HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-05On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and local
government, I would like to honor and recognize
Jan Sprinkle
for being named Zoning Administrator of the Year for 2003 by the
Virginia Association of Zoning Officials.
Ms. Sprinkle has been working for Albemarle County for over 30
years, and has served as the Deputy Zoning Administrator
since 1997.
In achieving this recognition from VAZO, Ms. Sprinkle was noted for
her "_professional quality~, particularly with respect to her work on
the county's revised parking ordinance.
In her work with the parking ordinance, Ms. Sprinkle researched
other localities' ordinances, coordinated numerous meetings with
staff and the public, drafted ordinance language, prepared staff
reports and presented information to the Planning Commission and
tt~ Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Sprinkle's recognition as Zoning Administrator of the Year reflects
her professionalism and expertise, and demonstrates her dedication
to achieving the highest standards in b~r career field. We thank her
for her continued efforts to strive ~br outstanding quality in her
service to county residents
Signed and sealed this 5th day of November 2003.
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman
Board of Supervisors
COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING DA Y
WHE~, November 8~t of eack year has been celebrated as World Town Planning Day in many
countries since its inception in 1949; and
]~JE~, the American Institute of Certified Planners (~IICI>) acting for the 13,000 members of the
planning profession in America, a component of the 30,000 member American Planning Association,
endorses World Planning Day as an opportuni~ to highlight the contributions sound planning makes
to the quality of our settlements and environment and to celebrate American accomplishments in
making collective decisions concerning our counties, cities and regions that bring quality and meaning
to our lives; and
]TffHERE~S, the celebration of World Town Planning Day gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the
participation and dedication of the members of planning commissions and other citizen planners who
have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of the County of Albemarle,. and
WHEREAS, we recognize the many valuable contributions made by professional community and regional
planners of the CounO' of Albemarle and extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to
public service;
NOW, THEREFORE, L Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby designate November 8, 2003 as
COMMIfNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING DA Y
in the County of Albemarle in conjunction with the worldwide celebration of WORLD TOWN
PLANNING DA Y.
ADOt~ED this 5tn day of November, 2003.
CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
HUNGER AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS~ the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank Network was established in 1981 to help feed hungry
people in our community; and
WHERF_2~, the Food Bank provides food for 18,000different people each week; and
in 2003 the Food Bank distributed 8.1 million pounds of food, the equivalent of over 6
million meals, to citizens of Albemarle County, nine cities and twenty-four other
counties; and
WHEREAS, 31 percent of the members of households served by the Food Bank are children under
the age of 18, 19 percent are senior citizens, and 40 percent are the working poor; and
WHEREAS, for every dollar donated, the Food Bank is able to distribute $t 7 worth of food, or $1
will provide a meal for a family of five; and
WHEREAS,
during the month of November many people are thinking of food and the upcoming
holidays, and during the holidays is when the demand for food is the greatest and the
supply is the lowest;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby recognize the month of
NOVEMBER 2003 as
HUNGER AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all our citizens to commit to increasing awareness and understanding
of the faces of hunger, and commit to assist in eliminating it from our
CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Block Grant 03-31 - Whitewood
Village Apartments Community Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Management Plan and Program Income Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucl~er, Roxanne White, Ron White
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes .._.-..--
BACKGROUND:
The County Of Albemarle received an award of $375,100 from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development through the Community Development Block Grant Program. Of this amount, $341,000 will be used for direct
construction costs of a community center to provide services to Iow- to moderate-income residents of Whitewood and the
neighborhood. A number of policies and procedures are required to be adopted prior to execution of the contract between the
County and DHCD, including the adoption of a Management Plan and a Program Income Plan.
STRAGEGIC PLAN:
Strat(~gic Direction 3.: Enhance the quality of life for all citizens.
DISCUSSION:
The attached Management Plan outlines procedures, responsibilities, and timeframe for implementing the project. The Plan
has been submitted to the Management Team members and to DHCD for comment. Revisions have been made based on
comments from DHCD and resubmitted to team members. They will be askee to approve the Plan and/or provide additional
comment no later than October 24, 2003. Upon adoption by the Board of Supervisors, the Plan will be signed by all parties and
sent to DHCD for final execution.
The attached Program Income Plan has been revised based on comments from DHCD. Upon adoption by the Board, Mr.
Tucker will execute this document. The Office of Housing will track program income through annual reporting from the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Management Plan and Program Income Plan governing the implementation of Community
Improvement Grant #03-31 for the Whitewood Village Apartments Community Center.
03.132
28-10-03P05:20 RCVD
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Whitewood Village Community Service
Facility
October 13, 2003
Approved by Management Team
November 3, 2003
Board of Supervisors Approval
November 5, 2003
The attached Management Plan for the development of the Whitewood Village
Community Service Facility has been reviewed and accepted by
Ronnie L. ~ '.hief of Housing
Grant Administrator
R. Edward Koon~e, III~
Albemarle County Dept: of Finance
Theresa Thpscott, Executive Director - AHIP
Representing Managing General Parmer
Date: ~ ~'~(O~
Date:
Date:
Date:
Elizabeth Boehringer, DHCD
Date:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT
General description of the project, its goals and its objectives.
The purpose of the grant received by Albemarle County from the Department of
Housing and Community Development is to improve the living conditions of
approximately 35 households at the Whitewood Village Apartment Complex by
constructing a community center at which after-school programs, life skill
development, and support services will be provided. The project will benefit 81
persons, ail of whom are low- to moderate-income individuals.
Specific activities include the construction of a 3,295 square foot community center
and the provision of after-school programs, GED, and micro-enterprise classes. In
addition, households will be provided counseling services through the Albemarle
County Homebuyers Club. The tota~ project cost is $566,820 with DHCD funding of
$375,100. Leverage funds include $60,000 from AHIP, $51,150 from Albemarle
County, and $80,570 from the private acquisition loan.
The community center will be owned by the Albemarle Housing Associates, whose
managing general partner is the Albemarle/Charlottesville Development Corporation,
owned by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. After fifteen years of
operation, the partnership will sell its interest to AHIP, which will continue to serve
low- to moderate-income households.
Names, affdiations/titles, and role of each member of your Project Management
Team.
In general the management team will monitor the project activities during
construction and commencement of services. Meetings will be conducted monthly
beginning in November 2003 (time to be determined in consultation with team).
Specific roles for individual team members are included in the Attachment L
The Grants Administrator will be responsible for managing all administrative
functions related to grant activities including, but not necessarily limited to,
maintaining all grant files, preparing all documents and agreements, completing all
pre-contract activities, reviewing and approving payrolls for labor standards,
monitoring construction activities with the project coordinator and architect,
reviewing and Submitting payment requests to DHCD, and monitoring project
benefits.
The Financiai Manager will be responsible for receiving pay requests from the Grants
Administrator, reviewing such requests against appropriated funding, and preparing
the accounting voucher for submission to DHCD.
The Project Coordinator will be responsible for day-to-day oversight of construction .
activities. The Project Coordinator will also work with the Services Coordinator to
implement services outlined in the project description. The Project Coordinator will
maintain contact with the Project Architect and act as initiai contact for any change
orders prior to submission to the Grants Administrator for review and
recommendation.
Describe how the chief administrative official will be kept informed of the progress of
the project.
The County Executive will be represented by his Assistant County Executive on the
Management Team. Any activities requiting approVal by thc Board of Supervisors
will be submitted to the County Executive for review prior to action by thc Board.
Describe how the Management Team will oversee and monitor all aspects of the
project to assure timely and effective implementation.
The Management Team will rely on the Grants Administrator to oversee activity and
report as necessary, but not less than monthly on progress. If decisions are needed
from the Team before a meeting is scheduled, the Grants Administrator will notify
the Team by e-mall indicating issue, options, recommendation, and priority of the
decision (ex. Immediate response since work will stop until decision is made).
Process by which this plan will be amended.
This plan may be amended as follows:
Any amendment necessary for the construction-portion of the plan may be approved
by an Executive Committee that includes the Assistant County Executive, Grants
Administrator, Project Coordinator, Architect, and DHCD Community
Representative.
All other amendments to the plan will require review and approval by at least fifty
percent (50%) of the members of the Management Team. The Grants Administrator
and DHCD Community Representative must be included for approval of such
amendments.
Application for and Provision of Services
All applicants for services will apply with the service coordinator who will be located
in the completed Community Service Facility. The service coordinator will have hours
posted that allow for application intake six days a week (closed on business on
Sundays).
Services will be provided by community organizations under contract with AHIP.
Service delivery will be scheduled for times that meet the needs of the tenants, as
deemed practical. All service delivery will be monitored by the service coordinator for
consistency with expectations and meeting the desired benefits.
Eligibility
All tenants with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income are eligible to
receive any provided service. As space is available, other low- and moderate-income
residents of the neighborhood and the County may apply for services.
Securing DHCD Funds
The County of Albemarle will secure a 20-year lien on the property requiring that it
be used to conduct services to the tenants and other neighborhood residents who are
eligible for various services. Monitoring of the use of the facility will be conducted
on a quarterly basis for the first two years of operation and, at a minimum, on an
annual basis thereafter.
Default Policy
The deed of trust will be considered in default if there is a change in use of the
facility. Brief periods when services are not provided will not necessarily be
considered a default provided that the facility is scheduling for future services.
Such periods may result from lack of staff, lack of resources, or lack of clients.
the reason is lack of staff or resources, AHIP will be required to prepare a
correctiVe action plan.
If
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Bidding and Awarding Construction Contract
As a part of a much larger rehab project, AHIP requested proposals from general
contractors for all activities including the construction of the community service facility.
A subcommittee of AHIP's Board of Directors reviewed proposals and interviewed
general contractors prior to selecting one. Once AHIP was approved for funding of the
entire project, the general contractor submitted a revised budget based on the final design,
use of local subcontractors, and using federal wage standards. The general contractor has
had several pre-construction meetings at the site with the architect. Prior to executing the
construction contract for the community service facility a formal pre-construction
conference will be held.
Inspections
The Project Manager and/or the Project Coordinator will be on site daily. The architect.
will be on site at least once a week. Since the project is new construction, all phases of
the project will be inspected by the County's Building Inspections Office. All problems
related to code will be documented by the inspection office and must be resolved before
the work can be approved. Any work that may pass code but is not as designed will be
documented by the Project Manager or Coordinator and brought to the attention of the
architect.
Construction Payment Procedures
The Project Coordinator, in consultation with the Project Manager and the Project
Architect, will approve construction payments to the contractor. It is anticipated that
payments will be made on a monthly basis. The Project Coordinator will submit a
payment request and drawdown support form to the Grants Administrator for processing.
Final payment will not be made until all local inspections are completed and the building
is approved for occupancy.
Approval of Change Orders
Change orders may be requested by the general contractor through the architect. The
owner, architect, and project coordinator will review change order requests and, after
approval, submit to the grants administrator for approval and signature. The architect will
forward the recommended change order to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) for final sign off. Change orders shall not require additional
funding from the County or DHCD. Change orders shall not have an adverse impact on
identified beneficiaries of the project.
Complaint and Appeal Process.
Complaints related to approval and release of CDBG funds by the County Of Albemarle
will be forwarded, in writing, to the Grants Administrator. Such complaints, if not
resolved administratively by the Grants Administrator to the satisfaction of the
complainant, may be appealed, in writing, to the Management Team for review and
determination. Any further appeals by either party would next go to the County
Executive or his designee and finally to the Board of Supervisors, if not resolved and
accepted by all parties.
All complaints related to access or denial of access to services will be forwarded to the
Project Coordinator in writing. Any applicant for services will be informed at the time
of application that they will have fifteen days from receipt of notification to appeal in
writing to the Project Coordinator. If not resolved, additional appeals may be made, in
writing within 15 days of receipt of prior appeal determinations in the following order:
Grant Administrator, Management Team, County Executive, and Board of Supervisors.
Any complaint not resolved after appeal to the Board of Supervisors may be forwarded
to DHCD, in writing, along with a copy of all correspondence and determinations that
have taken place to date. The appeal to DHCD should identify the problem and the
complainant's desired outcome. DHCD will investigate the complaint and respond in
writing, in a timely manner, to all involved parties.
Relocation Plan
There will be no relocations, permanent or temporary, as a result of the construction of
the community service facility.
5
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Process for the review, approval and payment of invoices related to aH project
expenditures.
The Project Coordinator will review all payment requests from the general contractor
with the Project Architect. Upon approval of such requests, the Project Coordinator will
send a memorandum requesting CDBG funds and a Drawdown Support Form to the
Grants Administrator. After review and approval, the Grants Administrator will sign the
request and send to the County's Finance Department for prepoxation of an Accounting
Voucher for submission to DHCD. The Finance Department will determine if there arc
sufficient appropriated funds for payment.
Administrative funds will be requested from DHCD based on the approved performance-
based budget. The first draw is expected on or about November 20, 2003 in the amount
of either $6537.'50 or $7960. Periodic draws will occur over the next four to five months
for payment related to awarding of contracts and ongoing monitoring with no draw less
than $5000. The largest request will be at construction completion on or about May 1,
2004.
Track the receipt and expenditure of CDBG, and leverage funds.
It is anticipated that CDBG funds will be received as a reimbursement to the County.
The County will make payments to AHIP upon approval of the expenditure rather than
after receipt of funds from DHCD.
Leverage funds will be tracked and documented by the Grants Administrator. Leveraged
funds include the following along with date of pay in or commitment:
Land acquisition
· $14,630 from private lender
· $35,000 Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund
· $25,000 Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund
12/30/2002
03/09/2001
12/20/2001
Architect/Engineering
· $9,100 from VHDA or private lender
committed 12/20/2002
· Project Related Soft Costs
· $56,840 from VHDA or private lender
committed 12/20/2002
· Project Management
· $51,150 from Albemarle County annual support
7/1/2003
Active and Inactive Program Income
The County does not anticipate any active program income to be generated as a result
of constructing the Center. However if fees are charged for a service in excess of the
direct costs to delive3 that service, the excess shall be considered program income and
must be used to pay for additional services to residents. AHIP must track program
6
income and expenditures and report to the County annually on a fiscal year basis
beginning with fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. AHIP may accumulate program
income in an amount not to exceed $2000. Once program income on hand exceeds
$2000, the total on hand shall be returned to the County of Albemarle.
Names of all individuals authorized to sign checks.
Melvin Breeden and Ella Carey
Names of all individuals authorized to sign CDBG and draw down forms.
Rormie L. White and Roxanne White
OTHER
Identify any other potential problems and complexities inherent in the project, and an
analysis of how these will be anticipated and mitigated.
Timing of construction may be an issue if some construction, especially the foundation,
cannot begin until late November. A request may be made for pre-authorizing
construction with the understanding that AHA, LP and AHIP are at risk if the
County/DHCD contract is not executed.
Outline Of Specific Project Benchmarks By Which The Administration And
Implementation Of The Project Will Be Tracked And Analyzed
See Attachment 2
7
Attachment 1
MANAGEMENT TEAM ROSTER
Whitewood Village Community Service Facility
CIG #03-31
Name 'Affiliation Role Responsibilities
Roxanne White 'C~unty of Albemarle Grantee Rep Oversee administrative
functions/compliance
Ron White County of Albemarle Grant Administrator/ Manage all aspects
Contract Compliance associated with grant and
Officer monitor compliance with
labor req. and compliance
with proposed project
including achieving
required benefits
Tammy Critzer ' County of Albemarle Finance Officer Reviewing payment
requests, processing
accounting vouchers,
receiving and disbursing
funds
Theresa Tapscott AHIP Owner Rep Overseeing
redevelopment of
Whitewood Village
Apartment Complex
Joyce Dudek ' AHIP Project Coordinator Monitoring day-to-day
activities coordinating
with the Project Manager
and Service Coordinator
Joe Pritt AHIP Project Manager On-site, daily monitoring
of construction activities
Rick Funk dBF Associates Architect Oversees general
contractor; approves
payment requests to
AHIP; Contact for GC for
any problems/change
orders, etc.
Eileen Dean AHIP Services Coordinator Outreach to tenants; takes
applications for services;
coordinates provision of
services; maintains/
submits beneficiary
information to Grants
Administrator
Boys and Girls Club Service Provider Conducts After school
programs
Jim Elmore Piedmont' Works/PVCC Service Provider GED/continuing
education
Jim Baldi Equity Financial Services Service Provid'er Credit/Budgeting and
small business
... development
Charlotte Rice Whitewood Resident ReSident Liaison Sparkplug
Elizabeth Boehringer DHCD Community Rep Compliance and TA
o~
O0
00000
00000000
0~00000
~ooo~oo
oo oo~§
E E m~ o~~
E E o>,~E E o c c c
- c mm
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00~
.............. ~ .~ ~
0 0000000
VA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM INCOME PLAN
LocalitY: County of Albemarle Date:
Project Title: Whitewood Village Community Service Facility
Contract~: CIG# 03-3t
October 31, 2003
OBJECTIVE:
The expenditure of active and inactive program income generated from the CDBG
program in a manner that will directly benefit Iow- to moderate-income residents who
are living in Whitewood Village Apartments and the surrounding neighborhood.
ACTIVITIES: Describe the Activities that will be carried out with program
income funds, (e.g., construction of industrial building, approximately 5,000
sq. ft., rehabilitation of houses, loans for micro-enterprise businesses. All
activities must be eligible expenditures as described in the CIG Manual.)
NO Active Program Income is anticipated. However, if active program income is received
prior to administrative closeout of the CIG contract the following procedures will be
followed. If the total exceeds $25,000 in any of the successive 12-month periods of the CIG
contract, the funds shall be used to reduce drawdowns for eligible project expenses. If the
amount does not reach $25,000, it may be accumulated and used for eligible project costs in
excess of the contract budget with the permission of DHCD. Active income on-hand at the
end of the project will be used to reduce drawdowns or returned to DHCD. Active income
will be used for the same CDBG activities as approved in the CIG contract.
Inactive program income is all revenue received after administrative closeout.
Inactive income will be used to continue the same eligible CIG activities as long as
LMI households in the project area have unmet needs. After all needs are met in the
project area, inactive income will be used to cover service delivery expenses of the
Center for continued delivery of services.
2. TIME FRAME: Briefly outline the TIME FRAME during which the project will be
carried out and corn pleted.
No active program income is expected prior to administrative close-out anticipated
no later than June 1, 2004. The project will have a potential of creating inactive
program income for up to twentY years' of operation. Inactive program income would
include income from services and rental of the Center that is in excess of the cost of
services provided.
Program Income Pian 1
Inactive program income will be used to provide additional services and to subsidize
cost of services for clients of the Center.
PROJECT AREA: Briefly describe the project area in which activities will be
carried out. Attach a map locating the site or list localities and projected
program income of the proposed activities.
All activities funded with program income will be located in the Whitewood Village
Community Service Center. Services will first be made available to residents of the
Whitewood Village Apartments. Session slots not filled by Whitewood Village Apartment
residents can be first filled by LMI neighborhood residents and afterwards by LMI
Albemarle County residents.
4. FUNDS TO BE AVAILABLE:
1. Total Projected Program Income: $ 0 (including interest)
2. # of Years Until Compliance Complete: 20 (including relending)
DECISION MAKING: Briefly state who will decide on the use of the Program
Income, how that decision will be made, and what oversight will be used to
assure that this plan is followed.
AHIP shall report receipt of any program income on a quarterly basis to the County
of Albemarle's Office of Housing. The report will detail how program income was
roused in the Center's activities. If unused funds aro on hand, AHIP shall describe
the proposed use of funds, including timeframe for use, and provide evidence that
use of program income will continue or expand the use of the Center in providing
services to neighborhood residents. The Chief of Housing will review and approve
any request when available program income is not greater than $2000. If the
balance of program income is greater than $2000, the program income shall be
remitted to the County.
ADMINISTRATION: Briefly state who will manage the Program Income funds,
who will implement the activities and how the activities will be carried out.
Program income funds will be deposited by AHIP in an interest bearing account
when not immediately used for services. Funds shall be accounted for separately on
the balance sheet. AHIP may retain unused program income of less than $2000 for
continued services of the Center but must remit program income to the County if the
balance on hand exceeds $2000.
Program Income Plan 2
Income exceeding $25,000 in one year will be reported to DHCD regarding receipt
and expenditure. Records will be kept on a fiscal year of July 1 through June 30
with the first report due by July 15, 2005 for fiscal year ending June 30, 2005
showing the amounts received and expended on a monthly basis. Copies of source
documentation will be placed in the appropriate project file.
I certify that this is the plan of the County Of Albemarle for the use of income
derived from the Community Development Block Grant Program after the current
contract expires. I further certify that the Board of Supervisors intends to carry
out this plan, to oversee its implementation and assures that no other use of
these funds will be allowed. I certify that this locality will appropriate program
income funds and will maintain records documenting the use of those funds. I
understand that the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development may review the expenditure of program income funds.
Date
Program Income Plan 3
PAYMENT FOR PERFORMANCE BREAKDOWN
ACTIVITY #
Getting Under Contract with DHCD
% of Adm Budget
15%
Successfully Awarding Contracts
20%
1 Construction @
1 Adm services @
1 GED services @
I Afferschool services @
1 Microenterprises services
1 Homebuyers services @
SUBTOTAL
Contract Monitoringand
Completing Construction
15 On-going Monitoring
24 Required Reporting
1 Construction Completed
SUBTOTAL
35%
Achieving Benefits
20%
Corn pliance Reviews
5%
Administrative Closeout
5%
TOTAL GRANT MANAGEMENT BUDGET
PER UNIT
$1,136.00
$1,137.00
$1,136.00
$1,137.00
$1,136.00
$1,137.00
$250.00
$50.00
$880.00
CIG #03-31
TOTAL
$5,115.00
$1,136.00
$1,137.00
$1,136.00
$1,137.00
$1,136.00
$1,137.00
$6,819.00
$3,750.00
$1,200.00
$6,876.00
$11,826.00
$6,820.00
$1,760.00
$1,760.00
$34,100.00
Submitted by:
Robert W, Tucker, Jr.
VDHC D Concurrence:
Community Representative
LOCAL SIGNATURE:
LOCAL APPROVAL DATE:
DHCD APPROVAL DATE:
Budget
County of Albemarle
CIG #03-31
'TOTAL CDBG NON-CDBG
LINE ITEM IDIS # BUDGET BUDGET BUD(~ET
ADMiNiSTRATiON '
Execution of DHCD Contract . $. 5,115.00 $ 5,115.00 $ -
ExeCution ofProiect.Contracts $. 6,819.00 $ 6,819.00 $ -
Contract Monitodn~ $ 4,950.00 $ 4,950.00 $ -
Construction Completion' $ 6,876.00 $ 6,876.00. $ -
Achieving Benefits $ 6,820.00 $ 6,820.00 $ -
Compliance Reviews $ 1,760.0.0 $ 1,760.00 $. -
Administrative Proiect Closeout $ 1,760.00 $ 1,760.00 $
Cash on Hand
Subtotal $ 34,100.00 $ 34,100.00 $
Community Center Construction
Architect/En~]ineer/Desi~n $ r 9,100.00 $ ' $ 9,100.00
Acquisition $ 74,630.00 $ - $ 74,630.00
Construction $ 341,000.00 ..$ 341,000.00 $ -
F;roject Development Costs $ 56,840.00 $ - $ 56,840.00
Project Management Costs $ 51,150.00 $ - $ 51,150.00
Subtotal $ 532,720.00 $ 341,000.00 $ 191,720.00
TOTAL $ 566,820.00 $ 375,100.00 $ 19i,~20.'.00..
McGuireWoods
LLP
10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 2/15
RightFA×
October 29, 2003
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Industrial Development Authority of Fluvanna County, Virginia
Proposed Financing for the Montessori Community School of Charlottesville
The Montessori Community School of. Charlottesville, a 501(c)(3) organization not
organized exclusively for religious purposes (the "School"), has requested that the Industrial
Development Authority of Fluvarma County, Virginia (the "Authority") issue up to $1,500,000
of its revenue bond (the "Bond") to assist the School in financing the following (the "Project"):
(1) the acquisition of approximately 6.5 acres of land located at 1538 Richmond, Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia on Pantops Mountain Road, in the County of Albemarle, Virginia and
the buildings and improvements thereon on which the School's operations are currently located,
(2) the renovation and expansion of the School's academic, office and other facilities on such
land, (3) related capital improvements, site improvements and equipment acquisition, and (4)
certain costs of issuance.
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto, the Authority has agreed to
issue its Bond 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 Bond as:
required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2-
4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
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 15.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your
approval.
Secretary, Industrial Development Authority of
Fluvanna County, Virginia
McGuireWoods
LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 3/15 RightFAX
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned officer of the Industrial Development Authority of Fluvanna County,
Virginia ("Authority") certifies as follows:
1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on October 29, 2'003, at 5:00
o'clock p.m. in the Board Room of the Fluvanna County Administration Building at 132 Main
Street, Palmyra, 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 ChaLrman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the
application of the Montessori Community School of Charlottesville (the "School"), a 501(c)(3)
organization not organized exclusively for religious purposes, and that a notice of the hearing
was published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation
in the Counties of Fluvanna and Albemarle, Virginia ("Notice"), with the second publication
appearing not less than seven 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 as Exhibit A.
3. A summary of the statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B.
4. Attached as Exhibit C is a tree, 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 this date.
\\FIN\154098.1
MoGuirsWoods
LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 4/15 RightFAX
5. The Resolution referred to in paragraph 4 constitutes all formal action taken by
the Authority 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 29tu day of October, 2003.
[SEAL] Secretary, Industrial De{relDp-mem Authority
of Fluvanna County, Virginia
Exhibits:
A - Copy of Certified Notice from Newspaper
B - Summary of Statements
C - Public Hearing Resolution
-2-
HcGuireWoods LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 5/15 Ri~htFA×
[ HEREE]Y CERT]FY THAT 1
THE DAILY PROGRESS , A
AND APPEARED IN THE
PUBLISHING FEE:$
GIVENUNDER MY HAND T
KATHLEEN HICKS, CREDI'~
DRTLY PROGRESS
certificate of pub (2)
The Daily Progress
P.C). BOX 9030
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22g06
TELEPHONE: (434)978-7210..
CERTIFICATE (DF PUBLICATION
tEAI'TACHED NOT]CE WAS PUBLISHED IN
dE'WSPAPER IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA,
UR(S} DATED OCTOBER /~ ~--: .,.
SEPTEMBER 2003.
2003.
PS 3rd
MANAGER
DAY OF rflOVEME~ER__ZJ[~.
aa~ AU~ or flWlfl~ ~u~, Ylrglm~
~ll~tion Of ~e MO~tessort Commu~ty
sdd~ o~ P~s ~r ~ in ~a ~ty Df
T~ ]~uAnCe
~e S~aol
thor ~e f~ ap~.c~ ~r ~e [~ng power or
~ Cammmwnp of Vl~lfl~ ~ Gay .pollac~
ment Df suc~
~m of th~ Ftu~na ~u~ Adm~gal~n
nulU~ located ~t
V~n, ~Y PR~ Iq~tea ~ the. I~su~ce
T~ t~pe~an at ~e Autflo~ offi~ In the
amore ~rmSs ~n~ n~n~s nou~
Page I
p.2
McGuireWoods LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 6/15 RighgFA×
EXHIBIT B
Summary of Statements
A representative of the Montessori Community School of Charlottesville appeared before
the Authority to explain the proposed plan of financing. No one appeared in opposition to the
proposed bond issue.
MoGuireWoods
LLP
10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 7/15
RightFAX
EXHIBIT C
RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF FLUVANNA COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $1,500,000
REVENUE BOND FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
A. The Industrial Development Authority of Fluvarma County, Virginia, a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"), is empowered by the Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended ("Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing facilities for private,
accredited and nonprofit institutions of collegiate, elementary, secondary or graduate education
in the Commonwealth of Virginia whose primary purpose is to provide collegiate, elementary,
secondary or graduate education and not to provide religious training or theological education.
B. The Authority has received a request from the Montessori Community School of
Charlottesville (the "School"), a 501(c)0) organization not organized exclusively for religious
purposes, requesting that the Authority issue and sell up to $1,500,000 of its Educational
Facilities Revenue Bond (Montessori Coinmunity School of Charlottesville), Series 2003 (the
"Bond") to assist the School in financing the following (collectively, the "Project"): (1) the
acquisition of approximately 6.5 acres of land located at 1538 Richmond Road in Charlottesville,
Virginia on Pantops Mountain Road, in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the buildings and
improvements thereon on which the School's operations are currently located, (2) the renovation
and expansion of the School's academic, office and other facilities on such land, (3) related
capital improvements, site improvements and equipment acquisition, and (4) certain costs of
issuance.
C. The Bond will be secured primarily by the School's promissory note (the "Series
2003 Note"), in an original principal amount equal to the original aggregate principal amount of
the Bond, to be issued by the School under the Financing Agreement, dated as of December 1,
2003 (the "Financing Agreement") among the Authority and the School.
D. Such assistance will benefit the inhabitants of the County of Fluvarma, Virginia
and the Commonwealth of Virginia either through the increase of their commerce or through the
promotion of their safety, health, welfare, convenience or prosperity.
E. Preliminary plans for the Project have been described to the Authority, and a
public hearing has been held as required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended ("Code"), and Section .15.2-4906 of the Act.
F. The Bond will be issued on behalf of the SchooI, under and pursuant to the
Financing Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement dated as of December 1, 2003 (the
"Bond Purchase Agreement") among the Authority, the School and Guaranty Bank (the "Bank").
The Bond will be a limited obligation of the Authority, the principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on which will be payable solely out of the receipts and revenues of the Authority from
the Financing Agreement.
McGuir~Woods LLP
10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 8/15
RightFAX
G. The foregoing arrangements will be reflected in the following documents which
the Authority proposes to execute to carry out the transaction described above, forms of which
have been presented to this meeting and filed with the Authority's records:
(i)
attached;
the Financing Agreement to which the form of the Series 2003 Note is
(ii) the Bond Purchase Agreement to which the form of the Bond, bearing
interest, maturing and payable as provided therein and in the Financing Agreement; and
(iii) the Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents and Leases and Security
Agreement by and between the School and the trustee named therein.
All of the documents listed above, except the Bond, are referred to in this Resolution as the
"Bond Documents."
H. No member of the Board of Directors of the Authority is an officer or employee
of the County of Fluvanna, Virginia; each member has, before entering upon his duties during
his or her present term of office, taken and subscribed to the oath prescribed by Section 49-1 of
the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended; and at the time of their appointments and at all times
thereaiter, including the date hereof, all of the members of the Board of Directors of the
Authority have satisfied the residency requirements of the Act.
1. No member of the Board of Directors of the Authority has any personal interest or
business interest in the School, the Bond, or any of the transactions contemplated therein or has
otherwise engaged in conduct prohibited under the Conflict of Interests Act, Chapter 40.1, Title
2.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended in connection with this resolution or any other
official action of the Authority in connection therewith.
J. The School has represented that the estimated cost of the acquisition,
construction, renovation and equipping of the Project and all expenses of issue will require an
issue of revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,500,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF FLUVANNA COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. It is hereby found and determined that the acquisition, construction, renovation
and equipping of the Project will be in the public interest and will promote the health and welfare
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Fluvanna, Virginia and their citizens.
2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist the School in financing the acquisition,
construction, renovation and equipping of the Project by undertaking the issuance of its
Educational Facilities Revenue Bond (Montessori Community School of Charlottesville), Series
2003 in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 upon terms and conditiom mutually agreeable to
the Authority and the School. The Bond will be issued pursuant to documents satisfactory to the
Authority. The Bond may be issued in one or more series at one time or from time to time.
-2-
MoGuireWoods LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 9/15 RightFAX
3. R having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to proceed
immediately with the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the Project, and the
planning therefore, the Authority agrees that the School may proceed with its plans, enter into
contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment pursuant to the Project, and take such
other steps as it may deem appropriate in connection with the Project; provided, however, that
nothing in this resolution shall be deemed to authorize the School to obligate the Authority
without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the performance of any acts
in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees that the School may be reimbursed from
the proceeds of the Bond for all expenditures and costs so incurred by it, provided such
expenditures and costs are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable federal laws.
4. The execution, delivery and performance by the Authority of the Bond
Documents to which the Authority is a party, are authorized. The execution of the Bond and its
delivery against payment therefore, the amount of such payment to. be disbursed in accordance
with the terms of the Financing Agreement, are authorized.
5. The Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Authority, either of whom may act,
are each hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the Authority the
Bond and the Bond Documents to which the Authority is a party, and the Secretary and the
Assistant Secretary of the Authority, either of whom may act, are each hereby authorized to affix
the seal of the Authority to the Bond and, if required, the Bond Documents and to attest such
seal. 'The signatures of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary
and the seal of the Authority may be by facsimile. Each officer of the Authority is authorized to
execute and deliver on behalf of the Authority such instruments, documents or certificates,
including without limitation documents which might be necessary to obtain credit enhancement
and/or liquidity facilities for the Bond, and to do and perform such things and acts, as he or she
deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the transactions authorized by this Resolution or
contemplated by the Bond, the Bond Documents or such instruments, documents or certificates,
and all of the foregoing, previously done or performed by such officers of the Authority, are in
all respects approved, ratified and confn-med.
6. The Authority determines that the issuance of the Bond in accordance with the
terms of the Bond Documents and all action of the Authority contemplated by them will be in
furtherance of the purposes for which the Authority was organized.
7. At the request of the School, the Authority approves McGuireWoods LLP as
Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the Bond.
8. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing and the acquisition,
construction, renovation and equipping of the Proj eot, including the fees and expenses e f Bond
Counsel, Bond Purchaser counsel and Authority counsel, shall be paid by the School or, to the
extent permitted by applicable law, fi:om the proceeds of the Bond. If for any reason the Bond is
not .i~u_ed, it is understood that all such expenses shall be paid by the School and that the
Authority shall have no responsibility therefor.
9, In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official action" toward
the issuance of the Bond and to evidence its "official intent" to reimburse from the proceeds of
-3-
McGuirsWoods LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 10/15 RightFAX
the Bond any expenditures paid by the School to finance the acquisition, construction, renovation
and equipping of the Project before the issuance of the Bond, all within the meaning of
regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Sections 103 and 141 through 150
and related sections of the Code.
10, The Authority designates the Bond as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" eligible
for the exception from the disallowance of the deduction of interest by financial institutions
allocable to the cost of carrying tax-exempt obligations in accordance with the provisions of
Section 265Co)(3) of the Code. The Authority does not reasonably anticipate issuing more than
$10,000,000 in qualified tax-exempt obligations during calendar year 2003 and the Authority
will not designate more than $10,000,000 of qualified tax-exempt obligations pursuant to such
Section 265(b)(3).
11. The Authority recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Fluvanna, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia approve
the issuance of the Bond. No Bond may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time as
the issuance of the Bond has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Fluvanna, Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, V/rginia.
12. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
McGuireWoods LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 11/15
RightFAX
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned officer of the Industrial Development Authority of Fluvanna County,
Virginia ("Authority") certifies that the foregoing is a tree, correct and complete copy of a
resolution adopted by a majority of the Directors of the Authority present and voting at a meeting
duly called and held on October 29, 2003, in accordance with law, and that such resolution has
not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on this date.
WITNESS the following signature and seal of the Authority, this 29th day of October,
2003.
[ss)d.]
Secretary, Industrial Development Authority of
Fluvanna County, Virginia
McOuireWoods LLP
10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 12/15
RightFAX
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING
Date:
To the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
Applicant:
Facility:
1.
2.
October 29, 2003
Montessori Community School of Charlottesville
located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia
Educational facilities
Maximum amount of f'mancing sought.
Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property to be
constructed in the locality.
3. Estimated real property tax per year using present tax rates.
4. Estimated personal property tax per year using present tax rates.
5. Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present tax rates.
6. (a) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the locality.
(b) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality.
(c) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the locality.
(d) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within the locality.
7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis.
8. Average annual salary per employee,
$1,500,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$193,000
$36,000
$35,000
$15,000
28
$22,711
, strial 4)evelo~m~fAuthority of
Fluvanna County, Virginia
McGuireWood~ LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 13/15 RightFA×
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
held on the 5~h day of November, 2003, the following members were recorded as present:
PRESENT:
On motion by , seconded by ,
the attached Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by a roll call vote, the votes being recorded as follows:
MEMBER VOTE
\\FIN~, 154241.1
McGuireWoods LLP
10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 14/15 RightFAX
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Fluvanna County, Virginia (the
"Authority") has considered the application of the Montessori Community School of
Charlottesville (the "School"), a 501(c)(3) organization not organized exclusively for religious
purposes, requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bond in an amount not to exceed
$1,500,000 (the "Bond"), which will he used to finance (1) the acquisition of approximately 6.5
acres of land at 1538 Richmond Road, Charlottesville, Virginia on Pantops Mountain and the
buildings and improvements thereon on which the School's operations are currently located, (2)
the renovation and expansion of the School's academic, office and other facilities on such land,
(3) related capital improvements, site improvements and equipment acquisition, and (4) certain
costs issuance ("Project"), and has held a public hearing on October 29, 2003;
WHEREAS, Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"),
provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds
and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is
located must approve the issuance of the bonds and Section 15.2-4906 of the Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended ("Act") sets forth the procedure for such approval;
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4905 of the Act provides that if a locality has created an
industrial development authority, no industrial development authority created by a second
locality may finance a facility located in the first locality unless the governing body of such first
locality concurs with the inducement created by the second locality;
WHEREAS, the Project to be financed with proceeds of the Bond is located in Albemarle
County, Virginia ("County"), for purposes of this financing, the Authority is issuing the Bond on
behalf of the County, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board
of Supervisors") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the
issuance of the Bond; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bond,
subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the pubhc heating and a Fiscal Impact
Statement have been filed with the Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors concurs in the resolution of the Authority and approves the
issuance of the Bond by the Authority for the benefit of the School, as required by Section 147(f)
of the Code and Sections 15.2-4905 and 15.2-4906 of the Act.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bond by the Aathority does not constitute an
endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bond or the creditworthiness of the School,
McGuireWoods LLP 10/31/2003 9:28 PAGE 15/15 RightFA×
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia this 5m day of
November, 2003.
[SEAL]
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia
RESOLUTION OF ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Fluvanna County, Virginia (the
"Authority") has considered the application of the Montessori Community School of
Charlottesville (the "School"), a 501(c)(3) organization not organized exclusively for religious
purposes, requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bond in an amount not to exceed
$1,500,000 (the "Bond"), which will be used to finance (1) the acquisition of approximately 6.5
acres of land at 1538 Richmond Road, Charlottesville, Virginia on Pantops Mountain and the
buildings and improvements thereon on which the School's operations are currently located, (2)
the renovation and expansion of the School's academic, office and other facilities on such land,
(3) related capital improvements, site improvements and equipment acquisition, and (4) certain
costs issuance ("Project"), and has held a public hearing on October 29, 2003;
WHEREAS, Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"),
provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds
and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is
located must approve the issuance of the bonds and Section 15.2-4906 of the Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended ("Act") sets forth the procedure for such approval;
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4905 of the Act provides that if a locality has created an
industrial development authority, no industrial development authority created by a second
locality may finance a facility located in the first locality unless the governing body of such first
locality concurs with the inducement created by the second locality;
WHEREAS, the Project to be financed with proceeds of the Bond is located in Albemarle
County, Virginia ("County"), for purposes of this financing, the Authority is issuing the Bond on
behalf of the County, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board
of Supervisors") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the
issuance of the Bond; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bond,
subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact
Statement have been filed with the Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors concurs in the resolution of the Authority and approves the
issuance of the Bond by the Authority for the benefit of the School, as required by Section 147(0
of the Code and Sections 15.2-4905 and 15.2-4906 of the Act.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bond by the Authority does not constitute an
endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bond or the creditworthiness of the School.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia this 5th day of
November, 2003.
[SEAL]
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia
-2-
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
held on the 5th day of November, 2003, the following members were recorded as present:
PRESENT:
On motion by , seconded by ,
the attached Resolution was adopted by a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by a roll call vote, the votes being recorded as follows:
MEMBER ~OTE
\XF1~154241.1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE S U M MARY
AGEN DA TITLE:
Dog Park Partnership
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to approve County participation in a partnership
with the City of Charlottesville and private donors to build
and operate a dog park on PVCC property.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, and Mr. Mullaney
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVl EWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several years the City and County Parks and Recreation Departments have been receiving increasing requests
for the provision of off leash areas for dogs. The first dog park of about an acre was built by the City at Azalea Park and was
heavily used. In 2001 the City and County added a second area of about two acres at Darden Towe Park. The Darden
Towe dog park is also used heavily to the point that it is very difficult to keep grass cover in the area. Conflicts between off
leash dogs and park users have been increasing at all County parks. In response City and County staff have been looking
for opportunities to provide additional locations for off leash areas.
The City of Charlottesville is in the process of reaching a license agreement with Piedmont Virginia Community College to
use 10 acres located of off Avon Street Extended (Route 742) for a dog park for a period of five years. The total construction
of the park is estimated to be $40,000. The park will not be built unless private donors provide 50% of the construction costs.
The City is asking that the County share equally with the City on the remaining construction costs and future operating costs.
The County share is estimated at $10,000 for construction and $1,250 per year for annual operating costs.
According to the recent recreation needs assessment, 26% of County households have a need for off leash dog parks and of
those 82% said their needs are only partially met or not met at all. The Parks and Recreation Director is recommending that
the County participate in this partnership and that $10,000 in existing funding in the Parks and Recreation capital budget be
appropriated for this purpose.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Direction: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens
Goal 3.6: Provide opportunities for the healthy and productive use of leisure time
Strategic Objective 3.6.1: By June 2004, the County will annually increase the quantity and/or quality of indoor and outdoor
recreation space available to meet the needs of the County's growing population.
Strategic Direction: Provide Effective and Efficient County Services to the Public in a Courteous and Equitable Manner
Goal 4.3: Maintain and improve relationships with other public jurisdictions in order to provide better services to our citizens
Strategic Objective 4.3.1: By January 2004, the County will work with UVA, Charlottesville, other government agencies, and
private sector entities to identify regional priorities of mutual interest and increase efforts to achieve regional goals.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board appropriate $10,000 for this project with that amount being transferred from code
1901071000950157 Towe Park Trail. These funds are no longer needed for the Towe Park project.
03.133
28-10-03A08:49 RCVD
Albemarle'County .
Service
Serving ~ Conserving
KCvD
October 24, 2003
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Board of Supervisors
County of Fluvanna
PO Box 299
Palmyra, VA 22963
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albemarle County Service Authority provides water and sewer service
within the Town of Scottsville. A developer currently proposes to develop 24
townhouses on Poplar Spring Road (Route 637) in Scottsville and needs water
and sewer service for his project. This proposed development lies within the
portion of Scottsville which is inside Fluvanna County.
Whenever the Service Authority has received requests for service outside
Albemarle County we have sought the approval of both counties. We hereby
request your approval to serve this development.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have in considering this
request
Very~!~l.y yours, ,~
J.V~/~' Brent
Executive Director
JWB/slrb
168 5potnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 · Charlottesville, VA 22902 ° Tel (434) 977-4511 ° Fax (434) 979-0698
www. acsanet.com
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 2,
Administration, Article VIII, Airport Commission.
SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Schedule public hearing to consider proposed ordinance to
amend County Code Chapter 2, Administration, regarding
regulations governing appointment to the Airport
Commission.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Mr. Davis
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: ×
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Draft Ordinance ~
BACKGROUND:
The Airport Authority voted on October 15, 2003 to recommend to the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors a number of proposed revisions to the City and County ordinances governing appointments to the Airport
Commission. An amendment to Albemarle County Code § 2-801 is necessary to codify the composition of the Commission
required by the Authority's amended charter adopted by the General Assembly in the 2003 Session. The other changes
regarding the number and length of terms to which an individual may be appointed and the automatic selection of the joint
Corem ission member to be an Authority member are not required changes.
DISCUSSION:
The attached draft ordinance provides that the seven-member Airport Commission will have three members appointed by the
City, three by the County, and one jointly by the City and the County. It also provides that the member appointed by joint action
shall serve as the third member of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority Board. In addition, the maximum number of
terms for any Commission member is reduced from nine (9) consecutive years to two (2) consecutive three-year terms, except
that members who are appointed to serve the unexpired term of another may serve two (2) additional three-year terms. The
City is required to adopt a substantially identical ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be set for public hearing on December 3, 2003.
03.142
~9-10-03P05:31 RCVD
Draft: October 28, 2003
ORDINANCE NO. 03-2(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE
VIII, AIRPORT COMMISSION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2,
Administration, Article VIII, Airport Commission, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is
hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-800
Sec. 2-801
Sec. 2-802
Sec. 2-803
Sec. 2-804
Sec. 2-805
Airport commission.
Composition; appointment of members.
Compensation and term of office of members.
Officers and staff; minutes of meetings.
Vacancies.
Powers and duties.
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE VIII. AIRPORT COMMISSION
Sec. 2-800 Airport commission.
There is hereby established a joint airport commission to be known as the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Joint Airport Commission, hereinafter, the airport commission. As used in this article, the_
term "ai¢ort commission" or "commission" means the joint airport commission established pursuant to §
7(D) of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority. Act (2003 Acts of Assembly, Chapter 864), as_
set forthwithin section 2-801,_below.
(8-18-54, § 1; 5-16-74, § 1; Code 1988, §§ 2-27 and 2-28; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 03-2(3), 12-3-03)
State law reference--For state law authorizing city and county to act jointly in regard to airport, see Va. Code §§ 5.1-35, 5.1-36. As
aviation generally, see Va. Code §§ 5.1-1 er seq.
Sec. 2-801 Composition; appointment of members.
The airport commission shall consist of seven members. The members shall be citizens of the
City of Charlottesville or the county who hold no other municipal or coun~ office and who shall be
appoin vj j ........................... v .................. ~ ......................... as ows:
three (3) members shall be appointed by the Charlottesville City. Counci!, three (3) members shall be
aA0gointed by the board of supervisors, and one (1) member shall be appointed by the joint action of the
CiW Council and board of supervisors, each for a three-year term. The member appointed by joint action
of the city hnd county, shall also serve as a member of the governing board of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Ai~ort Authority. An appointment to fill any vacancy on the commissiOn resulting from the
resi..creation, removal or other unavailability of a member ghall be for the unexpired portion of the vacant
term only.
(8-18-54, § 1; 11-21-68; 5-16-74, § 1; Code 1988, § 2-29; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 03-2(3), 12-3-03).
Sec. 2-802 Compensation and term of office of members.
(a). All members of the airport commission shall serve without compensation.
Draft: October 28, 2003
(b). All members will serve terms which expire on December 1 of the third year following
their appointment No member will be reappoL~ed ,~r,^ ~ ....... ,~ ~ b~ c^~ ~ rm ........ ~4,T~
...... ~°'~+~ ....... '~ ...... ~' ...... ~* appointed to more than ~o (2~ ~ee-vear te~s. A
person initially appointed ~ se~e the ~expired tern of another may thereafter se~e no more than ~o
(2) three-year terms of his_own.
