requires some kind of tool by which
d cision makers can judge its fiscal merits. We cannot help but wonder by what standards other
re uests for expansion of the Growth Area along the 29N corridor will be judged. Is the fiscal impact
an lysis no longer considered important?
A 1 of this leads us to take this opportunity to share with your our thoughts about the 29N Growth
A ea and the proposals for expansion.
· According to Staff reports over the past 3-4 years, the primary constraint for development in the
Hollymead/Piney Mt Growth Area was the availability of water and sewer services and the
adequacy of existing roadways. Somehow we seem to have muddled through for years with
crowded roads, but the provision of water and sewer facilities and services is absolutely essential
for greater densities in a Growth Area.
We know that utilities presently serving the area are inadequate to serve future growth in the
existing Growth Area. Upgrading them and/or expanding them will be necessary.
over
....,a non-parti an organization dedicated to the promotion afinformed and active participation of citizens in government,"
Water and sewer facilities are capital intensive. Both the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority(RWSA) and the Albemarle County Service Authority(ACSA) have long-term capital
improvement plans for both water and sewer for the area and estimates when those projects will be
necessary. Some of those dates are alarmingly close. Putting in transmission lines, pumping sta-
tions, etc, are projects that seem "time-intensive" as well a capital intensive.
A key to long-term development of water service to the Growth Area lies in the question of what-
to-do about Chris Green Lake. We note that the Staff report has it listed as a part of the recreational
program for the area. But we cannot put off forever the decision on whether it is to continue as a
recreational facility or become a future raw water source for the North Fork of the Rivanna Water
Treatment Plant.
ACSA has said that additional raw water will be necessary to meet future demand of properties
within the present Growth Area. In an October 8, 1992 letter, Mr. Brent said that the question of
whether Chris Green will remain a recreational facility or become a drinking water supply "has not
been answered and is a key component (our emphasis) in any study of the true cost of providing
additional water."
If it is true that decision, as Mr Brent says, is a key component in any study, we believe that it is
time to begin, at least, a discussion as to the future use of Chris Green Lake. And we urge you to
do so.
As for the Towers Land Trust, in addition to not having any idea of the fiscal impact such a
large, new expansion will have, the League has two questions concerning the Staff's recommenda-
tions, should the Board approve the application-access to Route 29 and consideration of a
greenway long the North Fork of the Rivanna.
However, in the November 11, 1992 Staff Report (p. 5) the Staff made two other recommenda-
tions:
1. Delete Neighborhood Services (13 acres) which are "not seen as necessary given the
proximity ofthe proposed regional service area and existing commercial zoning along U.S.
29 in Piney Mt. Village." Why was this not included as a recommendation in the present
report?
2. "Specific location of low, medium, and high density residential should be identified within
the residential area." Considering that here is a great need for land designated high density,
we urge consideration for high density development somewhere in the Growth Area. We
recognize the possible impact on schools and roads, especially. We should also point out
that "high density" does not always translate into "affordable."
What continues to bother us is that, given the large amount of land under consideration, we can see
where the County's land use needs could be met along the 29 Corridor, thus spreading north the
problems that be-devil use closer to the urban area. How can we encourage more "fill-in" of
existing growth areas before we hop-scotch further on by additional expansion that will require
even more capital improvements?
We know we need Growth Areas in order to keep development out of the Rural Areas. But we con-
tinue to be concerned by issues and questions such as the above. They make it difficult to approve the
current application of the Towers Land Trust.
. .,
/Za/,.~ lelz Yf,.)
REMARKS BY
RAYMOND P. WIRTH, JR.
THE COALITION FOR TAX EQUITY
BEFORE THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
October 20, 1993
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Mr. Tucker. My name is
Ra Wirth and I am a member of the Coalition For Tax Equity. As
yo begin work on the 1994-95 County budget, our organization
wa ts to invite your attention to several issues which concern
us So that we can be as helpful as possible, we want to raise
th se issues early in the budget process.
Accurate Disclosure
First, we feel it important that the public receive early
an accurate information about what your budget plans are. In
th s regard, we feel it important that you disclose frankly what
yo propose to spend, and how much more that amount is versus the
la t budget.
Mr. Tucker, in your letter to the Board of last March 3
fo warding the proposed budget, you recommended total spending of
$9 .5 million, which you compared to the previous year's
"B dgeted" spending of $92.5 million. The percentage increase is
4. %, which compares favorably with inflation and gives some
co fort to the public that things are under control.
But in fact, the spending budget adopted by the Board the
pr V10US year was not $92.5 million, but rather $90.5 million.
So this current year's proposed spending is actually 6.7% higher
th n last. This does not compare favorably with inflation.
, '.
That lower percentage figure was repeatedly shown in County
do uments, and received wide coverage in the press. We do'not
fe 1 the public was well served. We urge you this year to
co pare apples to apples, that is last year's adopted budget to
th's year's proposed budget.