(c). In the event a member appointed to the commission by the ci~, or coun .ty. is subsequently
selected as the city/county ioint appointee, and commencement of the term of the joint appointment does
not coincide with the expiration of the appointee's then-current term, then he shall be deemed to have
vacated the seat held on the commission immediatelv~orior to the Joint an. pointment. Selection as the joint
appointee of the city. and county shall not extend the amount of time or the number of terms such person
is eli..cfible to serve on the commission, except that the time served in the seat vacated shall be treated the
same as time served by persons initially appointed to fill the unexpired term of another.
(d). Any member serving on the commission on January 1, 2003 and who is at that time
serving a second three-year term of his own, shall be eligible for one (1) additional three-year term.
(8-18-54, § 1; 12-17-64; 11-21-68; 5-16-74, § 1; 9-14-83; Code 1988, § 2-30; 10-8-97; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-
98; Ord. 03-2(3), 12-3-03).
Sec. 2-803 Officers and staff; minutes of meetings.
As soon after their appointment as possible, the members of the airport commission shall convene
and elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson from their members for a term of one year. The airportLs
manag~ executive director or his designee(s~ shall serve as staff to the airport commission and shall
perform such duties as are appropriate, including the keeping of proper minutes of the meetings of the
commission. Anyone designated by the airport's manag~ executive director to perform duties for the
airport commission shall report to, and be subject to the supervision of, the airport's__ mmmge~ executive
director in the performance of such duties.
(8-18-54, § 1; 4-6-70; 5-16-74, § 1; 9-14-83; Code 1988, § 2-31; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 03-2(3), 12-
3-03)
Sec. 2-804 Vacant-lc: ll~:~ligibJl~.
..... s**J .................... ,J ..................................... :upc sors. Any person o
has served as a member of the commission for the m~×~mum amount of time authorized bv this ordinance
shall thereafter become re-eligible for appointment, following the passage of at least three (3) years from
the expiration of his last term~
(8-18-54, § 1; 5-16-74, § 1; Code 1988, § 2-32; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 03-2(3), 12-3-03)
Sec. 2-805 Powers and duties.
The airport commission shall be an advisory body having the duty of keeping the governing
bodies of the county and City of Charlottesville and the Charlottesville-Albemarle airport board advised
on all matters pertaining to the airport.
(8-18-54, § 2; 4-6-70; 5-16-74, § 1; Code 1988, § 2-33; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Draft: October 28, 2003
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Ave Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 4,
Animals and Fowl, Article IV, Vicious and
Dangerous Animals, Section 4-400, Definitions,
and Section 4,.401, Dangerous dogs; vicious dogs.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Schedule public hearing to consider proposed
ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 4,
Animals and Fowl, Article IV, Vicious and Dangerous
Animals, Section 4-400, Definitions, and Section 4-
401, Dangerous dogs; vicious dogs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker/Foley/DavisFFran k/Miller
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Draft Ordinance
BACKGROUND: /
,Virginia Code § 3.1-796.93:1, Authority to control dangerous or vicious dogs, was amended by the General
=Assembly in its 2003 Session. The definition of dangerous dog was amended to include circumstances in which a
dog that attacks or bites another dog shall be deemed dangerous, and the definition of vicious dog was amended to
include a dog that continues to exhibit th e behavior that resulted in a previous finding by an animal control officer as
already authorized by County Code Section 4-401 (B). An amendment to Albemarle County Code Section 4-400 is
necessary to reflect the amended definitions in the state law. In addition, the state law provides that localities may
require that a dangerous dog be neutered or spayed. An ordinance may require that an owner provide evidence of
the animal's neutering or spaying pdor to obtaining or renewing the required dangerous dog registration certificate.
The draft ordinance includes this optional requirement under Section 4-401 (E), as well as an update to the Virginia
State Code reference in Albemarle County Code Section 4-401(J).
DISCUSSION:
Approval of the attached ordinance would bring Albemarle County Code Sections 4-400 and 4-401 in
compliance with the State Code, and would give the County authority to require evidence that a dangerous dog
has been neutered or spayed. Animal control recommends the requirement that dangerous dogs be neutered
or spayed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be set for public hearing on December 3, 2003.
03.145
30-10-03P02:~1 RCVD
Draft: October 30, 2003
ORDINANCE NO. 03-4(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, ARTICLE
IV, VICIOUS AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4,
Animals and Fowl, Article IV, Vicious and Dangerous Animals, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Section 4400 Definitions.
Section 4401 Dangerous dogs; vicious dogs.
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE IV. VICIOUS AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS
Sec. 4-400 Definitions.
For the purposes of this division and unless otherwise required by the context, the following
words and terms shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
(1) Dangerous dog. The term "dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed wk2ch that
has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal, ether tkan a dog, or killed a
companion animal; however, when a dog attacks or bites another dog, the attacking or biting dog shall not
be deemed dangerous (i) if no serious physical injury, as determined by a licensed veterinarian has
occurred to the other dog as a result of the attack or bite or (ii) both dogs are owned by the same person.
No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attackinq or inflicting injury on another
dog while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized,
lawful dog handling event.
(2) Injury. The term "injury" means any superficial cut, scratch, scrape, or minor tear to the skin,
or any bruise to bone or skin area. An injury shall be presumed to have occurred when a dog knocks a
person to the ground or tears that person's clothing or any possession on his or her person.
(3) Leash. The term "leash" means any rope, strap, chain or other material not exceeding four
feet in length, being held in the hand of a person capable of controlling the dog to which it is attached.
(4) Serious injury. The term "serious injury" means any bodily injury for which medical
attention was sought and obtained, which involves a serious laceration requiring stitches to more than one
puncture wound or which is serious in the opinion of a licensed physician.
(5) Vicious dog. The term "vicious dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed '~ich that has (i)
killed a person, (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement,
serious impairment of health or serious impairment of a bodily function, or (iii) continues to exhibit the
behavior w~ic~, that resulted in a previous finding by a court or an animal control officer as authorized by
Section 4-401 (B) of this chapter that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice
of that finding.
(Ord. No. 94-4(12), 8-3-94; Code 1988, § 4-37A; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 03-4(3), 12-3-03)
Sec. 4-401 Dangerous dogs; vicious dogs.
A. The animal control officer upon reasonable belief that a canine or canine crossbreed
within the county is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate for the issuance of a
summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear in general district court at a specified
time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. The
animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict
rendered. If the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal in a
manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until
such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may
compel the owner, custodian or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the
evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to
comply with the provisions of this section. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is
a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with the provisions of Virginia
Code § 3.1-796.119.
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (A), an animal control officer may
determine after investigation whether a dog is a dangerous dog. If the animal control officer determines
that a dog is a dangerous dog, he may order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of this
section. If the animal's owner disagrees with the animal control officer's determination, he may appeal
the determination to the general district court for a trial on the merits. Such appeal shall be filed no later
than ten (10) days after receipt of notice of the officer's determination.
C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog
solely because it is a particular breed. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog if
the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was (i)committing, at the time, a crime upon
the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, (ii)committing, at the time, a willful trespass or
other tort upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, or (iii)provoking, tormenting or
physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused or
assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog which that was engaged in the performance of its
duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog.
No animal which, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was
protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring or its owner or owner's property, shall be found to be a dangerous
dog or a vicious dog.
D. The owner of any animal found to be a dangerous dog shall, within ten (10) days of such
finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate from the County for a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00)
in addition to other fees that may be authorized by law. The County shall provide the owner with a tag
·:&ich that identifies the animal as a dangerous dog. The owner shall affix the tag to the animal's collar
and ensure that the animal wears the collar and tag at all times. All certificates obtained pursuant to this
section shall be renewed annually for the same fee and in the same manner as the initial certificate was
obtained.
E. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only
be issued to persons eighteen (18) years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence (i) of the
animal's current rabies vaccination, if applicable, and (ii) that the animal is and will be confined in a
proper enclosure or is and will be confined inside the owner's residence or is and will be muzzled and
confined in the owner's fenced-in yard until the proper enclosure is constructed. In addition, owners who
apply for certificates or renewals thereof under this section shall not be issued a certificate or renewal
thereof unless they present satisfactory evidence that (i) their residence is and will continue to be posted
with clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the
property, and (ii) the animal has been permanently identified by means of a tattoo on the inside thigh or
by electronic implantation, and (iii) the animal has been neutered or spayed.
F. While on the property of its owners, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be
confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked structure of sufficient height and design to prevent
its escape or direct contact with or entry by minors, adults or other animals. The structure shall be
designed to provide the animal with shelter from the elements of nature. When off its owner's property,
an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be kept on a leash and muzzled in such a manner as not to
cause injury to the animal or interfere with the animal's vision or respiration, but so as to prevent it from
biting a person or another animal.
G. If the owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or
legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this section.
H. After an animal has been found to be a dangerous dog, the animal's owner shall
immediately, upon learning of same, notify the local animal control authority if the animal (i) is loose or
unconfined, (ii) bites a person or attacks another animal, (iii) is sold, given away, or dies, or (iv) has been
moved to a different address.
I. The owner of any animal ';&ick, that has been found to be a dangerous dog who willfully
fails to comply with the requirements of this section shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
J. All fees collected pursuant to this section, less the costs incurred by the County in
producing and distributing the certificates and tags required by this section, shall be paid into a special
dedicated fund for the purpose of paying the expenses of any training course required under Virginia
Code § 2.! 796.105 § 3.1-796.104:1.
(Ord. No. 94-4(12), 8-3-94; Code 1988, § 4-37A. 1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 03-4(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 03-
4(3), 12-3-03)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of__ to , as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Tower site.
SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of tower lease to provide emergency fire
communications
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Hanson
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
November 5, 2003
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: × INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: None - contract can be viewed in
Clerk's Office.
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County fire services are presently dispatched and paged by the City of Charlottesville from their Ridge Street Fire
Headquarters. In early 2004 the County will be moving their fire dispatching to the Regional Emergency Communications
Center (ECC) at 2306 Ivy Road. In order for this to be accomplished, the County will need to co-locate additional emergency
communications infrastructure on the current tower located on Carter's Mountain. Execution of the enclose lease agreement is
necessary for the county to provide these services through the ECC rath er than the City.
DISCUSSION:
ECC staff members will manage the tower lease. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have
previously granted a Special Use Permit for this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval for Albemarle County Executive Robert W. Tucker Jr. to sign and execute the contract with Pinnacle Tower Inc.
03.144
29-10-03P05:3£ RCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Tower site.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of tower lease to provide emergency fire
communications
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Hanson
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: None - contract can be viewed in
Clerk's Office.
REVIEWED BY:
/
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County fire services are presently dispatched and paged by the City of Charlottesville from their Ridge Street Fire
Headquarters. In early 2004 the County will be moving their fire dispatching to the Regional Emergency Communications
Center (ECC) at 2306 Ivy Road. In order for this to be accomplished, the County will need to co-locate additional emergency
communications infrastructure on the current tower located on Carter's Mountain. Execution of the enclose lease agreement is
necessary for the county to provide these services through the ECC rather than the City.
DISCUSSION:
ECC staff m embers will manage the tower lease. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have
previously granted a Special Use Permit for this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval for Albemarle County Executive Robert W. Tucker Jr. to sign and execute the contract with Pinnacle Tower Inc.
03.144
29-10-03P05:32 RCVD
Towers
October 22, 2003
Thomas A. Hanson
Emergency Communications Center
2306 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Re: Antenna Site Lease Schedule No.: 110400214N0052
Dear Thomas,
Enclosed please find three (3) executable copies of the above mentioned lease documents for
your review and approval. Please have all sets signed, initialed and witnessed where indicated
and returned to us for execution. We will return a fully executed original for your records.
Should you have any questions regarding this agreement or if we can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for choosing a Pinnacle tower.
Sincerely,
Project Manager
Encl.
301North Cattlemen Road I Sarasota I Florida $4252
888 748 3482 I 941 364 8886 !fax 941 364 8761 ~pinnactetowers. corn
P I N N AC] L E::
Towers Inc
October 10, 2003
Mr. Thomas A. Hanson
County of Albemarle, as fiscal agent for the
Emergency Communications Center
2306 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Re: Master Antenna Site Lease # SRO
Dear Mr. Hanson:
Enclosed please find four,~executable copies of the above mentioned lease documents for
your review and approval. Please have all sets signed, initialed and witnessed where indicated
and returned to us for execution. We will return three (3) fully executed originals for your records.
Should you have any questions regarding this agreement or if we can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for choosing a Pinnacle tower.
Sincerely,
Diana Bates
Project Manager
DB/po
Encl.
301North Cattlemen Road ~ Sarasota ~ Florida 34232
888 748 3482 1 941 364 8886 [fax 941 364 8761 l pinnacletowers, com
Mark R. Warner
Governor
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENTOF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Community Development
October 24, 2003
Michael J. Schewel
Secretary of
Commerce and Trade
William C. Shelton
Director
Memorandum
To:
From:
Interested Parties
M. Shea Hollifield~~
Deputy Director
Subject: Review of Planning District Boundaries
Attached is a request for public comment regarding current planning district boundaries.
The Code of Virginia directs the Department of Housing and Community Development
to undertake a periodic review of planning district boundaries.
I am providing you with a copy of this notice so that you and your constituents may have
a chance to provide any comments you deem appropriate regarding planning district
boundaries. Please share the request for public comment with other interested parties that
may have an interest in how planning districts are configured.
The deadline for public comment is December 1, 2003. Please contact me ifI can provide
additional information.
29-10-03P02:59 RCVD
501 North Second Street · The Jackson Center · Richmond, Virginia 23219-1321 · (804) 371-7030 · FAX (804) 371-7093 · TTP (804) 371-7089
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The Regional Cooperation Act, passed by the General Assembly in 1995, places great
emphasis on the planning district commissions serving as a forum for discussion of
regional issues and identification of ways to promote regional cooperation. The Code of
Virginia, Section 36-139.7, requires that the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD) conduct a periodic review of the boundaries of
planning districts and issue a final report. It requires that DHCD consider, at a minimum,
the following criteria:
· Recognition of communities of interest among the governmental
subdivisions
Recognition of common economic and market interests
· The ease of communications and commissioner travel time
· Federal metropolitan statistical area boundaries
· A population base adequate to ensure financial viability
· Geographic factors and natural boundaries
· The wishes of the governmental subdivisions within or
surrounding the planning district, as expressed by resolution of the
governing body.
DHCD will conduct its review in two phases, a period of written public comment and, if
warranted, public meetings. At the conclusion of the review process a final report will be
issued.
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT: This notice begins the period for written public
comment. Letters should concisely address the need for retaining or modifying the
current boundaries of a given planning district using the criteria outlined above or other
factors that affect the viability or effectiveness of the planning district commission in
carrying out its duties. The deadline for written public comment is December 1, 2003.
Comments should be addressed to:
M. Shea Hollifield
Deputy Director
Department of Housing and Community Development
501 North Second Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
In the event that there are sufficient and compelling requests for boundary adjustments,
DHCD will conduct public hearings within the affected planning districts. Hearings will
be advertised in local newspapers and notices sent to local government and planning
district offices. They will be designed to gather information from local officials,
organizations and residents as to why a boundary adjustment is warranted and the
advantages such an adjustment would provide to each affected planning district.
DItCD REPORT: DHCD staff will consider all comments received through written
responses and public hearings and issue a final written report. The report will be
distributed to citizens and local governments that provided written commems or attended
the public hearings as well as to planning district offices.
Any recommendations to adjust current planning district boundaries would be required to
follow procedures for public review and comment, as outlined by the Administrative
Process Act. This process is designed to ensure that all affected parties have had adequate
oppommity to share their views and perspectives on any proposed planning district
boundary adjustment.
For additional information, please contact:
M. Shea Hollifield
Deputy Director
Department of Housing and Community Development
501 North Second Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-371-7030
sholtifield@dhcd, state.va.us
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
t_aw Department
P.O. Box 26532, Richmond, VA 25261
Dominion
October 6, 2003
15-10-03~10:05
RCVD
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA
CASE NO. PUE-2000-00551
APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY d/b/a
DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER
To: Local Government Officials
Pursuant to the Order for Notice (the..Order) issued by the State. Corporation
Commission of Virginia on September 26, 200..3, Virginia Electric and Power Company
("Dominion Virginia Power") is hereby serving a copy of the Order and Application of
Virginia EleCtric and Power Company' on' the Chairman of the Boards of Supervisors,
Mayor, or Manager of any county, city, or town, or on equivalent officials in counties,
torres, and cities having alternate forms of government in Dominion Virginia Power's
service territory. Please take notice of the contents of the Order.
Thank you:
Senior Counsel
Enclosure
-Improved reliability through increased access to a larger and more diverse
fleet of
s for customers through access to lower cost power.
-Dominion Virginia Power, which is a net importer of electricity today, will
increase its imports under PJM, delivering savings to customers.
-PJM .pa~icipatton will facilitate both wholesale and retail competition.
Our application shows that Dominion Virginia Power's membership in PJM is the
best way to ensure that Virginia has a reliable, stable and affordable.source of
electricity into the future. ThiS is critical for continued economic development in
the Commonwealth.
This application also demonstrates that CommisSion approval of P.JM'integration
is consistent with the intent of the General Assembly as expressed in the
RestrUcturing Act and the Commission's responsibility to ensure reliable and
competitivelY-priced electric service to the citizens of Virginia. Examination of the
costs and benefits of PJM integration, its positive .impact on reliability and the
arrangements that we have made to protect native load customers will show that
Dominion's participation in PJM is in the best interest of virginia's consumers.
Integration of Dominion Virginia Pow~r's transmission facilities into PJM is
consistent with the public interest and will promote economic development in
Virginia. We therefore hope.that this application will proceed to approval on a
schedule-in accord with HB2453 so that Virginia consumers may realize these
important benefits at the eadiest possible time.
CC:
Mr. Ronald A. Gibson
Mr. William F. Stephens
Mr. Richard J, Williams
Mr. Howard M. Spinner
Mr. Cody D. Walker
Arien Boistad, Esquire
Ms. Rebecca W. Hartz
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
At the relation of the
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
Ex Parte, In re: Virginia Electric Power
Company; Regional Transmission Entities
Case No. pUE-2000-00551
APPLICATION OF
VIRGIN~ ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
Pursuant to Va. Code § 56-579 and the Commission's Regulations Governing
Transfer of Transmission Assets to Regional Transmission Entities, 20 VAC 5-320
("RTE Regulations'.'), Virginia Electric and P0we} Company ("DOminion Virginia
Power" or '~the Company") hereby apPlies.to the Commission for all applicable
authorization from this Commi.s.:sion to transfer operational control of the Company's
transmission facilities located in Virginia to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ("PJM"). PJM
has been conditionally approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
("FERC") as a regional transmission organization ("RTO'?~ pursuant to FERC Order No.
2000. 2. Dominion Virginia Power's transmission system will be integrated into PJM as
PJM South. In support of its Application, Dominion Virginia Power states as follows:
1. Dominion Virginia Power's proposal to transfer operational control of its
transmission facilities in Virginia will satisfy the criteria of Va. Code § 56-579 and the
~ PJMInterconnection, L:L.C. et al,'lOl FERC ¶61,345 (2002).
2 Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 809 (January 6, 2000), FERC Stats.
and Regs. ¶ 3. I,089 (1999), order on reh'g, Order No. 2000-A, 65 FecL Reg. 12.088 (March 8, 2000), FERC
Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,092 (2000). FERC asserts jurisdiction over RTOs pursuant to its jurisdiction under
the Federal Power Act to regulate transmission, and wholesale sales, of power in interstate commerce.
Dominion Virgi~'nia Power has previously responded to the Commission's' questions regarding RTOs,
including jurisdictional issues, in Case No. PUE-1999-00349, and the Company reserves, and does not
waive, any positions stated therein or any other rights regarding jurisdiction.
RTE Regulations. This Application, and the pre-filed testimonies and exhibits supporting
it, demonstrate that Dominion Virginia Power's proposed participation in PJM Will
provide~continued pro~ection to retail service custOmers in Virginia and enhance
-reliability, improve resource adequacy, deliver energy and capacity savings to retail
customers, and promote wholesale and retail competition, and encourage continued
economic expansion in Virginia.
PJM's eXpand market boundaries will give competitive service providers and
customers greater access to additional sources of energy and capacity in a visible and
· liquid market. This open, non-discriminatory access over a broad area is necessary for an
active wholesale market, which is a prerequisite for retail market formation. Healthy
regional markets will also provide customers and suppliers access to a greater diversity of
generating assets over a-larger geographical area; this inherently increases the reliability
of service to customers. A broad, regionally managed transmission infrastructure will
'also enhance reliability by providing increased access and efficiency of use to
interconnected but currently separately operated transmission systems. PJM's regional
management will eliminate barriers such as.rate pancaking and seams between separately
managed systems. PJM membership helps to continue and enhance the delivery of
reliable, cost-effective electric supply to new and existing businesses in Virginia; meeting
a fimdamental expectation of those businesses and facilitating continued economic
growth in the Commonwealth.
Dominion Virginia Power also is presenting a cost benefit study performed by
Charles River Associates ("Cost Benefit Studf') of Dominion Virginia Power joining
PJM. The Cost Benefit Study indicates that joining PJMis expected to result in
significant net benefits to Dominion Virginia Power's retail customers through reduced
net energy and capacity costs.3
2. In support of its Application, Dominion Virginia Power is submitting the
prefiled testimony and exhibits of the following witnesses:
Paul D. Koonce, Chief Executive Officer-Transmission: executive summary
William L. Thompson, Director-Electric Transmission Systems Operations
Center: short-term or operational aspects of system reliability
Rormie Bailey, Manager-Electric Transmission Planning: System Planning
Gregory J. Morgan, Director of Pricing and Structuring: impacts of PJM's
capacity markets, day ahead and balancing markets, ancillary services market,
locafionaI ma[.~nal pricing and congestion hedging
;Robert Stoddard Vice President of Charles River Associates: Cost Benefit Study
David F. Koogler, Director-Regulation and Competition: impacts on transmission
rates and wholesale and~retail competition
Harold Adams, Director-Electric Market Policy: PJM organizational structure,
stakeholder process and governance structure and identification of PJM-related
.... ~locuments
Andrew J. Evans, Project Manager PJM Integration: fuel factor impacts
Joe Bowring, Manager of PJM Market Monitor Unit: role and operations of PJM
Market Monitor
Richard A. Wodyka, PJM Senior Vice President: PJM's. expansion planning to
receive Dominion Virginia Power
3 The Cost Benefit Study is submitted in response to Va. Code § 56-579F. This Commission has directed
other parties in this case to present studies of the costs and benefits ofjoining PJM within 90 .days after
FERC issues a final order in its Standard Market Design ("SMD") mlemaking. However, FERC made it
clear inits "White Paper" issued April 28, 2003 that it will not implement SMDso as torevisit issues that
have Previously been resolved for approved RTOs, like PJ-M. Accordingly, the' Commi.~sion should not
delay consideration of this Application, or the Cost Benefit Study, until after SMD is completed. Delay
would also deny important benefits ~to the Company's customers, as discussed in the Company's testimony
and in the Cost Benefit Study.
3. As required by Va. Code§ 56-579 and the RTE Regulations, Dominion
Virginia Power provides the following responses to the Part I filing requirements.of 20
VAC 5-320-100, which are Sponsored by certain of the witnesses listed above.
4
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
Law Department
P.O. Box 26532, Richmond, VA 23261
October 6, 2003
15-70-03A10:05
RCVo
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA
CASE NO. PUE-2000-00551
APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY d/b/a
DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER
To: Local Government Officials
Pursuant to the Order for Notice (the Order) issued by the State Corporation
Commission of Virginia on September 26, 2003, Virginia Electric and Power Company
("Dominion Virginia Power") is hereby serving a copy of the Order and Application of
Virginia Electric and Power Company on the Chairman of the Boards of Supervisors,
Mayor, or Manager of any county, city, or town, or on equivalent officials in counties,
towns, and cities having altemate forms of government in Dominion Virginia Power's
service territory. Please take notice of the contents of the Order.
Thank you.
Senior Counsel
Enclosure
-Improved reliability through increased access to a larger and more diverse
fleet of generators.
-Substantial savings for customers through access to lower cost power.
-Dominion Virginia Power, which is a net importer of electricity today, will
increase its imports under PJM, delivering savings to customers.
-PJM participation will facilitate both wholesale and retail competition.
Our application shows that Dominion Virginia Power's membership in PJM is the
best way to ensure that Virginia has a reliable, stable and affordable source of
electricity into the future. This is critical for continued economic development in
the Commonwealth.
This application also demonstrates that Commission approval of PJM integration
is consistent with the intent of the General Assembly as expressed in the
Restructuring Act and the Commission's responsibility to ensure reliable and
competitively-priced electric service to the citizens of Virginia. Examination of the
costs and benefits of PJM integration, its positive impact on reliability and the
arrangements that we have made to protect native load customers will show that
Dominion's participation in PJM is in the best interest of Virginia's consumers.
Integration of Dominion Virginia Power's transmission facilities into PJM is
consistent with the public interest and will promote economic development in
Virginia. We therefore hope that this application will proceed to approval on a
schedule in accord with HB2453 so that Virginia consumers may realize these
important benefits at the eadiest possible time.
cc: Mr. Ronald A. Gibson
Mr. William F. Stephens
Mr. Richard J. Williams
Mr. Howard M. Spinner
Mr. Cody D. Walker
Arien Bolstad, Esquire
Ms. Rebecca W. Hartz
COMMONWEALTH OF 'vIRGINIA
At the relation of the
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
Ex Parte, In re: Virginia Electric Power
Company; Regional Transmission Entities
Case No. PUE-2000-00551
APPLICATION OF
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
Pursuant to Va. Code § 56-579 and the Commission's Regulations Governing
Transfer of Transmission Assets to Regional Transmission Entities, 20 VAC 5-320
("RTE Regulations"), Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Dominion Virginia
Power" or "the Company") hereby applies to the Commission for all applicable
authorization fi:om this Commission to transfer operational control of the Company's
transmission facilities located in Virginia to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ("PJM"). PJM
haS been conditionally apProved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
("FERC") as a regional transmission organization ("RTO")~ pursuant to FERC Order No.
2000. 2 Dominion Virginia Power's transmission system will be integrated into PJM as
PJM South. In support of its Application, Dominion Virginia Power states as follows:
1. Dominion Virginia Power's proposal to transfer operational control of its
transmission facilities in Virginia will satisfy the criteria of Va. Code § 56-579 and the
~ PJMInterconnection, L.L.C. et al, 101 FERC ¶61,345 (2002).
2 Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 809 (January 6, 2000), FERC Stats.
and Regs. ¶ 31,089 (1999), order on reh'g, Order No. 2000-A, 65 Fed. Reg. 12.088 (March 8, 2000), FERC
Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,092 (2000). FERC asserts jurisdicti°n over RTOs pursuant to its jurisdiction under
the Federal Power Act to regulate transmission, and wholesale sales, of power in interstate commerce.
Dominion Virginia Power has previously responded to the Commission's questions regarding RTOs,
including jurisdictional issues, in Case No. PUE-1999-00349, and the Company reserves, and does not
waive, any positions stated therein or any other rights regarding jurisdiction.
RTE Regulations. This Application, and the pre-filed testimonies and exhibits supporting
it, demonstrate that Dominion Virginia Power's proposed participation in PJM will
provide continued protection to retail service customers in Virginia and enhance
reliability, improve resource adequacy, deliver energy and capacity savings to retail
customers, and promote wholesale and retail competition, and encourage continued
economic expansion in 'virginia.
PJM's expand market boundaries will give competitive service providers and
customers greater access to additional sources of energy and capacity in a visible and
liquid market. This open, non-discriminatory access over a broad area is necessary for an
active wholesale market, which is a prerequisite for retail market formation. Healthy
regional markets will also provide customers and suppliers access to a greater diversity of
generating assets over a larger geographical area; this inherently increases the reliability
of service to customers. A broad, regionally managed transmission infrastructure will
· 'also enhance reliability by providing increased access and efficiency of use to
interconnected but currently separately operated transmission systems. PJM's regional
management will eliminate barriers such as. rate pancaking and seams between separately
managed systems. PJM membership helps to continue and enhance the delivery of
reliable, cost-effective electric supply to new and existing businesses in Virginia; meeting
a fundamental expectation of those businesses and facilitating continued economic
growth in the Commonwealth.
Dominion Virginia Power also is presenting a cost benefit study performed by
Charles River Associates ("Cost Benefit Study") of Dominion Virginia Power joining
PJM. The Cost Benefit Study indicates that joining PJM is expected to result in
significant net benefits to Dominion Virginia Power's retail customers through reduced
net energy and capacity costs.3
2. In support of its Application, Dominion Virginia Power is submitting the
prefiled testimony and exlfibits of the following witnesses:
Paul D. Koonce, Chief Executive Officer-Transmission: executive summary
William L. Thompson, Director-Electric Transmission Systems Operations
Center: short-term or operational aspects of system reliability
Ronnie Bailey, Manager-Electric Transmission Planning: system planning
Gregory J. Morgan, Director of Pricing and Structuring: impacts of PJM's
capacity markets, day ahead and balancing markets, ancillary services market,
locational m~ginal pricing and congestion hedging
~Robert Stoddard Vice President of Charles River Associates: Cost Benefit Study
David F. Koogler, Director-Regulation and Competition: impacts on transmission
rates and wholesale and retail competition
Harold Adams, Director-Electric Market Policy: PJM organizational structure,
stakeholder process and governance structure and identification of PJM-related
-documents
Andrew J. Evans, Project Manager PJM Integration: fuel factor impacts
Joe Bowring, Manager of PJM Market Monitor Unit: role and operations of PJM
Market Monitor
Richard A. Wodyka, PJM Senior Vice President: PJM's expansion planning to
receive Dominion Virginia Power
3 The Cost Benefit Study is submitted in response to Va. Code § 56-579F. This Commission has directed
other parties in this case to present studies of the costs and benefits of joining PJM within 90.days after
FERC issues a final order in/ts Standard Market Design ("SMD") rulemaking. However, FERC made it
clear in its "White Paper" issued April 28, 2003 that it will not implement SMD so as to revisit issues that
have previously been resolved for approved RTOs, like PJM. Accordingly, the Commission should not
delay consideration of this Application, or the Cost Benefit Study, until after SMD is completed. Delay
would also deny important benefits to the Company's customers, as discussed in the Company's testimony
and in the Cost Benefit Study.
3. As required by Va. Code § 56-579 and the RTE Regulations, Dominion
Virginia Power provides the following responses to the Part I filing requirements of 20
VAC 5-320-100, which are sponsored by certain of the witnesses listed above.
DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER PART 1 APPLCATION
20 VAC 5-320.100 (1) Copies of each agreement entered into between the RTE and
member transmission owner. Copies of each draft agreement proposed to be
entered into by and among the RTE entities and any member transmission owner;
The following documents are included with this application:
Operating Agreement ofPJM Interconnection, LLC ("OA")
PJM South Transmission Owner Agreement ("PJM South TOA")
PJM South Reliability Assurance Agreement ("PJM South RAA")
PJM South NUG Agreement
PJM South Implementation Agreement
First Amendment to PJM South Implementation Agreement
Second Amendment to PJM South Implementation Agreement
PJM Manual Changes and Review Letter Agreement
Memorandum of Understanding to form PJM South
Nondisclosure Agreement
PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff ("OATT")
Additional discussion of these agreements is found in the testimony of Mr. Adams.
20 VAC 5-320-100 (2) A description of the proposed business structure of the RTE
(e.g., public service corporation, limited liability company). Copies of the RTE's
articles of incorporation, articles of incorporation, or similar documentation shall be
provided in conjunction with this description;
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ("PJM") is a limited liability company formed in the
state of Delaware on March 31, I997. It is a non-stock company and is governed by a
Board of Managers. The organization is responsible for the operation and control of the
bulk electric power system throughout major portions of five Mid-Atlantic states and the
District of Columbia. PJM is a successor organization to the PJM Interconnection
Association, which was established on July 1, 1993. A detailed, description of PJM's
business structure is contained in the OA. Additional discussion of PJM's structure,
management and operations is found in the testimony of Mr. Adams and Mr. Wodyka.
20 VAC 5-320-100 (3) A detailed description of the RTE's governance, including,
but not limited to, explanations of the selection process for the RTE's board of
directOrs and officers, codes of conduct, transmission owner rights, and voting
conditions;
PJM has a two-tier governance structure - an independent Board of Managers and
a Members Committee with sectoral voting. A detailed description of the RTE's
governance is outlined in OA Sections 7 through 12 including the selection of the board,
officer~} codes of conduct, transmission owner rights and voting conditions. Additional
discussion of PJM's structure, management and operations is found in the testimony of
Mr. Adams and Mr. Wodyka.
20 VAC 5-320-100 (4) A detailed description of the specific planning, operational,
maintenance, and other responsibilities that will be in the province of the RTE, and
those that will remain within the province of the transmission owners. Such
6
description should specify authorities and powers granted to the RTE. The list of
responsibilities shall include
(a) construction of facilities;
As set forth in PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Planning Protocol, OA
Schedule 6, construction of all facilities will remain the responsibility of the transmission
owner. However, outages of transmission facilities due to construction activities will be
coordinatedwith and the outage schedule approved by PJM. Additional discussion of
PJM's planning for additional facilities is found in the testimony of Mr. Bailey.
Co) Dispatch and redispatch of generation.
The PJM authority to require dispatch of generation is set forth in OA Schedule 1,
and in particular Section 1.11.1. PJM has the authority to adjust the output of pool-
scheduled generation resources as necessary to: (a) maintain reliability, and subject to
that constraint, to minimize the cost of supplying energy; (b) balance load and generation,
maintain scheduled tie flows, and provide frequency support; and (c) minimize
unscheduled interchange. Additional discussion of PJM's operations under Schedule 1 is
found in Section 1II of Mr. Morgan's testimony.
(c) maintenance of facilities;
Maintenance of all facilities will remain the responsibility of the transmission
owner. However, outages of transmission facilities due to maintenance activities will be
coordinated with, and outage schedules approved by, PJM as outlined in Section 4.5. I of
the PJM South TOA. For generation maintenance, PJM will coordinate pursuant to
Section 9.2 and Schedule 7 of the PJM South RAA.
(d) Decision to order line loading relief.
PJM has the authority to order line loading relief pursuant to Annex I to the
OATT.
(e) Filing of initial tariffs at FERC
Not applicable
(t) Filing of changes to tariffs at FERC
PJM files changes to the tariff after presenting to and seeking the endorsement of
its Members' Committee. The PJM Tariff Advisory Committee also reviews tariff
-changes before filing with FERC.
(g) Acquisition of ownership or control of transmission facilities from
transmission-owning members of the RTE;
The PJM South TOA and the OA are the vehicles by which the Company will
transfer operation of its transmission facilities to PJM.
PJM exercises functional control over all transmission facilities under its control,
functions as the security coordinator for its region, performs load flow stability studies to
anticipate, identify and address security problems, exchanges security information with
local and regional entities, monitors real-time operating characteristics such as the
availability of reserves, actual power flows, interchange schedules system fi'equency and
generation adequacy, and directs actions to maintain reliability including firm load
shedding. PJM's direction for load shedding is done pursuant to the identical criteria
used by the Company today, as discussed in Section II of Mr. Thompson's testimony.
PJM's scope of authority also includes, the directing of switching of transmission
elements into and out of operation in the transmission systems, monitoring and
controlling real and reactive power flows, monitoring and controlling voltage levels and
scheduling and operating reactive resources.
PJM has clear authority to direct ail actions that affect facilities under its control.
However, it does this through PJM's control center that provides explicit operating
instructions to control centers operated by PJM members and not through physical
control of the grid.
FERC has found that PJM satisfies FERC's requirements for operational authority
underOrder No. 2000.
h) Acquisition of ownership or control of transmission facilities from entities
who are prospective members of the RTE;
See (g) above.
(i) Admission of new members;
See (g) above for transmission owners. All other members join by signing the
OA pursuant to OA Section 11.6.
0) Establishment of budget;
The PJM Finance Committee develops the capital and operating budget for PJM
and PJM's Board acting on the advice of the Finance Committee approves it. See OA
Section 7.5.2.
(k) Hiring of staff leadership
The PJM Board chooses the President, who in turn hires all other employees. See
OA Section 10.
(1) Planning activities for interconnecting new generating facilities
PJM will manage the planning activities for interconnecting new generation
facilities. New generation requests are studied pursuant to PJM's Regional Transmission
Expansion Planning Process. PJM's planning group will perform studies to determine the
impact on the entire PJM region. The transmission owners will focus on the impact to
their local systems. Additional discussion of PJM's planning for additional generation
facilities is found in Section IV of the testimony of Mr. Bailey.
(m) Planning activities for transmission facilities controlled by the RTE;
PJM will manage all planning activities for transmission facilities turned over
from the transmission owners to operate. Planning is accomplished through the Regional
Transmission Expansion Planning Process outlined in OA Schedule 6. Dominion
Virginia Power as a transmission owner will be fully involved in the planning process.
I0
Additional discussion of PJM's planning for additional facilities is found in Sections II
and m of the testimony of Mr. Bailey.
(n) Planning activities for transmission facilities not controlled by the RTE or
distribution facilities to be interconnected with the RTE;
Dominion Virginia Power's local planning group will manage and continue
planning for all these facilities as done today. The only change will be to incorporate any
planning and reliability solutions into the PJM process. Additional discussion ofPJM's
planning for additional facilities is found Sections II and III of the testimony of Mr.
Bailey.
(o) Open Access Transmission Tariff administration
The PJM South Transmission Owner Agreement provides for the transfer to PJM,
in accordance with the OA, responsibility for providing transmission and ancillary
services related to Dominion Virginia,Power's transmission facilities under the PJM
OATT.
(p) Transmission transaction scheduling;
Pursuant to OA Section 1.1 of Schedule 1, PJM will schedule all transactions.
OATT.
(q) provision of energy imbalance services;
Energy imbalance service is provided under Schedule 4 of the PJM
However, PJM provides energy for load imbalances through a market-based
11
mechanism under LMP. Additional discussion of PJM's operations under Schedule 1 is
found in Section III of Mr. Morgan's testimony.
(r) Procurement and provision of ancillary services;
See Response to (o) above.
(s) Market monitoring activities;
A detailed description of PJM's Market Monitoring Plan is found in Attachment
M to the OATT. Additional discussion of PJM's Market Monitoring Plan is found in the
testimony of Mr. Bowring.
(t) Control over or security coordination responsibilities;
PJM will exercise security coordination for PJM South.
(u) Calculation and posting of available transmission capacity;
PJM will calculate and post available transmission capability pursuant to its
OATT.
(v) Dissemination of reliability-related information and co-ordination with
reliability councils or organizations;
PJM will comply with the reliability council standard pursuant to OA Section
10.4(iv). PJM members must maintain and share reliability data in inter-regional and
national reliability councils pursuant to OA Section 11.3.
12
(w) Coordination with generators and policies for interconnecting new
generators:
Section IV of the PJM OAT~ provides for the generation interconnection
procedures. PJM will set policy, assign study responsibilities, collect and distribute
interconnection charges, enforce time lines and administer contracts. Additional
discussion of PJM's planning for additional generation facilities is found in Section IV of
the testimony of Mr. Bailey.
20 VAC 5-320-100 (5) A detailed description of (i) each type of transmission-related
decision the transmission owner will continue to make after the transfer of the
management and control of its transmission assets, or the responsibility to operate
such assets, to an RTE, and (ii) the role, if any, that the RTE will play in the
decision-making process.
A transmission owner will continue to make decisions relating to the ownership of
its transmission assets. However, functional control of the transmission assets, and
decisions related to the offering of non-discriminatory open access to the transmission
system will be transferred to PJM pursuant to the PJM South TOA. PJM will become the
balancing authority, interchange authority, market monitor, and reliability coordinator for
the transmission owner and will take over the responsibility for tariff administration. The
transmission owner is required to maintain a local control center that meets the
requirements of PJM for the purpose of performing a core set of reliability functions. Mr.
Thompson provides additional testimony of the functions performed by PJM and the
Company.
13
20 VAC 5-320-100 (6) A detailed description of the plans for hiring and training the
employees of the RTE;
See Response to subsection 4(k).
20 VAC 5-320-100 (7) A description of the transmission rate that will be collected by
the RTE, including (a) the type of rate to be charges (e.g., zonal rates, grid-wide
rates); (b) Provisions for transitioning to a particular type of rate or for modifying
existing rates; and (c) A statement indicating whether there will be any rate
pancaking for transactions within the RTE and, if so, the following information
shall be furnished:
(a) The type of transmission rate to be charged is comprised of a combination
of"non-pancaked" zonal rates applicable to load within the PJM RTe, and a single grid-
wide (border) rate applicable to load outside the PJM RTe. The transmission rates are
"non-pancaked" since the PJM pricing structure does not require a transmission customer
to pay a separate access charge each time the contract path associated with the customer's
transaction crosses the boundary of another transmission owner. The zonal rates refer to
the license plate rates charged for transmission service used to serve load within a zone.
Zones correspond to the individual transmission systems of the PJM transmission owners.
Dominion Virginia Power will be a zone within the PJM RTe once it transfers
operational control of its facilities to PJM.
Unlike the zonal rate, the border rate is a uniform rate that applies to transactions
involving sources within the PJM RTe that are used to serve load outside the PJM RTe.
14
It is also applicable to transactions, involving sources outside the PJM RTO, that utilize
transmission service provided by the PJM RTO to serve load outside the PJM RTO.
(b) While not currently in the PJM tariff AEP, Commonwealth Edison
Company and Dayton Power and Light the New PJM Companies ("NPJMC") have
included a proposed new Schedule t lA Transitional Adjustment Charge that, if approved
by FERC, would be applicable until February 1, 2005. More discussion on this matter is
found in response to 100 (7) (d) below.
Appendix L of the NPJMC filing describes a process to discuss post transition
period pricing in PJM, and existing rates could be replaced by a new type of rate structure
or modified as a result of the outcome of this process.
(c) As an approved RTO, under FERC order 2000, PJM does not have any
rate pancaking.
Additional discussion of PJM's transmission rate design may be found, in Mr.
Koogler's testimony.
(1) A detailed description of how rate pancaking occurs, with realistic
hypothetical examples;
Not applicable, see response to 7(c) above~
(2) A detailed analysis of the economic effect of rate pancaking on
representative types of transactions affecting customers in Virginia;
Not applicable, see response to 7(c) above.
I5
(3) A statement of how long rate pancaking will last;
Not applicable, see response to 7(c) above.
(3) The rational for permitting rate pancaking, and
Not applicable, see response to 7(c) above.
(5) A discussion of any FERC precedent relevant to determining the
lawfulness or appropriateness of such rate pancaking, including a description of all
similarities and differences between the facts addresses in the FERC precedent and
the facts in the RTE agreement at issue;
Not applicable, see response to 7(c) above.
(d) A statement indicating whether there is any charge, other than rate
pancaking, that is intended to recover, or has the effect of recovering, from the
transmission customer, revenues that one or more transmission owners would no
longer receive as a result of the elimination of pancaked rates, and if so, the
following information shall be furnished
The Company will not propose a zonal transmission adjustment ("ZTA") to
recover revenues that one or more transmission owners would no longer receive as a
result of the elimination of pancaked rates fi.om transmission customers serving load in
its zone. In a July 31, 2002 Order, the FERC set the issue of the justness and
reasonableness of the MISO and PJM RTORs for section 206 investigation. A hearing
was held and in a March 31, 2003 Initial Decision, the administrative law judge found
16
that among other things, "the RTORs that would exist between the expanded PJM and
MISO are not unjust, or unreasonable and should not be eliminated." He also found that
ifFERC eliminates the RTORs, a Seams Elimination Charge/Cost Adjustment ("SECA")
should be adopted in its place to prevent the unjust cost shitting between native load
customers in one RTO and those in the other. The Initial Decision is pending before the
FERC and the parties to the pr°ceeding are in settlement discussions. The Company
cannot speculate on the ultimate outcome of the proceeding, but the SECA charge for the
PJM South zone is expected to be substantially lower than the ZTA, and it should not
have a significant impact on transmission service charges.
Additional discussion of PJM's transmission rate design may be found in Mr.
Koogler's testimony.
(1) A detailed description of how such charge operates, with realistic
hypothetical examples;
Not applicable; see response to 7(d) above.
(2) a detailed analysis of the economic effect of such charge on
representative types of transactions affecting customers in Virginia;
Not applicable, see response to 7(d) above.
(3) a statement of how long such charge will last; the rational for
permitting the charge
Not applicable, see Response to 7(d) above
17
(4) A discussion of any FERC precedent relevant to determining the
lawfulness or appropriateness of such charge, including a description of all
similarities and differences between the facts addresses in the FERC precedent and
the facts in the RTE agreement at issue;
Not applicable, see response to 7(d) above.
(e) A schedule comparing and contrasting the RTE's expected transmission
charges and resulting RTE revenues with embedded retail transmission charges for
each of the utility's Virginia jurisdictional rate classes;
See Attachment A.
(i) An explanation of any special or innovative transmission rates or
charges;
The Company does not plan to file any innovative transmission rates or charges
when it joins PJM.
(g) An explanation of the expected transmission pricing provisions applicable
to transmission transactions with other regional transmission organizations;
As explained in subsections ($) and (7) (a) above, a single PJM border rate is
expected to be applicable to transmission transactions with other regional transmission
organizations.
18
(h) An explanation of the transmission pricing applicable to wheel-in, wheel-
out, drive-through, and drive-within transactions.
As explained in subsection (7) (a) above, a single PJM zonal rate would be
applicable to wheel-in and drive-within transactions, and a single PJM border rate would
be applicable to wheel-out and drive through transactions.
20 VAC 5-320-100 (8) A detailed description of any complaint and dispute
resolution procedure;
PJM has many avenues for a member to voice a dispute or complaint. Members
can utilize the committee structure, communicate directly with PJM staff or the Board or
file directly with the FERC. The specific venue for resolution ora dispute depends upon
the nature of the concern. Detailed formal dispute resolution procedures are found in OA
Schedule 5 as well as Section 12 of the OATT.
20 VAC 5-320-100 (9) A detailed description of the facilities that will be subject to the
RTE's control and/or that will be transferred to the RTE. Such description shall
specify
(i) whether the basis for determining the facilities to be transferred is
FERC's seven factor test set forth in FERC Order 888 or some other
method
All transmission facilities operating at 69 kV or greater will be turned over to
PJM operational control under the PJM OATT for the purpose of providing transmission
service. A detailed list of the facilities is attached as Attachment B.
19
The same facilities turned over to PJM for operational control under the PJM
OATT will be nominated as monitored facilities for the purpose of identifying potential
transmission constraints to be operated by PJM. PJM will study the nominated facilities
based upon the test criteria identified in the Transmission Monitoring Criteria Working
Group ("TMCWG") report and will identify any nominated facilities that fail to meet
their criteria for monitored facilities. Our preliminary studies indicate that all facilities
will either meet PJM's criteria or will meet the criteria after currently planned upgrades
are made. After performing their studies, PJM will identify all.facilities that do not meet
their criteria for eligibility as-a monitored facility. Facilities that do not meet the criteria
will still be monitored by PJM if Dominion Virginia Power agrees to upgrade the
facilities so that they will meet the criteria. Of the facilities identified by PJM as not
meeting the criteria for monitored facilities, the Company will identify which of those we
akeady intend to upgrade. If there are any remaining facilities, we will identify which of
those we will authorize new upgrade projects for so that they can qualify as monitored
facilities and which of those we want to retain responsibility for congestion management
through re-dispatch of generation.
(ii) how such test or method was applied,
The facilities to be mined over to PJM for operational control for the purpose of
providing transmission service under the PJM OATT are the very same facilities that are
currently under the Dominion Virginia Power OATT.
The test criteria for monitored facilities identified in the report issued by
TMCWG are from the MAAC planning standards. The key criteria are as follows:
2O
· A single contingency loss (N- 1) at peak load may not result in any facility violation.
· A single contingency loss during maintenance (N-2) at 70% of the peak load may not
result in any facility violation.
· Pre-contingency generation dispatch under N-2 analysis will be considered acceptable
for mitigation of a potential post-contingency transmission problem.
(iii) whether and how frequently such test will be reviewed and revisited,
For the first year following expansion of PJM to include Dominion Virginia
Power, Dominion Virginia Power will have the opportunity to nominate additional
facilities, with 60 days notice to PJM, for turnover to PIM for operational control under
the'PJM OATT and to be monitored for the purpose of providing LMP-based re-dispatch
to manage cOngestion. The same tests applied to the original set of facilities turned over
to PJM will be applied on a case-by-case basis to the hdditional nominated facilities.
Acceptance of any additional facility by PJM will be coordinated with PJM's periodic
allocation of FTRs so that all entities potentially impacted by congestion costs related to
the additional facility will have an opportunity to hedge these costs before they are
incurred.
After the first year of market operation with Dominion Virginia Power included in
the market, additional facilities can be nominated on an annual basis. Again, acceptance
of any such facility by PJM will be' coordinated with the FTR allocation process.
(iv) who, as between the RTE and the owners, will require such review and
any subsequent transfer made necessary by such review.
21
It is up to the transmission owner to request that PJM assume operational control
and monitoring of transmission facilities. Additional discussion concerning the mover
of the Company's transmission facilities is found in Section V of Mr. Thompson's
testimony.
20 VAC 5-320-100 (10) A detailed description of generation markets or hubs within
the RTE and one wheel of the RTE. Such discussion shall
(a) compare and contrast historical and expected average prices for these
markets with embedded generation charges for each of the utility's Virginia
jurisdictional rate classes.
During the capped rate period and on July 1 of each year, the Company is
required to file an application to revise market prices for generation and establish wires
charges for the following calendar year. Docket No. PUE-2001-00306 was established in
2001 for this purpose and remains the proceeding in which projected or expected prices
for generation are compared to the Company's unbundled generation rate for each rate
class.
The methodology for developing the market prices uses forward market
information for the next calendar year for the PJM West and Into Cinergy trading hubs to
develop market prices for each rate class. The forward market information is obtained
from recognized sources that have been approved for use by the Commission in earlier
orders in Docket No. PUE-2001-00306.
Each year, following the proceeding and Order by the Commission, the Company
makes a compliance filing. The compliance filing provides a comparison of expected
prices for generation and capped embedded rates for generation (including the
Commission-approved fuel adjustment factor) for each of the Company's Virginia
jurisdictional rate schedules that have been unbundled for the next calendar year. To the
extent that the embedded generation rote for a class exceeds the projected market price
for generation, the difference 'is the wires charge that is set by the Commission for the
recovery of stranded costs, as provided by Virginia Code § 56-583 A.
The Company does not at this time prepare a comparison of historical market
prices relative to market prices of generation, but has proposed that just such a
calculation be used to determine the mount by which the Company has over or under-
recovered stranded costs. The Company's proposed methodology that incorporated this
calculation was presented in a response filed with the Commission on March 21, 2003, in
case.No. PUE-2003-00062.
When expected and historical market prices are compared to unbundled
generation rates by class for purposes of setting wires charges - or potentially to measure
the over or under-recovery of stranded costs - this analysis is only done for one year at a
time. It should also be noted that this analysis is only necessary until the end of the
capped rate period, currently'scheduled for July 1, 2007. At this time, there is no
meaningful way to compare.expected prices for generation to the unbundled embedded
cost-based generation rate for each Virginia jurisdictional rate schedule. A proceeding
has been established by the Commission, Docket No. PUE-2002-00645, that is
addressing the provision of default service, both during the capped rate period and
thereafter. As part of the proceeding, a workgroup has been formed by the Commission
Staff at the direction of the Commission to address the multitude of issues surrounding
the provision of default service. The Staffhas recently recommended in a report to the
23
Commission how default service should be defined and what entity should provide
default service beginning January 1, 2004, as required by Virginia Code § 56-585. A. and
B. However, the manner in which default service to the Company's customers will be
provided -- and how such service will be priced based on the market -- is a future issue
to be addressed by the workgroup and the Commission. Therefore, without a
methodology in-place, a comparison of post-rate cap market prices for generation and
current embedded cost-based rates for each rate class cannot be prepared.
Co) how the proposed RTO will promote improved access to these
markets.
When Dominion Virginia Power joins PJM, terms and transmission scheduling
procedures for hub transactions will change and customers will have greater access to the
hubs, creating a greater opportunity to import supplies into Virginia. The following table
.provides a comparison of hub relationships that would exist under PJM to what exists
today.
BUYING FOR VIRGINIA
BUY FROM L TODAY
WHEEL 1 WHEEL2. WHEEL3
PJM PJM
NY NY PJM
Cinergy MISO AEP
TVA TVA AEP
SOCO SOCO DUK
SOCO SOCO TVA
Entergy ENT TVA
CPL
AEP
AEP
iliA/HEN WE JOIN PJM
WHEEL 1 WHEEL 2 WHEEL 3
NONE
NY
MISO
TVA
SOCO
SOCO
ENT
DUK
TVA
TVA
CPL
24
SELLING FROM VIRGINIA
SELL TO L TODAY .
i~¥HEN WE JOIN PJM
WHEEL 1 WHEEL 2 WHEEL 3
PJM VAP NONE
NY VAP PJM PJM
Cinergy VAP AEP PJM
TVA VAP AEP PJM
SOCO VAP CPL DUK PJM
SOCO VAP AEP TVA PJM
Entergy VAP AEP TVA PJM
WHEEL 1 WHEEL 2 WHEEL 3
CPL
TVA
TVA
DUK
In general, formation of PJM South'will improve access to the liquid trading hubs
to the west and north, but will have less effect in improving access to hubs in the
Southeast since RTOs have not yet formed in that region. Increased access to the
Southern and Entergy hubs is dependent primarily on membership of CP&L and Duke in
an RTO, and elimination of rate "pancaking" in that region.
Joining PJM will improve access to the hubs in the following ways:
I. Customers in Virginia will have direct access to the trading hubs in PJM with no
incremental transmission wheeling or charges for losses, since both are provided
for under the PJM OATT.
2. Wheeling charges between Virginia and other hubs within PJM will be reduced
by the elimination or reduction of '.'pancaked" wheeling charges between systems,
thereby improving efficiency of the markets. Other transmission provider charges
for transmission and ancillary services, as well as losses, will apply to transactions
wheeled into PJM.
25
Improved LMP based congestion management will reduce the use of TLRs that
disrupt transactions to and fi:om the hubs.
Additional discussion concerning improved access to competitive wholesale
markets is contained in Section m of~. Morgan's testimony.
(c) current and projected transmission capability between these markets and the
utility.
The following charts show the current and projected transmission capability
between thc markets identified in response to question 10(a) and Dominion
Virginia Power. The capabilities are shown for the 2003 summer and 2007
-summer periods. The PJM, PJM West, and Cinergy capabilities were calculated
fi:om a linear analysis using Power Technology Inc.'s MUST (Maximizing and
Utilizing System Transmission) software on the VEM/MEN 2003 Summer base
case and the 2007 Summer base case from the VST 2002 series of base cases. The
TVA, Southern, and Entergy capabilities are reported from the VAST 2003
Summer Operating Study and the VST 2007 Phase II Reliability Study reports,
and were also calculated using the MUST software.
Dominion Export and Import Capability
2003 Summer Peak Load
From To Net Base FCITC FCTTC
Transfers
VP PJM 0 >4000 >4000
VP PJM-W 640 >4000 >4000
VP NYISO * 0 >4000 >4000
26
VP CIN RGY 0 >4000 >4000
VP TVA 0 >2000 >2000
VP SOUTHERN 0 1100 1100
VP ENTERGY 0 >2006 >2000
Dominion Export and Import Capability ~
2003 Summer Peak Load
From To Net Base FCITC FCTTC
Transfers
PJM VP 0 3150 3150
PJM-W VP -640 2950 2310
NYISO * VP 0 >3150 >3150
CINERGY VP 0 2900 2900
TVA VP 0 1900 1900
SOUTHERN VP 0 1800 1800
ENTERGY VI) 0 1800 1800
Dominion Export and Import Capability
2007 Summer Peak Load
I
From To Net Base FCITC FCTTC
Transfers
VP PJM 0 >4000 >4000
VP PJM-W '640 >4000 >4000
VP NYISO * 0 >4000 >4000
VP CINERGY ~ 0 >4000 >4000
27
VP ' TVA 0 1900 1900
VP SOUTHERN 0 1700 1700
VP ENTERGY 0 950 950
Dominion Export and Import Capability
2007 Summer Peak Load
From To Net Base FCITC FCTTC
Transfers
PJM VP 0 2150 2150
PJM-W VP -640 2100 1460
NYISO * VP 0 >2150 >2150
CINERGY VP 0 2100 2100
TVA VP 0 1700] 1700
SOUTHERN VP' 0 750** 750**
ENTERGY VP 0 0'* 0'*
* Since the generation in NYISO is located geographically beyond PJM, and the
NYISO-PJM interface is controlled by phase angle regulating transformers, it was
assumed that the transfer capabilities between NYISO and VP would be at least as
great as those between PJM ~and VP.
** Since the VST 2007 Phase II Study was completed, projects have been planned by
Southern and Entergy to improve these transfer capabilities.
Substantial transmission capability exists between Virginia and the ECAR and
MAAC regions that include the PJM and Cinergy trading hubs. Transfer capabilities
between VACAR and MAAC, and VACAR and PJM are as high or higher than any
comparable interface in the United States based on the NERC 2003 Summer Assessment;
28
Comparably less transmission capability exists between VACAR and the trading hubs in
TVA, Southern and Entergy.
It is important to note that the transmission transfer capabilities between ECAR
and MAAC, ECAR and VACAR, and TVA and VACAR are not independent of each
other, but must be operated in close coordination with each other. Formation of PJM
South combined with AEP's membership will internalize the ECAR-MAAC and ECAR-
VACAR seams within PJM, greatly enhancing Virginia access to the trading hubs within
PJM and to the west.
20 VAC 20-320-100 (11) If an application to form an RTE already has been
-submitted to FERC, the filing shall include: (a) A copy of the application to the
FERC (including applications made under sections 203, 205 or 206 of the Federal
Power Act, and aH amendments thereto); and (b) Any pleadings and orders issued
insuch FERC case.
At this time, Dominion Virginia Power has not filed an application with FERC to
join PJM but intends to do so and will provide the Commission with the application.
20 VAC 20-320-100 (12) If the FERC has approved or conditionally approved the
RTE, (i) provide a copy of the FERC order, and (ii) describe any conditions or
requirements imposed on the RTE and the RTE's plans for satisfying such
conditions.
On December 20, 2002 FERC approved PJM to operate as an RTO.
29
20 VAC 20-320-100 (13) A detailed description of the RTE's experience in grid
management. If the RTE is a new entity, describe the qualifications and/or
personnel requirements for the principal RTE employees who will be engaged in the
management and operation of transmission facilities controlled by the RTE.
PJM Interconnection was originally established at the request of several large
utilities in the Pennsylvania-Maryland-New Jersey region in 1956. In 1997, PJM was
converted to an independent provider of transmission service and operator of regional
energy and ancillary markets. PJM currently serves 11 million customers in its territory
with 13,000 miles of transmission facilities under its control. PJM coordinates the
movement of electricity and ensures reliability utilizing 66,000 of generation capacity.
Additional discussion of PJM's experience in grid management is contained in Mr.
Wodyka's testimony.
20 VAC 320-100 (14) A detailed description of why the particular RTE was selected
from among the alternatives reasonably available to the applicant. Such statements
should include assessments of the financial and technical abilities of the proposed
RTE as contrasted with such alternative RTEs. Such technical assessment shall
identify the current and projected transmission capability between the RTE and the
utility for each RTE alternative.
Dominion initially proposed and worked diligently to form the Alliance RTO with
several other companies to the west, but this application was rejected by FERC in
December 2001. Dominion is currently precluded from considering an RTO to the South,
since the propOsed GridSouth has ceased to exist and CP&L has not made a commitment
30
to join an RTO. The SE-Trans RTO is not a viable option, since Dominion's transmission
system is not contiguous with any SE-Trans member at this time. Similarly, membership
in MISO to the west is not a viable option, since AEP also proposes to join PJM.
Currently PJM is the only RTE available to Dominion that meets both FERC
requirements for an RTO and the functional and timing requirements of state law. A
meaningful comparison of alternative RTEs is therefore not possible.
20 VAC 320-100 (15) A detailed description of the role and composition of the
RTE's stakeholder advisory board or boards.
OA Sections 7 through 12 contains a detailed description of the RTE's
governance, including the selection of the board of managers an officers, codes of
conduct, transmission owner rights, and voting conditions.
31
WHEREFORE, Dominion Virginia Power requests the Commission to issue an order
granting all applicable authorization from this Commission for Dominion Virginia Power
to transfer operational control of its transmission facilities in Virginia to PJM.
Respectfully submitted,
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
Pamela Johnson Walker
Michael C. Regulinski
Virginia Electric and Power Company
120 Tredegar Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Edward L. Flippen
James C. Dimitri
Stephen H. Watts, II
McGuireWoods LLP
901 E. Cary Street
One James Center
Richmond, VA 23219
Counsel for Virginia Electric and Power Company
June 27, 2003
32
0
0
EEE~
000~
000o
EEE~
EEEm
Attachment B
DVP TRANSMi'SS];ON L:[NES
LJii-e N0~' v-0l~g-~ .............. .From. .TO
531 500 kV Surry Yadkin
547 500 kV Bath County Lexington
548 500 kV Bath County Valley
549 500 kV Valley Dooms
550 500 kV Valley Mt Storm
55! 500 kV Mt Storm Doubs
552 500 kV Ox Ladysmith
553 500 kV Elmont Dooms
554 500 kV Mt Storm Pruntytown
555 500 kV Lexington Dooms
556 500 kV Clover Carson
557 500 kV Elmont Chickahominy
558 500 kV Doubs ' Loudoun
559 500 kV Loudoun Clifton
"560 500 kV Possum Point Burches
561 - 500 kV Ox Clifton
562 , 500 kV Septa Carson
563 500 kV Carson Midlothian
566 ! 500 kV Lexington Cloverdale
567 500 kV Chickahominy Surry
568 500 kV Possum Point Ladysmith
569 500 kV Loudoun Morrisville
570 500 kV Carson Wake
571 500 kV Possum Point Ox
572 500 kV Mt Storm Meadowbrook
573 500 kV N Anna Morrisville
574 500 kV Elmont Ladysmith
575 500 kV N Anna Ladysmith
576 500 kV N Anna Midlothian
578 500 kV Surr~ Septa
579 500 kV l Septa Fentress
580 500 kV Morrisville Meadowbrook
200 230 kV I Bull Run Pender
201 ~ 230 kV ~ Loudoun Pleasant View
202 230 kV Idylwood Clark
203 ~ 230 kV Pleasant View Dickerson
204 230 kV Gum Springs Jefferson St
205 230 kV Chesterfield Locks."
207 i 230 kV Braddock Idylwood
DVP TRANSf4~SS~ON L~NES
Line,No Voltage From. To
208 230 kV Southwest Chesterfield
209 i 230 kV Lanexa 'Yorktown
210 230 kV Hayfield Van Dorn
211 230 kV Hopewell Chesterfield
212 230 kV Hopewell Surry
213 230 kV Carolina Thelrna
214 230 kV Winchester Surry
215 23'0 kV Possum Point Hayfield
216 230 kV Elrnont Lakeside
217 230 kV Chesterfield Lakeside
218 230 kV Everetts Greenville
2:L9 230 kV Midlothian Southwest
220 230 kV Ox Gurn Springs
221 230 kV Elrnont Northwest
222 230 kV Northwest Southwest
223- 230 kV Surry Yadkin
224 230 kV Lanexa Northern Neck
225 230 kV Thelma Lakeview
226 230 kV Surry Churchland
227 230 kV Sterling Park Pleasant View
228 230 kV Chesterfield Hopewell
229 , 230 kV Everetts Edgecornb
231 230 kV Yadkin Landstown
232 230 kV Gaston Thelma
233 230 kV Charlottesville Dooms
234 230 kV Whealton Winchester
235 230 kV Farmville Clover
236 230 kV Plaza Southwest
, 237 230 kV POssum Point Braddock
238 230kV Clubhouse Carson
239 230 kV Lakeview Hornertown
240 230 kV Surry Hopewell
241 230 kV Hayfield .lefferson St
242 230 kV , Loudoun Pleasant View
243 230 kV Ox Van Dom
244 230 kV Bull Run' Burke
245 230 kV Greenwich Green Run
246 :230 kV Earleys Suffolk
247 230 kV Suffolk Winfall
248 ;230 kV Ox Glebe
249 230 kV Carson Locks
DVP TRAN Sf41~SS~ON L~NES
Line No Voltage ' From .To.
250 230 kV Arlington Glebe
251 230kV Arlington ]~dylwood
252 230 kV Fredericksburg Possum Point
253 230 kV Harrisonburg Valley
254 230 kV Clubhouse Lakeview
255 230 kV S Anna N Anna
256 230 kV Fredericksburg Four Rivers
257 230 kV Seweils Point Churchland
258 230 kV Arlington Glebe
259 230 kV Basin Chesterfield
260 230 kV ' Grottoes Harrisonburcj
261 230 kV Newport News Shellbank
262 230 kV Greenwich Yadkin
.. 263 230 kV Newport News Chuckatuck
264 230 kV Hunter Reston
265,'. 230 kV Sully Clifton
266 230 kV Glen Carlyn Clifton
267 230 kV Yadkin Churchland
268 230 kV Hopewell ' Cocjentrix
269 230 kV Fentress Shawboro
270 230 kV Burke Ravensworth
271 230 kV Fentress Landstown
272 230 kV Dooms Grottoes
273 230 kV Arlington Glen Carlyn
274 ~ 230 kV Dranesville Pleasan[ View
275 230 kV Glebe Crystal'
276 230 kV Glebe Crystal
277 230 kV Glen Carlyn Clarendon
278 230 kV Glen Cadyn Clarendon
279 230 kV Fentress Reeves Ave
281 230 kV Ravensworth Braddock
282 230 kV Midlothian Spruance
283 230 kV Elmont Northeast
284 230 kV Basin Northeast
285 230 kV Chickahominy Yorktown
286 230 kV Darbytown White Oak
287 230 kV Chickahominy Chesterfield
288 230 kV Yorktown Peninsula
289 230 kV' Suffolk Chuckatuck
290 230 kV Surry Chuckatuck
29:L 230 kV Charlottesville Dooms
DVP TRANSI~I~SS~'ON I. ZNES
Line NO' Voltage F~om ' ' To .
292 230 kV Yorktown Whealton
293 230 kV Valley DOoms
294 230 kV Braddock Annandale
295 * 230 kV Loudoun Bull Run
296 230 kV Halifax Person
297 230 kV Braddock Annandale
298 230 kV i Bremo Farmville
2001 230 kV Possum Point Occoquan
2002 230 kV ' Carson Poe
.2003 230 kV Chesterfield Poe
2004 230 kV Peninsula Shellbank
2005 i 230 kV Clark Hunter
2006 ! 230 kV Churchland Lake Kingman
2007 230 kV Thalia Lynnhaven
2008 230 kV Loudoun Dulles
2009 230 kV Midlothian Elmont
2010 230 kV Tysons Reston
2011 230 kV Clilton Cannon Branch
20:L2 230 kV Earleys Roanoke Valley
2013 230 kV Ox Occoquan
2014 230 kV Earleys Everetts
2015 -' 230 kV Reston Dulles
20:L6 230 kV Lanexa Harmony Village
2017 230 kV Harrisonburg Endless Caverns
20:L8 230 kV Greenwich Elizabeth River
20:L9 230 kV Greenwich Thalia
2020 230 kV Winfall Elizabeth City
2021 230 kV Shawboro Elizabeth City
2022 230 kV Possum Point Ravensworth
2023 230 kV Jefferson St Glebe
2024 230 kV Chickahominy Lanexa
2025 230 kV Green Run Lynnhaven
2026 230 kV - Landstown Lynnhaven
2027 230 kV Midlothian Bremo
2028 230 kV Bremo Charlottesville
2029 230 kV CIA Tysons
2030 230 kV Loudoun Gainesville
2032 230 kV Elmont Four Rivers
2033 230 kV Clark Sterling Park
2034 230 kV Earleys Trowbridge
2035 230 kV CIA :[dylwood
DVP TRANSMISSION L1'NES
Line No 'Voltage From To
2036 230 kV Glebe Pentagon
2037 230 kV Glebe Pentagon
2038 230 kV Greenwich Reeves Ave
2039 230 kV Remington CT Morrisville
2040 230 kV Morrisville Remington
2041 230 kV Hopewell HCF
2042 230 kV Occoquan Ogden Martin ·
2043 230 kV Reston Sully
2044 230 kV Four Rivers Bear Island
2046 230 kV Hopewell · Polyester
2047 230 kV Surry, Gravel Neck
2048 230 kV Surry Gravel Neck
2049 230 kV Chesterfield Allied
2050 230 kV Allied Chickahominy
2051 230 kV Pender Clifton
2052 230 kV Lexington Ciitton Forge
2053 230 kV Northeast Darbytown
2054 230 kV Charlottesville Gordonsville
2055' 230 kV Basin Bellmeade
2056 230 kV Hornertown Rocky Mount
2057 230 kV Hornertown Rosemary
2058 230 kV Edgecomb Rocky Mount
2060 230 kV Carolina Roanoke Valley
2061 230 kV Four Rivers i Four Rivers Gert
2062 i 230 kV Reston I Dranesville
2063 230 kV Clifton Ox
2064 230 kV Shawboro Kitty Hawk
2065 230 kV Basin Spruance
2066 230 kV Midlothian Trabue
2067 230 kV !' Four Rivers Four Rivers Gen
2068 230 kV ~ Clover Halifax
2069 230 kV Loudoun Loudoun
2070 230 kV Elizabeth River Yadkin
2071 230 kV Elizabeth River Elizabeth River Gen
2073 230 kV Shawboro Kitty Hawk
2074 230 kV Louisa.CT South Anna
2075 230 kV Elmont Old Church
2076 230 kV Birchwood Northern Neck
2077 230 kV Remington CT Remington
2078 230 kV Possum Pt. 500 kV Possum Pt.230 kV
2083 230 kV Fredericksburg Birchwood
DVP TRANSMiSSiON L~NES
Line No Voltage From To
2084 230 kV Lexington Lowmoor
2086 230 kV Remington CT Warrenton
2088 230 kV Gordonsviile Louisa CT
2089 230 kV Ladysmith Ladysmith CT
2091 230 kV White Oak Chickahominy
2097 230 kV ~ Tdylwood Ox
8 138 kV ~ -Bremo Scottsville
13 138 kV Altavista New London
14 138 kV ! Fudge Hollow Hinton
104 138 kV ! Altavista Leesville
109 138 kV ! East Mill Westvaco
112 138 kV ~ LowmoOr Fudge Hollow
133 ' 138 kV Clifton Forge Lowmoor
152 138 kV ~ Edinburg Strasburg
155 138 kV WestvaCo Fudge Hollow
161 138 kV Lowmoor East Mill
2 115 kV Remington Locust Grove
3 ': 1:L5 kV Northeast Carver
4 :L:L5 kV Cartersville Bremo
5 1:L5 kV Cunningham DP Bremo
6 115 kV Remington Remington CT
9 115 kV Lexington Balcony Falls
10 115 kV Lexington Craigsville
1I' 115 kV Gordonsville Locust Grove Tap
15 115 kV Poe Suffolk
17 115 kV Chesterfield Shockoe
18 115 kV Possum Point Smoketown DP
19 115 kV Lynnhaven Va Beach
21 115 kV Basin Dupont
22 115 kV Carolina Kerr Dam
24 115 kV Basin Manchester
25 115 kV Everetts Trowbridge
26 115 kV Lexington Balcony Falls
27 115 kV Greenwich Va Beach
28 115 kV Balcony Falls Cushaw
29 115 kV Fredericksburg Possum,, Point
30 115 kV Aitavista Skimmer
DVP TRANSMTSS~ON L~NES
Line No Voltage. From To
31 115 kV Altavista Halifax
32 115 kV Halifax South Boston
33 115 kV Halifax Chase City
34 115 kV Lanexa Yorktown
38 115 kV Chase City Kerr Dam
~0 115 kV Chase City South Hill
42 115 kV Sheilbank Peninsula
43 115 kV Staunton Harrisonburg
45 115 kV Kerr Dam Henderson
46 115 kV Yadin Portsmouth (C.E.C.)
47 115 kV Four Rivers Fredericksburg
48 I 115 kV Sewells Point Thole St
49 ! 115 kV Loudoun Middleburg
51 115 kV Reeves Ave Gosport
52 ]:'15 kV Kitty Hawk Nags Head
53 :~ 115kV Chesterfield Kevlar
54 115 kV Earleys Carolina
55 115 kV Anaconda Tarboro
56 115 kV Carolina Boykins
58 115 kV Yorktown Lanexa
59 115 kV Elmont Greenwood DP
60 .... .115 kV Northwest Acca
61 115 kV Yorktown Whealton
62 115 kV Portsmouth (C.E.C.) Gosport
63 115 kV Basin 12th Street
64 115 kV Winfall Trowbddge
65 115 kV Northem Neck Harmony Village
66 115 kV Portsmouth (C.E.C.) Cradock
67 115 kV Greenwich Amphibious Base
68 115 kV Suffolk Union Camp
69 115 kV Locks Purdy
71 115 kV Clubhouse South Hill
72 115 kV Chesterfield Plaza
73 115 kV Elmont Four Rivers
74 115 kV Portsmouth (C.E.C.) Landstown
75 115 kV Whealton Newport News
76 115 kV Yorktown Peninsula
77 115 kV Carolina Roanoke Rapids
78 115 kV . Pendleton Va Beach
79 115 kV Yorktown Peninsula
80 115 kV Battleboro Anaconda
DVP TRANSMZSS~ON L~NES
Line No Voltage ' From . To
81 115 kV Battleboro Carolina
82 115 kV Everetts Voice of America
83 , 115 kV Craigsville Staunton
84 ~ 115 kV Pamplin Farmville
85 115 kV Lanexa Harmony Village
86 115 kV Chesterfield Northwest
87 i 115 kV Portsmouth (C.E.C.) Churchland
88 ! 15 kV Acca Carver
89 115 kV ~ Harmony Village Hayes
90 115 kV Carolina Kerr Dam
91 115kV , Bremo Dooms
92 115 kV Chesterfield Lanexa
93 115 kV ' Union Camp Southhampton
94 115kV Reeves Ave Industrial Park
95 115 kV Acca Lakeside
96., 115 kV Parmele Everetts
97 115 kV Harvell Poe
98 · 115 kV Chase City Crewe
99 115 kV Whealton Peninsula
100" 115 kV Chesterfield Locks '
101 115 kV Mackeys Riders Creek
102 ~' 115 kV Dooms Staunton
103 115 kV Shellbank Mercury
105 115 kV Tarboro Parmele
106 115 kV Poe Suffolk
107 115 kV Oakwood Sewells Point
108 I 115 kV Tunis Boykins
110 115 kV Cradocl<", Shea
111 ' 115 kV Acca Lakeside
116 ! 115 kV Dupont Kevlar
117 115 kV ~ Dooms Dupont-Waynesboro
118 115 kV Endless Caverns Merck 5
119 ! 115 kV Merck 5 ' Grottoes
120 115 kV Portsmouth (C.E.C.) Greenwich
123 115 kV Battleboro Rocky Mount
124 115 kV Loudoun Gainesville
125 115 kV Reeves Ave McLaughlin
126 115 kV Earleys Scotland Neck
127 115 kV I Buggs Island ' Halifax
128 115 kV Endless Caverns Edinburg
129 115 kV Reeves Ave Cradock
DVP TRANSH~SS~ON L~NES
Line No Voltage From . To'
130 115 kV Clubhouse Carolina
134 115 kV Bull Run Harrison DP
135 115 kV Greenwich Thole St
136 115 kV Tunis Earleys
137 115 kV Chase City Kerr Dam
139 115 kV Everetts Albemarle
140 115 kV Southhampton Boykins
141 j 115 kV Balcony Falls Skimmer
142 i 115 kV Elmont Northwest
I44 115 kV Bowers Hill Alexanders Corner
145 115 kV Possum Point Independent Hill
147 115 kV Landstown Pendleton
148 115 kV 'Clubhouse Purdy
149 115 kV Willis Mt Willis Mt DP
150 115 kV Basin 12th Street
154 · .'.; 115 kV Pamplin Chase City
156 115 kV Loudoun Bull Run
157 1i5 kV Plaza Manchester
158 115 kV Crewe Farmville
159 115 kV Acca Shockoe
160 115 kV Dooms Dupont-Waynesboro
162 '::~ 115 kV Locks Harvell
163 I15 kV Bull Run Cannon Branch
164 115 kV Portsmouth (C.E.C.)! Reeves Ave'
165 115 kV Whealton Shellbank
167 115 kV Trowbridge ' Weyerhaeuser
168 i 115 kV Trowbridge Weyerhaeuser
170 115 kV Harrisonburg Dayton '
172 115 kV Gainesville Lomar DP
175 115 kV Four Rivers Doswell CT
176 115 kV Harmony Village Wan
182 115 kV Industrial Park Thole St
183 115 kV Remington CT Independent Hill
189 115 kV Wharton Pantego DP
190 115 kV Nags Head Oregon Inlet
191 115 kV Altavista Hurt
192 115 kV Mercury Bloxoms Corner
193 115 kV Kerr Dam Buggs Island
194 115 kV Lexington Fairfield
195 115 kV Cox HEMCO
196 115 kV Oakvvood Thole St
DVP TRANSMiSSiON L~NES
~Line No 'Voltage · FrOm To
197 115 kV Cannon Branch Lomar DP
198 115 kV Locust Grove Chancellor
199 115 kV Mt Storm N Branch
T1 115 kV Peninsula NASA
T2 115 kV Peninsula NASA
35 69 kV Altavista Mt Airy
36 69 kV Chase Cib/ Clarksville
57 69 kV Gretna Mt Airy
132 69 kV BrunswiCk Danieltown/Gasburg
173 69 kV ~ Gretna Bearskin
174 69 kV Pentagon RosSlyn
178 ' 69 kV Pentagon Rosslyn
179 ~ 69 kY Pentagon Rosslyn
180 -~ 69 kV Pentagon Rosslyn
184 69 kV Pentagon Pepco
185 69 kV Pentagon Pepco
186 69 kV Pentagon War
187 69 kV Pentagon War
188 69 kV Pentagon War
06/11/2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGIN'IA 0309.2 0593
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSI~;c:--~?'~[~'i [ uu;~, ~ ~ ~!' ~_
AT RICHMOND, SEPTEMBER 26, 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel.
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
CASE NO. PUE-2000-00551
Ex...Parte: In the matter concerning the
application of Virginia Electric and Power
Company dPo/a Dominion Virginia Power
for approval of a plan to transfer functional and
operatiOnal control of certain transmission
facilities to a regional transmission entity
ORDER FOR NOTICE
On.June 27, 2003, Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power
("DVP", "Virginia Power" or "Company") filed with the State Corporation Commission
("Commission") an Application ("Application") in this proceeding requesting approval to
transfer functional and operational control of its transmission facilities to a regional transmission
entity ("RTE").
Sections 56-577 and 56-579 of the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act (the
::,~::.~." .'-/::'. -"R~S~bmfing .A6tD; C.-hapter 23:'(§ 5:'&.576 .et. seq;)bfTitle.56' of the'Code of Virginia (;"Code"),
~... '~'% 2- ':,".? L' :.'~' - -' .%:~ "~ --'.~:'.'.~ :*~': :?.-. ,~..:.i. '.' -".~ '., ;..... 7 ~ ." -. .... ~-. -: '"-.'-. ~-~ '. ~' ,- '."' ---':
?:: .... ~:¢'"xeqn~re :Vi~gima's'ifieumben~' eledtrie:utilifies to file apphcat~ons.voth;' and'to seek atithofi~ati0h
from, the Commission to transfer' the management and control of their transmission assets to
RTEs, ., Specifically, § 56-577 A I of the Restructuring Act states in pertinent part that:
Each incumbent electri~(.~ltility oWning~..0perating,, or controlling,
or having an entitlement'~:o transmission capacity shall join or -
establish a regional transmission entity, which, entity may be an
independent system operator, to which such utility shall transfer
the management, and control of its transmission system, subject to
the provisions of § ~56-579.
Section 56-579 A 1 of the Restructuring Act was amended bythe 2003 General
AsseniblY to, among other things, delay transfers to RTEs until July I, 2004~ Section
56-579 A 1, as amended, provides in pertinent part:
No such incumbent electric utility shall transfer to any person any
ownership or control of, or any responsibility to operate, any
portion of any transmission system located in the Commonwealth
prior to July 1, 2004, and without obtaining, following notice and
hearing, the prior approval of the Commission, as hereinafter'
provided. However, each incumbent: electric utility shall file an
application for approval pursuant to this section by July 1, 2003,
and shall transfer management and control of its transmission
assets to a regional transmission entity by january 1, 2005, subject
to Commission approval as provided in this section.
. Virginia Code § 56-579 F was also amended in the 2003 General Assembly sessibn by
the addition of the following:
Any request to the Commission for approval of such transfer.of
ownership or control of or responsibility for transmissiOn facilities
shall include a study of the comparative costs and benefits thereof,
which study shall analyze the economic effects of the transfer on
consumers, including the effects of transmission congestion costs.
The Commission may apProve such a transfer if it finds, after
notice and hearing, that the transfer satisfies the conditions
contained in this section.
Pursuant to the Restructuring Act, the Commission developed and established rules and
regulations under which incumbent electric utilities owning, operating, controlling, or having an
entitlement to transmission capacity within the Commonwealth may transfer all or part of such
control, ownership, or responsibility to an RTE (the "RTE Rules").~ The RTE Rules establish
dements of an RTE structure essential to the public interest, which elements are to be considered
by the Commission in determining whether to authorize transfer of control of incumbent electric
Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. State Corporation Commission, Ex Parte: In the matter concerning
participation ofi~umbent electric utilities in regional transmission entities, Case No. PLIE-1999-00349, 2000
S.C.C. Ann. Rept. 430. The RTE Rules are set out at 20 VAC 5-320-10 et se_c_q.
2
utilities' transmission-assets to RTEs. The RTE Rules require the examination of, among other
things, an RTE's reliability practices, pricing and access policies, and independent governance.
The Application,' therefore, must be considered pursuant to the directives set forth in the
Restructuring Act and must comply with the RTE Rules.
DVP originally filed an application to transfer the management and control of its
transmission facilities to the Alliance regional transmissiOn organization ("RTO"),2 which was to
be created pursuant to federal regulations issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
("FERC").3 That application was filed pursuant to § 56~579 A 1, which as in-effect at that time
required incumbent utilities to transfer control of their transmission assets to an RTE on or
before January 1, 2001. DVP's current application seeks approval of the transfer of control of its
transmission facilities to PJM Interconnection, LLC ("PJM"),4 an existing RTO with day-ahead
and real-time markets for energlrs and ancillary services.
2 The phrases Regional Transmission Entity or RTE and Regional TranSmission Organization or RTO may be used
interchangeably.
3 Alliance Companies. et al., Docket Nos. ELL09-3 I44-003, ER99-3144-004 and ER.99-3144-005. The proposed
Alliance RTO was m consist of the following member companies: Dominion Virginia Power, American Electric
Power Service Corporation ("AEP"), Consumers Energy Company, Commonwealth Edison Company ("CornEd"),
The Dayton Power and Light Company ("Dayton Power"), The Detroit Edison Company, FirstEnergy Corp. on
behalf of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison Company, Penmylvania Power Company, the
Toledo Edison Company, and the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (collectively the "Alliance
Companies"). The proposed Alliance RTO was to include incumbent electric utilities that provide service in the
states ofminois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania,.North Carolina, Tennessee, Vk~nia~
and West Virginia.
4 PJM currently is composed of the following transmission owners: Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., Allegheny
Power System, Atlantic City Electric Company, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Delmarva Power & Light
Company, lersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, PECO Energy Company,
Pennsylvania Electric Company, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Potomac Electric Power Company, Public
. Service Electric & Gas Company, Rockland Electric Company, and UGI Utilities Inc. These transmission owning
companies provide service in the states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia and in the District of Columbia.
5 PJM's energy market, which also serves as the basis for PJM's congestion management system, utilizes Locatienal
Marginal Pricing ("LMP"). The institution of LMP may have implications for fuel and purchased power costs for
customers served by the Company.
3
' The, Company filed with the Commission its original application to join an RTE on
Octobe~ 16, 2000. Since that time, several significant events have occurred on the state and
federal levels. 'On July 27, 200I, this Commission issued an Order suspending the procedural
schedUle Originally established in this proceeding based on anticipated filings by the Alliance
Companies at the FERC related to the Alliance RTO proposal and in the interest of conserving
legal and regulatory resourcesfi At~er over two years of consideration, including an nutial ruling
conditionally approving the Alliance RTO, the FERC disapproved the Alliance RTO on '
December.20, 2001; and dismissed in whole the Alliance Companiest proposal.7 '
.On January 29, 2002, in light of the FERC's ruling dismissing the Alliance RTO
proPOsal, .this Commission issued an order denying a motion by Dominion Virginia Power,
subsequently adopted'by AEP-VA, to reestablish a procedural schedule in the RTE dock6ts.
On April 25, 2002, the FERC issued an order directing the Alliance Companies to make
compliance filings identifying which RTO they planned to join and stating whether their
participation would be collective or individual.8
DVP made its compliance filing with the FERC on May 28, 2002. In its filing, the
Company stated that it had filed a statement with the FERC on March 5, 2002, indicating that it
Was continuing the process of consulting with this Commonwealth and the State of North
Carolina to determine their support for DVP joining the Alliance Companies within the Midwest
Independent System Operator, or other RTO efforts. DVP further stated that the CompanY also
was actively working with PJM, on an individual basis, as well as collectively with the Alliance
s This. order was in response to a Staff motion and with the concurrence of Dominion Virginia Power.
? Alliance Comt)anies, et al., 97 FERC ¶ 61,327 (2001). In its order dismissing the Alliance application, the FERC
found the proposed Alliance did not comply with key requirements of the FERC's Order 2000.
s Alliance Comtes, et al., 99 FERC ¶ 61,105 (2002).
Companies. Subsequently, DVP and PJM entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated
June 24, 2002, to establish PJM South.
Significantly, on July 31, 2002, the FERC issued a proposal to establish a national
Standard Market Design ("SMD") for wholesale electricity markets ("SMD NOPR").9 As
originally proposed, the SMD NOPR requires, among other things, all public utilities to tuna over
the operation of their transmission facilities to an Independent Transmission Provider ("ITP").~°
On October 1, 2002, theCompany and PJM entered into an agreement to implement PJM
SOuth. On December 10, 2002, DVP filed with the FERC a rote reciprocity agreement under
which DVP sought to charge rates to its transmission customers as if DVP were already a PJM
member ("DVP RRA Filing").~ ~ Then, on December 11, 2002, DVP in conjunction with
CornEd, Dayton Power, AEP, and PJM, filed a request with the FERC asking that certain
companies be allowed to participate in PJM as transmission owners ("PJM Expansion
Proceeding").~2 The request further asked that PJM's transmission owners agreements, Operating
9 Remedying Und.u.e Discrimination Through Open Access Tran~mi~ion Service and Standard Electricity Markct
Design, .Notice o£Proposed Rulemakin~., 67~Fed: Reg. 55452 (2002) (to be codified at 18 C.F.R. pt. 35) (proposed
July 3 I, 2002). Virginia Code § 56-579 C provides that the Commission, to the fullest extent permitted, shall
participate in FERC proceedings concerning RTEs. Pursuant to those statutory obligations, on January 31, 2003,
this Commission filed comments on the SMD NOP1L
· lo The SMD NOPR would require all public utilities that own, control, or operate facilities used for the transmission
of electric energy in interstate commerce to: (1) meet the definition of an ITP itself}, (2). turn over the operation of its
transmission facilities to an RTO that is an 1TP; or (3) contract with an ITP to operate the utility's transmission
facilities. Under the original SMD proposal, the FERC expects that most, if not all, public utilities will become
members of RTOs.
n ..Virm.'nla Electric and Power Company, Docket No. ER03-242-000.
~2 New PJM Companies and PJIvl Interconnecfion, L.L.C.~ Docket Nos. ER03-262-000 and ER03-262-001.
Dominion Virginia Power does not seek to participate in PIM as a transmission owner in the December 11, 2002,
filing. AEP, Commonwealth Edison, and Dayton Power seek approval to participate in PJM as transmission
OWllel'8. '
Agreement, and Open Access Transmission Tariff ("OATT") be modified accordingly.~3 On
December 20, 2002, the FERC iSsued a ruling on PJM's application at the FERC for RTO status
("PJM RTO Filirtg~), g~anting PJM full RTO stares subject to the satisfaction of certain
conditions,t4
· on January 7,. 2003, DVP filed its Motion to Dismiss its application in this docket to
tranSfer. fUnctional and operational control of its transmission assets to the Alliance RTO. In our
order issued February 5, 2003, the Commission dismissed D~/P's Alliance application filed in
this dOcket, but ordered the docket remain open to receive a future RTE Application from DVP.
. On April 1, 2003, the FERC rejected DVP's RRA Filing, finding that rate adjustments to
ensure revenue neutrality were unreasonable in the current circumstance where DVP would not
be transferring operational control of its transmission facilities until some time in the fUture,ts
Also, on:April 1, 2003, the FERC approved AEP's and ComEd's transfer of control of their
facilities to PJM, and further ordered that parties to the proceeding participate in settlement
proceedings to resolve contested issues; holding a scheduled hearing in abeyance.
Subsequently, on April 28, 2003, the FERC issued its White Paper in the SMD NOPR
proceeding,t6 In its White Paper, the FERC attempted to address concerns articulated by some
state and regional entities protesting the SMD NOPR, but advocated, among other things,
mandatory RTO participation by ail public utilities.
13 The Commission filed comments in both the DVP RRA filing and the PJM Expansion Proceeding, and Continues
to participate in the PJM Expansion Proceeding, as both proceedings relate to DVP's request to transfer control of its
transmission system to PJM.
~ pJM Intercorme_ction, L.L.C., et aI., Docket Nos. RT01-2-001, RT01-2-002, I0I FERC ¶ 61,345 (2002).
15 ._.Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. ER03-257-000, 103 FERC ¶ 61,010, Order Rejecting Filing
issued April 1, 2003.
16 Remedying Undue Discrimination Throu~,h Open Access Tmnsml.q.qion Service and Standard Electricity Marke;
Design, Notice o.f_Proposed Rulemakine., Notice of White paper issued April 28, 2003.
6
At the current time, the parties to the PJM Expansion Proceeding are participating in
periodic settlement conferences. DVP has not filed an application with the FERC to transfer
functional control of its transmission facilities to PJM but states in its Application that it intends
to file with the FERC soon?
As stated above, pursuant to the requirements of § 56-579 A I, as amended by the 2003
General Assembly, DVP filed its current Applieation with the Commission on June 27, 2003. In
it, DVP asks for all applicable authorization from this Commission to transfer operational control
of the Company's transmission facilities located in Vk~nia to PJM. DVP further states-that
PJM has been conditionally approved by the FERC as an RTO~s pursuant to 'FERC Order
No. 2000. DVP also states that the Application and accompanying documents "demonstrate that
Dominion Virginia Power's proposed participation in PJM will provide continued protection to
retail service customers in Virginia and enhance reliability, improve resource adequacy, deliver
energy and capacity savings to retail customers, and promote wholesale and retail competition,
and encourage continued economic expansion in Vk~nia." DVP further states that "PJM's
expand [sic] market boundaries will give competitive service providers and customers greater
access to additional sources of energy and capacity in a visible and liquid market." In addition,
DVP states that a "broad, regionally managed transmission infrastructure will also enhance
reliability by providing increased access and efficiency of use to interconnected but currently
separately operated transmission systems."
DVP also furnished as part of its Application a cost/benefit study of DVP joining PJM
performed by Charles River Associates. DVP states in its Application that the cost/benefit study
17
Application at 29.
18
.PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. et al., 101 FERC ¶ 61,345 (2002).
7
concludes that joining PJM is expected to result in significant net benefits to DVP's retail
customers through reduced net energy and capacity costs. DVP further states that the
cost/benefit study "assesses the net benefits of joining PJM over a ten-year study period, Which
assumes, that Dominion Virginia Power, American Electric Power Company, Commonwealth
EdisonCompany and Dayton Power & Light all join PJM and integrate into the PJM market by
January 2005 ."
NOW-UPON CONSIDERATION of this matter, the Commission is of the opinion and
finds that'the Application should be accepted, that notice of the Application should.be p~ovided,
that interested persons should be given the opportunity to participate in the proceeding,~9 and that
the'Staff and the parties should be given the opportunity to issue discovery requests. To assist in
our evaluation of the Application, we further direct, as discussed more fully below, DVP'to file
certainadditional information.
As we have also determined in AEP-VA's RTE proceeding, Case No. PUE-2000-00550,
we find here that the Company's Application must be considered in the context of the FERC's
SMD NOPR. Because the SMD NOPR may apply to PJM, it is apparent that any final nde
issued in the SMD NOPR proceeding could directly affect the structure and operations of PJM.
We are aware that the FERC's White Paper may revise the FERC's originally proposed
SMD NOPR. DVP requests in its Application that we not delay consideration of this
Application, or its cost/benefit study, pending the SMD's completion. DVP.asserts that the
FERC made it clear in its White Paper that its implementation ofthe SMD will not revisit issues
previously resolved for approved RTOs, like PJM.2°
Those individuals who have filed, pursuant to our April 13, 2001, Order issued in this matter, the requisite notice
to participate establishing them as parties to this proceeding do not have to re-file their notice.