Tax Rates
As you are certainly aware, your proposed adjustment in tax
ra es last March of one penny up in real property and two pennies
do n for personal property represented a net increase in taxation
of $356 thousand on top of the tax increase due to increased
as essments. Again, we feel the public was not well served by
th's "tinkering" with tax rates.
"Baseline" Increases
Last year's budget contained "average baseline increases" of
2. %. We take it that departments and agencies were given
in reases over the previous year automatically. We think you
sh uld cap spending at current levels, permiting no increases
un ess well justified. And we think you should have a very sharp
pe cil because this County is enduring fiscal stress.
Debt
Our County's debt is approaching $50 million, and we spend
ne rly $6 million a year to service that debt. We are anxious to
se what the debt service amount will be for next year.
Two weeks ago you authorized Mr. Tucker to borrow $11.9
ml lion from the Virginia Public School Authority to fund items
In the most recently approved Capital Improvement Program.
Ho ever, $453 thousand of that borrowing is for items in the
. ",
Palks and Recreation section of the CIP, not the Education
section. We think this significant for several reasons.
Accounting Practice
First, it shows a lack of precise and clear accounting.
If $453 thousand worth of playground equipment is to be paid for
wi1h school bonds, it ought to be accounted for as school
eqlipment. The Planning Commission concurs, saying "CIP projects
shculd be submitted by their prime user".
Consolidation possibilities
Second, it suggests the possible opportunity for some
cOIsolidation of functions in our County government. If Parks
ane Education items can be mingled in the CIP, why are there
seIDarate maintenance functions in these two areas? Why not
cOI~bine the two with a single set of managers, and enJoy
ecenomies of scale? Certainly a competent bookkeeper can
ac(urately allocate costs to their proper functions.
Non-Capital Projects in CIP
Finally, this borrowing includes several roof replacements,
ca pet replacement, door replacement and other items of a
ma ntenance and repair nature. We agree completely with the
Plcjmning Commission when they say "Maintenance and repair items
sh(Duld be funded by the respective maintenance and repair budget
of the users." They go on to assert that' your present practice
" .has the effect of diluting and distorting the entire review
pnDcess. " You are "low-balling" the cost of education and other
ac ivities.
. '.
School Construction
We have written you about the proposed $18 million in
el mentary school construction and expansion. We note that the
pI nning Commission refused at its October 5 meeting to consider
sc 001 related projects due to I'the lack of comprehensive
lysis and calculation of need.. ..11 We agree completely.
Our goal is to ask probing questions, invite your attention
to important issues, and be at all times responsible and helpful
ci izens. After all, we are the beneficiaries of your efforts,
it is our responsibility as citizens to give you guidance as
set about representing us.
Thank you for listening.
''- ;t
/ ~ 0<-1 - y-e ~( / 4/2-.'~ 't}
. c:-.
dress to Board r::1 Supervisors - Oct. 25, 1993
Murray Elementary School Techndogy Infusion Project
Yoo may be aware that the State Dept. r::1 Education has asked all
s cd divisions to develcp a Technd ogy Plan by Jan. 1995. Well, we as
arents at Murray Elementary School are trying to help this effort along.
1\\lJ.J
ere is ...a joint effcrt.l'occurring between the University's Cuny Schcd
Educatioo and the County Schools to infuse technology into the
e ementary curriculum
To suppai this effcrt oor schad budget, the PrO and a grant have
ovided us with a small amoont of mooey to get a network installed and
upgrade sane r::1 our hardware. This year as part r::1 UVa's invdvement
ith the ccunty, 6 ct oor teachers have been paired with 6 UV a graduate
ucation students er preservice teachers. They ccme into the school and
crk with our staff and students using techndogy to develcp projects
rated to current units of study. In conjunctioo with UV a's involvement,
a ccmmittee ci parents and teachers has developed an overall techndogy
Ian to be incaperated over the next several years. Mast of you all have
en a copy ct it. We also have parent vdunteers who spend several hours
a week with students crt the COlllputers. I am emphasizing the pecple
ect of this invdvement because that is a key fader in any successful
Ian. Withoot UVa's help this year, these 6 teachers would net be getting
t e techndogy suppcrt that they need in t~~rc&~3r~ ~1~~yi~Htx,~e;G; C:' -Iv LC(0#?,
net rely crt the University indefinitely. It Right now there is a critical 1f
I cl< of support staff at the county level and in each schoo to assist with
d promcte technology integrati00.
I.....--hA , ;- ,
I '~-(/l./'u~t tA.-f/?1-5' ,A-~~lc~<'6k~~ ~
CLA.,l~tVLLcLz Cc'. JcA__c-:.-ec
We are here as parents with a visicn and a plan for our canmunity
001 that win that can be shared with all the schools. This technology
itiative enables the walls ei our dassrooms to expand beycnd Albemarle
nty and it affa'ds ALL a oor children the oppcrtunity to experience
ifferent techndogies as effective and friendly learning tcx:ils.