20 Application at 3, n.3.
8
We note, however, that the White Paper does not modify many key aspects of the SMD
NOPR, as originally proposed. Thus, much or all of the original SMD NOPR may be approved
by the FERC as the final nde. Moreover, the White Paper does not make any specific revisions
to the NOPR as proposed regulations, and thus, the paper's impact on the adoption ora final
SMD nde is uncertain at best.
As we have also discussed in AEP-VA's pending RTE proceeding, Case No. PUE-2000-
00550, the FERC in its SMD'NOPR asserts expansive*jurisdiction over both the transmission
and generation of electricity. As envisioned bythe FERC, under the proposed SMD NOI~R,
ITPs will not only control and operate'transmission assets, but will also administer day-ahead
and real-time energy and ancillary services markets, which will utilize LMP.21 Thus, the SMD
NOPR has far-reaching jurisdictional implications, and the potential to alter profoundly the
nature of electricity regulation on the federal and state levels. The sweeping assertions of federal
jurisdiction in the SMD NOPR trigger significant state-federal jurisdictional issues that may find
- at least from the FERC's perspective- theirpreliminary resolution in anyfinal nde adopted by
the FERC in the SMD proceeding. How the FERC's final SMD role affects the provision of
§ 56-579 of the Code that prohibits incumbent electric utilities from transferring management
and control of their transmission assets to an RTE without obtaining the prior approval of this
Commission will be of significant importance to this Commission in determining how best to
proceed in its review of DVP's Application. Thus, this Commission cannot fully consider the
Application and make a final determination on its merits until the FERC has issued a.final SMD
nde, and its impact on. PJM operations can be. evaluated.
21 We recognize that the White Paper suggests that alternative congestion management protocols other than LMP
may be used. PJM utilizes LMP, and thus, membership in PIM will likely involve LMP.
9
As we noted above, the 2003 General Assembly amended § 56-579 A 1 of the Code to
delaytfansfers of the management and control of transmission assets to an RTE :until July 1,
2004, and'to require transfers to be completed by January 1, 2005, subject to the approval of this
Commission.22 Notwithstanding the above, we intend to move forward prOmptly on our
investigation of the Application.
DVP has stated that it intends to file soon its application with the FEI~C to j0i~ PJM. We
direct DvP.to file with this Commission a copy of such application within 10 days of its filing
with the FERC.
As provided herein, we also direct the Company to file by November 26, 2003, certain
additional. COst/benefit information to assist us in our evaluation of the Application. Further, we
direct DVP to file additional information with regard to issues that will be affected by a final
SMD rule; the Company shah file such information as soon as practicable, but no later than
90 days, after the FERC has issued a final SMD rule. As promptly as possible consistent with
due process, we will then establish a complete procedural schedule. Finally, we direct the
Company to update its filings relative to the various pending proceedings at the FERC regarding
DVP's request to become a member of PJM.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
As noted above, Virginia Code § 56-579 F now explicitly requires an analysis of the
comparative COsts and benefits of the transfer of transmission asset ownership and control to an
RTEi We have previously discussed in AEP's RTE proceeding the importance of RTEs to the
development of competitive markets in Virginia and the far reaching implications of
22 If the United States Congress acts to delay the SMD NOPR beyond the deadline set forth in § 56-579, we will at
that time reconsider our decision to wait until a final SMD role is issued, and, based on ali available information,
will then determine how best to proceexL
10
participation in PJM. For similar reasons, DVP must provide information pertinent to a
comprehensive and rigorous examination of the costs and benefits of the Company's proposed
action.
True cost and benefit analysis requires consideration of all of the costs and ail of the
benefits of DVP's proposed action, as well as those of alFviable and attainable alternatives.23 In
order to ensure that we have the necessary information before us to examine the overall impact
of DVP's proposed transfer of control of its transmission assets and participation in PJM's
markets, we must evaluate specific net cost/benefit outCOmes of DVP's proposal on relevant
populations, by sector as well as in the aggregate, against net-cost/benefit outcomes under a
variety of alternate assumptions and scenarios.
We note that the Company provided some, but not all, of the types of information we are
seeking. We appreciate the Company providing the cost/benefit analysis prepared by Charles
River Associates, which should be helpful in our evaluation of the Application. The Charles
River Associates analysis includes quanfifieations of the costs under two scenarios: (i) Virginia
Power joining a reconfigured PJM that includes AEP and (ii) Virginia Power standing alone.
Under these scenarios, it is assumed that all Virginia retail customers transition from rate-capped
generation service to competitive generation service in mid-2007. DVP's filed cost/benefit
analysis also includes specific impacts on at least three specific stakeholder groups.
Although we appreciate the information provided in the Company's Application, we find
that in two major respects the Charles River Associates analysis does not provide suffident
information to permit us to assess fully the overall impact of'DVP's proposal as set forth in its
Application. First, we need additional information with respect to the impacts, or net costs, of
23 As we go forward in our evaluation of the Application, we may ask for additional information about alternatives.
The Staff and the parties may also need additional information as part of their evaluation of the Application.
11
the proposed action on specific groups and regions under alternative scenarios. Second, we have
identified four scenarios, in addition to the two scenarios addressed in.the Charles River
Associates Study, for which the additional information detailing the net costs resulting from
DVP's proposed action must be quantified.
: We'will require the Company to provide the following general information for each of
the six r~equired scenarios based on the time periods used in the Charles Rive~ Associates Study:
Transmission Costs; Production or Generation Costs; Congestion Costs; Production Revenues;
Transmission Revenues; Revenues Associated with Transmission Rights; and Net Operating
Income. Available for Equity (collectively, the "Relevant Information"). "Transmission Costs" as
used herein refers to transmission payments made pursuant to FERC tariffs (reservation charges,
zonal rate adjustments, RTO-related administrative fees, etc.), transmission-related invesiment
costs, and 'transmission-related operating and maintenance costs, etc., as required by the various
scenarios. "prodUction or Generation Costs" as used herein refers to purchased power costs
(capacity and energy costs), fuel costs, generation-related investment costs, generation-related
operating and maintenance costs, and generation-related ancillary service costs, etc., as requital
by the various scenarios.
The Relevant Information shall be provided collectively and separately for each affected
stakeholder group (collectively, the "DVP Stakeholders"), which includes, without limitation, the
Company's: Virginia-jurisdictional retail customers; non-jurisdictional retail customers; in-state
wholesale customers; out-of-state wholesale customers; and total service obligations. The
Company should also provide any information needed in addition to the net operating income
referenced above that may be necessary to assess fully the implications that the various scenarios
have for its shareholders. All quantifications must be performed and reported in a manner that
12
allows the Commission to compare and contrast each of the items of Relevant Information with
respect to individual DVP Stakeholders, as well as in the aggregate, between and among the six
scenarios, in order that we may determine the impact of approving the Application on the various
DVP Stakeholders under the various scenarios.
We note that reported results of the Charles Rivei? Associates Study, for example as set
forth in Table ES-2 on page 6 of the Study, are presented in the form of the diff~ence between
the costs under two scenarios. As noted above, DVP's filed cost/benefit analysis includes an
analysis of the proposed system in which DVP is a member of PJM and assumes AEP has
become a member of PJM, and compares this scenario against DVP providing service to such
customers under the proposed system in which DVP is a "stand-alone" entity. This analysis
shows that, as a result of the Company's proposal to join a PJM that includes AEP, DVP Zone
Customers receive a present value benefit of $557.2 million while DVP shareholders receive a
present value detriment, or cost, of $553.6 million. While this maybe construed as meaning that
the net effect of the proposal on the DVP control area is a benefit of $3.6 million over a ten-year
period, we are not certain that it is appropriate to compare these figures in such a manner.
Therefore, we must obtain quantifications that are comparable so that we may sum the costs and
benefits in order to establish the net impact between and among the scenarios. This may involve
simple confirmation that the quantificafions are comparable, or may require adjustments in order
to ensure that they maybe compared.
We have identified six scenarios for which the Relevant Information must be quantified
collectively and for each of the DVP Stakeholders. Two of these scenarios have been addressed
in the Company's Application. These two address Virginia Power joining a reconfigured PJM
that includes AEP, and Virginia Power not joining an RTO. We find that information pertaining
13
to four SCenarios, in addition to the two scenarios previously addressed, must be provided in
order fOr us to make the 'necessary analyses.
The third required quantification of Relevant Information Shall be based on the scenario
of DVP joining PJM, but assuming that AEP does not join PJM.24
In addition to these'three scenarios, we direct the Company to'provide the Relevant
Information for three scenarios using a traditional cost of service analysis.
The fourth required quantification of Relevant Information shall be based on the' scenario
of DVP; :Under traditional cost of service regulation (rate base, rate of return) over the p~riod that
the quantification is performed, joining PJM, but assuming that AEP also joins PJM.
The fiffia required quantification of Relevant Information shall be basedon the scenario
of DVP} under traditional cost of service regtfiation (rate base, rate of return) over the period that
the quantification is performed, joining PJM, but assuming that AEP does not join PJM.
24 The proposed integration of the new, transmission-owning entities into PJM will impact outcomes associated with
DVP's proposed membership. See New PIM Companies and PJM Interconnecfion, L.L.C., Docket Nos. ER03-262-
000 and ER03-262-001.
25 information regarding the cost of providing service to customers in DVP's control area under the traditional cost-
based, rote of return regulated system is relevant to this proceeding. Section 56-585 of the Code provides that
distributors like DVP may be required to provide default service, and if a distributor is required to provide such
seawice following the end of the capped rote period, the Commission shall determine the rates for default service.
Such rates may be based either upon prices for generation capacity and energy in competitive regional electricity
markets or, if the Commission is unable to identify regional electricity markets where competition is an effective
regulator of rates, upon proxy default service generation rates established by the Commission that approximate rates
likely to be produced in a competitive regional electricity market.
In either case, the Commission's authority to determine the rates for default service provided by a
distr~utor may be limited by constitutional requirements. Regardless of what rates are, or likely would be
prodUced,: in a competitive regional electricity market, it appears that rates established by this Commission may not
be set at a level that would constitute an unconstitutional taking. This level has historically been one that allows the
utility, on a traditional cost-of-service; rate base, rate of return basis, to recover expenses and an adequate return to
the equity owners. See, e.g., Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas, 320 U.S. 591 (1944). Without
obtaining this additional information, the Commission cannot analyze the impact that this standard for avoiding an
unconstitutional taking of property may have on the Company's proposed actions. If cost of service serves as a
lower limit on the default service rates that the Commission may establish, and if the Commission may be required
to determine rates for default service after July 1, 2007, it is important to consider in this proceeding which o£the
three scenario elements (DVP joining PJM with AEP, DVP joining PJM without AEP, and DVP not joining an
RTO) is likely to result in the most appropriate costs and rates during the Company's study period.
14
The sixth required quantification of Relevant Information shall be based on the scenario
of DVP, under traditional cost of service regulation (rate base, rate of return) over the period that
the quantificatior~ is performed, not joining an RTO.
In order to faeilitate comparisons of the net impacts on the various DVP Stakeholders
under the different scenarios, DVP. is required to provido:the Relevant Information for each of
these six scenarios with respect to each of the DVP Stakeholders in a format that'allows us to
compare and contrast the outcomes between and among the various scenarios. DVP is-directed
to file the Relevant Information, including supporting information, with respect to each of the six
scenarios on or. before November 26, 2003. If certain information we require is already included
in DVP's filed cost/benefit study, the Company should indicate in its filing where that
information can be found.
Filing Addressing Final SMD Rule
As discussed above, the Application must be considered in the context of any final rule
issued in the SMD'NOPR proceeding because it may modify RTO formation and could impact
significantly the costs and benefits of the proposed transfer of control of its transmission system
to PJM. Thus, to the extent that a final nde in the SMD NOPR proceeding alters the results of
the required quantifications of the Relevant Information, we direct the Company to file
information detailing those, changes as soon as practicable, but no later than 90 days after a final
SMD rule is issued.
In addition to evaluating the costs and benefits of the proposed transfer, our review and
consideration of the Application as required by the Restructuring Act demands that we address
several other significant issues germane to our consideration of DVP's proposed transfer. These
other significant issues include, but are not limited to, reliability Of service, such as capacity and
generation adequacy as well as required reserve margins; implementation of LMP; regional
15
planning;' and pricing for ancillary generation services.2~ We appreciate that the Company has
sought to address these other significant issues in its Application. A final rule in the SMD
NOPR proceeding could, however, affect PJM's structure and operations and, therefore, alter the
impact-ofthe proposed transfer. Thus, we direct DVP to file, as soon as practicable but no later
than 90' days after a final SMD rule has been adopted, information that fully addresses the impact
of a final SMD rule on each of the DVP Stakeholders with respect to each of these ~.ssues.
Within 30 days following adoption of a final SMD nde, DVP should advise the
Commis~ion as to when the Company intends' to file the required additional information
regardingthe final rule's effects or if the Company requires additional time to complete its filing.
We-encoUrage DVP to file this information promptly, and the information may bo filed earlier
than 90 days after the final rule's adoption· Once the required additional information is filed, the
Commission will move to establish a complete procedural schedule in'as a timely manner as
possible and consideration of this Application can move forward.
Filings Related to PJM Proceedings at the FERC
We now mm to the impact of the Company's pending FERC proceedings on this
Application.. The Company's filings at the FERC related to its request to join PJM, the PJM
Expansion Filing, and the PJM RTO Filing will affect the structure and operations of PJM and
will impact DVP's participation in PJM, and consequently, this Commission's-consideration of
the Application. The Company has filed with its Application current filingsrelative to the
pending proceedings at the FERC regarding DVP's request to become a member of PJM. We
direct the Company to file~ after the date of issuance of this order, on or before the fifteenth day
of each month, copies of any filings, including amendments to current filings, made during the
26 Other related issues may arise during the course of our evaluation of the Company's request.
16
preceding month, on behalf of DVP or by PJM and related orders issued by the FERC, in any
FERC docket that may affect'DVP's request to transfer functional control of its mission
assets to PJM.
Compliance with RTE Rules
The Company's Application includes information i!esponding to the various RTE Rules.
After an initial review, we believe, at this time, that the Company has provided sufficient
information in response to the Rules to permit us to begin our investigation of the Application.
As we proceed in our evaluatiofi of the Application, however, we may determine at a laterfime
that additional information should be provided.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Application is hereby accepted for filing in this docket.
(2) Within ten (10) business days of the date of the filing, DVP shall file with the
Clerk of the Commission, edo Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia
23218~2118, fifteen (15) copies of its filing with the FERC to transfer control of its transmission
assets to PJM.
(3) On or before November 26, 2003, DVP shall file an original and fifteen (15)
copies of Relevant Information and supporting information as described herein ~with the Clerk of
the Commission at'the address set forth in Ordering Paragraph (2)' above. A copy shall
simultaneously be served on the Staff and other parties to this proceeding.
(4) No later than ninety (90) days after the FERC's adoption of a final rule pertaining
to SMD, DVP shall file with the Clerk of the Commission information as described herein
related to the impact of the SMD on its application to join PJM. Within thirty (30) days of a
final SMD rule, DVP shall'file with the Clerk of the Commission a notice advising the
17
CommiSSion as to when the Company intends to submit its filing, or if the Company requires
additional time to complete its filing. A copy of the filing and the notice shall simUltaneously be
served on the Staff and other parties to this proceeding.
(5) After the date of issuance of this order, on or before'the fifteenth day of every
month, DVP Shall file with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth in Ordering
Paragraph (2) above, one (1) hard copy of any filings, inclUding amendments~to current filiflgs,
made dlLril~g the preceding month, on behalf of DVP or by PJM and related orders issued by the
FERC, in any FERC docket that affects DVP's reqUest to transfer control of its transmission
system, to.: pJM. Information describing the effect of such filings and orders on the Company's
application herein shall simultaneously be submitted. Copies shall simultaneously be served on
the Staff and other parties to this proceeding.
'(6) Upon written request received by its counsel, DVP promptly shall provide a copy
of its'Application to the requesting party. Written requests shall be made to counsel for the
Company, Michael C. Regulinski, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Law
Department, P.O. Box 26532, Richmond, Virginia 23261. Interested persons may also review a
copy of the Application and other materials filed in this docket in the Commission's Document
Control Center, located on the First Floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 pan., Monday through Friday.
(7) On or before October 10, 2003, DVP shall mail a copy of its Application and this
Order bYpersonal delivery or by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the chairman of the board of
supervisors and county attorney of each county and upon the mayor or manager of every city and
town (or upon equivalent officials'in counties, towns, and cities having alternate forms of
18
government) in which the Company provides service. Service shall be made to the customary
place of business or residence of the person served.
(8) On or before October 20, 2003, DVP shall complete publication of the following
notice as display advertising (not classified) twice in newspapers of general circulation
throughout the Company's service territories within the Commonwealth of Virginia:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION
BY VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY D/B/A
DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER
FOR APPROVAL OF'A PLAN
TO TRANSFER CONTROL OF
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES TO A
REGIONAL TRANSMISSION ENTITY
CASE NO. PUE-2000-00551
On Juno 27, 2003, Virginia Electric and Power Company
d/b/a Dominion' Virginia Power ("DVP" or "Company") filed with
the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") an application
requesting approval to transfer operational control of its
transmission facilities to a regional transmission entity ("RTE").
This application is to be considered pursuant to the Virginia
Electric Utility Restructuring Act (the "Restructuring Act"),
Chapter 23 (§ 56- 576et seq.) of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia
("Coded and 20VAC 5-320-10 et seq. of the Commission's
Regulations Governing Transfer of Transmission Assets to
Regional Transmission Entities (the "RTE Rules").
DVP seeks approval for the transfer of control of its
transmission facilities to PJM Interconnection, LLC (,PJM"). PJM
is an existing regional transmission organization ("RTO") with
day-ahead and real-time markets for energy and ancillary services.
The June 27; 2003, application will replace the application to join
the Alliance RTO the Company previously filed with the
Commission on October 16, 2000. The Alliance RTO was
disapproved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the
"FERC") on December 21,2001. The Commission issued an
Order for Notice. on September 26, 2003, to among other things,
begin the investigation of the June 27, 2003, application and
provide the opportunity for interested persons not already
participating in the proceeding-to participate.
19
In its current application, DVP asks for all aPPlicable
authorzafion fi.om this' Commission to transfer operational control
of the ComPany's transmission facilities located in Virginia to
PJM. DVP further states that PJM has been conditionally
approved by the FERC as an RTe pursuant to FERC Order
No. 2000. DVP also states that the application and accompanying
documents "demonstrate that DVP's proposed participation in PJM
will.provide continued protection to retail service customers in
Virginia and enhance reliability, improve resource adequacy,
deliver energy and capacity savings to retail customers, and
promote wholesale and retail competition, and encourage
continued economic expansion in Virginia."
DVP furnished as part of its application a cost/benefit study
of DVP joining PJM performed by Charles River Associates. DVP.
states in its Application that the cost/benefit study concludes that
joining PJM is expected to result in significant net benefits to
DVP's retail customers through reduced net energy and capacity
costs.
The Commission's Order for Notice directs DVP to file on
or before November 26, 2003, certain additional cost/benefit
information necessary to demonstrate the net cost/benefit of DVP
joining PJM. The Company is also directed to file, monthly,
copies of any filings dated after the issuance of the order made on
behalf of DVP or by PJM and related orders issued in any FERC
docket that affects DVP's request to transfer functional control of
its transmission assets to PJM. The Company is also to file
information that addresses the effect of the FERC's pmposaI to
establish a nationaI Standard Market Design ("SMD") for
wholesale electricity markets ("SMD NOPR"). As originally
proposed, the SMD NOPR envisions that Independent
Transmission Providers will control and operate transmission
assets and administer day-ahead and real-time :energy and ancillary
services markets which will utilize Locational Marginal Pricing.
DVP must file the information that addresses all issues related to
the SMD as set forth in the Commission's Order for Notice and
Hearing no later than 90 days after the FERC adopts such a finaI
rule. Once the Company files the information with regard to a
fmal SMD rule, the Commission will then establish a complete
procedural schedule including a public hearing in this matter.
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the application and
the Commission's Order for Notice issued In this matter for more
information pertaining to the Company's proposed plan to transfer
control of its transmission assets to PJM, as well as details on
20
participation in this proceeding as a respondent. Copies of the
application are available through written request to counsel for
DVP, Michael C. Regulinski, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Law Department, P.O. Box 26532,
Richmond, Virginia 23261. Interested pemons may also review a
coPY ofthe application in the Commission's Document Control
Center, located, on the First Floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia between the hours of 8:15 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A~-copy of the
Commission's Order for Notice issued in this proceeding may be
obtained on the Commission's website,
www.state.va.us/sec/caseinfo/orders.htm.
Interested persons are encouraged to become parties of
record as respondents by filing a notice of participation. The
requirements for participation can be found in the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 5 VAC 5-20-80, which are
available on the Commission's website,
www.state.va.us/scc/commission/mleS.htm.
The Commission does not anticipate that further public
nOtices in this matter will be published. Further scheduling and
other procedural orders will only be served on parties of record.
On or'before December 1, 2003, any interested person, who
has not previously filed a notice of participation as a respondent in
this proceeding, may file an original and fifteen (15) copies of a
notice of participation with the Clerk of the Commission erie'
Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia
232I 8-2118. The notice of participation shall refer to Case
No. PUE-2000-00551 and shall simultaneously be served on
counsel for DVP at the address set forth above.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
D/B/A DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER
(9) On or before October 31, 2003, DVP shall file with the Clerk of the Commission
proof of the publication and service ordered herein.
(10) On or before December 1, 2003, any interested person, who has not previously
filed a notice of participation as a respondent in this proceeding, may file an'original and fifteen
(15) copies of a notice of participation with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth
21
in Ordering Paragraph (2) above. Any notice of participation shall set forth (i) a precise
statement of the interest of the respondent, (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the
extent then lmovvn; and (iii) the factual and legal basis for the action. A copy shall
simultaneously be served on Counsel for DVP at the address set forth in Ordering Paragraph (5)
above. ~Respondents shall refer in all of their filed papers to Case No/PUE-2000-00551.
{11) Within five (5) business days of receipt of a notice of participation .as'a
.respondent, counsel for DVP shall serve upon such respondent a copy of the Application and all
accompanying materiais. Counsel for DVP shall serve a copy of all additional mat.eriald
subsequently filed with the Commission pursuant to this Order upon each respondent
simultaneously at the time of filing with the Commission.
('12) Counsel for DVP shall forthwith serve a copy of its Application and all
accompanying materials upon all persons already parties to this proceeding, unless these
materials have already been provided to the respondent. Counsel for DVP shall serve a copy of
all additional materials subsequently filed with the Commission pursuant to this Order upon
these parties simultaneously at the time of filing with the Commission.
(1'3) DVP and all respondents shall respond to written interrogatories within ten (10)
calendar days after receipt of the same. Except as modified above, discovery shall be in
accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
(14) This matter is continued for further Order of the Commission.
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to all
persons on the official Service List in this matter. The Service List is available from the Clerk of
the State Corporation Commission, edo Document Control Center, 1300 East Main Street, First
Floor, ~ Tyler Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
22
ATrue Copy
Tes~:
)adbent; Peter E.
ristian & Barton LLP
East Main Street, Suite 120
hmond
y, James P.
;lair Ryan
)1 Dominion Blvd
te 200
VA
:n Allen VA
~,ood, James N.
]uire
egel & McDiarmid
i0 New York Ave. N.W.
shington DC
ntgomery, John W.
~tgomery & Simpson LLP
~1 Radford Avenue
te 107
hmond VA
nan, Michael J.
ods Rogers Hazlegrove F'LC
~ E Main St Ste 1200
hmond VA
wder, C. M.
ASSISTANT ATTY GENERAL
:ICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
' OF CONSUMER COUNSEL
E MAIN ST FLR 2
:HMOND VA
23219
23060
20005
23230
23219
23219
Shafferman, Howard Ho
Ballard Spahr Andrews Ingersol
601 13th StNW
Suite 100 S
Washington DC
Petrini, Edward L.
Christian & Barton, LL.P.
1200' Building Suite 1200
909 E Main St
Richmond VA
weinberger, Alyssa
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Amerada Hess Corporation
One Hess Plaza
Woodbddge NJ
Kaufmann, Micahel E.
Esquire
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1500 K St., N.W.
Suite 450
Washington DC
Regulinski, Michael C.
Esquire
Virginia Electric & Power Co
PO Box 26532
20005
23219-3095
07095
20005
Richmond VA 23261
November 2003
Mission
Essential Tasks Assessment
Construction & Maintenance
Planning & Traffic Engineering
Issues
Mission
The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains
roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory
authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for Albemarle
and Greene Counties in ways that are:
· focused on public safety
· fiscally and environmentally responsible
· supportive of alternative transportation means
· supportive of neighborhood and regional development
ESSENTIAL TASKS
TASK
MAINTAIN SECONDARY &
PRIMARY ROADS
o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim,
signs, patrols
o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
(A)
REMARKS
o EMERGENCY OPS
o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES
- Rt 20 slide repairs 90% complete
- Hurricane Isabel
o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT
,,ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
TASK
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION ® (G)
PROGRAM
o PE Activities
o Project Construction
REMARKS
- Jarman's Gap Road
intbrmational meeting
scheduled tbr Nov 10th
E_ SSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
Task
3. CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Assessment
(See legend below)
Remarks
o Issue and review permits
o Review site plans and rezoning request
o Conduct studies and advise
o Inspect and monitor subdivisions
- 41 land use permits issued
- 16 Revised plans reviewed &
comments provided as needed
- 7 new site plans reviewed
- 5 Special Use Permits
reviewed & comments provided
- 9 developments in planning stages
- 1 Rezonings reviewed
- 5 subdivision plan reviews
- 4 subdivisions inspected for
acceptance
- 1 subdivision accepted
ESSENTIAL TASK (continued)
TASK
4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING
o Request and advise on signals & signs
o Request and advise on studies & data
o Assist with design
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
(G)
REMARKS
- 17 Traffic issues submitted
- 11 Traffic issues outstanding
PRELIMINARY ENGINEEllANG
November 2003 Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Project Status
Primary Projects
Route PPMS Designer ProjectNumber Description Scoping Survey Review P.H. Inspect. R/W Adv. Comments
53 18897 BAA 0053-002-101, B601 BridgeReplacement-BucklslandCreek ~ ~~~~ 0i~04 9~04 0nschedute (Updated9-03)
Widening pave Shoulder
20 60395 BAA 002-002-129,N501 Rte. 20 N Various Locations ~ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ~04 On Schedule (Updated 09-03)
Widening pave She ulder
250 60396 BAA 0250-002-117,N501 Rte 250 E Various Locations ~ N)A N)A N}A N)A N~A I~04 On schedule (Updated 09,03)
seconda~ ROads
Airpo rl Road ~
649 2456 SLM 0649-002-158,C501 4-1 ....... /side,~lks &bikel .... ~ ~~~~ i2-03 On Schedute (Updated 12-01)
Jannan Gap Rd Public Mtg. 11-12-03
691 11129 DWS 06914)02-158,C501 2-1 ........ /bike lanes &sidewalk ~ (Updated t04)3)
Mcintire Rd. Ext. NewAlignment Schedule Revised
63i 2530 BAA 0631-002-128,C502 MeadowCreekParkway ~ ~~ 3-04 8-05 6-06 6~08 (Updated 104)3)
Free State Rd. Connector t7 Mo. Inactivity
-- 52393 J WIi R000~002-259,C501 (!0nstruct 2 lanes on 4-lane R/W ~ (Updated 10-O2)
Gravel Roads
S .... tarys Road twiae, a,ld p ave ~ i I i ~ I°" schedu'e
0708-002-PVT,NS01 ~ N)A [ N~A } N/AI N~X ~ 12'03 [(up~t~d~]63) ]
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
November 2003 Greene County Six Year Plan Project Status
Fie ld Fie ld
Route PPMS Designer Project Description Scope Survey Review P.1t. lnsp. R/W Adv.
Bacon Hollow Road
627 51022 RDI, 0627-039-195,C501 Fr. Rte. 615 to Rte 632 6-04 11-05
Dyke Ro ad
~,0 ,9~0 ~w~ 08,0_0~,,_,4~.(~0~ ,~-~.,.~km~:.~.6,~o~.~,~ ~~~~~~~
0.35 Mi, E. Rte 619
Watson Road
640 2515 0640-039-137,N501 Fr. Rte.633 to Dead End 11-03 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11-05
CONSTRUCTION
PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 03 04 Percent
Street Name Project Description Duration Complete Contract
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Cost
Various Int. in U000-104-114,C501 Traffic Signalization ~ 35 35
the City of Remarks: Plan to complete signals at Park St./Melbourne Rd.
Charlottesville Intersection during November. Contractor is currently behind
Mountain Vista 0737-002-P68,N501 ISecondary Rd Improvement ~ ~ 70 70
Remarks: Plan to complete all work minus paving by mid
November. Paving will be weather dependent.
Scottsville Road (NFO)0020~002-126,C501, B608 IBridge over Hardware River ~ ~~~~ ~
Remarks: Project to replace Bridge and Approaches on Rt 20
over Hardware River awarded to Burleigh Construction Co. for
$1,488,822.87. Notice to Proceed is issued for 11/10/03.
Mayo Road 0650-039-P56,N501 /Secondary R d Improvement ¥ ¥ 65 65
Remarks' Plan to complete all work minus paving by end of
November. Paving will be weather dependent.
Various Sec. PM-7B-03 I Asphalt Overlay ~ ~ ~ 90 90
and Primary Remarks: Paving Routes 623 and 633 in Greene Co. during
Roads November to complete this year's schedule.
Pr 8 M OWING
Pr 6 PATCHING
Pr 5 GRADF_JMACHINE/ADD STONE
Pr 2 DITCH/PIPE
Pr 4 GUARDRAIL
Pr I EQUIP MAINT
Pr 7 EMERGENCY OPS
Pr 3 OTHER
MAINTENANCE
Yancey Mills Headquarters
OCTOBER
RT. 702, 745, 708, 635, 696, F177, 677, 637,682
RT. 250, 164,789
RT. 611,637, 633,634, 758,694,693 702, 684, 698
RT. 633,634,689.
RT. 250,635.
Per schedule; dry run inspections compelte
Hurricane Isabel All Roads
CUT LIMBS RT. 29 250.
REPAIR SHOULDERS RT.250
REMOVE DEAD TR~S RT. 64 680, 698, 684.
NOVEMBER
Goat: ?00% clean ur from hurricane
RT. 635, 637,751,810, 680, 692 691,690
RT. 635, 962 696
RT. 681,689, 782,682, 811,637 758.
RT.29, 684,634,633,745.
RT. 250 240 635 688 637
As scheduled
Clean up from Isabel
Day light signs
REPAIR SHOULDER RT. 164
Customer Concerns
Pr 8 ~ MOWING
P~ 3 PATCHING
Pr 2 GRADE/MACHINE/
ADD STONE
DITCH/PIPE
Pr 4 GUARDRAIL
MOWING
Pr 7 EQUIP MAINT
MAINTENANCE
Free Union Headquarters
OCTOBER 2003
Rt 678, 676, 677, 671, 674, 675, 766
Tree Contractor - Rt 671, 667
Rt 601, 606
Rt 672, 668, 776, 667, 662
Cleaned drains-Rt29, 250
Per schedule; dry run inspections complete
NOVEMBER 2003
Goal: ~00% c~ea~u/~ ~"
Mooring Complete
Shoulder Repair - Rt 601, 656
Rt 606, 643, 661, 662, 673, 675, 756, 764,
766, 776, 671, 668, 678
Clean & Repair drains - All di~ roads
Replace GM Pipe - Rt 664
Rt 250W from Belair Rte 809 to Rte 240
As ~heduled
EMERGENCY OPS
Debris Removal/IsabeI-Rt 855, 846, 1460, 676, 29,
1515, 809, 815, 743, 29/250, 250, 677, 678, 601, 810,
614, 676
OTHER Traffic Control Bridge Repair - Rte 601 Ivy Road Customer Concerns
fyi OWl NG
PATCHING
Pr 5 GRADE/MACHINE/
ADD STONE
Pr 3 DITCH/PIPE
Pr ~ GUARDRAI L
Pr 7 EQUIP MAINT
Pr ? EM ERGENCY OPS
Pr~ 4 OTHER
MAINTENANCE
Keene Headquarters
OCTOBER
Rt 717, 721, 722, 723, 627, 728, 795
R~r. 723, 602, 708, 795
Rt 717, 721, 722, 723, 627, 774, 699, 697
Rt 1803, 712; shoulders, ditch
Per schedule; dry run inspection complete
Lot maintenance and dry run preparations
NOVEMBER
GOA £; ~00% cleanu~ from
hurricane
FINISHED FOR THE YEAR
Rt 724, 613, 722, 723, 735, 812,
703, 725, 770, 753,
GUARDRAIL MOWING - Rt 20
As scheduled
CLEAN UP FROM ISABR RTS.
29, 602, 618, 622, 626, 627, 631,
633, 670, 692, 706, 692, 708
Debris removal from James
River Bridge in Scottsville;
Customer concerns
P~" 5
MOWING
PATCHING
_....~__~._. GRADE/MACHINE/ ADD STONE
DITCH/PIPE
PC~ GUARDRAIL / MOWING
Pr 8 EQUIP MAINT
.P_t.7__;~_~ EMERGENCY OPS
Pr 6 SHOULDER REPAIR
Pr 7 OTHER
MAINTENANCE
Bo ,d oT yern Headquarters
Per contract; Rt 250, 20, 22, 231,
53, 64
Rt 623
Rt 20, 600, 784, 631, 231
Per Schedule / Spring spreader
Prep for Storage
Hurricane cleanup
Rt 250, 3, 231, 22, 762, 64, 631,
641, 600, 732, 854, 729, 1427
Slope maintenance Rt 20
Nove m be r
Go~: ~00 % c,¢~ ~C~£.~
Rt 64, 250
Rt 784, 640, 747, 641, 746, 769, 623,
60O
Rt 600, 640, 784
Rt 250, 20, 231
As scheduled; snow prep for dry run
As scheduled
Rt 616, 648, 615, 645, 631, 1428,
643, 649, 641, 600, 784, 747, 646,
640, 686
Customer concerns
Pr G MOWING
Pr 2 PATCHING
GRADE/MACHINE/
ADD STONE
DITCH/PIPE
GUARDRAI L
EQUIP MAINT
Pr ';~ EMERGENCY OPS
Pr E; OTHER
Maintenance
STANARDSVILLE HEADQUARTERS
Otobe r Nova m be r
Rt. 33 west full right of viay Rt. 33 east full right of way
S.L.Williams overlay o Rt. 29 north
$.L.Williams overlay o Rt. 33 Mt. East & west
Rte. 637, 634, 638, 642 & 626
Rte. 630, 624, 675, 629 ,643, 642, 646,
628, 614, 632,
676, 628, 640, 618, 605 & 806
Long arm mower on Rt. 33 west
Per schedule
Dry run Inspection ~ Completed
Hurricane Isabel -clean up from storm
Drainage maintenance on secondary
routes
Pipe replacement on Rt. 628 & 676
Ditch on Rt. 602
Long arm mower on Rt. 33 E & 29 N/S
As scheduled
Turning lanes on Rt. 623 & 622
Asphalt placement for new turning
lanes, Rt 622 & 623 Customer
concerns
AREA HQ
EQUIPMENT ITEM
Trucks 8
L. oaders 1
0 radar 2
Tractor mowers 4
Rollers 1
FREE UNION
1-'ru c k s 7
Loaders 1
Back h¢,e 1
Tractor mowers 3
RC)I I ers 2
Graders 2
BOYD TAVERN
L_oader 1
Rollers 1
7'ractor m()wers 4
Graders I
1-rtJc k s 7
L. oaders 2
Back [,oes 1
1-ractor rrlowers 4
Rollers 2
Graders 2
S TANARDSVi LLE
Trucks 7
I--oaders 1
Graders 2
Tractor mowers 4
Rollers 1
Bridge Crew
l-ruc k s 4
Loaders I
Equipment
POSSIBLE # OF
DAYS
OP ERATI O NAL
# DAYS IN THE
SHOP
24-8
31
62
124
217
93
62
62
217
31
31
124
31
210
60
30
120
60
60
210
30
60
120
30
30
0
45
o
o
o
o
166
124
15o
31
92
62
62
156
I o4
42
30
120
6O
6O
139
3o
15
120
30
3o
106
54 - 84'Yo
98- 39'Yo
100_ 00%
69- I 2% Black
100_ 00% (~ reerl
100_ 00% ~reen
98.92~/o Greer'~
100- O0'Yo (~reen
100- 00% ('~ reer1
-,Z I _ 89% Red
100- 00% O reer~
100-00~/-- Oreer~
83- 87% k n~ ber
100_ 00o/o : Oreer~
I OO_ OO%
Amber
Red
Green
Green
Green
Green
66. I 9°/~. Black
100. 00°/~, 0 reerl
25 _ 00% B lac k
100_ 00% G ree[~
100_ O0~Yo (;~reen
100_ 00% O ree~
100~ 00% oreen
LAST MONTH'S NEXT MONTH'S
AREA HEADQUARTERS AUTHOREED/ ABSENT DAYS APPROVED LEAVE
PERSONNEL ASSIGNED DAYS
Superintendent 1/1 3 10
Maintenance Supervisors 2/2 0 3
Operators I 1 / 1 I 13 25
Free Union
'Superintendent 1/1 ........... 3 5 "
Maintenance S uper~sors 2/2 3 8
Operators I 1 / 10 16 23
Boyd Tavern
Superintendent 1 / 1 2 10
~/Vlaint enance Supervisors 2/2 27 20
Operators 10/9 38 20
Keene
S uperintendent 1 / 1 2 12
Maintenance Supervisors 2/2 I I I 1
Operators 12/12 31 28
Stanardsville
Superintendent 1/1 3 15 --
Maintenance Supervisors 2/2 6 0
Operators 12/12 36 0
Bridge/Sign Crews
Superintendent 1 / 1 22 vacant
Maintenance Supervisor 1/1 I 0
Operators 7/4 13 3
Shop
Shop S upeFvisor 1/1 2 0
Mechanics ............... 4/3 19 24
Project
PLANNING
Traffic Traffic Site
Study Study Plan
Scoping Review Review
Current Status
Albemarle Towne Center
(Sperry)
Peter Jefferson/Martha
Jefferson Site
Rivanna Village at
Olenmore
North Pointe
Hollymead
Pantops Ridge
Moore
Greenbrier Shopping Ctr
Awaiting site plan
Awaiting site plan.
Waiting for proffers to be submitted for comment.
Comments on proffers submitted to County Staff.
Review of road design plans underway.
VDOT and County staff are exploring alterative access solutions for
the site.
Comments on traffic study submitted to County Staff.
Staff awaiting traffic study.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Traffic Engineering Issue Under Revtew: Albemarle
Route Location Issue Type Received Description
20 At 720 Signage 08/06/03
250 At Edem Drive Signage 10/21/03
632 At Johnson Pervis Road Signage 10/27/03
649 @ Quarles Rd & @ Mossing Ford Signage 09/22/03
710 Fr Rt 29 to Rt 696 Speed limit 09/16/03
712 1.5 M E of RR overpass Guardrail 08/26/03
810 At Crozet School Pvmt mkgs 09/02/03
839 Entire length Signage 9/30/03
Greene County
29 At Rt 607 Signage 09/23/03
Replace missing sign
Screening
School Bus Stop signs
School bus stop ahead
Speeding
Additional guardrail
Crosswalks
State signs vandalized/stolen
Add left turn lane on Rt 607
Reviewer
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
Culpeper TED
ISSUES
24-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Rcva
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
TJPDC Legislative. Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST.'
Approval of the draft TJPDC Legislative Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White Allshouse, Blount
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission works with the County and other Planning District members each year
to develop a legislative program for the General Assembly session. The attached draft of the 2004 TJPDC Legislative
Program is before the Board for apProval and will form the basis of the county's future discussions with our local legislators.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2 Protect the County's Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources
2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's Rural character
2.2. Protect and Preserve the County's Natural Resources
2.3 Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the-local and regional level
3. Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens
3.1 Make the County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel secure to.live, work and play.
3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance
the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County.
4. Serve the Public Efficiently and Effectively
4.1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous services to our customers
4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure
DISCUSSION:
The Draft 2004 Legislative Program follows the same format as in prior years, with priority "action items" and a section
highlighting some of'the most important ongoing concerns. The County's major issues are included in the draft program.
The approved TJPDC Legislative Program will be sent to our local legislators prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting with
them on December 18. At this meeting, the BOS will have the opportunity to request sponsorship and or support of specific
legislation. Specific legislative items the Board may want to consider requesting legislators to support or sponsor during the
2004 session could include:
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Permit Application Fees. Support budget or.legislative action to require
DEQ to reduce the permit application fees associated with stormwater management and stream mitigation projects,
which have been drastically increased in the last year. Due to recent changes in Virginia Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (VPDES), municipal separate storm system permit requirements, localities now have much of the
responsibility for protection'of streams and rivers. DEQ's recent fee increases adversely impact localities abilities to
adopt regional stormwater management programs or to undertake projects needed for stream protection.
Clarification of HB 1750 - Request that the General Assembly works in coordination with local government to clarify the
language in HB 1750, the General Assembly's 2003 act to transfer tax-exemption authority to local governments.
Amend Va. Code section 15.2~1507 pertaining to the composition of panel hearings - Request an amendment to
authorize localities to utilize an administrative hearing officer in lieu of the 3-member panel in all cases, similar to the
method established for state employee grievances in Va. Code Section 2.2-3005. This should help ensure consistency
in applying policies.
Growth Management - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth management tools such as
adequate public facilities ordinances and impact fees, 'and provide statewide funding for open space and natural
resources, such as the Purchase of Development Rights program for localities that establish and locally fund such a
program.
Taxing Structure- Request the state initiate changes to the state's income tax provisions that would enable the state
to meet its financial obi igations to localities; fully fund agencies such as constitutional officers, jails, juvenile detention
centers;' and provide funding for any unfunded mandates. In addition, any reform to telecommunication taxes should
ensure local governments do not loose revenue.
Telecommunications Tax Reform Bill - Support removal of the cable franchise fee language from the proposed
telecommunications tax reform bill to be proposed in the 2004 session by Del. L. Preston Bryant, Jr.. Support local
authority over cable franchise agreements and the directing of cable franchise revenues to localities.
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Continue to request the state fully fund CSA mandates.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement - Request enabling legislation to provide for a scenic protection and
tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic
and economic resource, this legislation would provide localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual
resources and scenic areas when the County or State makes land use decisions in designated areas.
Passenger Rail Service - The County continues its support for and endorses the prowsion of passenger rail service
from Bristol, VA to the Richmond, VA and Washington, DC areas with links to communities along the way.
Reauthorization of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program - Request the state take advantage of
the federal reauthorization of TANF by streamlining eligibility requirements and providing maximum flexibility to
localities so that counties can implement the TANF program that best meets local needs.
Photo-monitoring systems for traffic signal enforcement - Continue to support legislation authorizing all localities to use
photo-monitoring systems for traffic signal enforcement.
State Fundinq for Education -Request legislation that will raise the Standards of Quality(S.O.Q.s) and increase
percentage of state funding for programs to assiSt localities to successfully meet the requirements of the S.O.L.s, and
reduce secondary school class sizes to meet time requirements contained in the Standards of Accreditation.
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) - Request that [he state continue to stabilize the VRS rates and reimburse school
systems for VRS-related costs for positions that exceed those required by the current SOQs' regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
1) The Board approve the attached Draft 2004 TJPDC Legislative Program, with the understanding that
suggested changes from the Board will be reflected in the final version of the regional legislative program.
2) The Board consider specific legislative-related sponsorsh p requests they would like to request during the
December meeting with our local legislators.
03.136
DR.4FT
2004
Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Legislative
Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Louisa County
Nelson County
October 2003
Jeri Allen, Chairman
Harrison B. Rue, Executive Director
David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison
ISTANDARDS OF QUALITY FUNDING
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District's member localities believe the state should fund its share of
the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and that existing
education programs should not be eliminated to fund SOQ requirements.
During the state's fiscal crunch the past several years, funding for the state share
of the SOQ has not been reduced. However, in order to maintain SOQ funding, the
budget transferred money from other educational programs outside the SOQ, shifted costs
to localities (such as $36 million in costs for the retired teacher health insurance program)
and depleted more than a quarter billion dollars from the Literary Ftmd, historically used
to provide low interest loans for school construction, to pay for teacher retirement.
Increased state funding exceeding $500 million is needed just to continue the
current SOQ, without any program changes, in the 2004-2006 biennium. This includes
instructional and support costs associated with an expected 32,000 additional students
and teacher salary cost updates. In addition, the Board of Education (BOE) has proposed
initiatives that would add an additional 12,000 positions at a state cost of $324 million in
FY04. Local government costs for these initiatives would be just under $260 million,
much of which localities already are funding. This proposal would add positions for
principals, assistant principals, elementary resource teachers in music, art and physical
education, speech language pathologists, reading specialists, technology personnel and
additional staffing to reduce secondary school class sizes.
As our school divisions continue to work toward the Standards of Accreditation
(SOA) accountability goals for both schools and students, and face increased costs for
complying with the federally-mandated No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, reductions in
state education funding would hinder the progress being made.
ICOMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT ]
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District's member localities support full funding of the state pool for
the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), with allocations based on realistic
anticipated levels of need, and a cap on local expenditures for serving a child
through CSA.
Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act over a decade ago, there
has been pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to
increase local match levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to
control how localities run their programs. During this time, state and local costs of
residential and non-residential mandated services have steadily increased. Initial state
appropriations for CSA fall short each year, challenging the state to find its share of
funding and forcing localities to request supplemental state appropriations. In fact, many
localities exhaust their annual base allocation in only a few months. We believe this
distinction between base and supplemental budgets should be eliminated and that caps be
placed on local expenditures to combat higher local costs for serving mandated children.
We also encourage the state to be proactive in making service providers available,
especially in rural areas, and in giving localities more .flexibility to serve children when
state CSA fimding is reduced.
~Albemarle's local CSA costs have nearly doubled over the past five years.
~Nelson expended its FY04 base allocation of $140,000 in just three months.
~Fluvanna's local costs are nearly $600,000/year, up from $126,000 in FY98.
~Louisa's lOcal CSA expenditures increased 18% fi:om FY02 to FY03.
~Charlottesville's local CSA costs are about $1.5 million per year.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District's member localities believe that environmental quality should
be funded and promoted through a comprehensive approach and address air and
water quality, solid waste management, land conservation and land use policies.
We are committed to the protection and enhancement of the environment. This
commitmentrecognizes the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental
regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of
available revenues. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the
interjurisdicational nature of many environmental resources and adequate state fimding to
support local and regional efforts.
We recognize that the state faces high-cost commitments associated with, among
others, the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
requirements, tributary strategies and various natural resources programs. However, we
do not believe the state should impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste
or other local government services to pay these costs. To do so would set a disturbing
precedent whereby the state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund state
priorities.
We also believe:
· The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply
development, and should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply
issues, including investing in regional projects. The state's water supply planning efforts
should continue to involve local governments.
· The state should reduce permit application fees associated with storm water
management and stream mitigation projects, as recent fee increases have adversely
impacted local abilities to adopt regional storm water management programs and to
undertake projects needed for stream protection. Fees should be used only to cover costs
of administering the program.
· The state should 1) ensure landfill closure schedules permit facilities posing no
threat to property or the public to continue to operate through their allowable life, and 2)
provide adequate funding for landfill closure and post-closure costs.
· The state should not enact legislation mandating expansion of the area covered by
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Instead, the state should provide legal, financial
and technical support to localities that wish to comply with any of the Act's provisions
and allow localities to use other practices to achieve objectives toward improving water
quality.
· We support state action to clarify that a locality has full authority to regulate the
land application of sewage sludge.
I PUBLIC SAFETY I
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District's member localities encourage state financial support,
cooperation and assistance for law enforcement, criminal justice activities,
emergency medical care and fire services responsibilities carried out locally.
We encourage the state to make Compensation Board funding a top funding
priority. State budget cuts the past several years have resulted in local governments, in
many cases, funding all or part of the shortfall of constitutional officer budgets. Louisa
provided over $95,000 to offset state reductions, While Nelson has provided salary
supplements in both FY03 and FY04. Albemarle's state funding dropped over $140,000
from FY02 to FY03.
we support continued state funding of drug courts (the state provided the 25 %
local match for Byme grant funds in FY04). Local funding has aided this court-
supervised alternative to jail or probation that has proven it saves dollars (cost is $3,000-
$5,000/year compared with $19,000/year for adult incarceration) and lowers recidivism
(single digit rates since inception of the local drag court).
In addition, we support the following:
· Shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional jails.
However, the state should not adopt language that would disallow exemptions from the
federal prisoner offset and should maintain the per diem payment to localities for housing
state-responsible prisoners.
· Continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program.
· Continued state funding for services under the Pre-Release and Post-Incarceration
Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts.
4
· Legislation that will enable additional localities to install and operate traffic light
signal photo-monitoring systems and to provide that motorists yield to transit buses that
are reentering a highway travel lane.
We oppose the following:
· Legislation that further reduces or removes local government authority to limit the
carrying of weapons in public buildings and other public facilities.
· State operation of local and regional jails.
I TAX STRUCTURE AND REFORM
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District's member localities believe that any changes to Virginia's tax
code should not reduce local government revenues or restrict local taxing authority.
The state should broaden the revenue sources available to local governments, rather
than capping, removing or restricting those sources, taxing authority or user fees.
We recognize that financing government projects and programs should be a
parmership between the state and localities. However, with our limited ability to raise
funds and our sometimes-stagnant revenue streams, we strain to meet services demanded
by residents and those mandated by the state and federal governments. Accordingly, we
oppose unfimded state and federal mandates and the cost shifting that has occurred when
the state fails to fund mandates or reduces or eliminates funding for state-supported
programs. This cost shifting reduces our ability to meet local needs and forces our
citizens to bear tax and fee increases (which our localities have implemented) to pay for
such programs and services. State funding reductions for state-required services/programs
should be accompanied by corresponding relaxation of the state requirement.
Any changes resulting from the work of the State Tax Code Commission should
enable the state to meet the financial obligations it has made to localities as a result of its
own policy decisions. The state should not reduce local government revenues or restrict
local taxing authority; rather, it should equalize the revenue-raising attthority of counties
with that of cities. Any changes to the telecommunications tax structure also should
preserve local government revenues and should not place undue restrictions on
determining lOcal rates.
We believe the state should consider paying all costs for fully funding certain
state programs carried out at the local level, such as constitutional officers, jails, juvenile
detention centers, social services, health departments and the Comprehensive Services
Act. We also support Virginia's participation in the national uniform sales tax initiative.
LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District's member localities oppose any preemption or circumvention
of existing local authority to regulate land use and encourage the state to provide
local governments with additional tools to manage growth.
Current land use authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to
provide for balanced, sustainable growth in a manger that protects and improves the
quality of life. In recent years, the state has limited local governments in their efforts to
manage growth by enacting provisions that reduced local authority to enforce the
comprehensive plan or to regulate land use.
Further, infrastructure costs associated with new developments are borne by all
taxpayers, rather than by those bringing about the need for the expenditure, thus straining
our ability to pay for these costs of growth in a time of declining revenues. Accordingly,
we support legislation to allow localities to adopt ordinances that included provisions for
determining whether public facilities are adequate (APFO ordinances) to support services
required by a proposed development.
Specific Recommendations:
· The General Assembly should preserve existing authority for localities to regulate
land use.
We support enabling legislation that would provide local governments with
various additional tools, such as impact fees, flexibility for proffers, adequate public
facilities ordinances and transfer and purchase of development rights, to manage growth.
· We support 1) dedicated state funding to acquire, preserve and maintain open
space and recreation lands, including directing available federal funds to localities, and 2)
the full authority to generate local dollars for such efforts.
· We endorse legislation to enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist
enhancement districts.
· We oppose changes (e.g. required mandatory setbacks) to the Uniform Statewide
Building Code that hinder the implementation of local ordinances.
TRANSPORTATION
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville,
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District's member localities urge the state to address documented and
future construction funding shortfalls and to provide secondary road and street
maintenance funding on top of construction dollars.
The amount of construction funding being used to support maintenance and
operations activities continues to grow. As a result, about $62 million per year in
transfers from the construction fund to the maintenance fund is expected through FY09.
Maintenance and other operational activities are expected to exceed construction
expenditures in FY2005. Prior to last year, excess maintenance dollars were transferred to
the construction fund.
We appreciate the Commonwealth Transportation Board's efforts to bring the six-
year transportation plan in line with realistic revenue projections, to eliminate deficit-
financing practices (more than $670 million will be dedicated over six years to eliminate
most project deficits) and to better coordinate transportation and land use planning.
We believe the state should direct its funding efforts at all modes of transportation
and should fully fund existing transportation obligations, programs and plans, without
creating competition for dollars among different modes and without incurring increased
or unjustifiable debt. Our local governments continue to invest more in transportation,
including in public transportation, which continues to be very important in our area, in an
attempt to react to local and regional congestion and economic development issues and
due to continued failure by the state to meet transportation demands. We also support the following:
1) the use of modem roundabouts in lieu of conventional intersection design and
allowance of signal replacement funding for construction of roundabouts;
2) funding of the TransDominion Express with stops at Oak Ridge and
Charlottesville; and
3) measures that would clarify Code language relating to bicycle operation and
safety of bicyclists on public roadways.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Planning District and its member localities recognize economic development and
workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We
support policies that closely link the goals of economic development and workforce
development and that result in an increased standard of living for all residents.
· We support an Economic Development Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth that
more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local governments and includes new
tools for local governments to use in attracting economic development opportunities.
· We support restored funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue
meaningful opportunities for regional projects. We also support restored state funding for
the Industrial Site Development Fund, the Governor's Opportunity Fund and tourism
initiatives that help promote economic development in localities and regions.
· The state should recognize the disparity in rewards of economic development
between the state and localities, as well as between host locality and surrounding areas.
IHEALTHAND HUMAN SER VICES
The Planning District and its member localities recognize that special attention must be
given to developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor,
the young and the elderly, can achieve their full potential. Reductions to community
agencies are especially troublesome, as their activities often end up preventing more
costly services later. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative
effort from federal, state and local agencies. We urge the General Assembly to ensure
funding is available to continue such valuable preventive services.
· We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of
the local share of costs for human services, including changes that would require
additional local contributions for indigent care.
...... ~ ..... ~, ........................................................ There should be no
further reductions to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA)
program, which has produced a statewide 25% drop in Department of Juvenile Justice
commitments since 1998. *~is v.,~o ....... d Further, the state should maintain a formula-
driven allocation process for VJCCCA funding.
· The state should fund local Offices on Youth and provide sufficient funding to
allow Community Services Boards to meet the challenges of providing a community-
based system of care.
· We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local
funding.
· We support sufficient state funding for local social services facilities and for local
departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services. Local DSS offices
should not be forced to consolidate if not in the best interest of the localities.
· We support continued state funding for local Disability Services Boards.
· We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and
prevention programs, including school-based prevention programs, that can make a
difference in children's lives. This would include such as the state's program for at-risk
four-year-olds, the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs. The state
should not use Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)monies to fund such
programs, as localities cannot use federal TANF funds as match for other federally
funded prevention programs. To do so only serves to shift costs to localities seeking to
leverage federal dollars for services and administration. The state should also take
appropriate action to address a projected shortfall in TANF reserves.
· We support Virginia's welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote
family preservation and work requirements. We support initiatives and funding to help
former VIEW participants maintain continuity in childcare and oppose any initiatives to
shift traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local
governments. We support state efforts to expand access to education and training needed
by welfare recipients to become employed and self-supporting. We also support a TANF
plan that takes into account and fully funds state and local implementation and support
services costs. The state should take advantage of TANF reauthorization to streamline
eligibility requirements and provide maximum flexibility to localities.
HOUSING
The Planning District and its member localities believe that every citizen should have an
opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments
should work toward expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of
affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low-income and moderate-income
households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever
possible.
· We support changes to the Code to allow local flexibility in the operation of
affordable housing programs and establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances.
· We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation ofhistoric
structures.
· In addressing the lack of input that local governments have concerning housing
issues, we support local government notice provisions for all proposed low and moderate
income housing projects seeking federal tax credits, including VHDA.
· We support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of
existing housing and discourages new construction in close proximity to existing
subsidized housing.
· We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured
homes in zoning districts that permit single family dwellings.
LOC~IL GO VERNMENT STRUCTURE AND LA WS
The Planning District and its member localities believe that since so many governmental
actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local
governments must have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
· We support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide
services required by citizens and to allow local governments to meet their responsibilities
in state/local partnerships. Accordingly, we support a requirement for state agencies to
notify localities of planned construction projects that may affect the locality's
comprehensive plan.
· We oppose intrusive legislation involving'purchasing procedures, local
government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for
local employees, matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance and procedures
for adopting ordinances. We do, however, encourage the state to authorize localities to
utilize an administrative hearing officer in lieu of the three-member panel in all grievance
cases, similar to the method established for state employees.
· We oppose request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
..... ;~; ..... '*';~*' ~'"~*'~ ~;~;+ ing body's ability to meet in closed
preserve ~, ............................... a local govern
~ the list of recOrds currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA and
provisions concerning ~ creation of customized computer records ~
· We encourage the state to work with local governments to clarify language
adopted last year that transfers tax exemption authority to local governments.
· We support local requests to the state to increase the income and financial worth
limitations for real property_ tax exemption or deferral programs.
· We encourage clarification of Code provisions that stipulate law enforcement
responsibilities when transporting persons for whom a temporary detention order has
been issued for emergency medical treatment or evaluation.
· We support creation of a new Secretariat of Agriculture to assist in achieving
prosperous and innovative agriculture as a key ingredient to rural economic health.
· The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the
costs associated with compensating jury members.
· We suppOrt enabling legislation that authorizes localities to require contractors, as
a condition of public contracts awarded through the procurement process, to pay
employees a living wage.
· The state must ensure that continued implementation of electric utility
restructuring is revenue neutral to localities and that any necessary stopgap
appropriations to adversely affected localities are fully funded.
· The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility are considered in
any centralizing of state computer functions.
10
11
A
RT
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMNI~$SION ON CHILDREN AND FAMiLiES
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
P.O. BOX 911, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
PHONE: 434-970-3550
FAX: 434-970-3653
E-MAIL: FEEDBACK/CCF@CHARLOTTESVILLE.ORG
WEB: WWW.CCFtN FO,ORG
A N N U A L iR E P O R T
VISION AND OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS ........................................................ 4
I. INFORMATION SOURCE'. .............. ; ......................................................................................... 7
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 7
STEPPING STONES ......................................................................................... 9
COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH ................................................................ I I
- II. ADVISOR .................................................................................................................................. 13
Ao
B.
C,
D,
OUTCOME MEASUREMENT .......................................................................................... 1 ;3
AGENCY BUDGET REVIEW TEAM ...................................................................... 15
COLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS ................................................ 15
GRANT DATA TO NON-PROFIT AND PUBLIC AGENCIES ........................................ 16;
LEGISLATIVE FORUM ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ........................................... 17
FAMILY VIOLENCE INITIATIVE ......................................................................... 18
JUVENILE COURT SURVEY REPORT .................................................................. 20
IV. COORDINATOR'. ...... '.,.;...~; ....· ................................................................................................... 21
B.
C.
D.
E.
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ................................................. ~) 1
PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN ........................................................................ 22
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION WORK (~ROUP ................................................. 24
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT COMMITTEE ..................................................... 26
CHILDREN NEEDING EXTENSIVE SERVICES ....................................................... 28
CHARLOTTESVi~LLE/ALBEMARLE COiVItVI~S$1ON ON CHILDREN AND FANI[LIES
A N N 0 A L
.R E V [' 'E W
I. Overview- Vision & Key Findings
%* Introduction
The establishment of the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Commission on Children and
Families (CCF) in 1998 reflected a common goal
by the City and County to improve the well-being
of children and their families.
The 1997 Joint Agreement of the Charlottesville
City Council and Albemarle County Board
charged CCF to "plan, coordinate, monitor,
and evaluate a community-wide system for all
children and family agencies and programs."
In 2002-2003, CCF's fifth year of operation,
much of what Council and Board sought from
CCF as an advisory board is in place. CCF
members and staff have accrued a wealth
of reliable and up-to-date data, convened an
interactive network of citizens and professionals
working to improve and coordinate services
in key areas of child and family well-being,
and developed an outcome measurement
system to understand the impact of City-County
investments and future needs. Increasingly,
local public policy makers turn to CCF for input,
guidance and planning related to children and
families. CCF has worked steadily to strengthen
this advisory role during 2002-2003, while
continuing to bolster its role as an information
source, coordinator of services, and catalyst.
R E P 0 R T
~'. OV.. E RV'", EW
Report Structure & Overall Findings
This annual report begins with a vision for a
healthy community, adopted by CCF members
during its October 2002 retreat, and progresses
to the accomplishments and key findings of the
members, staff, and work group participants
active in achieving this vision. The report is
divided into four main sections, corresponding
to CCF's primary roles: Information Source,
Advisor, Coordinator, and Catalyst.
VISION OF HEALTHY COMMUNITY
During 2002-03, CCF's Executive committee
prepared the "Vision of a Healthy Community" to
build a common vision among Commissioners
and member agencies and to insure that CCF
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMM~[$SION ON CHILDREN AND FAMiLiES
4
A N N U A L
R E P 0 R T
activities and work groups fit into comprehensive
approach·
The accompanying chart, "Collaborative
Solutions for Building a Healthy Community",
was created as a way for Commissioners to
see a more complete picture of what a com-
munity needs to be a healthy place for children
and families· The chart demonstrates how the
Commission's 12 work groups work to improve
child and family well-being, and allows members
to see clearly where work group efforts overlap
or are incomplete·
Collaborative
ComPoni~,ts:of a'.Realthy Cemmunity
for troubled youth
Educational &
economic opportunities
Engaged: &':.informed...
· communit¥,.:,.~,~,"'-
OVERVIEW
tdenlthy,
positively
involved
HEALTHY
COMMUNITY
ii~,. intervention
;, ... . .
~ & economic
~ort~it~s
CC~ Efforts · Agency Budget Review Team
· Community Needs Assessment WG
· O~3me Measurement WG
· Juvenile Justice Info Sharing Subcem.
· Family Violence WG
· Partnemhip for Children
· Guide to Youth Services
· PfC Parent Educetion WG
· PfC Child Care WG
· PfC Home-Visiting Collaborative · Bigh S a's
· PfC School Readiness WG · C,A Prcsch3oi ?ro?ams
· Teen Pregnan~TD Prevention WG . Mt;S.C ReSCU'OS Cm~ter · ~t:eqs Give
· TP/STD Prevention Youth Service · ~;ce'las J:~f~?or: ..'-{.~ a!t'~ Dist':ct
Su~mmi~ . T~e'; II:-~i[" C~[cr a~ UV~
· Youth Productive A~iv~ies Resear~
· Juvenile Justice Adviso .fy Comm~ee
· MeDtarviile
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEiViARLE COIYIM]$$ION ON CH]~LDREN AND FA~LtES
A N N U A L
R EV'.t IS.W
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Over 180 individuals are organized in twelve
work groups charged to help Commissioners
understand conditions and make recommenda-
tions for improvements. This section highlights
some of the findings emerging from work groups
during 2002-2003 that will shape CCF's current
and future strategies.
During 2002-2003, some of CCF's most striking
research findings pertain to Charlottesville/
Albemarle's Iow-income "working poor" families.
In its recent Needs Assessment report, Iow-
income residents reported, less access to
dental care, mental health intervention, sub-
stance abuse treatment, emergency financial
assistance, and to produCtive and positive
activities. In response to this, the report recom-
mends strategies to increase access, and the
development of information and service delivery
systems with working adults in mind.
The report also recognizes that reducing the
participation gap in productive activities for
Iow-income and troubled youth is an important
protective factor for local youth.
As Charlottesville/Albemarle's ethnic composi-
tion changes, CCF work groups noted a need
to increase outreach efforts to more diverse
populations. An internal survey by Partnership for
Children agencies found an inadequate language
R tS P 0 R T
I, OVERVIEW
capacity to address theincreasing numbers
of limited English proficient residents seeking
assistance.
Other work group findings and reports relate
to families across all cultural backgrounds and
economic situations. The Impact of Family
Violence work group has identified the complex
ways in which domestic violence impacts upon
families and children. The work group recom-
mends that the community continue to place
a priority on reducing family violence, in
order to decrease negative outcomes, among
children exposed to domestic violence. (See
recommendations, page 19.)
A recent Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee
report foUnd that better information about
the juvenile court process was a need for
children entering the court system. The report
recommends the development of a Youth Guide
to the Juvenile Court in order to help parents and
children successfully navigate the court system.
CCF members also found that inter-agency
information sharing, common data collection
and multidisciplinary teams are critical ele-
ments for efficient and effective service delivery.
These findings, along with others described in
this report, will guide the Commission's work
plan for 2003-2004.
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CR1LDREN AND FAMILIES
6
A N N U A
R_EVI.EW
L R g P 0 R T
II. Information Source
CCF has become a one-stop resource for
retrieving available studies, data, information
about services, and coordinating with existing
individuals and services. During 2003, the CCF
Community Needs Assessment work group
completed its community needs assessment
report, the 4th annual Stepping Stones report on
child and family well-being was printed, and a
comprehensive Communications and Outreach
Plan was initiated. CCF continued to garner
media coverage on child and family issues; hits
to the CCF website quadrupled; and the Guide
to Youth Services went on-line with a search
engine available 24 hours a day.
Needs Assessment
The Needs Assessment Work
Group concluded a two-year project
in July 2003. The work group
had been charged with identifying
needs of local children and their
families and recommending general
policy directions to CCF. Members
were particularly interested in the
resources families currently use, the
obstacles they face, and families'
access to existing support services
as they raise their children. A com-
prehensive needs assessment was completed
using the results of a telephone survey of local
families with children, a series of targeted focus
groups, and other available local and national
data. The results have been published in a
report, Comprehensive Needs Assessment of
Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and their
Families and an accompanying document,
Summary of Findings and Recommendations.
FINDINGS
The Needs Assessment found that the needs
of many local children and families are being
met; however, the report identified several areas
where this was not the case. The following is a
brief summary of selected findings. (See the full
report for complete results.)
· .'~o~"
· Lower income children and
families had higher levels of
unmet need for services such
as dental care, mental health
intervention, substance abuse
treatment and emergency
financial assistance, and had
less access to productive and
positive activities.
· Adult perceptions of the
interpersonal, emotional,
and educational needs of
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMtVii{SSi~ON ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES;
7
A
N N U A
L R E P O R T
R EVi"EW'
Iii, INFOR!i~ATItON
children differed
from information
about these needs
available from other
sources, especially
from childrens' self-
reported needs.
· Residents are more
likely to go to a friend,
relative, medical
professional, or lay
;ActivitY ',':. '.:, ": : '..:i=''Higtier. .' Lower'
.... Income: Income
· . : .:. .... .. [. Childre~n Children.
:: .'. ,' ..'":.' :;. "'.~ ,:.: .Pa~icipating ParticiPating.
...... :,........,,,,~'.,,: ,~'..: (n......7,0,7)..:., .: (n=2~2.) .......
Organized
sports/ 72% 43%
recreation
ArtS:0rmUsic., ...... ~.i....'54%., ' ':' 30%.."
..a.c[iv[.ti§s.~..,:;,.~.,.:., .'., ;.~.:,..::...?:.: ....... --.:: ...... ..,
Clubs or 37% 27%
programs
' V°!unte. edng', i' ".i .;~2'.°/o ... ':': ~':.':" '!.30i;:':...:..:;.."..
leader for information to assist their.family, rather
than to ."traditional" human service agencies.
· Research on-youth in the local
juvenile justice system indicates
that up to 45% of offenders have
difficulties with substance abuse.
However, the Needs Assessment
survey indicates that over a quarter
of children who need treatment for
substance abuse were not able to
obtain it; medical professionals in
focus groups also report that such
services are not readily available.
RECOMMENDATIONS
· Locally, 98% of adults are employed full or part-
time and 75% are employed part time regardless
of income status. Almost all of the lower income
respondents in the survey can be classified as
"working poor."
The work group made four broad recommenda-
tions, with sixteen specific implementation steps
as a result of the needs assessment. These
recommendations were designed to:
· Increase lower income children's access to
services and activities;
wOuld:yOU be ta!~Use ea'ch.!Of,: the.f~lloWing, . i....(6n~,.1.,~5,,..i;,,.likely.,:.l....likely...
'!fitW~.mava!lE,b.i~,.it0.!0?'.k..'fo!~.Se~:iCes:'0r:
I,:~.~alei?l~:.i-'i? .:.'.:'i':.l.:-?:.'.,..'.!."'~...
aCti"itie~ 'Of'yoUr Chi!d°r;:family? (~='"'47) I'"' ~":":"'"':":";"1?'?':' ":"" '[:"
Informational phone line with a
knowtedgeableassistant I 3.04 123.6%t 19.6%
Aut°matedinf0rmati°nalph°neline I~'~ I=~'~%1~'~%1
intemet website '
· Address the unmet needs of
"working poor" families;
· Assure access to reliable information;
· Ensure that adequate resources are
available to address children's mental
health and substance abuse concerns.
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
8
A N N U A L
R E: P O R T
.... .R... EV.'I:EW
I._'.N, FO RMAT:C.'-' N ~OU R_CE
Stepping Stones
The Data Management
Work Group was formed in 1999 to de-
velop a means to document community bench-
marks related to children and families and raise
community awareness. Over the next three
years, the work group developed the vision
for, planned andcreated Stepping Stones, the
Commission's annual report card on the well-be,
ing of children and families.
The Commission uses Stepping Stones as a tool
to document and raise awareness of communi-
ty needs, provide the localities with information
to guide local child and family investments, and
identify areas where coordinated improvement
strategies are needed.
KEY FINDINGS
The percentage of students with limited
English proficiency has increased steadily
over a five-year period.
6%
4.~ ~
r 1.7%
1.1%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
The Albemarle teen birth rate decreased
from an average of 25 per 1,000 for 1994-
1996 to an average of 14 per 1,000 for
1999-2001; the Charlottesville teen birth
rate decreased from and average of 70 per
1,000 for 1992-1994 to an average of 28
per 1,000 for 1999-2001.
~ 3.0 7 [
60~ ~ ,TZ=Z 78'__6'3 _5[3 0 i
=~,=, 40~. 3.3.3 3.:3.0 .33.2 32.6 ~'('41 02° 0!'
~. ao
Avemge Avemge Average Avemge Avemge AvemgeAvemge Average Average
1991- 1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 199& 1999-
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
[] Charlottesville ~' Albemarle ~Virginia
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CH]ILDREN AND
9
A N N U A
The combined Charlottesville/Albemarle
rate of Sexually Transmitted Diseases has
decreased from 12.4 per 1,000 in 1998 to 9.5
per 1,000 in 2002.
13 ¸)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
The three-year average rate for receiving
first-trimester prenatal care has begun to
decline in both the County and City over the
last three triennial measuring periods.
AYerageAverageAYe~geAvemgeAYerageAvemgeAverage Average Average
199t- 1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- t997- '998- 1999-
1993 1994 t995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
L R ~ P O R T
il. INFORMATION SOURCE
The number of students possessing drugs or
alcohol in the public schools has increased in
the County.
6.2
~' .~ - .
o ~ ' 2.5
Avera~ Average Average Avenge Av~a~ AverSe Average Average
This information can be uSed by local leaders,
citizens, and program directors to identify areas
for concern and investment. For example, this
year's data suggests the need for a renewed
emphasis on increasing access to pre-natal care
for mothers in their first trimester. According
to Stepping Stones, "The prospects of having
a healthy child are greatly enhanced when a
mother takes appropriate health precautions
during her pregnancy and receives-prenatal
care."
The Charlottesville foster care rate has
inCreased over six years.
~ 60
-o o~ ,.. 40i
i~) B~~ 36.9
1997 1998 1999 20~ 2001 2002
m Charlottesville ~ Albemarle A Virginia
~i) Charlottesville/Albemarle combined
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMJSS)ON ON CHILDREN AND FAMe{LiES
10
A N
N U A
REVI
L R E P O R T
II.. tNF~,RMATION SOURCE
Communications and Outreach
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIC PLAN
One of the Commissioners' top priorities, as
determined during their annual retreat in the fall
of 2002, was to develop a CCF communication
strategy. An ad-hoc work group was convened,
and charged with developing a comprehensive
communication and outreach plan.
The 4 outcomes of the Communications plan are to:
· improve understanding of local children and
family needs
· obtain input from the community to under-
stand and respond to emerging needs
· become a point of contact for coordination and
planning aSsistance to increase service
efficiency and responsiveness
· increase civic support for policies and
prog rams that support the well-being of children
and families
The CCF Community Brochure is one of the first
products of the Communication and Outreach
group. This inviting brochure is being distributed
broadly and has been instrumental in increasing
the understanding of CCF's available resources
and staff, resulting in increased requests for pre-
sentations by local groups.
the full plan is currently in draft form and will be
finalized by the Commission in Fall of 2003.
WEBSlTE
The website has become the primary vehicle
for accessing information about CCF projects
and publications. While requests for assistance
by phone averaged between 40-60 per month,
website page views ("hits") numbered over 1,800
per month. Hits to the website jump after a CCF
press release or published article citing CCF.
ONLINE SEARCH ENGINE FOR GUIDE TO YOUTH
SERVICES
In response to residents' increased use of
on-line services (documented in both the CCF
needs assessment and the Albemarle County
quality of life survey), CCF launched a new
online search engine for the Guide to Youth
'~ {~" :",~,~ ,' ~,.~Ir~'' ..... ~% ~ ;~?,'i~ '~:.~,''~.~ .': '~,~. ~:~y~,'~'
Services in June 2003. The search engine,
along with other web improvements such as
parent and agency Family Assessment Planning
CHAF~LOTTESV[LLE/ALE~E~ARLE COD~4~iSS]ON ON CH]{LDREN AND FA~Vi]L]ES
11
A N N U A
L R E F 0 R T
i'N R EV'I'EWi
Team (FAPT) information, has attracted an
increase in hits to the Commission's site, to a
total of 9,950 during FY2003. The release of the
search engine received media coverage in the
Daily Progress, WINA, WVTF, and KissFM.
LIST SERVE
II. INFORMATION SOURCE
SELECTED HEADLINES OF ARTICLES FEATURING
CCF:
,,
Action Allianc eleases
Self sufficiency standard
CCF distributed best-practice information,
funding notices, news of special events, training
opportunities and research over the listserv
to 162 members. In 2003, 139 listserv notices
pertaining to children and families were sent, up
from 40 in 2002.
MEDIA COVERAGE
During FY03, CCF was successful in attracting
media outlets such as Channel 29 TV, WINA,
the C-ville Weekly and the Daily Progress'to
cover issues related to children and families.
Regular press releases on CCF meetings, new
findings, publications, resources and community
forums resulted in 19 mentions in local media
during FY03, an increase from 12 in FY02 and 7
during FY01.
Go W
Proper
Care ~e.
It's Too,,
FOrum Par-t'i~':i~ a ....... .ate
,.,, :.,~:
Discuss Troubled
......... ,,.
~ ., ~ , children's~l'Ss~es
'The
O..ett i..:~R.~ Kids
ght., Tra..ck
Everyb d' " '
o:, :y s: 'BU.smess~
City Foster. care rate
tripl, e na:tiona'l
Child Ad~oe. ates.urg~ iawmat~.ers to
increase sales tax on cigarettes
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
I2
A
N N U A
REVIEW
L R E P O R T
ADVISOR
III. Advisor
CCF uses its funding advisory role to align local
government funding strategies with documented
community needs and effective program outcomes.
During 2003, the Outcome Measurement work
group began research on areas to target for
future City-County funding; the Agency Budget
Review Team evaluated program outcomes;
CCF staff provided data and guidance to non-
profit and public agencies seeking grants; CCF's
director led an effort emphasizing ongoing collec-
tion of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data
for the City's neighborhood strategy team, and the
CCF Executive Committee embarked on develop-
ing a plan to enhance CCF's advisor role with an
eye to elevating the importance of the well-being
of children and their families in local government
deCision making bodies and practices.
continuous improvement of the outcome mea-
surement application and review process.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During 2003, the Work Group moved from
designing and managing an outcome review
process to analyzing local investments. This
effort was aided by a UVa graduate Intern,
Maryfrances Porter, who has volunteered her
time to help work group members develop a list
of priorities, synthesizing all available local data
on needs, current funding investments, and na-
tional research on best practices. A final report
is due out in early 2004. In addition, work group
members enhanced the review process by
adding optional site visits, simplifying the review
criteria and making it available to community
agencies, and reducing the number of hours
required of community reviewers. Specifically,
CCF staff and work group members:
Outcome Measurement
The Outcome Measurement Work Group is
charged with making recommendations to
local governments on priority areas for funding
consideration based on an analysis and evalua-
tion of funded outcomes and community needs.
The Outcome Measurement Work Group also
provides guidance and recommendations to
the City/County/United Way funding bodies on
* Trained and provided technical assistance to
20 community agency staff, and orientation to
21 in completing the outcome measurement ap-
plication, collecting data, and measuring results.
Evaluations of trainings indicated that 94% of
participants found the trainings to be very or
somewhat helpful.
· Developed a protocol and assessment form
for site visits supplementing the outcome
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE CONllViiSSION ON CHILDREN AND FANI~LIE$
13
A N N U A
R E'V
L R E P 0 R T
application and piloted agency site visits with
five community agencies.
· In response to evaluation results, streamlined
the funding review process by developing a
numerical rating tool, creating sub-groups of
reviewers, and reducing full team review time
from 40 to 26 hourS annually.
· Completed the identification and collection
of available local data and reports asthe first
phase of research to identify target areas. The
project includes analyzing funded community
and public agency outcomes in light of identified
needs and gaps, effective and efficient practices,
available research on proven practices, scope of
existing services, funders' strategic priorities and
areas of cost concern, and resident input.
KEY FINDINGS
Outcome Measurement Work Group members
reviewed over 42 local research reports regarding
community needs and trends related to children
and families; The following areas represent the
most significant, documented gaps in family/child
services to the communities of Charlottesville and
Albemarle. These areas do not reflect undocu-
mented gaps or the extent of effective programming
already available to the Charlottesville/Albemarle
communities, some of which already may be suc-
cessfully working to address these issues.
In order to further support strong, stable fami-
lies and communities, programming should:
1. Ensure affordable health and dental care
for adults and children
2. Address family violence, specifically target-
ing prevention/services for domestic violence
and child abuse and neglect
3. Enhance support to parents/adults,
specifically targeting: stresses of single parent-
ing and the working poor; parenting, especially
of challenging children (e.g., truant, curfew
breaking/incorrigible, delinquent, multiple
behaviodmental health problems); substance
abuse; housing costs/maintenance; and job
training & adult education.
4. Promote safe and supportive neighbor-
hoods and communities
In order to further support the development of
strong, healthy children and adolescents,
programming should:
1. Improve student performance
2. Extend extracurricular activities for non-
Caucasian youth
3. Provide effective and efficient services for
youth in need, specifically targeting: youth sub-
stance abuse; behavior problems/delinquency;
serious mental illness/emotional disturbance/
multiple diagnoses; lack of local foster care
homes and community based crisis/stabilization/
assessment facilities.
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMiLiES
A N N U A L
During its next phase of work, Outcome
Measurement Work Group members will be re-
viewing the existing data to better understand
community strengths as well as needs and seek
resources to conduct a more comprehensive
review of data beyond children and their fami-
lies. CCF staff will then seek to match currently
funded non-profit program outcomes with identi-
fled needs and resources, and plan to recom-
mend target areas for FY06 funding to Council,
Board, and non-profit agencies.
Agency Budget Review Team
CCF manages the annual review process for
community-based agencies seeking local gov-
ernment funding. In the 2003 review process,
agencies presented the actual results of their
programs during fiscal year 2002 while project-
ing results for fiscal year 2004. Review team
members used assessment criteria that mirrored
the outcome measurement application.
Overall, the ABRT recommended $2,308,329 in
funding in response to requests from 30 agencies.
Funds were held at level due to budget shortages.
In 2003-04, Agency Budget Review Team
members will adopt a numerical rating of appli-
cations. The cdteda are the same as 'n prior years
and are shared with agencies in early September
for a November submission to the localities. By
R E P 0 R T
Ill, ADVISOR
recommending investments in programs that com-
municate their value and impact through outcome
measures, the Agency Budget Review Team
identifies strategic non-profit partners that make
a measureable differences in residents' quality of
life.
Collaboration with Cemmunity Partners
CCF works in partnership with a wide range
of local organizations, both public and private.
Some highlights of CCF's collaboration with
local agencies during FY03 include:
· Working with the Quality Community Council
to provide assistance with grants preparation
and transition to 501C(3) status and participa-
tion on the Board of Directors;
· Assisting the Charlottesville Redevelopment
and Housing Authority in tabulating and interpret-
ing data, producing a final report from a survey
of resident youth living in
public housing;
· Participating on the
Steering Committee of
2020 Planning Project for
the Jefferson Area Board
for Aging (JABA);
CHARLOTTESV[LLE/ALBEiVIARLE COMIViiS$fON ON CHILDREN AND FAIVIIL]E$
15
A N N U A L ~ ~ P 0 ~ T
..ill. ADVISOR
· Playing a formative role in the development of
the Prevention Coalition, dedicated to supporting
the general philosophy of substance abuse
prevention and to promoting a healthy community
by increasing protective factors and decreasing
risk factors.
· Chairing the City of CharlottesvilJe Data Team
to place demographic, educational, housing,
community resource, and crime indicators onto a
City map. This has resulted in the identification of
geographic areas of strength and need, and has
highlighted areas where targeted prevention and
intervention are needed;
· Collaborating with the Weldon Cooper Center
in the planning and production of "Our Nation's
Kids". CCF's role included planning, providing
data, translating materials into Spanish, and
creating all promotional materials for the event.
CCF also prepared a follow-up report sharing
the reflections and insights of 100 forum partici-
pants;
· Serving on the Steering Committee to develop
and guide a feasibility study of an educational
fund for City/County public schools.
· P owdlng grant data and assistance to
non-profit and public agencies
CCF is a source of assistance to local agencies
and individuals seeking to identify and address
community needs. In this capacity, CCF has
provided data, alerted the community to funding
resources, facilitated strategic planning, and
shared best practice information resulting in new
resources to the community. Agencies used
data and technical assistance provided by CCF
to leverage an estimated $550,000 of grant
funds during 2003, a steady increaSe from FY01
and FY02.
CCF has received feedback from many or-
ganizations regarding the effectiveness of its
technical assistance: CCF has been cited as an
"invaluable resource" and as "extremely helpful".
According to the director of one local agency,
'I want to share my belief that the role CCF is
playing in our community is directly saving indi-
vidual agencies significant time and money on
research and statistics we need for grants or
program improvement efforts; simplifying access
to information on services for both clients,
parents, and agency workers; while also making
sure our community children and families are
getting their real needs identified and met."
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISS[ON ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
I6
A N N U A
L R E P 0 R T
REVl E.W
CATALYST
IV. Catalyst
CCF strives to identify issues needing attention
and community problem-solving proactively by
raising awareness of needs and assets and
convening stakeholders to address problems.
CCF taps participants' creative energy and
ideas to improve conditions for children and their
families. CCF initiatives are data driven, compile
the insights and experiences of a cross-section
of the community, and include specific recom-
mendations for implementation.
At the end of 2003, CCF staff developed a de-
scription of the benefits of involvement in CCF
work groups which are "designated to help plan
for and coordinate improved and efficient ser-
vices for children and their families" to further
expand resident and professional involvement in
thesecommunity problem-solving teams.
During 2003, CCF held the second annual
Legislative Forum for Children and their
Families, developed a strategic plan to address
the impact of family violence on
children, and set in motion a plan
to make the court system more
easily navigable to youth. A new
work group will focus on increasing
access to productive activities and
local assets for young people.
Legislative Forum on Children & Families
CCF has been active in efforts to promote a
children and family agenda in Richmond to
the General Assembly and to raise awareness
locally about issues that benefit from citizen
support. During 2003, CCF hosted its second
annual legislative forum and crafted the fourth
annual legislative agenda to the localities. The
inclusion of child and family-focused issues in
the localities' legislative package meant that
these issues were promoted by the area's
legislative liaison and local leaders, as well as
by CCF members and staff.
(~ KEY FINDINGS
75 % of those in attendance at the forum
increased their understanding of issues facing
local children and families. Participants reported
that the two most critical issues facing local
children and families were a need for increased
funding, and pre-K through.adult education.
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
17
A
N N U A
YRE V I E W
L R E
~V. CATALYST
P o R T
Family Violence Initiative'
In July, 2002, CCF established a work group on
the Impact of Family Violence on Children.
The work group has two subcommittees ;o
address the impact of domestic violence on
children and to enhance coordination of child
abuse and neglect strategies.
The Domestic Violence Prevention
Subcommittee's work has focused on identify-
ing existing services, needs/gaps, and best
practices to address prevention, identification,
and intervention for children exposed to domes-
tic violence. The Subcommittee has developed
a plan to address these issues and has made
specific recommendations for implementation to
the work group.
The Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention
Subcommittee work has focused on identify-
ing existing services, needs/gaps, and best
practices to address prevention, intervention,
and services for children who are abused and
neglected or at risk. By October 2003, this
subcommittee will have completed a plan with
recommendations for implementation to the full
work group.
As the subcommittees finished their research
and planning phases, the full work group moved
towards implementation of recommendations
in the coming year. To this end, the work group
has created three task forces that are beginning
the implementation process:
· The Coalition for Violence Free Families (an
interdisciplinary group) has piloted KidsWatch,
a neighborhood based program that provides
prevention, identification, assessment and inter-
vention for child exposure to domestic violence.
· A second task force is examining the piloting
of a multi-disciplinary team to investigate and
provide treatment planning in child abuse and
neglect cases.
· The third task force is exploring the need for
and feasibility of creation of a Child Advocacy
Center to provide comprehensive investigation,
assessment, case management, and treatment
services (including supervised visitation) for
child victims of violence.
KEY FINDINGS
The Domestic Violence Prevention Sub.committee
Findings:
· There is a need for enhanced mechanisms
to identify children exposed to domestic violence
by routine screenings in community and better
sharing of information between agencies;
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FAMiLI[ES
18
A N N U A I R E P O T
R.E V'i E W
· There is a need to provide services to
children, including safety planning, mental health
support, and supervised visitation, to children
exposed to domestic violence, particularly those
who do not go into Shelter programs.
Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Subcommittee
Findings
· There is a need for timely and rapid response
to abuse and neglect in conjunction with a com-
munity based crisis stabilization setting.
· There is a need for improved multidisci-
plinary coordination and collaboration concern-
ing intervention and services for abused and
neglected children.
· There are insufficient services and funding for
some children impacted by violence, including
non-caretaker victims, child perpetrators, and
children without source of funding for treatment.
RECOMMENDATION S
1. Develop and endorse a community educa-
tion plan regarding the affect of domestic
violence, abuse and neglect, and other forms of
violence on children:
· Ask localities to adopt a resolution declaring
the Charlottesville/Albemarle area a "violence-
free" area;
iV., CATALYST
· Expand KidsWatch to three additional neigh-
borhoods in the City and County;
· Encourage the use of uniform screenings that
address domestic violence for Partnership for
Children and other community organizations.
2. Establish a process for a one-year pilot of a
formal multi-disciplinary team:
· The following Commission agencies are
asked to provide at least one team member
to attend a one-week training and participate
in the pilot for five hours monthly: Albemarle
Department of Social Services, Charlottesville
Department of Social Services, Region Ten
Community Services Board, and the Thomas
Jefferson Health Department.
· The Commissioners are requested to ask
the following entities to provide at least one
team member to attend a one-week training and
participate in the pilot for five hours monthly:
Albemarle Police Department, Charlottesville
Police Department, Albemarle Commonwealth's
Attorney, Charlottesville Commonwealth's
Attorney, Albemarle VictimRVitness office,
Charlottesville VictimNVitness office, U.Va.
and/or Martha Jefferson Hospital.
C~ARLOTTESV[LLE/ALBEtVIARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY, ES
19
N U A
EV'I EW
IV. CATALYST
3. Explore the creation of a Child Advocacy
Center for the Charlottesville / Albemarle
area:
· Allow for CCF staff/volunteer time to work
with partners in conducting needs and feasibility
studies, and seek funding, if appropriate.
· Consider the concept of a multi-use Child
Advocacy Center that could address the
community's needs for violence prevention,
intervention, supervised visitation, and central-
ized assessment, in addition to child abuse and
neglect investigation and case management.
Juvenile Court Survey Report
The Juvenile Court Survey Report outlines the
results of the Juvenile Court Survey conducted
by the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee to
investigate the impressions and concerns of
those involved with the juvenile court system,
including professionals, youth and parents.
KEY FINDINGS
· Knowledge of how the juvenile justice system
works, including timely communication to the
youth and their family and the necessary orien-
tation for those unfamiliar with their rights and
responsibilities, is a critical factor in successful
participation by any and all parties.
· The lack of time that youth and families had
with their attorney was cited strongly as an issue
among professional, youth and parents.
· The most frequently cited issue in narrative
comments on the professional survey is that of
parents being inconvenienced by court delays.
Most notably, this includes having to take time
off from work, and losing pay.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations resulting from the report
include:
· Development ora Guide to the Juvenile
Court System to educate youth, parents and
professionals who interact with the juvenile court
(currently underway);
The key findings of the Juvenile Court Survey
Report are:
· Over half of the youth surveyed felt that both
going to court and being put on probation had a
positive impact on their behavior.
· The convening of a Juvenile Court Forum to
clarify and identify the roles, res ponsibilities
and relationships among the professionals who
interact with the juvenile court system.
CHARLOTTESVJLLE/AI-BE~ARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FA[VJJlJES
20
A N N U A
L R E P o L
REVIEW
W COORDINATOR
V. Coordinator
To insure effective and accountable service
delivery, COF convenes community and
educational organizations to develop and guide
coordinated strategies through several of its
work groups. CCF also oversees the local
administration of two State and local funding
sources - Comprehensive Services Act and the
Virginia Juvenile Community Cdme Control Act
funds. Coordinated service delivery results in
partners' identification of barriers to services,
impacts their service delivery strategy, and
results in recommendations for improvements to
CCF and the community.
The Juvenile Justice Advisory
Cemmittee/Yeung Offenders/VJCCCA
The Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee
(JJAC) was established by CCF in 1998 to
coordinate local juvenile justice planning and
improve services. The JJAC is a 22-m ember
committee representing 20 agencies involved in
the juvenile justice arena. The JJAC is charged
with developing and implementing recom-
mendations for the juvenile justice system to
prevent delinquency, promote diversion and
rehabilitation and to evaluate, improve and co-
ordinate juvenile justice services and interven-
tions. The overall goal for JJAC is to reduce
delinquency intake rates, increase the number
of youth who are rehabilitated and do not re-
offend, and to support youth in making positive
changes in their lives. The activities of the J JAg
are guided by the objectives established in the
Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Plan.
The JJAC has the following subcommittees:
· The Interagency Screening Subcommittee
is focused on the development of an dsk and
needs assessment tool and process for using
the tool.
· The Information Sharing Subcommittee's
goal is to improve information sharing among
Charlottesville and Albemarle agencies for ef-
ficient and responsive service delivery.
· The Juvenile Court System Subcommittee
seeks to improve collaboration between the
court system and its stakeholders in order to
improve outcomes for youth involved in the
juvenile justice system.
· The Evaluation Subcommittee's goal is to
assess the effectiveness of the juvenile justice
system in collaboration with clients and par-
ticipating agencies by basing program designs
on measurable outcomes developed through
community consensus.
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMiViISS~ON ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
21
A N N U A L R E P O R T
I N EV'.t EW
· The Juvenile Justice Trends Subcommittee
is developing a process to collect and dissemi-
nate juvenile justice trends data on a monthly
basis.
· The Young Offender Advisory Committee
is focused on the development and oversight of
the Young Juvenile Offender Program.
· The Detention Center Subcommittee's goal
is to establish a working relationship between
the Detention Center and the Assessment
Center Annex.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
· The completion and.presentation of the
Juvenile Court Survey Report with recom-
mendations to develop a Juvenile Court System
Forum and a Juvenile Court User's Guide.
· The continued development of the Young
Juvenile Offender Program with the receipt of
$111,000 in second year grant funds.
· The receipt of a Juvenile Accountability and
Incentive Block Grant of $9,500 to provide new
computers for the Juvenile Court Assessment
Center.
· Oversight of the Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant of $31,000 to fund the re-
V, COORDINATOR
search and administrative activities of the JJAC
to develop the objectives of the Juvenile Justice
Comprehensive Plan.
KEY FINDINGS
JJAC members believe that an automated
information sharing system among Charlottesville
and Albemarle agencies will improve efficient and
responsive service delivery. Plans to establish
a Community Assessment Center and a Child
Advocacy Center will be coordinated with the
Family Violence work group in order to maximize
local resources and to strengthen collaborative
assessment and referral processes for local
residents.
Partnership for Children
The Partnership for Children is a consortium of
local agencies united in a common strategy to
provide services and assistance to build a sup-
portive community Where children, ages 0-6, are
nurtured in healthy families and arrive at school
ready to learn. The Partnership accomplishes
its work through five active subcommittees, a
community Advisory Board, and the governing
Partner agencies.
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
22
A N N U A L R E P O R T
-REVIEW
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
· Expanded parent education offerings in
the community, by hosting 6 parent educa-
tion workshops in collaboration with the local
hospitals on key aspects of early childhood
development, including fussy babies, early brain
development, temperament and parenting, play,
sleep, and television and children.