The Catnty Technology Plan alcng with a revised version of Murray
lementarys Techndogy Plan will be presented to the Schad Board within
t e next few weeks. We are asking that you take a serious lcrl< at the
1 aming cpportunities they eifer our students, teachers, and administratcrs
d encourage the Schad Board to move faward with techndogy in our
ads.
L/, J i
TV<.A.lt<./ ~
/7 /' " ~ , f
,c.), I~:X'-~ 5/(,
;7 " _ '_
'~/?/ I /It{ _ c1.J7 (,/ j
"'" "
I
fa '7 (lJ"~
DATE ~l ~'fuJx ( (.()
I
AGENDA ITEM NO. E~ .Dt1\5. ~\9
AGENDA ITEM NAME _~c..C (iY\.~ lc.-zch :y,\ Dr AJ vlA-L~~~ (LlcL
)\iw "")
DEFERRED UNTIL '.}
Form.3
7/25/86
, ."
Edward H, Ba n, Jr.
Samuel Mill r
David P_ Bow rman
Charlottesvil e
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296,5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Board of Supervisors
<,-"7
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~~
October 15, 1993
Reading List for October 20, 1993
y 13(A), 1992 - Mr. Bain
vember 4, 1992 - Mr. Martin
ly 14, 1993 - pages 1-8 (#10)
_--pages 0 (itl-O)
- Mr. Bain
3 3 --=---lIk-.-- I' e r k i noS
gust 18, 1993 - Mr. Marshall
~~cl
E C:mms
*
Printed on recycled paper
fr,....
(2(-O'..A~
tO~lS.tt3
Cl3' 1.020 .1071J
Forrest R_ Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Walter F, Perkins
White Hail
~ I)q.', f=iSSj\j. IJF C1JUrH I ES
Voting Delegat~:
(Supervisor)
Name
Title
Locality
Alternate Delegate:
(Supervisor)
Nama
Title
Locality
Certified by:
(Clerk of the Board)
Name
Title
Locality
TEL: 804-788-0083
Oct 20,93 2:39 No,064 P.02/03
VACo 1993 Annual Meeting
Voting Credentials Form
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Supervisor, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
David P. Bowerman
Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
Ella Washington-Carey
Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . - - - - - - . - . - - - - - - . . - - - - - - . . - . - - - - . . . . - ~ -
VACo 1993 Annual Meeting
Proxy Statement
, , County authorizes the following person to cast its vote at the 1993
nnual Meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties on November 9, 1993.
, a non-elected official of this county.
-OR-
, a supervisor from
County.
Uninstructed. The proxy may use hislher discretion to cast
n any issue to come before the annual meeting.
, County's votes
Instructed. The proxy is limited in how he/she may cast ,__ County's votes.
he issues on which he/she may cast those votes and how he/she should vote are:
list issues and Instructions on the back of this form)
Name
Title
Locality
. V8~ 8SSN. OF COUNTIES
". 4
TEL: 804-788-0083
Oct 20,93 2:39 No.064 P.Ol/03
I
facsimiCe
message
I
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
1001 E. Broad Street, Suite LL20
Old City Hall
Richmond, VA 23219.1901
(804) 788-6652 Fax: (804) 788-0083
IS memo an attachments are a so
TO:
Chairmen and Chairwomen, County Board of Supervisors
County Chief Administrative Officers
~1<JJ9v{:
James D. Campbell, Executive Director
~:
Voting Credentials for tlle Annual Business Meeting
'D :4.P:E;..
October 19, 1993
The 1993 Annual Business Meeting ()fthe Virginia Association of Counties will be held on
Tuesday, November 9, from 10:15 a.m. to Noon at The Homestead in Bath County.
Article VI of the:: V ACo Constitution Sk'l.tes that each county shall designate a representative of its
board of supervisors to cast its vot.e(s) at the Annual Business Meeting. However, if a member of the
board of supervisors cannot be prescnt for this meeting, the Association's Constitution does allow a
county to designate a non-elected official from your county or a member of a board of supervisors from
another county to cast a proxy vote(s) for your county.
For your county to be certified to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your aruma! dues must be
paid in full and either a completed Voting Credentials Form or a Proxy Statement (attached) must be
submitted to VACo by November 1, 1993. Altematively, this infonnation may be submitted to the
Credentials Committee at its meeting on Monday, November 3, at 4:15 p.m. or to the conference
registration desk befo1'C this meeting.
,
REGIONAL CAUCUSES
In several regions of the slate, more than one candidate has emerged to be considered for the V ACo
Board of Directors. We hope that these contest.s ean be decided within the region before the Nominating
Committee preparcs its slate for considerat.ion by the full membership. Accordingly, we have scheduled
room from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. on Sunday November 7, for regional caucuses:
Region I in lhe:: Blue Ridge Room
Region 3 in the Valley Room
Region 5 in the Cascades Room
Region 7 in the Allegheny Room
Region 8 in the Regcncy Room
Region 10 in the Hunt Room
Region 12 in the Vir~inia Room
If your region does not have a meetmg room and would like one, please advise me~ soon as possible.
Please call me at (804) 788-6652 if you have any questions about this process.