· Developed a one-stop screening tool for
Partnership home-visiting programs, to be
used by health care, education and community
agency personnel to assess parents' needs and
make a quick and effective referral to a com-
munity-based program. Home visiting members
also compiled "Resource Boxes" available to
all staff to allow them to refer families to local
resources.
· Literacy Kits were enhanced by the
addition of information about dental care
- reaching parents through several home visit-
~ng programs.
· Reached thousands of radio listeners
with information about healthy growth
and development with the receipt of the Eure
Communications Grant. Partnership public
service announcement focusing on the impact of
child abuse, early developmental stages, parent
education, and other aspects of raising children
COORDINATOR
were aired on 3 local radio stations. In one month,
radio spots were aired 302 times.
· The Partnership's Advisory Board adopted
the role of oversight of three of the
Partnership programs: Healthy Families,
Jefferson Area CHIP, and Bright Stars.
KEY FINDINGS
· Partnership agencies conducted an internal
survey and found that they have inadequate
language capacity to address the increasing
numbers of Limited English proficient residents
seeking assistance. A sub-group of members
conducted a brief "community scan" to learn of
area resources for linguistic minority residents.
· A lack of affordable dental care for young
children continues to be a documented need
despite volunteer efforts. Partnership members
seek a "dental care home" for all children to
assure Preventative and adequate dental care
throughout the early years.
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
A N N U i L R E P 0 R T
REVIEW
Teen Pregnanc¥/STD- Community
Service Learning
The Teen Pregnancy and STD Prevention Work
Group grew out of the recommendations in the
1999 Community Strategic Plan for Preventing
Teen Pregnancies and Sexually Transmitted
Diseases, published by a local community
task force on teen pregnancy prevention. The
coordinator position is supported for three years,
ending in October 2003, by Martha Jefferson
Hospital, and by local foundations, civic groups,
and private donors.
New Directions: The Establishment of the
Youth Service Learning Work Group
In early 2001, the CCF's Teen Pregnancy
and STD Prevention Work Group selected
youth service as one of its five priority areas,
and mandated the creation of a youth service
subcommittee. Youth service was deemed a
priority issue due to studies demonstrating that
participation in "service learning" programs that
met certain criteria reduced the pregnancy rates
among adolescent participants. Service learning
is a model of youth volunteerism that includes
preparation and training, closely supervised
and coordinated service projects, and reflection
components.
COORDINATOR
Middle School Prevention Services
Information about local youth from Youth
Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data and a
national study released in 2003 by the National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has led
the Teen Pregnancy and STD Prevention Work
Group to identify middle school students as
being in need of intensified pregnancy and STD
prevention efforts.
Albemarle County's 2001 YRBS results show
that almost 15% of middle school students
report having had sexual intercourse, and
26% of those students report having had more
than four sexual partners (Albemarle County
Public Schools, 2001). The YRBS was also
administered recently by the Charlottesville
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (CHRA)
to a small sample of City teens. One quarter of
those City respondents reported.that they first
had intercourse before age 13 (CHRA, 2003).
Highlighting the dangers of eady sex are studies
cited in the National Campaign report linking
early sexual activity with increased risk of teen
pregnancy (Kirby, 2001) and sexually transmit-
ted diseases (Miller, Cain, Rogers, Gribble, &
Turner, 1999).
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND F;AMIL[E$
24
A N N U A L 1R E: P O R T
REVIEW
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Through its members' work and research, the
work group has:
· Established that youth service learning
programs have benefits far beyond those of
teen pregnancy prevention:
Other benefits to youth include reduced
delinquency, improved school performance and
attendance, improved relational and job skills,
and increased connectedness to the community.
· Increased public awareness of the need for
teen pregnancy and ,STD prevention
The work group implemented an expanded
public awareness campaign for National Family
Sexuality Education Month, also known as "Let!s
Talk Month." Starting with a press release and
recognition of the month via City and County
governmental proclamations, the campaig r~ also
included an interview with the Coordinator in the
Daily Progress, and with Delegate Mitch Van
Yahres on his television program "Community
View" that also featured Planned Parenthood's
community educator.
· Improved community access to teen
pregnancy and STD prevention information
and services, including the planning and
implementation of a service provider's fair at the
County Schools Staff Development Day.
V. COORDINATOR
Over 400 teachers and counselors were able
to meet and talk with representatives from thirty
area youth-serving agencies and learn how to
connect students with the services.
· Provided information on prevention
programs to the parents of over 2100 middle-
school students, by organizing a roundtable
meeting between County middle school coun-
selors and representatives from school-based
prevention programs to identify and begin
resolving obstacles to better service delivery.
· Improved the pregnancy and STD preven-
tion component of Family Life Education
(FLE): The work group completed and delivered
a comprehensive list of recommendations for
updating the sexuality education components of the
Family Life curriculum for grades 5-10.
The Work Group approved a two-pronged plan
that calls for seeking an administrative home
for the position as well as funding to support
the position and its initiatives. The Coordinator
has also researched possible funding sources,
developed a support document listing the Work
Group's accomplishments, and drafted the
documents soliciting administrative placement
for the position.
CHARLOTTESV[LLE//~LBEFIARLE COiViMi$SION ON CHILDREN AND FAIVI~iLIES
25
A N N U A
R E P o R T
N REV.J EW
KEY FINDINGS
· Youth service learning programs are gaining
attention nationally and locally. "Best practices"
youth service learning programs reduce the
rates of teen pregnancy (Kirby, 2001) and
delinquency, improve school performance and
attendance, enhance relational and job skills,
and increase connectedness to the community
(Teens GIVE, Teen Outreach Program). Over
half of the nation's high schools now mandate
student community service, and the County
School Board has recently considered youth
service learning as a potential priority topic.
· From meetings and roundtables this year
with school and community personnel, the Teen
Pregnancy and STD Prevention Work Group's
Youth Service Subcommittee has determined
that the availability of high-quality service
learning opportunities for area youth is limited
by insufficient communication, knowledge, and
coordination.
RECOMMENDATIONS
· It is recommended that efforts be expanded
to engage civic and school administrators with
youth service professionals to increase "best-
practices" youth service learning opportunities,
and to establish service learning as the area's
V. COORDINATOR
primary strategy for involving youth in their com-
munities.
· It is recommended that specific strategies be
identified and developed regarding how best
to enhance pregnancy and STD prevention
services to middle school age young people.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE ACT COMMITTEE
[CSA)
The Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission
on Children and Families is responsible for
all aspects of administration of the Virginia
Comprehensive Services Act in Charlottesville
and Albemarle-County. The two loCalities
managed over $12 million in state and local
funds dudng the past year to provide foster
care services for children, to strengthen families
to prevent foster care placement, to provide
support services for children who need them in
order to remain in public school, and to provide
residential care for children whose needs cannot
be met within the public school setting. In addi-
tion, the City and County set aside some of their
Comprehensive Services Act dollars to provide
services fOr "non-mandated" court involved
youth, including counseling, substance abuse,
and mental health treatment,
According to the Code of Virginia, localities
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FAMiLiES
26
A N N U A L R E P O F~ T
must demonstrate interagency collaboration
in providing child-centered and family-focused
services for their high-risk youth. CCF provides
leadership to the interagency CSA Committee,
comprised of Social Services, Education, Mental
Health, and Juvenile Court Services representa-
tives from Albemarle County and Charlottesville,
as well as CCF's private provider representative.
CCF has charged the CSA Committee and
its subcommittee, the Case Authorization and
Review Team, with financial oversight of CSA,
developing policies for local implementation of
state CSA requirements, communicating local
issues at the state level, developing procedures
for providing services to children and families,
and forecasting future needs.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During 2002-2003, the CSA Committee has
monitored the expenditure of CSA funds, pro-
jected funding needs, and kept themselves and
CCF members informed of General Assembly
and Office of Comprehensive Services policies
that require local action.
Reviewed Case and Financial Information on
a Monthly Basis
· On a monthly basis, CSA Committee members
have reviewed financial information and case
reports provided by the Case Authorization and
Review Team. The CSA Committee has worked
to maintain a flexible system that facilitates
CSA funded children remaining close to their
residences where possible. Additionally, the CSA
Committee and CART authorized and established
a committee to review and revise the Family
Assessment Planning Team staffing/meetings and
protocols to adapt to the recent growth in case
numbers, costs and administrative responsibilities.
· A Cost Containment subcommittee was also
established to examine issues and trends contrib-
uting to increasing program costs and expendi-
tures, and make recommendations for improved
cost-containment practices. From 1994- 2002
local CSA costs increased by 660% for Albemarle
and 415% for Charlottesville. The number
of CSA cases increased by almost 350% for
Albemarle and 135% for Charlottesville. A report
and recommendations are expected in December
2003.
Monitored Revised Vendor Contracts
The CSA Committee oversaw the 2002-03 modi-
fications to the contracting process for CSA-
funded services. These modifications minimized
strain on local agency resources. Beginning in
FY03, the Charlottesville/Albemarle General
Terms and Conditions for CSA-funded Services,
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FAMiLiES
A N N U A
L R E P O R T
R iE:V.l EVV
together with a signed Purchase of Services
Order, constitutes the contractual agreement
between the vendor and the locality.
KEY FINDINGS
· The State Office of Comprehensive Services
continues to increase the administrative respon-
sibilities for localities without providing financial
support or technical assistance to meet their
requirements.
· Legislators and their staffs are not aware of
the localities' operational, financial and staffing
investments required to implement, maintain
and monitor state mandates.
· There is a desire and a need to work towards
a more effective and efficient system of data
collection on child specific trends, outcomes
and expenditures in order to inform and improve
usage of resources and shape early intervention
and prevention efforts.
. V, COORDINATOR
Children Needing Extensive Services
(CNES)
The Children Needing Extensive Services work
group (CNES) focuses on the relatively small
population of children who require the most in
human service and financial assistance from the
City and County. The work group defines these
children as children poised to harm themselves
or others and likely to require costly out of home
placements and innovative treatment programs.
Common diagnoses for these children include
depression, mental retardation, behavioral
problems, and family histories of mental illness,
substance abuse, and domestic violence.
Children needing the most extensive services
may not exhibit significant progress in improving
their behavior despite significant interventions
and efforts.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
· Consultants Panel
The concepts of a "team approach" and "transi-
tional services" resulted in the formation of a con-
sultant panel to review CNES cases and provide
a "second opinion" to case managers through a
multi-discipline team approach. Consultant panel
teams are comprised of specialists in fields of
mental retardation, psychopharmacology, special
education, vocational rehabilitation, psychology,
etc., that apply to the individual case.
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMi{LIES
28
A N N U A
EVI E.W
L R E P O R T
V, COORDINATOR
The work group piloted two consultant panels
comprised of seven community professionals
who do not typically participate in the Family
Assessment and Planning Team process and
have highly regarded credentials locally and
nationally. The panels sought innovative and
flexible strategies to improve the outcomes for
CNES children. As a result of feedback from
the panel members and case managers on this
process, the work group plans to continue the
piloting phase of this concept with revisions to
the process based on the feedback from the
consultants and case managers.
· Service Provider Roundtable Discussions
The workgroup implemented two roundtable
discussions with local residential treatment
providers and in-home/day treatment providers.
Specifically the workgroup focused on the fol-
lowing questions:
· How can we enhance the services that
exist locally for the population of children
needing extensive services?
· How can we help to prepare youth for
transition back to the community from
residential placements?
· What are the barriers to treating children
in local, family-like settings?
· What strategies and services have been
successful with these children?
· How can local government agencies help
in the development of local services?
The work group is currently reviewing the
information gathered from these two groups to
determine priorities for action.
· Care Coordinator
The workgroup has begun the process of
designing a care coordinator position that would
provide managed care oversight on some
CNES cases. Although still in the early stages
of design, the concept of a care coordinator
has been used successfully in other parts of the
State to lower cost and in holding vendors more
accountable for outcomes.
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAIVIIL[E$
29
VI.
N N U A
N R E'V' .I E ¥¥
Conclusion
In its fifth year, the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Commission on Children and Families has
emerged as a valuable resource for regional plan-
ning on behalf of children and their families.
As advisors, sources of information, coordinators,
and catalysts, participants in the CCF network
are helping to make Charlottesville and Albemarle
places where young people and their families can
thrive, and where services are readily available,
accessible and effective for those in need.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS/FUNDING SOURCES
L R E P 0 R T
VI. CONCLUSi~ON
families. CCF members, work group participants,
and community volunteers are listed in the
appendix of this report.
The work of CCF would not be possible without
the generous support of the Charlottesville
City Council and the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors. CCF is also grateful for the
financial support of the Department of Juvenile
Justice of the Commonwealth of Virginia through
its Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control
Act (VJCCCA) funds, the Virginia Department
of Criminal Justice Services, and the Office of
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA.)
The Chadottesviile/Albemarle Commission on
Children and Families relies on the talent and
energy of citizens, educators, human service
agency staff, and government representatives
to accomplish its mission. From its 22 members
to its participants in work groups and sub-
committees, these individuals help to insure
a responsive, vital and informed approach to
accomplishing the vision of a healthy community
for children and families.
CCF gratefully acknowledges its work group
members, board members, and the numerous
volunteers who have contributed their time and
talent to improve services to children and their
CHARLOTTESV[LLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FANltLIES
30
A N N U A L F~ E P 0 iR T
REV'I E
DCF Members:
Martha Carroll, 16th District Court Services Unit
Kevin Castner, Albemarle County Schools
Shirley Copeland, Albe made County Representative
Robed Cox, III, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Madison Cummings, Albemarle County Representative
Mark David Kindler, Albemarle County Representative
Michael Dickens, City of Charlottesville Representative
Leslie Hards Scott, City of Charlottesville Representative
Holly Hatcher, City of Charlottesville Representative
Ron Hutchinson, Charlottesville City Schools
Winx Lawrence, University of Virginia
Susan McLeod, Thomas Jefferson Health District
Linda Peacock, Charlottesville City Manager's Office
James Peterson, Region Ten Community Services Board
Jessica Rafter, City of Charlottesville Youth Representative
Katherine Ralston-Chair, Albemarle Department of Social
~ervices
Sade Ridley, City of Charlottesville Youth Representative
Sterling Robinson, II, Albemarle County Representative
Noah Schwartz, Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Cathy Train, United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area
Roxanne White, Albemarle County Executive's Office
Danielle Wilcox, City of Charlottesville Representative
Work Group Members:
· Agency Budget Review Team
Saphira Baker, Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children
and Families
Ayana Conway, Weed & Seed Network
Buz Cox~ Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Dr. Jonathan Evans, Citizen Member
Linda Peacock, Charlottesville City Manager's Office
Kathy Ralston, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Ruth Stone, Piedmont CASA
Cathy Train, United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area
Juandiego Wade, Planning and Community Development,
Albemarle County
William Wardle, Citizen Member
Roxanne White, Albemarle County Executive's Office
Danielle Wilcox, Citizen Member
APPENDIX
· Assets for Youth Work Group
Harold Boyd, Jack Jewett Middle School/Boys and Girls Club
David Brown, Soccer Organization of Charlottesville/Albemarle
Lee Davis, Charlottesville City Schools
Kathy Dowd, CLASS, Charlottesville City Schools
Emily Dreyfus, Just Children
Heather Kellams, TeensGive, Community Attention
Winx Lawrence, University of Virginia
Relda Manuel, Albemarle County Department Of Social Services
Sarah Peale, Albemarle County Schools
Noah Schwartz, Monticello Area, Community Action Agency
Timothy Sinatra, Boys and Gids Club
Amy Smith, Albemarle Parks and Recreation
Kala Somerville, Computer4Kids
· Children Needing Extensive Services
Work Group
Susan Brumfield, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Terry Coffey, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
John Hespeneide, 16~ Distdct Court Services Unit
Cheryl Lewis, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Bill Lieb, CommunityAttention
John Pezzoli, Region Ten Community Services Board
Kathy Ralston, Chair, Albemarle County Department of Social
Services
Peter Sheras, University of Virginia
· Community Needs Assessment Work
Group
Ayana Conway, Weed and Seed
Madison Cummings, former Albemarle County School Board
Kathy Dowd, Charlottesville City Schools
Jacqueline Dugery, Pew Partnership for Civic Change
Kathy Harris, Charlottesville City Schools
Gina Hijjawi, University of Virginia
William Lucy, University of Virginia
Cara Marranucci, Region Ten Community Services Board
Lisa Trlvits, University of Virginia
Karen Waters, Quality Community Council
Melvin Wilson, University of Virginia
Sue Winslow, Martha Jefferson Hospital
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CP[~LDREN AND FAMILIES
3I
A N N U A L F~ E P O R T
RE'VIEW
· Community Relations and Outreach Task
Force
~,yana Conway, Community Member
~hirley Copeland, Albemarle County Citizen Representative
~uz Cox, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
...qene Fifer, Community Member
_eslie Harris Scott, Charlottesville Citizen Representative
-Icily Hatcher, Charlottesville Citizen Representative
ComprehenSive Services Act (CSA)
ommittee
Martha Carroll, 16th District Court Service Unit
3uz Cox, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
~aul McWhinney, Albemarle County Department of Social
.-~ervices
Ibm Nash, Albemarle County Schools
lim Peterson, Region Ten Community Services Board
3asretta Sapp, Charlottesville City Schools
~loah Schwartz, Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Case Authorization and Review Team
(sub-committee)
Martha Carroll
(evin Kirst
3beryl Lewis
3ana Neidley
Iohn Pezzoli
3arol Zimorski
,CSA Ad-Hoc Committee (sub-committee)
Buz Cox, Kevin Kirst
3beryl Lewis
vlike Murphy
)aha Neidley
Dob Taibbi
APPENDIX
· CSA Cost Containment Work Group, (sUb-
committee)
Buz Cox
Kevin Kirst
Cheryl Lewis
Paul McWhinney
Mike Murphy
Dana Neidley
Earl Pendleton
Roxanne White
· Executive Committee:
Martha Carroll, 16~ District Court Services Unit
Mark Kindler, Vice Chair, County of Albemarle representative
Kathy Ralston, Chair, Albemarle Department of Social Services
Sterling Robinson, County of Albemarle representative
· Family Assessment and Planning Team
Bill Boley, Region Ten Community Services Board
Laurie Bonney, People Places - Pdvate Provider
Marianne Brand, Empowering Families Program - Pdvate
Provider
Susan Brumfield, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Terry Coffey, Albemarle County Department of Social ServiCes
Cindy Endredy, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Dan Falwell, Charlottesville' City Schools
Patdck Farrell, Albemarle City Schools
Mary Ann Hards, Family Preservation Services - Private Provide
Tdsh Hensley, Institute for Family Centered Services - Pdvate
Provider
John Hespenheide, 16"' District Court Services Unit
Mary Alice Hostetter, Community Attention
Lisa Johnson, Albemarle County Department Of Social Services
Kate Kaminski
Phyllis Kasonik, Albemarle County Schools
Kevin Kirst, Albemarle County Schools
Sarah Kleger, Albemarle County Department Of Social Services
Joe Lascano, 16t~ District Court Services Unit
Bill Lieb, Community Attention
Archer Mannis, Region Ten Community Services Board
Cara Marinucci, Region Ten Community Services Board
Peter Michaels, Region Ten Community Services Board
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COIVIIViI$S[ON ON CHILDREN AND FAMiLiES
A N N U A L
REVIEW
Mike Murphy, CommunityAttention
Deb Morris, Albemarle County Schools
Janie Myers, Charlottesville City Schools
John Neill, Albemarle County Department Of Social Services
Denise Oinonen, CharlottesvLIle Department of Social Services
Em Parente, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Leslie Pryor, 16t~ District Court Services Unit
Patricia Rusk, Parent Representative
:halarra Sessoms, Charlottesville City Schools
essica Stevenson, Charlottesville City Schools
Hank Strauss, Community Attention
Janis Travers
Bradford Ward, 16· District Court Services Unit
· Family Violence Work Group
Sarah Anderson, University of Virginia Medical Center
Sonia Ardila, DePaul Family Services
Dyan Aretakis, Teen Health Center, University of Virginia
Jacki Bryant, children, Youth And Family Services
F~oss Carew, OAR-JACC
Phyllis Colman, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Faye Crutchfleld, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Sandi Currier, Albemarle Victim Witness
Marguerite David, Children Youth and Family Services
Paul Davis, Charlottesville Police
Brian Dublirer, Clark School
David Dyer, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Kimbedy Flash, Shelter for Help in Emergency
~,ndy Foster, Piedmont CASA
John Freeman, Albemarle Department of Social Services
Kristine Hall, SARA
Kim Higgins, VictimNVitness Assistance Program
Mary-Alice Hostetter, Community Attention
Noel Hughes, U.VA. Medical Center
Gregory Jenkins, Albemarle Police
Libby Killeen, Commonwealth Attorney's Office
Mark Kindler, CCF, Albemarle County Representative
Nicole LLoyd, Shelter for Help in Emergency
3artie Lominack, Shelter for Help in Emergency
]'im Longo, Charlottesville Police
Megan Malia, SARA
_ee Mitchell, Young Offenders Program
Vlaggie Allen Morris, SARA
R E P O R T
APPENDi~X
Cherri Murphy, Charlottesville Victim Witness
Cynthia Murray, Albemarle Assistant Commonwealth Attorney
Beth Nichols, Albemarle Department of Social Services
Monica Norred, Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Pat O'Donnell, Charlottesville Victim Witness
Susan Painter, Albemarle County Victim Witness
Earl Pendleton, 16th Court Services Unit
Judy Randle,. Albemarle Department of Social Serwces
Kandi Rodgers, Region Ten Community Services Board
Kelly Rogers, Char. Department of Social Services
Shawn Schwertfeger, Albemarle Police
Chalarra Sessoms, Charlottesville City Schools
Bill Small, Charlottesville Police
Ruth Stone, Piedmont CASA
Bob Taibbi, Region Ten Community Services Board
Caitlin Thompson, UVA Community Psychology
Tom yon Hemert, Offender Aid and Restoration
Bradley Wentz, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
John Zug, Charlottesville Commonwealth Attorney
· Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee
Saphira Baker, Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children
and Families
Andy Block, JustChildren
Rory Carpenter, Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on
Children and Families
Martha Carroll, 16th Distdct Court Services Unit
Dave Chapman, Charlottesville Commonwealth Attorney
Captain Chip Harding, Charlottesville Police Department
Phillip Crosson, Region Ten Community Services Board
Jonathon EarL, Albemarle County Police Department
Charles Edwards, Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center
Andy Foster, Piedmont Court Appointed Special Advocates
Jack Gallagher, Community Attention
Carlton Gregory, JustChildren
Eric Johnson, Albemarle County Schools
Lieutenant J. W. Gibson, Charlottesville Police Department
Elizabeth Killeen, Charlottesville Commonwealth Attorney's Office
Lee-Lee Lawless, Juvenile Court Assessment Center
Cheryl Lewis, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Lee Mitchell, Community Attention
Donald MitchelL, Charlottesville City Schools
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALE~E~ARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAb~L]{ES
33
A N N U A L R E P O R T
REV
/like Murphy, Community Attention
,3ynthia Murray, Albemarle County Commonwealth Attomey's Office
Jz Murtagh, Public Defender's Office
.~ergeant Phillip Brown, Charlottesville Police Department
:)avid Saunier, Central Virginia Restorative Justice
3eter Sheras, U.Va. Curry School of Education
3ill Traylor, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
rom von Hemert, T. Jefferson Area Community Criminal JuslJce Board
APPENDIX
Juvenile Court System Subcommittee
Rory Carpenter
John Hespenheide
Elizabeth Killeen
Cheryl Lewis
Cynthia Murray
David Saunier
Detention Center Subcommittee
:~,ory Carpenter
Vlartha Carroll
:)ave Chapman
~hillip CrossonCharlie Edwards
Jack Gallagher
.?,hip Harding
:lizabeth Killeen
_ee-Lee Lawless
_iz Murtagh
Information Sharing Subcommittee
.~aphira Baker
~ory Carpenter
Jonathon Earl
Jack Gallagher
Vlike Murphy
:~uth Stone
,left Thomas
rom yon Hemert
Evaluation Subcommittee
Rory Carpenter
J0nathon Ead
Mike Murphy
Juvenile Justice Statistics Subcommittee
Saphira Baker
R0ry Carpenter
Martha Carroll
Dave Chapman
Jonathon Earl
Charles Edwards
Barbara Ferrier
Jack Gallagher
J. W. Gibson
Chip Harding
Thomas McKean
Mike Murphy
nteragency Screening Subcommittee
~,ndy Block
~ory Carpenter
:)ave Chapman
ahyllis Colman
~hillip CrossonNeta Davis
Jonathon Earl
Jack Gallagher
John Hespenheide
_ee-Lee Lawless
~,lice Micklem
3onald Mitchell
_ee Mitchell
~eter Sheras
Young Juvenile Offender Advisory
Committee
Andy Block, JustChildren
Rory Carpenter, Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on
Children and Families
Martha Carroll, 16th District Court Services Unit
Jack Gallagher, Community Attention
Steve Golden, Charlottesville City Schools
Lee-Lee Lawless, Juvenile Court Assessment Center
Cheryl Lewis, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Lee Mitchell, Community Attention
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAM;L~E$
34
A
N N U A
L R E P 0 R T
IN
RE'V,.] EW
· VJCCCA Oversight Committee
Saphira Baker, Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children
and Families
Rory Carpenter, Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on
3hildren and Families
Vlartha Carroll, 16th District Court Services Unit
Buz Cox, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Jack Gallagher, Community Attention
Linda Peacock, Charlottesville City Manager's Office
Roxanne White, Albemarle County Executive's Office
· Legislative Forum Planninq Committee
Andy Block, Just Children
David Blount, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Kimbedy Emory, UVA School of Law Public Service Center
Harry Levins, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Kathy Ralston, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Ruth Stone, CASA
Joyce Stratton, People Places
David Toscano, Attorney
Ed Wayland, Attorney
· Outcome Measurement Work Group
Rudy Bevedy, MonticellO Area Community Action Agency
Shidey Copeland, Citizen Member
Kathy Flanders, Children, Youth and Family Services
Jack Gallagher, Community Attention
Jon Nafziger, United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area
Linda Peacock, Charlottesville City Manager's Office
Kala Somerville, Computers4Kids
Bill Wardle, Citizen Member
Roxanne White, Albemarle County Executive's Office
Danielle Wilcox, Citizen Member
,Partnership for Children
Advisory Board:
Dr. James Blackman, Kluge Children's Rehabilitation Center
Dr. Robert Boyle, University of Virginia Hospital
Dr. Catherine Cook, Dentist
5rally Dreyfus, Parent Representative, Charlottesville-Albemarle
APPENDIX
Legal Aid Society, Just Children
Sonia Haimes, Amvest Corporation
James Kennan, University of Virginia Health System
Linda Peacock, Charlottesville City Manager's Office
Denise Pilgrim, Charlottesville City Schools
Mary Reese, Chair
Cathy Train, United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area
Dr. Bill Viglione, Dentist
Roxanne White, Albemarle County Executive's Office
Partners:
Saphira Baker, Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Childrer
and Families
Buz Cox, Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Dominic Felix, Children, Youth & Family Services
Nancy Gercke, Charlottesville City Schools
Sylvia Henderson, Albemarle County Schools
Connie Laws, Cooperative Extension
Dinah Nieberg, Under Fives Study Center
Kathy Ralston, Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Noah Schwartz, Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Judy Smith, Child Health Partnership
Dr. Susan McLeod, Thomas Jefferson Health District
Bob Tabibi, Region Ten Community Services Board
Cheryl Waxman, Arc of the Piedmont
Child Care Work Group
Rebecca Angevlne
Mimi Bender
Barbara Brown,
Cindy Camirand
Townley Cole
Kathy Flanders
Nancy Gercke
Sue Houchens
Etta Legner
Jon Nafziger
Helen Reynolds
Sara Rimm-Kaufman
Meg Sewell
Mitzi Ware
Jamie Yates
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMiLiES
35
A T
N N U A L R E P o R
REV'! E,W
iome-Visiting Work Group
Susan Shaw
Sue Tanasey
~lancy Gemke
Vlelinda Whitehurst
Maureen Burkhill
Vlarya Choby
Vlary Ann Harris
_inda Hamilton
_aura Munjal
Judy Smith
Judy Randle
Josh Stewart Silver
Joan Richards
3ebbie Childs
,3herrie Waxman
3rad Wentz
qebecca Angevine
Home-Visiting Collaborative members:
.~hristina Delzingar0, Am of the Piedmont
}ominic Felix, Children,~ Youth & Family Services
3r. Susan McLeod, Thomas Jefferson Health District
qoah Schwartz, Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Home-Visiting Collaborative Coordinators:
Vlelinda Whitehurst
Vlarya Ch0by
Judy Smith
Joan Richards
~,ebecca Angev~ne
Parent Education Work Group:
3eth Adams
]etsy Collins
:_ursaline Inge
-_-tta Legner
Vliriam Rushfinn
Diane Samson
]eth Reed Treadway
Vlitzi Ware
.;heryl Waxman
fates Nobles
(imberly Stanton
APPENDIX
Kimbedy Rambow
Josh Stewart Silver
Emily Dreyfus
Cara Marinucci
Rebecca Angevine
Public Awareness
Subcommittee:
Buz Cox
Sonia Haimes
Kathy Ralston
Rebecca Angevine
· School Readiness Work Group:
Nancy Cook
Nancy Gercke
Charity Haines
Denise Pilgrim
Miriam Rushfinn
Judy Smith
Cherrie Waxman
Meg Sewell
Rebecca Angevine
· Stepping Stones Advisory Committee
Dr. Michael Dickens, Albemarle County Representative
Gretchen Ellis, Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children,
and Families
Linda Peacock, Charlottesville City Manager's Office
Dennis Nissley, Albemarle County Schools
Diana Sacra, Charlottesville City Schools
Juandiego Wade, Planning and Community Development,
Albemarle County
· Teen Pre~nancy/Sexually Transmitted
Disease Prevention Work Group
Debra Abbott, Stillwater Institute for Social Justice
Dyan Aretakis, Teen Health Center
Saphira Baker, Commission on Children and Families
Maureen Burkhill, FOCUS-Teensight
Ayana Conway, Weed and Seed Network
Madison Cummings, Albemarle County Representative
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMiSSiON ON CHILDREN AND FAiViiLiES
36
A N N U A
L R E P 0 R T
R. EV I'EW
)amela Kulbok, University of Virginia
Nick Mattsson, Thomas Jefferson Health District
3ob Parker, Thomas Jefferson Health Distdct
Janet McDowell, Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge
Susan Winslow, Mar[ha Jefferson Hospital Community Services
_aurie UcDade, TP/STD Prevention Coordinator
Youth Service Learning (Sub-Committee)
-lannah Bailey
::)eh Brown
Vlecca Burns
_ee Davis
Shaye Heiskell
=at Hughes
-leather Kellams
_aurie McDade
Vlargaret Thacker
3haele Wood
BCF Staff
3aphira M. Baker, Director
_inda Balnave, Juvenile Justice Project Assistant
:{ory Carpenter, Juvenile Justice Coordinator
3retchen Ellis, Planner
.inda Rahman, Program Assistant
Cindy Stratton, CSA Coordinator
Amber Zavada, Information and Outreach Coordinator
· 2002-2003 Interns and Researchers
Brady Bowling, Charlottesville
Samantha Gavin, University of Virginia undergraduate
Gina Hijawii, University of Virginia
Lynne Maxwell, University of Virginia undergraduate
Maryfrances Porter, University of Virginia
Lod Skibbe, University of Virginia
Erin Sutfin, University of Virginia
Tusana Thaweckoon, University of Virginia
Caitlin Thompson, University of Virginia
Lisa Trivits, University of Virginia
Jennifer Tweed, University of Virginia
:arah Williams, University of Virginia
CHARLOTTESViLLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAIViI:L~ES:
~' HARLOTTE SVI LLE f ALE EiVIAR LE C'N
Why was the Commission (CCF) created
by Board and Council?
understand children's a
To ~idvise on programs and practices to im s
~To im prove accountability, coordination and effectiveness Of
local programs
What is CCF's vision for a healthy community?
HEALTHY
Healthy~
involved
adolescents
TreQtmeltt &
intervelttion
for troubled
youth
Educational
& economic
opportunitie~
What are CCF's primary roles?
information about services, and effective practices
· AdviSor-provideS guidance,
assistance to identify and address community needs
· Coordinator- facilitates coordinated strategies to enhance
positive outcomes for youth
· publiC awareness of needs and assets and
leverages support for innovative policies and programs
2
A N N U A L I~' ~ P C2.' ~' ~
How dOes CCF function?
child & family well-being
Over 180 volunteer work group members review available data,
incorporate local expertise, prioritize needs in light of local
resources and practices and make recommendations
community/agency action, and ~mproved policies and practices
How are we gauging local conditions ?
(1) Community Needs Assessment Report - September 2003
(2):Target Areas for Children & Families - Work in Progress
Prepared by the Outcome Measurement Work Group
3
What resources and needs do
local residents report?
a measure of the
resources of families with children
847 households were contacted by telephone survey
· 3,253 individuals'were represented in survey
Needs Assessment Findings
4
Report
Recommendations
working poor families;
2. Address the unmet needs of working poor familieS;
3. Disseminate inf°rmation effectively to residents; and
4. Assure access to mental health and substance abuse
services for children and adults.
A N N U A L [2 E ~ C; [,
How can we know how children and families are
doing over time?
ng of Children and Families
· Examines local data on community characteristics
· Helps us understand the changing face of our community
by identifying trends over time
· 67 indicators
· 5 year trends identified
5
Stepping Stones
Selected Trends
The average rate for receiVing first trimeSter prenatal care
declined ir~ both the City and County for the past five three-
year cycles.
The CharlOttesville fOster care rate has increased over six
years.
The percentage of students with limited Englis~i proficiencY
has increased over five years.
The number of students disciPlined for p~ssessing drugs or
alcohol in the public schoo s has increased n the County.
How well do local investments
meet identified needs?
· A compilation of findings from 48. documents and data sources
· Combines information on community needs, community health
indicators, and demographics
· The data can be used to understand needs of children and families,
compare needs with investments in local programs, and make
recommendations for priority areas for City-County financial investments;
6
Preliminary Findings
...in order to support Strong, Stable Families and
Communities:
· Ensure affordable health care for adults and children
· Address family violence by specifically targeting children exposed to
domestic violence and child abuse and neglect
· Enhance support to parents/adults by specifically targeting: stresses Of
single parents and the working poor; parenting, especially of challenging
children; adult substance abuse
ad alt education, community safety, public transportation
Preliminary Findings, cont.
development
Improve stUdent performance
Extend opportunities for productive activities, especially for non-
caucasian and lower income youth
· Provide effective and efficient services for youth in need, specifically
targeting: youth substance abuse; behavior problems and delinquency;
Address lack of local foster care homes and community based
assessment and crisis facilities
7
What is needed to complete the report?
*C~':.rq.,':;I,,'; il'",,';"r:l;,i!i:.~'' :.r ,:',:;.,iiu'l:11:lv strengths assets, and the extent of
,'~'.';:1,;~1'~ ,.':. [~"::!]l~:~br'! :1!.;
· Corn pare currently funded non-profit program outcom es With identified
needs and resources
· Assess the costs and benefits of a comprehensive assessment of human
services beyond children and their families, including the elderly, adult
criminal justice, and legal aid.
· Recommend priority areas for FY06 funding to Council, Board, and nora
profit agencies
What are future directions for CCF based on
data?
8
A N N U A L ~ ~ ~ ~£
How can Council & Board use CCF
information?
· To consider the specific needs and resources of children and
their families in your planning and policy decisions
~uncil and Board
strategic priorities
To ConSider targeting child and family non-profit and public
agency investments
To continue toseek accountability and responsiveness of local
children and family serving agencies
What can you expect from CCF?
· Effective liaison between agencies, citizens, decision makers
Innovative comm'unity problem solving through work groups
· AdviCe to Council and Board on effectiveness of local programs and
policies
· An engaged and diverse citizen-agency board, and volunteer members
· Expertise in facilitating community groups, strategic plans, resource
development
9
How can CCF best advise Council and Board ?
pressing issues where your mem hers cOlk
seek guidance on children and family perspectives?
What is the best form at for us to share with you what we
know?.
Questions/Discussion
CHAR.OT1ESV~LLE/AEBEMARLE ,_), ~-'!L~REN AND
10
bemarle County
ervice
Serving & Conserving
30-10-03Ali:30 RCYD
October30,2003
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr
County Executive
Albemarle County Office Building
Charlottesville, VA 22902
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Water Supply Cost Sharing Study
Dear Bob:
I am enclosing a copy of the final report establishing a method of shadng
the cost of certain water projects between the Albemarle County Service
Authority and the City of Charlottesville. This is the same report I forwarded to
you via email on August 22, 2003. This information is provided to keep you and
the Board of Supervisors informed of our progress in this matter and to address
several issues raised by a citizen at the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
meeting on Monday.
Back.qround
When the City, County, and ACSA created RWSA in 1973 by an
agreement commonly referred to as the Four Party Agreement a number of water
and sewer projects were specified to be undertaken by RWSA. A formula for
payment of those projects was set out in that agreement. All of those projects
have been completed. The agreement also said that RWSA must undertake the
provision of additional water and sewer facilities as may be agreed upon in the
future by the ACSA, City, and RWSA. Over the years ACSA and the City have
asked RWSA to undertake several new projects not envisioned in1973 and have
negotiated the sharing of the cost of those projects.
With the expectation that within a year or so RWSA will be funding
expansion of the urban area water supply ACSA and the City last year began
negotiations on the sharing of that cost. We sought the assistance of the former
chief financial officer of Fair[ax County Water Authority who had successfully
negotiated many water supply contracts among localities in Northern Virginia.
There was no argument that continuing to pay for future water needs based upon
history of prior usage was not equitable. We did not believe it would be
168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 ° Charlottesville, VA 22902 * Tel (434) 977-4511 ° Fax (434) 979-0698
www. acsanet.com
constructive to renegotiate previous agreements, but that we should only look
forward. The study we undertook looked at two projects: (1) the recently
completed expansion in treatment capacity of the South Rivanna Water
Treatment Plant and, (2)the raising of the elevation of the South RiVanna
Reservoir.
South Rivanna Treatment Plant Capacity
The capacity of South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant was increased in
1999 from 8 million gallons per day (mgd) to 12 mgd, thus increasing the total
treatment capacity of the urban system plants from 17.7 mgd to 21.7 mgd. This
treatment capacity is estimated to be adequate until 2020. An analysis of each
entity's usage of the 17.7 mgd plant capacity was undertaken for 1999, the year
of maximum water production and capacity allocated accordingly. This was
compared to the projected future water use in 2020:
1999 Usage
1999-Based Allocation 2020 Demand
City 9.67 mgd 10.4 mgd 10.13 mgd
ACSA 6.70 mgd 7.3 mgd 11.30 mgd
This shows that prior to the 4 mgd expansion of the South Rivanna Plant
the City's allocation of the capacity was sufficient to satisfy its 2020 projected
requirement. So far, the City has indicated no desire to acquire any of the 4 mgd
expansion and ACSA will pay for and own that new capacity.
For the first time since the formation of RWSA the City and ACSA will
have a defined interest in the waterworks capacity. In the past, any excess
capacity in the waterworks was owned by RWSA and was available to either the
City or ACS^ on a first come, first served basis and was being paid for based
upon current usage. In theory, either the City or ACSA could have added one
new customer which would have absorbed all remaining capacity. Now, our
respective allocations will be defined and we can plan accordingly.
This allocation of costs relates to capital expenditures. Operating costs
(chemicals, electricity, labor, etc.) will continue to be charged to the respective
entity based upon usage. If ACSA consumes 45% of the water produced in a
given month we will continue to pay 45% of those expendables used in producing
it.
Increase in Reservoir Capacity
The other component addressed in this study is the allocation of reservoir
capacity and cost of the dam elevation project. Looking back at the demand of
each the City and ACSA on the urban waterworks for the last 20 years the City
used 65% and ACSA used 35%. Applying those percentages to the current safe
yield of the reservoirs allocates 7.8 million gallons to the City and 4.2 million
2
gallons to ACSA. The projected supply requirements of the City and ACSA in
2020 are 10.4 and 11.3 million gallons respectively. While the City does not
need additional capacity in the treatment plant they, like ACSA, need additional
water supply. The City will need 27% of the additional 7.0 million gallons per day
to be attained by raising the dam four feet and ACSA will need the remaining
73%. The costs are proposed to be shared accordingly.
Current Status
City and ACSA attorneys and staff are working on an agreement for
consideration by RWSA, City Council, and the ACSA Board of Directors within
the next few months.
At the monthly RWSA meeting a citizen expressed his concems about
what he considers faults with the plan being considered. Since you and the
Board of Supervisors will likely hear these assertions again I believe it is
appropriate for me to address these now. The points raised were:
Why is the 1973 system "inherently unfair to the participating
jurisdictions"?
The 1973 system was used only for those projects set out in the Four
Party Agreement and has not been used on any project since then. This
method of basing each entities' share of the cost of a new project on their
current water or sewer use has no relevance to the entity's need for and
use of the new project. Why should one party pay 45% of the cost for a
project for which it may only derive 10% of the benefit?
Why was the 1983 Buck Mountain Joint Resolution not considered in
this study?
Again, this is irrelevant to what is being considered today. The Buck
Mountain project was not a project included in the Four Party Agreement
and had to be negotiated. Being deadlocked in negotiations, the City and
ACSA concurred with a compromise offered by the 5 C's Committee which
imposed a surcharge on new urban water connections to subsidize the
annual debt service on the land purchased for that proposed reservoir.
Both sides having blinked, the City and ACSA directed RWSA to purchase
the land and established the terms for payment.
I must editorialize at this point and point out ACSA's primary objection to
the Buck Mountain Joint Resolution. The University of Virginia as a
customer of the City was protected by a long-term contract with the City
and bore none of the costs for this future water supply through the
surcharge. For example, the new Medical Center was connected to this
community's water system without paying one cent towards the future
supply costs.
3
The County must be a party to' the proposed cost sharing agreement
between the City and ACSA just as in the Buck Mountain Joint
Resolution.
The County was a party to Buck Mountain Joint Resolution because of
runoff control cost recovery from RWSA and reimbursement for the costs
associated with a watershed management official to be housed within the
County administration.
The "County" must have greater representation on the RWSA if the
"County" is going to have to pay the greater portion of the future
water supply.
It is projected that the greatest increase in future water demand will be
from ACSA and ACSA is prepared to pay the cost. After raising the
elevation of the dam the City's ownership of the then-available water
supply will be 9.69 million gallons. ACSA ownership would be 9.31 million
gallons. Of the treatment plant capacity the respective ownership of
capacity will be 48% and 52%. I conclude that representation is not
lopsided relative to each party's stake in the waterworks.
Bob, I believe the approach we are taking on this matter will result in a
more equitable allocation of costs that in any previous project. It removes the
uncertainty of which party gets to benefit from excess capacity, whether they paid
for it or not. This will also assist RWSA in assigning costs in its budgeting
process.
This report contains many numbers and takes a while to comprehend. Set
it aside for a day and you must re-educate yourself. I believe it will be more
beneficial in reviewing the report to focus on the concept rather than the
numbers.
I hope to be able to answer questions which the Board of Supervisors may
have on November 5, 2003.
Very t[~ .~.~yours,
J. W. Brent
Executive Director
JWB/slrb
cc: Board of Directors
4
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF
COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
RE: WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES
FINAL REPORT
August 18, 2003
Vincent J. Byrne
Utility Consultant
OUTLINE Pa.qe
I. Introduction and Purpose of the Study
3
III. Major Findings
4
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
7
V. Summary and Next Steps
9
EXHIBITS
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Projection of Plant Capacity and Demand
Comparison - Capacity, Demand and Safe Yield
Comparison -Average and Maximum Day Demand
Histodcal Urban System Demand
Derivation of Plant Ownership
Derivation of Cost Allocation - Dam Elevation Project
I. Introduction and Purpose of the Study
This study was initiated with the objective of developing a fair and reasonable cost allocation model to be
used by the City of Charlottesville (City) and Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for apportioning the costs
of raising the height of the South Rivanna dam - a project estimated at approximately $7.5 million. Although the
primary objective of this study was to determine an appropriate allocation of the costs of the Rivanna dam project,
a secondary objective was to develop a more permanent cost allocation methodology to be applied to future
projects. The following documents were among those reviewed and analyzed as part of the study:
· Agreement between the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Albemarle County Service Authority,
and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority related to water and sewer service - Dated June 12, 1973.
· Staff Recommendation - A Multi-Step, Integrated Water Supply Strategy - Dated October 28, 2002.
· Memo to Larry Tropea from George Rest and Thomas Dumm - Supply, Demand and Treatment Information
for Cost Allocation - Dated January 3, 2002.
· Water Demand Analysis - Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville - Prepared by VHB and O'Brien &
Gere Engineers, inc. - Dated October 1997.
· Water Supply Analysis - Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority - Prepared by VHB and O'Brien & Gere
Engineers, Inc. - Dated June 1997.
· Water Supply Project - Rivanna Water & Sewer' Authority - Analysis of Alternatives - Dated February 2000.
· City of Charlottesville - Utility Rate Report
Interviews were held with senior management officials at City of Charlottesville - De partment of Public Works,
Albemarle County Service Authority, and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
II, Major Findin.qs
The major findings related to this study have been organized into four categories:
· The 1973 Agreement
· Urban Water System Demand
· Urban Water System Capacity
· Safe Yield - Dam Elevation Project
(1) The 1973 ^qreement
The 1973 Agreement does not quantify any capacity ownership or rights by the City or ^CSA in the
water production of the Rivanna facilities. This makes it very difficult to allocate costs of major
improvements to the system facilities and requires a separate negotiation for each major project
developed by Rivanna.
· No formal agreement has been reached regarding the appropriate cost allocation between the City
and ACSA for the 4.0 mgd expansion of the South Rivanna plant.
The billing methodology specified in the 1973 Agreement is cumbersome and inherently unfair to the
participating jurisdictions. Bills to each jurisdiction for many capital projects are based on volume.
Volumetric charges are appropriate for operating costs however, capital costs are normally allocated
on a percentage of the total cost of the project based on a specified (percentage) benefit to the
jurisdiction.
· As depicted in Exhibit 4, the City contributed 65% of the charges related to the water system plant
and facilities and ACSA contributed 35% over the period 1983-2002.
4
(2) Urban Water System Demand
Based on the most current maximum day water demand projections of VHB/O'Brien and Gere, the
current plant capacity of 21.7 mgd will be adequate to meet Urban System demand until about 2020.
Based on current demand projections, an increase in capacity will be required in 2020 or shortly
thereafter.
As depicted in Exhibit 1, the increase in demand projections for the City and ACSA between 1999
and 2050 are mostly attributable to ^CS^ - 87% of total increase.
The demand projections in this study are based on data contained in the report prepared by
VHB/O'Brien and Gere which used a factor of 1.4 to project maximum daily demand and a factor of
approximately 13% for water system losses
As depicted in Exhibit 3, the historical (1990-2002) maximum daily demand for the Urban System
occurred in 1998 at 15.7 million gallons per day (mgd).
As depicted in Exhibit 3, the plant design factor for maximum daily demand of 1.4 has been adequate
based on a historical comparison of average and maximum daily demands.
As can be seen from the data in Exhibit 2, the current safe yield supply of 12.0 mgd must be
increased to meet projections of future average daily demands.
Current projections of demand may be slightly high In light of the recent drought and related water
conservation efforts and projects, e.g. subsidies for .replacement of certain plumbing fixtures.
(3) Urban Water System Capacity
· As depicted in Exhibit 1, the current combined plant capacity of 21.7 mgd will meet all projected
maximum daily urban system demands until about 2020.
As depicted in Exhibit 5, the City can meet its maximum day demand in 2020 without acquiring any of
the 4.0 mgd capacity recently added to the South Rivanna plant. This assumes that the plant
capacity of 17.7 mgd is allocated to each jurisdiction based on 1999 maximum daily demands.
The projection of the City's maximum day demand in 2020 is 10.13 mgd. If the City does not acquire
any of the 4.0 mgd South Rivanna plant expansion, its allocation of plant capacity would be 10.40
mgd - an amount very close to its projected demand.
There is sufficient data available related to prior payments by the jurisdictions (including UVA) for
system capacity to develop a cost sharing methodology for allocating existing plant capacity between
the City and ACSA in an equitable manner.
(4)
Safe Yield - Dam' Elevation Project
· As depicted in the VHB/O'Brien and Gere report, the current safe yield related to the urban system is
approximately 12.0 mgd based on average daily demand.
· Implementing the dam elevation project will add 7.0 mgd to the existing safe yield. In absence of an
ongoing dredging program, the safe yield will deteriorate at about 1.0 mgd every ten years.
· Both the City and ACS^ will require a portion of the 7.0 mgd increase in safe yield to ensure an
adequate supply to meet future needs.
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
The following are the principle conclusions and recommendations for consideration by the City and ^CSA:
There are a number of benefits to be derived by allocating the existing plant capacity between the City
and ACSA. The major benefit is the adoption of a cost allocation formula for all projects related to
improving and maintaining the plant facilities. Adopting a cost allocation formula will provide an empirical
basis for the equitable sharing of costs for all future projects related to existing plant facilities.
It is recommended that the water system plant capacity available in 1999 (17.7 mgd) be allocated to the
City and ACSA based on their actual demands in 1999 - the year of highest historical demand. The
allocation should be based on a maximum day basis and include an allowance for system losses.
· As depicted in Exhibit 5, this allocation methodology results in the City acquiring 59% (10.4 mgd) and
ACSA 41% (7.3 mgd) of the plant capacity of 17.7 mgd available in 1999.
· According to the VHB/O'Brien and Gere demand analysis, the City (including UV^) can meet its
demands through 2020 without acquiring additional capacity.
The recent 4.0 mgd plant expansion of the South Rivanna plant facilities is required by ACSA for growth
and the entire cost for that expansion of capacity could be allocated to ^CS^. If the total of the 4.0 mgd
plant expansion at the South Rivanna plant is absorbed by ACSA, the plant capacity of 21.7 mgd would
be allocated at 48% to the City and 52% to ACSA.
However, based on the 2020 projection of the City's demand at 10.13 mgd and its proposed allocation of
plant capacity of 10.40 mgd, the City should consider acquiring some portion of the 4.0 mgd South
Rivanna plant expansion.
In order to equitably apportion the costs of the dam elevation project between the jurisdictions, it is
recommended that a basis of ownership of the existing 12.0 mgd safe yield be determined. Based on
the amount contributed for total facilities over the 20-year period 1983-2002, it was determined that the
City had contributed 65% and ACS^ 35% of the total
· Applying the above methodology results in the City being allocated 7.80 mgd and ^CSA being allocated
4.20 mgd of the existing 12.0 mgd of safe yield supply- Exhibit 6.
As depicted in Exhibit 6, each of the jurisdictions needs additional safe yield supply augmentation to
meet its future needs. Under the depicted analysis, the City would be allocated 1.89 mgd and ACSA
allocated 5.11 mgd of the total 7.0 mgd to meet their future needs.
Based on this methodology, the City would pay $2.03 million of the $7.5 million cost of the dam elevation
project with UVA contributing $0.83 million of that amount. ACS^ would pay the balance of the project
cost - $5.47 million.
IV. Summary and Next Steps
In summary, the following issues should be considered by the City and ACSA and incorporated into a formal
agreement between the two parties:
(2)
(3)
Agree on the allocation of plant capacity including the cost allocation methodology for all future
projects related to the current plant capacity of 21.7 mgd.
Agree on the methodology used to allocate the safe yield supply of 12.0 mgd and the methodology
used to apportion the additional safe yield supply of 7.0 mgd.
Agree on the allocation of costs for the dam elevation project based on the methodology depicted in
Exhibit 6 of this report.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
PROJECTION OF PLANT CAPACITY AND DEMAND
Exhibit 1
Capacity and Demand - MGD
Capacity
Demand - Average Day
Albemarle
Ch arlottesville - City
Non-UVA
UVA
Other
Losses
Total
1999' 2020 2050
17.70 21.70 21.70
4.23 6.00 10.90
4.35 4.50 5.00
1.75 1.90 2.10
0.20 0.20
1.60 1.70 2.40
11.93 14.30 20.60
Demand - Maximum Day @ 1.4
15.60 20.02 28.84
* Actual- Fiscal Year
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
COMPARISON - CAPACITY, DEMAND AND SAFE YIELD
Exhibit 2
1999'
2002*
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Urban System - MGD
Actual- Fiscal Year
(1)
Avg Day Max Day Plant Safe
Demand Demand Capacity Yield**
11.9 15.6 t 7.7 12.0
10.8 14.6 21.7 12.0
13.5 18.9 21.7 18.0
14.3 20.0 21.7 17.0
16.5 23.1 21.7 16.0
18.0 25.2 21.7 15.0
20.6 28.8 21.7 14.0
Based on Average Daily Supply.
(2) Safe yield reduced by 1.0 mgd each decade in absence of dredging.
(3) Safe yield in 2010 includes an additional 7.0 mgd related to dam expansion project and 1.0 mgd reduction
in absence of dredging.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
COMPARISON - AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND
Exhibit 3
Fiscal
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Average
Day- MGD
10.16
10.28
9.56
10.22
11.32
10.92
11.32
10.79
11.33
11.93
11.22
11.18
10.76
Urban System
Maximum Day- MGD
Factor
12.99
13.45
12.27
13.91
14.43
14.28
14.57
14.96
15.67
15.57
13.77
15.43
14.59
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1~3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
HISTORICAL URBAN SYSTEM DEMAND
Exhibit 4
Million Gallons
Fiscal
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Non-UVA
1589
1654
1624
1639
1662
1696
1684
1706
1612
1626
1564
1633
1599
1682
1491
1563
1589
1553
1458
1464
32088
City Total
UVA Total ACSA Urban
383 1972 766 2738
406 2060 832 2892
444 2068 878 2946
433 2072 916 2988
452 2114 959 3073
469 2165 1041 3206
501 2185 1063 3248
553 2259 1044 3303
650 2262 1090 3352
560 2186 1063 3249
563 2127 1087 3214
567 2200 1240 3440
567 2166 1255 3421
575 2257 1294 3551
612 2103 1296 3399
625 2188 1420 3608
640 2229 1543 3772
569 2122 1490 3612
517 1975 1513 3488
573 2037 1572 3609
10659 42747 23362 66109
Total
Losses System
389 3127
398 3290
274 3220
600 3588
546 3619
543 3749
554 3802
407 3710
402 3754
241 3490
518 3732
693 4133
563 3984
582 4133
541 3940
527 4135
582 4354
483 4095
592 4080
317 3926
9752 75861
Pemen~ge 49 16 65 35 100
31TY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
DERIVATION OF PLANT OWNERSHIP
Based on 1999 Actual Demand Total Urban Demand
Average Daily Demand (ADD)
Max Day Demand = 1.4 * ADD
Max Day Demand + Losses (13.1% loss factor)
Percentage - Max Day+Losses/Total
Plant Ownership - Based on 17.7 MGD Plant
Based on 2020 Projected Demand Total Urban Demand
Average Daily Demand (ADD)
Max Day Demand = 1.4 * ADD
Max Day Demand + Losses (13.1% loss factor)
Plant Ownership - Based on 21.7 MGD Plant
% of Plant Ownership - Based on 21.7 MGD Plant
City
Non-UVA UVA Total ACSA
1589 640 2229 1543
4.35 1.75 6.11 4.23
6.09 2.45 8.55 5.92
6.89 2.77 9.67 6.70
42 17 59 41
7.40 3.00 10.40 7.30
1643 694 2337 2190
4.50 1.90 6.40 6.00
6.30 2.66 8.96 8.40
7.13 3.01 10.13 9.50
7.40 3.00 10.40 11.30
34 14 48 52
Total
Urban
3772
10.33
14.46
16.35
100
17.70
4527
12.40
17.36
19.63
21.70
100
Exhibit 5
MG
MGD
MGD
MGD
%
MGD
MG
MGD
MGD
MGD
MGD
%
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
DERIVATION OF COST ALLOCATION - DAM ELEVATION PROJECT
Exhibit 6
Total Urban Demand - FY's 1983-2002
Percentage of Total Urban Demand
Supply Ownership - Based on 12.0 MGD Supply
Supply Requirement - Based on 2020 Plant Ownership
Additional Supply Required
Percentage - Additional Supply Required
Allocated Amount of 7.0 MGD Dam Elevation
Total Ownership - Based on 19.0 MGD Supply
Cost Allocation - $7.5 Million Project Cost
Cost Allocation Percentage
City
Non-UVA UVA Total ACSA
32088 10659 42747 23362
49 16 65 35
5.88 1.92 7.80 4.20
7.40 3.00 10.40 11.30
1.52 1.08 2.60 7.10
16 11 27 73
1.12 0.77 1.89 5.11
7.00 2.69 9.69 9.31
1.20 0.83 2.03 5.47
16 11 27 73
Total
Urban
66109
100
12.00
21.70
9.70
100
7.00
19.00
7.50
100
MG
%
MGD
MGD
MGD
%
MGD
MGD
SMillion
%
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Historic Preservation Committee Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on Historic Preservation Committee activities
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Graham, Cilimber~h Maliszewski
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Historic Preservation Plan was adopted in the Fall of 2000. In April 2001 the Board of Supervisors adopted the
"Priority Recommendations for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County" as the action agenda to be used for the
implementation of the Plan. (See Attachment A.) The Board also approved recommendation #1 for implementation,
thereby establishing a permanent Historic Preservation Committee. Members were appointed and the new Historic
Preservation Committee held its first meeting on January 8, 2002. The Committee's duties/functions as established by
the Board were to "implement the County's preservation plan, beginning with the priority measures."
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Direction: 2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources.
DISCUSSION:
The Historic Preservation Committee has begun to address most of the Priority Recommendations identified in April
2001. A summary of the highlights of the Committee's accomplishments is included as Attachment B. Staff is currently
reviewing several issues raised in this update and will provide additional information to the Board at its next meeting.
Attachments:
A- Priority Recommendations for Historic Preservation in Albemarle County
B - Progress Report
C - Definition of "Historic Resource"
03.135
29-10-03P05:31 RCVD
PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS for HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1. Create a permanent Historic Preservation Committee to provide assistance and advice concerning the
County's historic preservation program.
Compile and maintain a current and comprehensive information base for Albemarle County's historic
resources. This database should include, but is not limited to, the following: Identification of all historic
sites by tax map and parcel number; maintenance of a map of potential prehistoric archaeological sites,
and ready accessibility to all Virginia Department of Historic Resources historic survey inventory data on
Albemarle County resources. This information base should be consulted so that historic resources may
be fully considered in the County's development review process, and should be made easily available to
interested citiZens for educational and informational purposes. This information base should also be
coordinated with the County's GIS system.
Institute a program whereby new owners of historic properties are notified of the significance of their
property and are given instructions for obtaining additional preservation-related information concerning
their historic resource.
4. Establish a formal definition of the term "significant historic resource" to be used in the implementation
of the County's Historic Preservation Plan.
In the event that demolition of a significant historic resource must occur, thoroughly document the
resource prior to demolition. Also encourage documentation prior to major adaptive reuse or renovation
whenever possible.
Promote and encourage preservation by making available information regarding state and national
register designation procedures, tax incentives, historic and conservation easements, and other
voluntary preservation measures.
Foster community pride, good citizenship, and stewardship of the County's historic resources through
heritage education programs, beginning with the creation of educational/informational brochures on
various County historic preservation issues, including state and national register listing, tax incentives,
County policy, etc.
The Historic Preservation Committee should work with other organizations to initiate and implement
community events for Albemarle County that recognize our historic resources. These events should be
coordinated with other statewide heritage tourism activities and National Preservation Week.
To help protect the Monticello viewshed, adopt a more formalized procedure that begins early in the
planning process to encourage cooperation between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and
developers of property within the viewshed.
10. Be prepared to take advantage of resources, as they become available, to assist in implementation of
the County's historic preservation plan.
11. Continue to pursue the implementation of financial incentives for historic preservation, including the
establishment of a revolving loan fund and the requisite enabling legislation.
12. Two years after the adoption of these recommendations, evaluate the County's progress on these
preservation priorities, and evaluate the need for a historic overlay district ordinance.
Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee: Progress Report
November, 2003
Following the initial organization of the new Historic Preservation Committee in January 2002, subcommittees were
organized over the next several months to address the various priority recommendations, as described below.
Membership currently stands at 20 individuals, not counting Commission and Board liaisons. Three of the members
appointed in 2002 have resigned.
Subcommittee A was formed to address Priori _ty Recommendation #2 - the creation of a database of historic resources.
That subcommittee prepared a proposal for a database system and presented it to the Planning Department. Working
with Planning and IT, the subcommittee established that the County's Cityview software could be used for the historic
resources database. The Subcommittee then urged the County to fund a new position devoted to historic preservation
planning, primarily data input for the historic resources database. That position was funded and our new Historic
Preservation Planner began work on October 20, 2003. The lip Planner's priority task is to establish the database and
to coordinate it with Cityview. In the absence of a completed database for the County, some committee members with
expertise have consulted on historic resource protection in the review of some development proposals. This work has
required minimal staff resources.
Subcommittee B was formed to address Priority Recommendation #3 - the notification of new owners of historic
properties. The Subcommittee established a system of identifying historic properties that have changed ownership and
drafted form letters to send to the new owners. The use of the letters was approved by the BOS earlier this year. To
provide better customer service to recipients of those letters, separate email and phone lines have been established for
incoming requests for historic preservation information. The Subcommittee has also established a list of "Frequently
Asked Questions" so that consistent answers can be provided to callers. The Historic Preservation Planner will monitor
the phone and email lines. With the planner on board, the notification system can now be put into practice.
Subcommittee C was formed to address Priority Recommendations 4, 5, and 6 - dealing with the definition of"historic
resource," demolition, and the distribution of information on voluntary preservation measures.
The definition of "historic resource" was discussed at several subcommittee and full committee meetings. At the
full committee meeting held on September 8, 2003 the Committee adopted the definition that is included as
Attachment C.
Regarding demolition, one workshop was held to train committee members in the recordation of historic structures
and tools necessary for recordation were assembled for the use of volunteer recorders. Committee members are
currently studying the demolition permit review process to determine ways to increase the number of possible
recordations of historic resources prior to demolition. The Subcommittee is compiling an updated list of already
demolished historic resources. Demolitions proposed and carried out over the past year have raised questions about
the role the Committee should play in the review of development proposals in the County. Clarification on this
issue is requested.
· Regarding information on voluntary preservation measures, the Subcommittee assembled various pamphlets and
brochures and compiled a list of web sites for distribution.
Subcommittee D was formed to address Priori_B' Recommendations #7 and 8 - regarding stewardship, education, and
recognition of historic resources. The production of a brochure was discussed and postponed following a survey and
collection of existing informational brochures. A list of preservation "experts" and organizations is being compiled for
future reference. The Subcommittee is also working to adapt the Country Stores research (see below) for use in a
speakers bureau and for educational programs.
Priority Recommendation #9 regarding the Monticello viewshed was left unassigned until a future date. It has been
suggested that the coordination between Monticello and developers has improved sufficiently since the time that the
recommendation was originally made, and that no additional effort is required in this area at this time. Alternatively, it
has been recommended that the Mountaintop Committee consider the viewshed issue. It has also been suggested that
the item be expanded to include consideration of historic viewsheds throughout the County. Additional direction from
the Board of Supervisors on this issue is welcome.
Priority Recommendation #10 is considered at each meeting of the full committee.
Priority Recommendation #11 was recently assigned to the newly formed Financial Incentives Subcommittee. The
Subcommittee has met twice, focusing on the issue of establishing a revolving fund. The Subcommittee chairperson
recently reported that the bankers lobby would, again, not support the necessary enabling legislation for a revolving
fund, The Subcommittee will be moving on to the consideration of other incentives.
The Committee was asked to comment on the "Rural Commercial" section of a draft revision to the Rural Areas
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Committee discussions led to several committee members working to identify, as
comprehensively as possible, all country stores in the county. A presentation on the Committee's research and
recommendations on the treatment of country stores was made to the Board of Supervisors on May 7. A similar
presentation to the Planning Commission was made on May 20. A web site on country stores has been created, a
brochure has been drafted, and a map is being compiled. The committee members are finalizing these items and plan to
use the information for ongoing educational purposes.
Future Direction
Over the coming year staff and the Committee will be focUsing on the creation of the Historic Resources Database. It
is anticipated that additional progress will also be made on public outreach/education and on financial incentives.
Definition of "Historic Resource"
Adopted by the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee
September, 2003
Following the definition established by the National Register of Historic Places, a "historic resource" in
Albemarle County is one with architecture, engineering, archaeological, or cultural remains present in
districts, sites, buildings, or structures that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. Each site should be associated with one or more of the following
historical or cultural themes:
A: Those that are associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history
B: Those that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
C: Those that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
D: Those that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history
Those themes that have been the most important to the broad patterns of Albemarle County's history were
discussed at length in a context study entitled, "From the Monacans to Monticello and Beyond: Prehistoric
and Historic Contexts for Albemarle County, Virginia" produced in May of 1995 by Garrow and Associates
for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Historic resources in Albemarle County should be
evaluated in light ofmbut 'are not limited to these themes. Albemarle County's historic resources are not
limited to those sites identified in this historic context study; they are intended only as examples.
Furthermore, the historic or cultural contexts of Albemarle County's historic resources are not limited to any
single dominant people group; they might be associated with Native Americans, enslaved and free blacks,
and European settlers, including English, Scotch-Irish, and Germans, among others. Significant persons from
Albemarle County's past can range from figures of international renown such as Thomas Jefferson, to
persons of local significance, such as Civil Rights activist and educator Mary Carr Greer. When considering
sites that "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master," the relative rarity of the example should be a factor that warrants particular
consideration. Rarity can be associated with, but not limited to: period, as in the Queen Anne style
President's House for the Alberene Soapstone Company; type, as in the African-American Mont Alto
schoolhouse; or method of construction, as in the timber frame and nogged dairy/smokehouse of Cloverfields
Plantation. For further direction on interpreting the above criteria at the local level, see the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation (Bulletin 15).
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Members of the Board of S~p~ ervisors
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cl~~-¢\
DATE:
October 29, 2003
RE:
Next Neighborhood Master Plan
At your October 1, 2003 Board meeting you approved Neighborhoods 1 & 2 and
Hollymead Piney Mountain as the next area to master plan. At that meeting you asked
that this item be scheduled on the November 5th agenda to give Board members an
opportunity to discuss any comments they may have received from constituents
regarding the next neighborhood model area selected for master planning and to allow
property owners in this area an opportunity to comment on how they would like the
County to proceed with this area.
/ewc
October 27, 2003
Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors
C/O David Benish
411 M¢Intire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Board Members:
You voted earlier this month to authorize the master planning of neighborhood 2,
together with Hollymead. These will be the second areas in the County to undergo this
process. As developers with significant land holdings in neighborhood 2, we are
supportive of a master plan for this area but would strongly urge you not to delay or
discourage all rezoning appliCations in this area until a framework plan is complete.
There are important differences between Crozet and the areas you are about to plan and
these differences could easily result in a master planning process that lasts 2 years or
more. The effects of slowing or suspending development in designated growth areas is
already being felt as a consequence of the Crozet planning process and significant delays
in urban area projects like Albemarle Place, Hollymeade Town Center and Northpointe.
Lot supply today is severely constrained and prices have risen at an unsustainable pace to
levels that are excluding even middle income buyers. Development in the rural areas has
also increased dramatically to help meet strong demand. These are unfortunate and
unintended consequences of a well intentioned process. Stalling well planned growth in
Neighborhood 2 and Hollymeade for 2 years or more will only exacerbate these
problems.
Stonehaus currently owns or controls about 280 acres in neighborhood 2. The most
significant land holding is 247 acres located between Dunlora and the Norfolk Southern
Railway. The property, commonly referred to as Belvedere has been in active planning
for almost 5 years. There are unique physical characteristics that development issues that
we believe warrant continuation of our current independent planning process and
application formal application for rezoning under a neighborhood model district master
plan early next year.
Belvedere is an infill property bounded to the South by the Dunlora subdivision and the
remains of the original Dunlora estate. The future connections from the Dunlora
subdivision to Belvedere are already established in two locations on Free State Road.
The eastern boundary is defined by the Rivarma River and the northern by the railroad
and Northfields subdivision. To the west, a narrow strip extends out to Rio Road. The
context into which future development will occur is already welt defined for the
Belvedere property.
The transportation and access issues associated with the Belvedere property have been
studied extensively and discussed repeatedly with and among VDOT, county planning
and engineering staff. The northern extension of the Meadowcreek Parkway would likely
be constructed through the Belvedere property and we recognize the importance of
providing a corridor that meets County transportation goals without compromising our
ability to create a cohesive residential community. Our current master plan for Belvedere
incorporates the VDOT approved alignment for the Free State Connector Road and
allows for future widening and extension of the road adjacent to the railroad. Our
proposed alignment along the railroad was reviewed by Jones & Jones during the phase I
planning for the Parkway. While outside their scope of work, they acknowledged that the
railway alignment is the most likely solution that meets land planning and transportation
goals. Primary access alternatives for Belvedere are limited. Three potential routes
have been identified but only one is currently available. We continue to study the other 2
and fully expect the County and VDOT to be instumental in helping us select the final
route. The most important point right now is that the transportation issues for this future
development have been well defined and would not likely be affected by the master
planning process for Neighborhood 2.
Our sole reason for seeking to rezone Belvedere will be to achieve better form and
improved diversity of product than we could realize under existing zoning. We already
have more development rights under the current R-4 zoning than we can possibly use.
If we have to wait another 1 to 2 years to submit a rezoning application for the property,
we will be forced by fmancial considerations to proceed with some form of by-right
development. Given the recent proffers extracted during other rezonings in the County,
by-right development certainly has appeal in many ways but we still view it as a lost
oppommity to create something special.
We respectfully ask that you not discourage or delay consideration of all rezoning
applications in neighborhood 2 while master planning of this area is conducted. Be
willing to consider each application on its own merit. Belvedere is a clear example of a
property that has akeady undergone a rigorous planning process and has few if any
variables that could be legitimately affected by the neighborhood planning process. We
welcome the opportunity to engage planners, commissioners, board members, neighbors
and VDOT in an open dialog about the future of the Belvedere property. We have
suggested a preliminary work session with the Planning Commission before any
application is submitted. We have been and continue to meet with neighbors to
understand their concerns seek their input. We believe these efforts can complement the
neigborhood 2 master planning process and yield a new community in which we can all
take pride.
Respectfully yours,
Frank Stoner
Stonehaus Development
Southern
Environmental
Law Center
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Date: / / - D~'-D 3
Agenda Item #: 'W~ / '~
Clerk, Initials: L~-~..~
Comments to Board of Supervisors
Re: Master Planning Process for Hollymead-Piney Branch
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065
434-977-4090
Fax 434-977-1483
SouthernEnvironment.org
Ever since the recent rezonings on Route 29 North came before this Board last summer, we have
urged the Board to develop a transportation plan for 29 North that would identify issues to be addressed
in rezonings. For this reason, we supported the request to make the Hollymead Area the focus of the next
master planning process. However, we are in sympathy with the concerns expressed by Mr. Stoner.
While taking no position on his Belevedere project (about which we are uninformed), he clearly has been
a developer who has sought to incorporate community planning into his projects. Personally, my
experience has been that he is open to utilizing concepts of the new urbanism in his projects.
However, we believe that during the time that the Hollymead planning process takes place, the Board
should adhere to a strict interpretation of the Neighborhood Model in any rezoning that occurs. We
believe that developers like Mr. Stoner will rise to the occasion and be able to meet these standards. Two
large-scale largely commercial developments have been approved for 29 North. Rather than let each one
of these set the standard for future rezonings, we believe that you should reiterate your commitment to
follow the neighborhood model, especially during the next several years.
Certainly, we support development of the growth areas and avoidance of development in the rural and
agricultural areas. However, growth -- even in the areas designated for it -- should not be embraced for
growth's sake, if the standards of the neighborhood model are not met. In short, we still believe that all
development in the 29 growth area should have:
· Pedestrian orientation
· Neighborhood friendly network of roads and pathways
· Interconnected highway and transportation system, including connections to transit
· Parks and open space
· A neighborhood center
· Buildings and spaces of human scale
· Relegated parking
· Mixture of uses
· Mixture of housing types, including affordable housing
· Site planning that respects terrain
· Redevelopment, and
· Clear boundaries with the rural areas.
Given the concerns that this Board has expressed about transportation in the 29 Corridor, you should
continue to make development and redevelopment adhere to principles that will reduce congestion. We
hope that you will agree that the neighborhood principles, which attempt to accomplish these goals,
should be followed in all development but especially in the 29 North Corridor while the Master Plan is
being developed.
We believe that Mr. Stoner and others will be able to'develop within this context in a manner that will
be an asset to the community rather than a future burden on traffic, schools and other infrastructure.
Kay Slaughter, November 5, 2003
Carolinas Office: 200 West Franklin St., Suite 330 · Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2559 ° 919-967-1450
Deep South Office: The Candler Building · 127 Peachtree St., Suite 605 · Atlanta, GA 30303-1800 · 404-521-9900
100% recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
29-10-03A09:58
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Strategic Plan Progress Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review Strategic Plan quarterly progress report,
provide guidance
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Ms. White, Ms. AIIshouse.
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION: ×
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
In spring 2002, the Board initiated the County's current strategic planning process. The Board developed the County's Vision,
Mission, and Goal Statements. Staff developed a framework and timetable, targeted ten priority objectives, and incorporated
changes suggested by the Board at their October and January strategic planning work sessions. The Board received Strategic
Plan quarterly progress reports in April 2003 and August 2003, and held their annual strategic planning retreat in September
2003.
At the annual retreat, the Board reviewed staff's accomplishments and new data, reviewed and discussed the County's and the
region's economic development policies and plans, discussed tying the strategic plan to long-range financial planning, and
discussed additional ways to communicate the County's strategic plan to citizens and throughout the organization. The Board
also identified the following new strategic goal:
3.3. Develop and implementation policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the
factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Plan FY 03 - FY 05 Plan of Action
DISCUSSION:
The Board's strategic plan continued to provide focus for the County during the past quarter. Since the Retreat, many additional
efforts are underway and others are continuing:
Economic Development Plans and Polices:. The Board has formally adopted the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission's (TJPDC) Regiona Economic Development Plan and staff is making plans to update the Comprehensive Plan's
Economic Development Policy to reflect new data and coordinate with regional efforts.
Development of Long~ran,qe f nancia planning process: Staff is developing a long-range financial planning process that will be
tied to the strategic plan. Staff will present their recommendations to the Board for review and approval over the next two month.
Components of this process are slated to be incorporated into the FY 04/05 budget cycle.
Strategic Communication Plan: The updated strategic plan is included on the County's website and all of the Board executive
summaries include a place for the author to tie the report's topic to the Strategic Plan. The County's Leadership Council will
incorporate the Board's other recommendations into a comprehensive strategic communication plan focused, along with other
strategies, on internal and external audiences.
Development of Life-long Learning Goals: A Life-long learning work group, composed of representatives from Albemarle
County schools and government, UVA, Piedmont Community College, Bright Stars, Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, the
County schools and government, UVA, Piedmont Community College, Bright Stars, Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, the
Workforce Investment Board, Boys and Girls Club of Charlottesville/Albemarle, Jefferson Institute of Life-Long Learning,
Monticello Area Community Action Agency, Charlottesville Area school Business Alliance, the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Services, and the Chamber of Commerce, are working to develop goals for the County's Lifelong Learning Strategic Direction.
Goals developed by this work group are scheduled to be completed and presented to the Board for approval in the spring.
Plans for new Goal regarding growth and urbanization: A County work group is drafting an action plan (objectives and
strategies) and timetable for the County's new goal regarding growth and urbanization. The team plans to present their
recommendation s to the Board for review and approval in December 03.
Development of "Outcome" Performance Measures: A County work group, composed of members of the Leadersh ip Team
and Mah agement Group, is developing a County-wide outcome-based performance measurement system for the strategic plan
that should be completed for Board review in eady 2004.
Progress on ten priority obiectives: Staff members are continuing their efforts on achieving the County's ten priority objectives
by the slated timelines. Attached for your review is the third quarter Priority Objectives progress report, for the time period of
July 2003 through September 2003.
Th e Leadership Council has determined that timelines on two objectives, originally slated to be achieved Dy December 2003,
will need to be adjusted forward. Objective 2.1.2, regarding the implementation plan for the County's revised rural area polices,
and Objective 3.2:1, regarding increasing affordable homeownership options, need to be adjusted to allow for adequate time for
public involvement and future study by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that Objective 2.1.1 be moved to ,
2004 and that Objective 3.2.1 be moved to March, 2004.
The County's strategic plan framework is attached for reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board review this quarterly strategic plan progress report, and provide any additional guidance for
staff at this time.
Attachments
Strate,qic Framework
Quarterly Strate.qic Plan Progress Report
03.134
VISION
To maintain Albemarle County's stature as a quality community by promoting the values of education and lifelong learning,
historic and scenic preservation, safety, affordability, cultural diversity, citizen participation and economic opportunity that make
the County a desirable place in which to grow up, raise a family and grow old while preserving our natural resources, rural
character and visual beauty for future generations.
MISSION
To Enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service
consistent with the prudent use of public funds
Strategic Directions
Provide High Quality
Educational
Opportunities for
Albemarle County
Citizens of a# ages
GOALS
(Goals to be developed
beginning fall 2003.)
2. Protect the County's
Natural, Scenic and
Historic Resources
GOALS
2.1 Protect and/or
preserve the County's
rural character
2.2 Protect and/or
preserve the County's
natural resources
2.3 Provide for
environmentally sensitive
government operations at
the local and regional
evel
Enhance the Quality of
Life for all Citizens
GOALS
3.1 Make the County a safe
and healthy community in
which citizens feel secure
to live, work and play
3.2 Promote a variety of
safe, sanitary & affordable
housing types
3.3 NEW Develop and
implement policies that
address the County's
growth and urbanization
while continuing to enhance
the factors that contribute
to the quality of life in the
County.
4. Serve the Public
Efficiently and Effectively
GOALS
{.1 Provide effective,
responsive and courteous
service to our customers
4.2 Fund County services in
a fair, efficient manner and
)rovide needed public
facilities and infrastructure
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
November 5, 2003
1 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources I
IGOAL: 2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character
OBJECTIVE:
2.1.1 By December 2003, the County will have a strategy in place to ensure the implementation of
completed neighborhood master plans.
I HIGHLIGHTS ]
The Implementation Plan Strategy has been completed and will be appfied in the Crozet Master
Plan.
The Strategies are as follows:
· Promote community and business development activities and partnerships that support master
plan initiatives within each development area.
· Encourage and maintain ongoing meaningful interaction of community members and county
staff as the process moves from the planning to the implementation phase.
· Formulate a detailed infrastructure plan that outlines a long-term approach to meeting identified
infrastructure needs, such as long-term transportation planning.
· Insure the provision of county services that are adequate to meet the needs of the master-
planned neighborhood
· Insure that County decisions, actions, policies and long-term commitments are consistent with
the priorities identified in the master plan.
I FUTURE ACTIONS I
· Implement the Crozet Master Plan in accorda'nce with thesestrategies. With the presentation
of the Crozet Master Plan to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on July 9, staff
is working on actions in accordance with these strategies. The Planning Commission is currently
reviewing The Crozet Master Plan. Selected actions are tied to the Commission and Board
review of the Plan and will be discussed with those bodies as part of the review.
· These strategies will be used to address implementation of future Master Plans when they are
completed, such as the Northern Urban Area plan recently agreed to by the Board.
2 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and HiStoric Resources
IGOAL: 2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character
OBJECTIVE:
2.1.2 By Dece,,-nber 2003 , the County will have an implementation plan in place that
dentifies the actions and resources necessary to carry out the County's newly revised rural area
~olicies.
I HIGHLIGHTS I
· Created preliminary strategies to be used in the development of the implementation plan.
· Identified actions needed to complete the strategies for implementation of the plan.
· Rural Area Comprehensive Plan review was somewhat delayed to allow re-consideration of the
Mountain Overlay District (MOD). The Board ultimately decided to refer the MOD to a citizen
committee. The committee has been selected and will begin work after the draft Rural Area
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan is under review by the Planning Commission.
· Planning staff completed work with other departments and agencies on the draft Rural Area
Plan in July, completed the final draft and distributed it to the Planning Commission in August
and began worksessions with the Commission in September. As of this date, work sessions are
continuing with an initial public hearing to get feedback on the Plan tentatively planned before
the end of the year, depending on Commission progress in their work sessions. Implementation
actions will be completed after the Commission completes its work sessions.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Evaluate the recommendations/strategies in the draft Rural Area Plan and make
recommendations to the Planning Commission on implementation measures.
· Insure afl necessary steps have been identified to implement the adopted Rural Area Plan
recommendations.
· This Objective's completion date of December 2003 will need to be reconsidered, to allow
adequate time for the Planning Commission's review of the Rural Area Plan.
3 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources
IGOAL: 2.2 Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources
OBJECTIVE:
2.2.1 By December 2004, the County working in cooperation with Rivanna ..W,,ater and Sewer Authority,
will have an integrated water resource plan in place that directs the County s efforts to address water
quality and water supply.
· Staff will complete a recommended stormwater master plan and a proposed groundwater
ordinance before starting this objective. These items are anticipated to be completed this fall.
· Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) staff has been consulted on this objective and are
aware of the plan to start work on this early next year.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· While staff still anticipates being able to complete this objective by December 2004, the
schedule will be revised to account for demands with the stormwater master plan and
groundwater ordinance.
· Establish public forums for sharing of concems to be addressed with the plan. A steering team
will ensure there is an adequate public process and will review the proposed strategy before
bringing a recommendation to Board for consideration.
· Recommendation will include an implementation process for the approved integrated water
resource plan.
4 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources
IGOAL: 2.3 Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional level
OBJECTIVE:
2.3.1 By July 2003, the County will have an environmental management system in place that ensures
environmentally sensitive County government operations.
HIGHLIGHTS
· Established basic EMS policy and procedural guidelines to be used in developing an ongoing
program.
· Reviewed and received input from the Board of Supervisors regarding the County's
Environmental Management Policy Statement.
· Conducted research into how other Iocafities are implementing EMS programs.
· Continued evaluation of organizational structure for consideration in establishing an ongoing
program.
I ' FUTURE ACTIONS I
· Select the EMS implementation methodology, tailored from State and EPA recognized
strategies.
· Continue to address minor issues identified through pilot facility assessments.
· Establish a Core Group to define and implement the ongoing County EMS.
· Review Local Government and School facilities within the framework of the County EMS
methodology.
· Assess the need for additional resources to ensure an effective ongoing program and address
any additional needs in future budget cycles.
5 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources
IGOAL: 2.3 Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional level
OBJECTIVE:
2.3.2 By July 2004, the County working in cooperation with Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will have a
long-term solid waste strategy in place that emphasizes the importance of waste reduction, reuse of
Imaterials and recycling and provides reasonable solid waste disposal options for County citizens and
[businesses.
I HIGHLIGHTS I
· Project schedule has been prepared and is being foflowed by staff. Project is on-time and
completion is anticipated by July 1, 2004.
· A Steering Committee has been formed that includes County staff and representatives of UVa,
City, TJPDC, and RSWA. Steering committee is responsible for advising staff on issues to
consider and assuring adequate public participation.
· On Oct 20th, the Steering Committee reviewed past policies and actions with an emphasis on
how to present this information to the public prior to soliciting comments on a strategy
recommendation. The next meeting will focus on establishing public comment process(es).
FUTURE ACTIONS J
· Establish public forums for sharing of concerns to be addresSed with the plan.
· Recommendation will be brought before Board for consideration after public review and
comment.
· An Implementation process will be part of the recommendation brought to Board.
6 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
[ 3. Enhance the Quality of Life for All Albemarle County Citizens ]
GOAL: 3.1 Make the County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and
IPlay.
OBJECTIVE:
3.1.1 By June 2004, the County will establish a strategy to insure that its public safety systems meet
the demands of the growing County.
I HIGHLIGHTS I
· Conducted a workload allocation study. (Police)
· Established a customer survey for Victim Witness program. (Police/ECC)
· Establishing Call Taking and Dispatch time standards for Police and EMS agencies. (ECC)
· Ongoing coordination of citizen training classes for the CERT "Citizen Emergency Response
Team'' program. (ECC)
· Staff completed collecting Fire and EMS service standards from benchmark localities in
Virginia. (Fire). National standards are being reviewed.
· Completed initial Department of Justice Homeland Security Grant. (Fire)
· Completed Fire Station construction schedule and submitted in FY 03/04 Capital Improvement
Program (ClP).
· Partnered with Kluge Children Rehab and UVA on SAFE KIDS program.
· Received approval of a $6 million federal grant to implement a regional public safely
interoperability system to include the 800 MHZ radio system and the mobile data computer
system.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Re-configUration of the Police Sector/Beat system. (Police)
· Update and sign the memorandum of understanding with the County Fire/Rescue Department.
(Police/Fire)
· Fire Department will begin to participate on ACPD Mobile Data Terminal Team.
· Install 800 MHz Public Safely Radio System for the Region.
· Instafl a Public Safety Mobile Data System for the Region.
· Work with the City and University to manage the $6 million Regional Public Safely
Interoperability Grant.
7 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
3. Enhance the Quality of Life for All Albemarle County Citizens
IGOAL: 3.2 Promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable Housing types
IOBJECTIVE:
3.2.1 ~,y ,.,,,.6 ........... the County will develop policies and ongoing programs that
increase affordable home ownership options for households with incomes below 80% of median
income.
L HIGHLIGHTS
· Draft of Comprehensive Plan Amendment reviewed by Planning Commission in work session
August 2003.
· Updatedprinted materials and information accessible on the internet; information is now
available in both English and Spanish.
· Participated on a committee created by the Piedmont Housing Alliance Board to study the
potential of creating a regional housing trust fund.
· Identified a potential source of funds that can be leveraged through Fannie Mae, in cooperation
with the Piedmont Housing Alliance.
· Completed loan documents, which include equity sharing provisions, to secure public funds for
first-time homebuyers.
r FUTURE ACTIONS [
· Follow through on amendment to Comprehensive Plan after Planning Commission public
hearing and subsequent Board of Supervisors' actions.
· Planned submission to Fannie Mae for $3 m/Ilion in loan funds by Piedmont Housing Alliance.
· Implementation of Housing Virginia's pilot program to increase affordable housing awareness,
which will be announced November 13.
· Complete interviews and contract with consultant to conduct a review of nonprofit housing
agencies, with the goal towards improving the effective use of resources.
· Reconsider this Objective's completion date of December 2003, to accommodate the time
needed for the Amendment to Comprehensive Plan's Public Involvement process.
8 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
3. Enhance the Quality of Life for All Albemarle County Citizens
GOAL: 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while
continuing to enhance the factors that contr bute to the quality of life in the County.
OBJECTIVE:
3.3.1 Objectives and Strategies for this goal are being developed
HIGHLIGHTS
· A work group, consisting of members of the County's Leadership Council and Management
Group, has been established to develop an action plan (to include Objectives and Strategies) for
Board's review and approval.
FUTURE ACTIONS I
· After review by the Leadership Council, the action plan is scheduled to be presented to the
Board of Supervisors for approval in December 2003.
9 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quartedy Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
4. Provide Effective and Efficient County Services to the Public in a Courteous and
Equitable Manner
IGOAL: 4.1 Provide effective, responsive, and courteous services to our customers
OBJECTIVE:
.1.1 By July 2004, each County Department will establish and implement revised standards for
Superior customer service, which will include the implementation of additional customer-friendly
ways to deliver services.
I H GHUGHTS I
· All Leadership Council members have read Disney Institute's "Be Our Guest - Perfecting the
art of customer service," which outlines Disney's approach to developing high standards in
customer service. Their approach is used by organizations throughout the world to improve the
quality of their customer service.
· Organizational values have been discussed in relation to countywide customer service
standards and draft standards have been established in preparation for launching the Customer
Service ACademy. The Customer Service Academy will include representatives from each
department. Their task will be to develop revised customer service standards for the County as a
whole and for each individual department, in cooperation with other members of their
department's staff.
· Customer Service Academy team met with new Organizational Development staff person to
begin detailed planning for the Academy.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· The Customer Service Academy will be conducted in late winter/early spring.
· Internal and External Customers will be surveyed to identify ways to improve customer service.
· County-wide Citizen Survey is scheduled for March 2004.
10 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
4. Provide Effective and Efficient County Services to the Public i'n a Courteous and
Equitable Manner
[GOAL: 4.1 Provide effective, responsive, and courteous services to our customers
OBJECTIVE:
43.2 By June 2005, the County will be recognized as a quality place of employment with a workforce
of employees who continuously provide high quality, customer-focused service to its citizens.
HIGHLIGHTS
· Collected data from competitive market and will present compensation study to Joint Boards
Nov. 6.
· Completed employee exit survey data for FY03 and results are posted in the Annual Local
Government Report.
· Participated in County/City Mentoring for Excellence program.
· Interviewed consulting groups for Total Rewards initiative.
· Completed 2ndannual Local Government Human Resources Report to be presented to
Board in November 2003.
· Hired Organizational Development Manager.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Develop 360 degree performance measurement tool to assist with professional/personal
development.
· Assess current recruitment/advertising strategy and project future vacancies.
· Evaluate performance management system to target areas of improvement and make
necessary revisions.
· Develop succession planning program and tools,
· Assess current training and develop targeted professional development programs.
· Develop employee competencies to support High Performance Organization (HPO).
11 of 12
Albemarle COunty Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report - November 5, 2003
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
July Through September 2003
4. Provide Effective and Efficient County Services to the Public in a Courteous and [
Equitable Manner
I
GOAL: 4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed county public facilities and
nfrastructure
OBJECTIVE:
4.2.1 By June 2004, the County will establish criteria defining fair and efficient revenue sources,
Irecovery of the costs of servi(~es, and fee schedules for beneficiaries of special enhanced or targeted
[CoUnty services.
HIGHLIGHTS
· Staff has been evaluating uses of Community Development Authorities (CDAs) as one way to
help fund specific infrastructure needs outside of current taxing structures. Preliminary
information regarding this topic has been reviewed with the Board of Supervisors.
· An analysis of the Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Program's income and worth
eligibility limits has been presented to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
· Staff has compiled and presented a report to the Board of Supervisors addressing the potential
impact of annual real estate reassessments.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· CDAs will be given further consideration as they relate to specific rezonings as a means to
address infrastructure needs throughout the County.
· Additional consideration will be given by the Board of Supervisors at a future meeting regarding
annual real estate reassessments and its impact.
· The County's Budget D/rector position was filled on September 1, 2003 by the ex/sting Director
of Finance. When the new Director of Finance has been hired and the transition of duties is
close to being completed, this strategic objective will become one of the Budget Director's
priority items.
12 of 12
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 29- 0-03P12:45 RCVi}
AGENDA TITLE:
FY04 First Quarter Financial Report
SU BJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST:
Presentation of Year-to-Date Quarterly Financial Report
for Three Months Ended September 30th.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Mss. White
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The attached Quarterly Financial Report provides information on the county's general fund and the fund balance as of
September 30, 2003. Aisc included is a bar-chart based report that compares current year revenue and expenditure data
With data from the previous year.
DISCUSSION:
($ in millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund End-of-Year Financial Report:
1. Revenues:
The Department of Finance estimates that current year General Fund revenues will exceed budgeted
revenues by $3.063 million, 2.10%, primarily due to increased local and state revenues offset by a slight
decrease in anticipated transfers from other funds. Federal revenues should be slightly above budget.
Real Estate Tax revenues are estimated to exceed budgeted revenues by $1.552 million due to
greater than anticipated new construction. First half 2004 real estate tax was adjusted based on
actual assessments for tax year 2003 and should slightly exceed budget.
Personal Pro perty Tax, inclusive of PPTR, are estimated to exceed budget by $1.211 million due
to new vehicle sales, stabilizing used vehicle values, and a slight increase in business equipment
purchases.
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to exceed budget by $0.212 million due to the moderate
economic recovery that appears to be taking hold.
Utility Tax revenues are estimated to exceed budget by $0.132 million due to a $0.244 million
increase in cellular receipts offset by a $0.115 decrease in power company receipts. Landline
telephone receipts should be relatively stable.
Other Local Revenues are estimated to be $0.159 less than budget primarily due to continued Iow
interest rates and cash balances.
State revenues, net of PPTR, and Federal revenues are estimated to be approximately equal to
budget.
Expenditures:
Total expenditures, including transfers, are within appropriate levels (23.7%) for the first quarter of the fiscal
year.
· Departmental expenditures are at 25.1% of current budget
No attempt has been made to revise expenditure estimates based on the first quarter except for
supplemental appropriations made in the first quarter.
Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditures (yellow boxes in right hand corner):
Revised revenues less expenditures show a projected $3.054 million savings by the end of this
current fiscal year (June 30, 2004) based on the October revenue estimates
Available Fund Balance is $4.489 million, which reflects the revised FY04 revenue estimates and
the FY03 carryover reduced by supplemental appropriations approved for FY04.
Attachment B: Annual Bud.qet Comparison Report as of September 30~ 2004
This bar-chart-based report tracks changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time:
Revenues:
· Revenues from real estate property taxes are anticipated to increase over last year and over the
Appropriated Budget.
· The local sham of personal property taxes am shown to increase to $13.2 million. This reflects only
the 30% sham with the other 70% shown as part of the PPRT revenues in the state revenue category.
· Revenues from sales taxes, business licenses, utility taxes, meal taxes and other local taxes and
revenues remain fairly level and moderately above budget.
· State budgeted revenues show an increase for FY04 over the prior year.
Expenditures:
This report shows minor increases in FY03/04 over FY02/03 in most functional areas.
Attachment C: Fund Balance Report
This report indicates that the County:
1. Has preliminary audited FY03 balance of $16.634 million;
2. Appropriated $1.130 million from the fund balance for budgeted FY04 projects, which brings the fund balance
as of September 30th to $15.505 million.
Has committed to maintain a minimum fund balance of $13 million for cash liquidity purposes. The $13 million
remains within the County's financial policy of maintaining a fund balance "equal to or no less than 8% of the
County's General Fund plus School Fund."
4. Appropriated $0.869 million for projects in October 2004.
5. Remaining fund balance is $1.635 million.
D=
Fiscal Impact Discussion
Current Year Revenue Estimates are based on October 20th Department of Finance revised estimates, which look
at FY03 actual revenue collection s, as well as any trends from current year collections. Economy related revenues,
i.e. sales, meals, transient, continue to Show improvement and both real estate and personal property tax
collections should exceed budget.
The projected available funds of $4.689 million will provide the Board the opportunity to implement several
initiatives, outlined below, that were delayed in the FY04 budget process and the flexibility to deal with new
initiatives that may occur during the remainder of this fiscal year.
Delayed Initiatives
Initiatives that were delayed in the FY04 budget process are:
1.8% Salary Increase for Local Government Employees
During the FY04 budget process, the Board approved a 2% salary increase to local government employees
and, if revenues out performed our expectations, the Board agreed to revisit the issue of funding the
additional 1.8% salary increase. The cost of funding the remaining 1.8% salary increase for local
government employees effective November 1, 2003 is approximately $0.350 million. Providing the
additional 1,8% increase will bring local government employees in-line with the 3.8% increase school
division employees were provided effective July 1, 2003.
Frozen Positions
Eight positions that were vacant during the FY04 budget process were frozen pending an update on FY04
revenues. Approximately $0.135 million in funding is necessary to unfreeze these positions effective
November 1,2003.
Capital
Improvement Transfer
It has been the end-of-the year policy of the Board to transfer 60% of expenditure savings to the Capital
Improvement Fund. Based on the FY03 year-end report presented to you last month, 60% of the
expenditure savings total $1.070 million.
The total cost of these items is $1.555 million and would reduce the projected available fund balance from $4.689
million to $3.134 million.
RECOM MEN DATION:
Staff recommends'acceptance of the First Quarter Financial Report for FY03/04 and approval of the initiatives identified above.
Based on your decision(s), the required appropriation requests will be prepared for your approval in December.
03.138
County of Albemarle
General Fund Quarterly Financial Report
Year-to-Date (YTD) For Three Months Ended September 30, 2003
($ in millions)
Attachment A
Revenues:
Real Estate Taxes
Personal Property Taxes, excluding PPTR
Sales Taxes
Business Licenses
Utility Taxes
Meals Tax
Other Local Taxes
Other Local Revenue
State Revenue, including PPTR
Federal Revenue
Total Revenues
Use of Fund Balance
Use of Other Funds
Total
Prior Year - FY 02103
Full Year
Actual
$59,886
12,391
10.249
6,640
6.688
3,929
7,798
4.251
20.386
3,880
136.098
1.026
2.008
$139.132
YTD Actual
09/30/02 as % of
YTD Actual Full Year
$1.065
0.026
1.661
0.302
1.019
1.000
0.633
1.041
1.344
0.656
8.746
0.000
0.000
1.8°/~
0.2%
16.2%
4.6%
15.2%
25.5%
6,1%
24.5%
6.6%
16.9%
6.4%
0.0%
0.0%
Current Year - FY 03/04
YTD Actual
0710t/03 09130/03 as % of
A[ooroprlated (1) YTD Actual Appropriated
$65.492 $1,098 1.7%
12.866 0.112 0.9%
10,550 1,798 17,0%i
7.030 0,471 6.7%
6.720 1,159 17.2%'
3,988 1.030 25,8%
8.046 0.755 9.4%
3.862 0.959 24.8%
20.141 1.316 6.5%
3.893 0.696 17.9%
142.587 9.393 6.6%
1.130 0.000 0.0%
2.247 0.000 0.0%
Revised
Revenue
Estimate (2~
$67.044
13,180
10,762
7,066
6.852
4.000
8.116
3.703
21.082
3.982
145.785
1,130
2.113
Revised
Revenue
Variance
$1.552
0.313
0.212
0,036
0.132
0,012
0.070
(0,159)
0.941
0.089
3.198
0.000
(0,134>
Projected
Variance as % of
Appropriated
2.37%
2.44%
2.01%
0.51%
1.96%
0.30%
0.87%
-4.11%
4.67%
2.28%
2.24%
0.00%
-5.98%
Expenditures:
Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Development
Parks, Rec, & Culture
Community Development
Subtotal Operations
Transfer to School Division
Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds)
Subtotal
Transfers to Capital Fund'and Debt Service
Total
(1) July 1. 2003 Aeoropriated General Fund FY03/04 Budget.
Prior Year - FY 02/03
Full Year
Actual
$7.047
2,782
16,791
3.140
11.985
4.365
4.183
50,293
64,870
6.812
121.975
15.722
09/30/02
YTD Actual
$1.681
0.697
3.816
0.695
2.758
1.199
1.126
11.972
16,218
0.031
28.221
3.930
~32.151
YTD Actual
as % of
Full Year
23.9~
25.1%
22.7%
22.1%
23.0%
27.5%
26,9%
23.8%
25.0%
0.5%
23.1%
25.0%
(2) Finanbe Department Revised Revenue Estimate as of October 20 2003
(3) Revised Expenditure ApproPriations as of' September 30, 2003
Current Year - FY 03/04
YTD Actual
07/01/03 09/30/03 as % of
ADoro;)riated fl) YTD Actual Appropriated
$7.561 $1.821 24.1%
2.677 0.660 24.7%
17.258 4.468 25.9%
4.161 1.217 29.2%
11.676 2.995 25.6%
4,468 0.694 15.5%
4.475 1.286 28.7%
52.276 13.139 25.1%
68.878 17,220 25.0%
8.017 0.060 0.7%
129,172 30.418 23.5%
16.792 4.198 25.0%
Revised Projected
Expenditure Expenditure
AoDrol~riation (3) Variance
$7,561 $0,000
2.677 0,000
17.260 0.002
4.161 0.000
11.676 0.000
4.476 0.008
4.475 0.000
52.286 0.010
68.878 0.000
8.017 0.000
129.181 0,010
16.792 0.00q
~ $0.010
[Revised Revenues less ReVised ExPenditures ~ . . ' $3~054
JPreliminaryFund'Balance Available . - $1,635
J Pre im nary Projected End-0f:Year Ava table Funds/Sh0rtfalJ ~. $4,689
Projected
Variance as % of
Appropriated
0.02%
0.01%.
9.o1%
County of Albemarle
General Fund Budget Comparison Report
Year-to-Date (YTD) For Three Months Ended September 30, 2003
($ in millions)
Attachment B
Revenues
80.0
70.0
m 60.0
._0 50.0
'~: 40.0
._~ 30.0
u~ 20.0
10.0
Real Estate Tax
Personal Sales Tax Business Utility Tax Meals Tax Other Local Other Local State Revenue
Property Tax Licenses Taxes Revenue
[] 02/03 Actual [] 03/04 Appropriated [] 03/04 Revised Estimate
Federal Transfers Other Fund Balance
Revenue Funds
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
Administration
Judicial
Expenditures
Public Safety
Public Works Human Parks. Rec & Community Non- Non-School
Development Culture Development departmental Transfers
69.0
68.0
67.0
66.0
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
70.0
68,9 68.9
Transfer to School Division
[] 02/03 Actual [] 03/04 Appropriated [] 03/04 Revised Estimate
Attachment B
County of Albemarle
Preliminary Allocation of New Local Tax Revenue Between General Government & Schools
8% Overall Revenue Growth
ChanRe in FY 05 Revenues over Appropriated
General Property Taxes (incl. PPTR)
Other Local Taxes
Projected Revenue Increase
Less: Revenue Sharing
Net Projected Local Taxes
Committed New Non-Departmental Expenditure-~
Debt Service & Capital Outlay@ 8% overall revenue growth
Capital Reserve @ 1 cent of tax rate
1/2 Percentage Point of Net New Revenue Growth to Capital Budget
Total Capital Outlay & Debt Service
Board Reserve Fund
Refunds
Total Committed New Non-Departmental Exp.
AppropriatedI October
Budget Estimate
FY 03~04 FY 04~05
95,165,893
32,649,671
127,815,564
(7,726,021)
120,089,543
15,426,315
874,27O
491,585
16,792,170
199,325
92,100
17,083,595
106,844,514
34,266,500
141,111,014
(8,004,461
133,106,553
16,693,466
1,006,979
780,431
18,480,876
300,000
125,000
18,905,876
$ Change Over
$1nc/Dec FY 04 Budget
11,678,621
1,616,829
13,295,450
(278,440)
13,017,010 13,017,010
1,267,151
132,709
288,846
1,688,706
100,675
32,900
1,822,281 (1,822,281)
Total Available FY05 Net New Local Tax Revenue 11,194,729
County of Albemarle
General Fund Quarterly Fund Balance Report
Year-to-Date (YTD) For Three Months Ended September 30, 2003
($ in millions)
Preliminary Fund Balance, June 30, 2003
Less FY04 Appropriations Approved to Date:
Budgeted Local Government Initiatives (approved in budget process)
Total Approved FY04 Appropriations To Date
Preliminary 06/30/03 Fund Balance Available, including cash flow
Less Minimum Required Cash Flow Balance
Preliminary 06130/03 Fund Balance after Cash Flow Reserve
Less FY04 Appropriations Subsequently Approved:
FY03 Purchase Orders Reappropriated
FY03 Uncompleted Projects Reappropriated
FY04 Supplemental Requests
$16.634
1.130
$1.130
$15.505
13.000
$2.505
0.181
0,141
0.548
0.869
Attachment C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
2g'/0-03P?2:45
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
FY04 Revised and FY05 Estimated General Fund Revenues
and Preliminary Budget Guidance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
FY04 & FY05 Revenue Discussion and Preliminary
Distribution of FY05 Local Tax Revenues to General
Government and School Division Operations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Breeden, Mr. Walters
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
/
BACKGROUND:
Each October, the Department of Finance prepares updated current year revenue projections and preliminary revenue
projections for the upcoming fiscal year. These revenue estimates are the first step in the budget preparation process and
form the basis of the recommended budget proposals to come before the Board of Supervisors next March. Based on these
preliminary revenue estimates, the Board also approves a preliminary allocation of the projected revenue growth, first to
committed expenditures, such as revenue sharing, capital outlay and debt service, and then between General Government
and School Division operations.
DISCUSSION:
FY 2004 and FY 2005 REVENUE REVISIONS/PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
Attachment A provides both the revised projections for FY04 and the preliminary estimates for FY05 General Fund revenues.
Overall, the latest projections for FY04 current year General Fund revenues and transfers are estimated to be $3.063 million,
2.1%, greater than the July 1,2003 appropriated FY04 budget level. Details of the specific revenue changes for the current
year are presented within the September 30, 2003 Quarterly Financial Report. -
The preliminary estimate of total General Fund revenues and transfers for FY05 exceeds the FY04 appropriated budget level
by $13.387 million, 9.2%, largely derived from a steady growth in revenues from real estate taxes reflecting the effects of the
January 2003 actual and 2005 estimated reassessments resulting from increasing property values. Overall, General Fund
revenues from all local taxes (including PPTR from the State) in FY05 are estimated to increase by $13.0 million, 9.9% over
the same tax revenues in the FY04 Budget. In addition, estimated revenues from the State and Federal governments are
expected to increase $0.432 million, 4.0%, from the FY04 Budget level. Revenues from Transfers are expected to have a
slight $(0.046) million, (2.1)%, decrease.
The individual revenue increases/decreases are described below, and an explanation of Attachment A is located at the end
of the executive summary:
REAL ESTATE TAX
Real Estate Tax revenues are estimated to increase $9.387 million, 14.4%, over FY04 budgeted revenues. The January2005
reassessment is currently anticipated to be in the range of 15% to 20% due to very strong local real estate values. For FY05
budget preparation, a conservative estimate of 15%, midway between the 18.74% January 2003 and 12.59% January, 2001
reassessment increases, was used. On the national and state level, real estate value increases have begun to level and
could impact the 2005 reassess merit.
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX, including PPTR (Personal Property Tax Relief)
Personal Property Tax revenues, inclusive of PPTR, are estimated to increase $2.097 million, 8.2%, over FY04 budgeted
revenues. FY04 revenues were conservatively budgeted due to the continued economic slowdown. The economy now
appears to be in a midst of a moderate recovery. New car purchases continue at record levels. Used vehicle values appear
to have stabilized. Business is starting to expand and purchase additional capital equipment.
In actuality, PPTR is merely a shift from individually funded to state funded personal property tax revenue. The total amount
received is the same irrespective of whether it is paid partially.by the Commonwealth or entirely by the taxpayer. The state
reimbursement rate continues to be set by The General Assembly at 70% of the first $20,000 of assessed values for
calendar years 2003 and 2004. The reimbursement rate has not been set for calendar year 2005, however no change is
anticipated.
PUBLIC SERVICE TAX
Public Service Corporation assessments are prepared by the Virginia Department of Taxation and the State Corporation
Commission. Revenue is estimated to increase $0.059 million, 3.2%, over FY04 budgeted revenue. Public Service
assessments are based on the capitalized value of their assets adjusted for each locality based on the localities real estate
ratio percentage.
MOBILE HOME TAX
Mobile Home Tax revenues are estimated to be approximately the same as FY04 budgeted revenue.
MACHINERY AND TOOLS TAX
Machinery and Tools Tax revenues are estimated to be $(0.232) million, (24.7)%, less than FY04 budgeted revenue due to
plant closings and relocations over the last several years.
PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS AND FEES
Revenues are estimated to increase $0.366 million, 25.9%, over FY04 budgeted revenues due to increased compliance
efforts and improved economic conditions.
SALES TAX
Local Sales Tax revenues are estimated to increase $0.684 million, 6.5%, over FY04 budgeted revenues due to improved
economic conditions. It is anticipated that the recovery will continue. However, this source of revenue varies directly with
economic conditions and will decrease if the rate of recovery slows down.
BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
Business License Fees are estimated to increase $0.263 million, 3.7%, over FY04 budgeted revenues. This source of
revenue is primarily based on sales and other forms of gross receipts earned by local businesses. The increase is primarily
due to strength in the retail merchants and home 'mprovementJrepair sectors of local business activity.
UTILITY TAXES
Utility Taxes are estimated to increase $0.242 million, 3.6%, over FY04 budgeted revenues. This source of revenue is
based on consumption by utility companies and telephone and cellular gross receipts, as well as electrical and gas
consumption by consumers. The revenue increase is due to continued expansion and reliance on cellular service by
both business and residential customers.
MEALS TAX
Meals Tax revenues are estimated to increase $0.162 million, 4.1%, over FY04 budgeted revenues due to th e continued shift
from home prepared to outside prepared meals. This increase is consistent with the national trend.
OTHER LOCAL TAX SOURCES
The remaining other local tax sources (i.e., vehicle decals, transient occupancy and miscellaneous local taxes) are estimated
to show minor increases over FY04 budgeted revenues. The increase is primarily due to continued strong real estate
purchase and refinancing activities.
OTHER LOCAL REVENUE
The $(0.295) million, (7.5)% decrease in the Other Local Revenue category reflects the net effects of several items, including
a significant $(0.135) million, (39.1)% decrease in interest earned on County funds deposited in banks due to Iow interest
rates and cash balances as well as a $(0.153) million, (100.0)% decrease in rent from the Wachovia Building offset by net
increases from various recovered costs and service fees.
STATE REVENUES (excluding PPTR)
State revenues (excluding PPTR) are estimated to increase $0.136 million, 1.9%, primarily due to increased distributions
from ABC profits and Social Services reimbursements.
FEDERAL REVENUES
Federal revenues are estimated to increase $0.296 million, 7.7%, primarily due to increased Social Services reimbursements
and new Department of Justice COPS grants.
2
TRANSFERS
This line reflects transfers from other funds, such as the E-911 Fund, the Tourism Fund, and others, into the General Fund to
support applicable general government program operations.
PRELIMINARY BUDGET GUIDANCE:
Based on the revenue estimates provided by the Department of Finance, the second step in the budget process is the
preliminary allocation of new local tax revenues, first to committed expenditures, i.e., city-county revenue sharing, capital
funds and debt service, and then to general government and school operations on a 40/60 basis.
Attachment B shows a Preliminary Estimate of the FY 2005 local tax revenue increase as $13,925,450 over the FY 2004
Appropriated Budget amount, followed by the deduction of the increased payment to the City of $278,440 under the City-
County Revenue Sharing Agreement, for a Net Projected LocaJ Tax revenue increase of $13,017,010.
The second section of Attachment B shows the increase amount for committed new non-departmental expenditures. For
capital outlay and debt service, the increase is $1,688,706, which is subtracted from the increase in local tax revenues.
This amount reflects the assumption of an estimated overall growth rate of 8.0% in total county revenues for FY 2005.
The preliminary increase for the transfers to debt service and to the ongoing capital projects is based on this 8.0%
revenue growth factor. In addition, there is a capital reserve fund amount based on 1 cent of the projected real property
tax revenue in FY 2005 ($1,006,979), and the one-half of a percentage point of the projected overall net revenue growth
earmarked to be dedicated to capital projects ($780,431). This formula was proposed by the County's financial
consultants and approved by the Board to fund the County's 10-year capital program.
INote: The 8.0% growth over the current year reflects the projected overall County revenue growth on the total County Budget
(General Fund and Schools), which is lower than the general fund increase due to the assumption of a 3% increase in School
funds for FY05 from the State and other sources.
The next two committed expenditures subtracted from the increase in local tax revenues are to project an amount for the
Board's Reserve at $300,000, and $125,000 estimated for refunds.
After making the above deductions, the remaining uncommitted local tax revenues are estimated to be $11,194,729. Of this
net new local tax revenue available for operating programs, 60% ($6,716,837) is allocated to the School Division operations
and 40% ($4,477,892) to General Government operations for FY 2005.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the preliminary FY 2004 allocation of local revenues to the Capital Improvement
Program, in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the financial advisors, and to the School Division and General
Government areas for operating costs.
03.139
UNDERSTANDING ATTACHMENTA
Attachment A provides both the revised General Fund revenue projections for FY04 and preliminary revenue estimates for FY05.
Column A shows the initial current year appropriated budgeted revenues as of July 1,2003. Column B is the October 2003 revised
projection of FY04 revenues. Column B-A shows the difference between Column A (the original FY04 budgeted revenues) and Column B
(the October revised FY04 revenue projection). To determine the total change in estimated current year revenues, you will see that
Column B-A shows the projected Total General Fund Revenues and Transfers amount to increase by $3.063 million, 2.1%, over FY04
appropriated budget revenue amount (as of July 1,2003).
Column C shows the preliminary revenue estimates for FY05 at a total of $158.2 million. Column C-B is the difference between Column C
(the preliminary FY05 estimate) and Column B (the FY04 revised revenue projection), and shows that total General Fund revenues and
transfers are estimated to increase by $10.324 million, 7.0%, (shown in Column C-B) over the FY04 revised projection in Column B.
The comparison of the preliminary estimate of FY05 revenues to the initial FY04 appropriated budgeted revenues is shown in Column C-
A. This column shows the difference (increase or decrease) between Column C (the preliminary estimated FY05 revenues) and Column
A (the FY04 initial budgeted revenues).
Column C-A shows that budget to budget total General Fund revenues and transfers are projected to increase by $13.387 million,
9.2%, which is a combination of the $3.063 million, 2.1% increase in current year revised revenues over appropriated revenues (Column
B-A) and the $10.324 million, 7.0% projected increase over the current year revised revenues (Column C-B).
Each individual revenue source can be analyzed in this same manner as a way of understanding the basis of the projected budget to
budget increase, however, individual percentage changes may not add to the total percentage change due to rounding of the percentage
changes to one decimal point.
For purposes of thisrevenue analysis, budgeted or estimated Fund Balance amounts and changes are NOT included, since they are not
a factor in the allocation of new revenue dollars.
Cc: Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent of Schools
Description
Property Taxes
Real Estate, Current
Personal Property (ind. PPTR), Current
Public Service. Current
Mobile Home, Current
Machinery & Tools, Current
Prior Year Collections & Fees
Subtotal, Property Taxes
pther Local Taxes
Sales Tax
Business License Fees
Motor Vehicle Licenses
Utility Taxes (Consumer & Consumption)
Meals Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Other
Subtotal, Other Local Taxes
Other Local Revenue
Subtotal, Local Revenues (incl. PPTR)
State Revenue (excluding PPTR)
Federal Revenue
Subtotal, State & Federal Revenues
Total, GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Transfers
(A) (B)
Appropriated Revised
Budget Projection
FY 03/04 {1) FY 03/04 {2)
$65,134,260 $66,558,506
25,727.423 26,910,377
1.874,416 1,986,371
75,363 76.470
939.231 673,995
1,415,200 1.643,250
95,165,893 97,848,969
10,550,000 10,761,824
7,029,920 7.065,840
2,184,116 2.125,000
6.719,953 6,851,534
3,988.200 4,000,000
575,000 575,000
1,602,482 1,811,780
32,649,671 33,190,978
3.931,209 3,702,967
13t,746,773 134,742,914
7,016,727 7.060,287
3,873,142 3,981,741
10,889,869 tl,042,028
~ 145.784.942
2,197,618 2,112,696
Fund Balances 1,129,699 1,129,699
Total, GENERAL FUND ~ ~
(1) Reflects July 1, 2003 Appropriated General Fund FY03/04 Budget
(2) Finance Dept. preliminary revenue projections as of Oct. 20, 2003
GENERAL FUND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2005
(B) - (A)
Projection less Budget
.~ Inc/(Dec) % Inc/(Dec)
$1,424,246 2.2%
1,182,954 4.6%
111 955 6.0%
1,107 1.5%
(265,236) (28.2%)
228,050 16.1%
2,683,076 2.8%
211,824 2.0%
35,920 0.5%
(59,116) (2.7%)
131,581 2,0%
11,800 0.3%
0 0.0%
209,298 13.1%
541,307 1.7%
(228,242) (5.8%)
2,996,141 2.3%
43,560 0.6%
108,599 2.8%
152,159 1.4%
(84,922) (3.9%)
0 0.0%
(C) (C) - (B)
Preliminary
Estimate Estimate less Projection
FY 04~05 (2) $ Inc/(Dec) % Inc/(Dec)
$74,521,718 $7,963,212 12.0%
27,825,181 914,804 3.4%
1,933,770 (52,601) (2.6%)
74,905 (1,565) (2.0%)
707,690 33,695 5.6%
1,781,250_ 138.000 8.4%
108,844,514 8,995,545 9.2%
11,234,000 472,176 4.4%
7,293,500 227,660 3.2%
2,150,000 25,000 1.2%
6,962,500 110,966 1.6%
4,150,000 150,000 3.8%
600,000 25,000 4.3%
1,876,500 64,720 3.6%
34,266,500 1,075,522 3.2%
3,636,215 (66,752) (1.8%)
144,747,229 10,004,315 7.4%
7,152,673 92,386 1.3%
4,170,010 188,269 4.7%
11,322,683 280,655 2.5%
2,152.086 39,390 1.9%
0 (1,129,699) (100.0%)
158.221.997 9.194.661 6.2%
(c)- (A)
Estimate less Budget
$ Inc/(Dec) % Inc/{Dec)
~;9,387,458 14,4%
2,097,758 8.2%
59,354 3.2%
(458) (0.6%)
(231,541) (24.7%)
366,05_0 25.9%
11,678,621 12.3%
684,000 6.5%
263,580 3.7%
(34,116) (1.6%)
242,547 3.6%
161,800 4.1%
25,000 4.3%
274,018 17.1%
1,616,829 5.0%
(294,994) (7.5%)
13,000,456 9.9%
135,946 1.9%
296,868 7.7%
432,814 4.0%
~ 9.4°/.
(45,532) (2.1%)
(1,129,699) (100.0%)
12.258.038 ~
Attachment A
Attachment B
County of Albemarle
Preliminary Allocation of New Local Tax Revenue Between General Government & Schools
8% Overall Revenue Growth
Chan~e in FY 05 Revenues over Appro~)riaterl
General Property Taxes (incl. PPTR)
Other Local Taxes
Projected Revenue Increase
Less: Revenue Sharing
Net projected Local Taxes
Committed New Non-Departmental Expenditur~-
Debt Service & Capital Outlay@ 8% overall revenue growth
Capital Reserve @ 1 cent of tax rate
1/2 Percentage Point of Net New Revenue Growth to Capital Budget
Total Capital Outlay & Debt Service
Board Reserve Fund
Refund s
Total Committed New Non-Departmental Exp.
Appropriated
Budget
FY 03~04
95,165,893
32,649,671
127,815,564
(7,726,021)
120,089,543
15,426,315
874,270
491,585
16,792,170
199,325
92,100
17,083,595
October
Estimate
FY 04~05
106,844,514
34,266,500
141,111,014
(8,004,461
133,106,553
16,693,466
1,006,979
780,431
18,480,876
300,000
125,000
18,905,876
$ Change Over
$1nc/Dec FY 04 Budget
11,678,621
1,616,829
13,295,450
(278,440)
13,017,010 13,017,010
1,267,151
132,709
288,846
1,688,706
100,675
32,900
1,822,281 (1,822,281)
Total Available FY05 Net New Local Tax Revenue
11,194,729
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Proposed FY 2004 Budget Amendment
SU BJECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST:
Public He'ring on the Proposed FY 2004 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $788,599.18 and request
approval of amendment and of Appropriations #2004024,
2004025, 2004026, 2004027, 2004028, 2004029, 2004030,
2004031, 2004032, 2004033, 2004034, and 2004035 to
provide funding for various General Government and
School programs.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION: X
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which
exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is
lesser, must be acCOmplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the
budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Direction 4: Serve the public efficiently and effectively.
Goal 4.2: Fund county services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilties and infrastructure.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed increase of this FY 2004 Budget Amendment totals $788,599.18. The estimated expenses and revenues
included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund
Local Government Programs/Grants
Education Fund
Education Programs/Grants
Capital Improvement Program
Emergency Communications Center
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES -All Funds
$ 2,280.00
$ 641,580.10
$ 48,080.00
$ 34,159.08
$ 57,5OO.00
$ 5,OOO.O0
$ 788,599.18
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
Fund Balances
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES- All Funds
$ 153,036.56
$ 8,250.00
$ 558,519.08
$ 68,793.54
$ 788,599.18
28-t0-03P05 :;~0 RCVD
This budget amendment is corn prised of twelve (12) separate appropriations as follows:
· three appropriations (#2004024, 2004028, and 2004033) for public safety related grants totaling $19,822.77;
· two appropriations (#2004025, and 2004029) totaling $216,800.00 for fire/rescue grants;
· one appropriation (#2004026) for the Emergency Communications Center in the amount of $5,000.00;
· one appropriation (#2004027) for $22,500.00 for a donation to the ACE Program;
· two appropriations (#2004030 and 2004032) for education programs and grants totaling $141,846.41;
· one appropriation (#2004031) in the amount of $5,250.00 for a mental health grant administered by Social
Services;
· one appropriation (#2004034) to receive and expend donated funds to fire/rescue in the amount of $2,280.00;
and
· one appropriation (#2004035) in the amount of $375,100.00 for a Community Development Block Grant.
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2004 Budget Amendment in the amount of $788,599.18, after the public hearing, and
then approval of Appropriations #2004024, #2004025, #2004026, #2004027, #2004028, #2004029, #2004030, #2004031,
#2004032, #2004033, #2004034, and #2004035 to provide funds for various General Government and School programs as
described in Attachment A.
03.137
Attachment A
Appropriation #2004024 $ 3,000.00
The Albemarle County Police Department, Police Senior Advisory Council, and the Sheriff's Office are jointly working together
to enhance safety services and education to the local senior population. Seniors are at a greater risk of fraud and being
scammed. The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded a grant in the amount of $3,000.00 for the purpose of
printing brochures on local scams and frauds. These will be used in meetings and functions concerning the senior population
of Albemarle County. There is a 25% local match that will be transferred from the Police Department's budget.
Appropriation #2004025 $ 211,800.00
The Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue has coordinated the provision of emergency fire, rescue, and medical
services to citizens since 1993. Maintaining high standards with services and equipment is becoming increasingly difficult with
the growth in the area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has awarded the Fire & Rescue Department a
grant in the amount of $211,800 for the purchase of additional self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and to upgrade
existing SCBA's and face-masks. There is a 30% local match required which was previously appropriated by the Board on
October 1,2003 (Appropriation #2004020).
Appropriation #2004026 $ 5,000.00
At its September 16TM meeting the ECC Management Board approved the transfer/appropriation of $5,000.00 from the ECC
Fund Balance to have a Motorola troubleshooter investigate a serious interference problem on the Charlottesville Police
Department's radio system.
Appropriation #2004027
22,500.00
The Piedmont Environmental Council has contributed $22,500.00 to be used in the County's Acquisition of Conservation
Easements (ACE) Program to aid in the purchase of easements in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District.
Appropriation #2004028
$ 13,822.77
The Bureau of Justice has awarded funding for the purchase of bulletproof vests to the Albemarle County Police Department,
Sheriff's Department, and the Regional Jail in the amount of $7,436.56. The award funds up to 50% of the total costs applied
for. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail also has a balance of $6,386.21 from the 2001-2003 awards. Any excess
monies associated with the purchase of vests through this project will be handled within the separate department budgets.
Appropriation #2004029
$ 5.000.00
The American Heart Association reports that approximately 350,000 people die from Sudden Cardiac Arrest annually in the
United States. They also state that during cardiac arrest, for every minute that passes before defibrillation, the survival rate
drops 10 percent. Albemarle County has a population of over 84,000 people and covers 740 square miles. Recognizing the
importance of seconds, the Albemarle County Police Department has trained all 105 sworn officers in CPR and the use of an
Automatic External Defibrillator (AED). At this time, the Police Department has only been able to purchase three u nits. The
Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded Albemarle County with a grant in the amount of $5,000.00. These funds
will be used to purchase two additional AED's. There is a $1,250.00 local match; $750.00 will come from the Police
Department's current operating budget while $500.00 will be received from the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal
Justice Board.
Appropriation #2004030
$117,239.08
Hollymead Elementary School received a grant award in the amount of $2,500.00 from Dominion Resource Services Inc.
These funds Will be used to help improve math and science education in grades K-5. Stone Robinson_ Elementary School
received a grant award in the amount of $2,500.00 from the Citigroup Foundation to help fund the Reading Intervention
Program. The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Baker-Butler Elementary School a Project Grant in the amount of
$6,250.00 and Broadus Wood Elementary School an Artist-in-Residency Grant in the amount of $2,000.00. These funds will
help provide the schools with arts in education.
The Western Albemarle Baseball Boosters is proposing to fund a project to build a small Picnic Shelter and Locker Room. The
picnic shelter and locker room will be built in conjunction with the current facilities at the WAHS Baseball Field Complex located
between Henley Middle School and Brownsville Elementary School. The locker room will primarily service the WAHS baseball
teams and summer league. The Picnic Shelter will be available for use by both neighboring schools as well as others playing
on adjoining fields. The WAHS Baseball Boosters will provide funds for this project. An anonymous donation has been made
in the amount of $35,000.00 to start this proiect. They have a licensed architect and project manager willing to donate their
time for this project. The one story locker room will be approximately 20 x 40 feet and would be built directly behind/adjoining
the current third base dugout. The picnic shelter will be located in the general vicinity of the bleachers and concession stand.
Projected date of completion is by March 2004.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $4,500.00 from the Stone-Robinson PTO. This
donation will be used to help defray the cost of purchasing a new copier for the school.
Henley Middle School received a donation from the Henley Middle School PTO in the amount of $3,580,00. These funds will be
used for salaries for the At-Risk Program and library night.
Title IV, Part A- Safe and Drug Free School and Communities Act Grant is federally funded. The Albemarle County program
provides funding for the School Resource Officer in the middle schools, in conjunction with the Albemarle County Police
Department; substance abuse education materials in grade four; mediation training for middle and high school students and
staff; and for a contract with Region 10 Community Services for the purpose of providing students assistance in conflict
resolution, anger management, and drug prevention. There is a fund balance in the amount of $15,989.08 retained by the
State from FY02/03 to re-appropriate for FY03/04. In addition, funding for FY03/04 was increased by $4,920.00 from the
original amount of $51,665.00.
The upgrade to the School Division Wide Area Network (WAN) was completed July 31. The new network provides Gigabit
Ethernet (1000MB) service to each site, and 100MB Ethernet service within each site. The new infrastructure is extremely
stable and staff members report significant improvement in data transfer rates (as much as 20x faster). There is only one issue
remaining and that involves upgrade of the COB connection. The COB WAN is a shared resource, serving not only local
government, but Education Division administration as well. The Department of Technology had hoped to have the COB node
upgraded prior to the end of last fiscal year, as access to Division resources located in schools and at our data center are
limited by the available bandwidth on the COB node. However, Sprint was unable to do the upgrade prior to the end of the
fiscal year. The Department of Technology planned to pay the one-time cost associated with the upgrade of the COB WAN
node out of last year's funds and Information Technology agreed to continue to pay all of the monthly charges associated with
the upgrade of the COB node. It is requested that $40,000.00 be re-appropriated from FY02/03 to FY03/04 to upgrade the
COB WAN node.
Appropriation #2004031
$ 5,250.00
In a collaborative effort, the Charlottesville Department of Social Services, the Albemarle County Department of Social
Services, and Region Ten Comm unity Services Board, jointly submitted to the Virginia Department of Social Services a grant
proposal seeking funds for a program to be called Community Collaboration: Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.
The purpose of the program is to provide mental health and substance abuse services to TANF and VIEW participants in the
City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, with the goal of improving the employment outcomes of this population.
Albemarle County received grant proceeds in the amount of $5,250.00. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2004032 $ 24,607.32
The Virginia Business-Education Partnerships Grant was not fully expended in FY02/03 and has a fund balance of $16,292.42.
These funds will be used to help cover expenditures for the FY03/04 Summer Academy Programs at Albemarle and Western
Albemarle High Schools.
The Jefferson Region Destination Imagination (DI) will provide a regional DI competition for county students and surrounding
school districts. Of the 70 teams that participate, about 25 will be from Albemarle County. Team registration fees, t-shirt sales
and contributions will help to cover expenses and the DI has a fund balance of $1,114.91. Albemarle County will continue as
fiscal agent for our reg ion.
Appropriation #2004033
3,000.00
In an effort to combat driving under the influence, not wearing seatbelts, no child safety seats, and other driving infractions, the
Albemarle County Police Department conducts road block checkpoints. The Department of Motor Vehicles nas awarded
Albemarle County a grant in the amount of $3,000.00 to assist with overtime for police officers conducting the above-
checkpoints. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2004034 $ 2,280.00
In September 2003, State Farm Insurance Company donated $2,280.00 to the Department of Fire & Rescue for the purchase
of a 911 telephone simulator. This educational device will be used in our public education programs, particularly in our schools.
It will also be used to enhance programs for our migrate population. The donation from State Farm will cover the entire cost of
the simulator minus shipping costs that will be covered within the current Fire/Rescue operational budget.
ApproPriation #2004035 $ 375T100.00
The County of Albemarle received an award of $375,100, of which $341,000 is for direct cost of construction and $34,100 to
cover the cost of administration, from the Department of Housing and Community Development through the Community
Development Block Grant Program to construct a 3,295 square foot community center at Whitewood Village Apartments. The
center will be used to provide after-school programs for children and other life-skill programs for Iow to moderate income
residents of the apartments and neighborhood. Staff of the Office of Housing is completing all required pre-contract activities
and anticipate executing a contract on or about November 7.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 15, Taxation,
Section 15-101, Payment of Administrative Costs and
Collection of Fees.
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Public hearing to consider proposed ordinance to amend
County Code Chapter 15, Taxation, regarding payment of
administrative costs on delinquent taxes.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Davis, Herrick, Walters
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
iATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance
REVIEWED BY: /~~
Virginia Code § 58.1-3958 authorizes localities to impose administrative costs for the collection of delinquent taxes or other
delinquent charges. That section specifies limits on the timing and amount of fees and costs imposed. In 2003, the General
Assembly amended this Virginia Code section. An amendment to Albemarle County Code § 15-101(A) is necessary to be
compliant with therequirements of the amended state law.
DISCUSSION:
Senate Bill 1227 of the 2003 General Assembly increased the fees that may be charged from $20 to $30 for delinquent taxes
and other charges collected before judgment is taken, and from $25 to $35 for such taxes and charges collected subsequent to
a judgment. More importantly, the timing criteria for imposing the fees also changed. While a locality previously could charge
fees after"the filing of a warrant or other appropriate legal document," localities must now wait until after"30 or more days after
notice of delinquent taxes or charges" to charge fees. Because Albemarle County Code § 15-101 (A) currently tracks the prior
language, it must be updated to remain compliant with the amended Virginia Code.
While making this mandatory timing change, the Board may also wish to con sider making discretionary amendments to the
amounts of the fees imposed. Because the General Assembly increased the caps above what the County has charged, the
County's current charges remain within the limits authorized by state law. However, the County now has the additional authority
to increase the fees from $20 to $30 before judgment is taken, and from $25 to $35 subsequent to a judgment. In addition, the
County can impose administrative costs on collection of nuisance abatement liens, which the General Assembly authorized in
1999, but which have not yet been incorporated into the County Code. The actual costs incurred by the County in these
collections are in excess of the proposed maximum fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be adopted after the public hearing.
03.140
29-10-05Al1:0I RCVD
Draft: September 25, 2003
ORDINANCE NO. 03-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-101 Payment of administrative costs and collection of fees.
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 15-101 Payment of administrative costs and collection of fees.
A. Delinquem taxpayers shall pay a fee, as required by this section, to cover the administrative
costs associated with the collection of delinquent taxes. This fee shall be in addition to all penalties and
interest, and shall be in the amount of ....... J .~^,~ re-,n nm thirty dollars ($30.00] for taxes or other charees
collected subsequent to ~ .......... ~ ^~ ~' .........:~'~ ~-~ '~ ....... * ~' .... '~ .... :"'~ .... thirty (30) or
more days'after notice of delinquent taxes or charges pursuant to Vir~nia Code § 58.1-3919 but prior to the
taking.of any iud..c, rnent with resvect .... to such delinouent taxes or char~es, and in the amount of ....... ~,,*..~J ..,,,c"~
d~,~.~ r~-,r nnx thirty five dollars ($35.00] for taxes or other charees collected subsequent to judgment. If the_
collection activity is to collect on a nuisance abatement lien, the fee for administrative costs shall be one
hundred fifty, dollars ($150.003 or twenty, five percent (25%) of the cost, whichever is less; however, in no
_event shall the fee be less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00)
B. In addition, delinquent taxpayers shall pay reasonable attorney's or collection agency's fees
actually contracted for associated with the collection of delinquent taxes; provided, however, the amount paid
by the delinquent taxpayer shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the taxes and other charges collected.
C. No tax assessment or tax bill shall be deemed delinquent and subject to the provisions of this
section during the pendency of any administrative appeal under Virginia Code § 58.1-3980, provided the
appeal is filed within ninety (90) days of the date of the assessment, and for thirty (30) days after the date of
the final determination of the appeals.
(Ord. of 11-2-94; Code 1988, § 8-1.5; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 03-15(1), 11-5-03)
State law reference--Authority for above fee, Va~ Code § § 58.1-3916, 58.1-3958.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of __ to __, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
29-~0-03A1~:01 RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 15, Taxation,
Section 15-702, Definitions and Section 15-704, Persons
Eligible For Exemption.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider adoption of ordinance to amend
County Code Chapter 15, Taxation, regarding real estate
exemption for certain elderly and disabled persons.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Davis, Herrick, Breeden
AGENDA DATE:
November 5, 2003
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Draft Ordinance ~
BACKGROUND:
At its September 3, 2003, meeting, the Board directed staff to draft suggested amendments to the County Code providing real
estate tax relief to the elderly and disabled. Specifically, the Board directed that the Code no longer restrict residency in the
home to relatives of the owner(s) for a property to qualify for tax relief. Following the Board's direction, staff has drafted
language to amend Albemarle County Code §§ 15-702(2)(a) and 15-704(C)(1). In addition, in reviewing Albemarle County's
tax relief ordinance, staff has identified two areas where the current County Code deviates from the Virginia Code and requires
revision.
DISCUSSION:
Discretionary RevisiOns
The first four revisions are discretionary, and may or may not be enacted, as the Board ch ooses.
Elimination of Residency Restriction - At its September 3 meeting, the Board directed staff [o draft an ordinance for the Board's
consideration which would eliminate the residency restriction from the current tax relief provisions, specifically to allow the
rental of part of the home to a non-relative. Staff remains concerned that allowing non-relatives to reside in the qualifying home
will create a greater possibility for abuse of this tax relief program. It will allow an elderly person to provide tax exempt housing
to non-related persons who may have substantial income and contribute to household expenses but do not pay rent. Staff will
have administrative difficulty determining when a tenancy exists, whether rent is being paid, whether or not a tenant is related,
and ultimately whether the tenancy disqualifies the property owner. While a relative's income is required to be counted toward
the household qualifying income, the proposed ordinance will provide that a non-relative's income will not be counted.
Staff also remains concerned about expanding tax relief for the elderly and disabled when the tax burden rem ains on younger
taxpayers with similar or lower incomes.
Finally, staff notes the apparent legislative intent of the General Assembly is to disqualify taxpayers who choose to rent their
property. Specifically, under Virginia Code § 58.1-3214, qualifying residents who reside in hospitals, nursing homes, or
convalescent homes for extended periods of time are required by state law to be disqualified from tax relief if they are leasing
their regular residence. The proposed ordinance would disqualify nursing home residents for tax relief if they rent out part of
their homes, while non-nursing home residents would not be disqualified for doing the same thing.
Definition of "Relative" - With the distinction between relatives and non-relatives taking on more significance, this part of the
County Code should define the term "relative." Staff has proposed a definition similar to one found in Virginia Code § 15.2-
2244.
Clarifications to Definition of "Net Combined Financial Worth"
The following two revisions are recommended to clarify the County Code's definition of"Net Combined Financial Worth."
Inclusion of Liabilities - The County Code's definition of "net worth" currently includes assets, but does not explicitly mention
liabilities. To clarify that "net worth" should account for both assets and liabilities, staff recommends adding an explicit
reference to liabilities to this definition.
Clarification of Mort_qa_qes - The current County Code also leaves some uncertainty about how to account for morzgages.
Although the dwelling and up to one acre of land are excluded from an applicant's net worth, the County Code currently does
not have a similar exclusion of home mortgages, allowing applicants to artificially lower their true net worth. Staff recommends
that property value on the asset side and mortgage balance on the liability side be treated equally. For properties under an
acre, the entire value of the subject property and the entire balance of the mortgage would be excluded. For properties over
one acre, the balance of the outstanding mortgage would be counted as a liability only to the extent that the value of the
property in excess of one acre was counted as an asset. Staff has proposed a discretionary amendment to this.effect.
Mandatory Revisions
Two final revisions are required to bring the current County Code into conformity with the Virginia Code.
Definition of"Net Combined Financial Worth" -- There is a discrepancy between County Code § 15-702(4) and Virginia Code §
58.1-3211 (2) in the definition of"net combined financial worth." Staff recommends amending this section of the County Code
to include the assets of non-resident owners when determining net worth. If this change were adopted, the Finance
Department would consider the assets of all owners and their spouses, regardless of whether they reside on the property. This
inclusion of non-resident owners' assets appears mandatory under Virginia Code § 58.1-3211 (2).
Definition of Income -- There is another discrepancy between County Code § 15-702(9)(a) and Virginia Code § 58.1-3211 (1)(a)
in the definition of Income. Virginia Code § 58.1-3211 (1)(a) allows localities, when calculating income, to exclude any amount
up to $8,500 of income of each relative who meets certain qualifications. One of the qualifications:for income exemption is that
the individual does not also qualify as a new resident caretaker, as provided in County Code § 15-702(9)(b)..The' current
County Code does not include such a restriction, theoretically allowing a new resident caretaker to qualify for both types of
income exemptions in violation of Virginia Code § 58.1-3211(1)(a).
Both of these staff-initiated amendments are required to bring the County Code into compliance with the Virginia Code
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
If, after the public hearing, the Board decides to eliminate the residency restrictions of the existing tax relief ordinance and to
adopt the additional staff-initiated amendments, staff recommends adopting the attached ordinance. If the Board decides that it
does '~ot wish to adopt all of the proposed amendments, it can choose to adopt only the portion of the ordinance it desires
without any further advertising requirements.
03.141
Draft October 7, 2003
ORDINANCE NO. 03-15(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE EXEMPTION
FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15,
Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Exemption for Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-702
Sec. 15-704
Definitions.
Persons eligible for exemption.
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE VII. REAL ESTATE EXEMPTION FOR
CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS
Sec. 15-702 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this article:
(1) Dwelling. The term "dwelling" means a building occupied as a residence.
(2) Income. The term "income" means the total gross income from all sources comprising the amount
of money received on a regular basis which is available to meet expenses, regardless of whether a tax return is
actually filed, the money is taxable or deductible from the taxpayer's income tax return.
(a) Income shall include: (i) retirement payments, including the portion that represents
the contribution of the retiree; (ii) nontaxable social security retirement benefits; and (iii) disability payments;
and (iv~ rental income.
(b) Income shall not include: (i) life insurance benefits; (ii) receipts from borrowing or
other debt; and (iii) social security taxes taken out of the pay of a retiree.
(c) The income of a self-employed person received from the business shall be the gross
income of the business, less the expenses of the business.
(3) Manufactured home. The term "manufactured home" means a structure subject to federal
regulation which is transportable in one or more sections; is eight (8) body feet or more in width and forty
body feet or more in length in the traveling mode, or is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet when
erected on site; is built on a permanent chassis; is designed to be used as a single-family dwelling, with or
without a permanent foundation, when connected to the required utilities; and includes the plumbing, heating,
air conditioning, and electrical systems contained in the structure.
(4) Net combined financial worth. The term "net combined financial worth" means the ~ present
value of all .......
....... assets, including equitable interests_, and liabilities of (i) the owners, and c,f (ii~ the spouse
of any owner, -'*'
..................... , ................ and (iii]__ the owners' relatives living in the dwelling;
........... ~ ,,,~ ....... interests. The term "net combined financial worth" shall not include: (i) the value of the
dwelling and the land, not exceeding one acre, upon which it is situated; -.nd (ii) the value of furniture,
household appliances and other items typically used in a home; and (.iii) the outstanding balance of any
mortgage on the subiect property., except to the extent that the subject property, is counted as an asset.
(5) Owning title orpartial title. The term "owning title or partial title" means owning the usufruct,
control or occupation of the real estate, whether the interest therein is in absolute fee or ss in an estate less than
a fee, such as the holding of a life estate.
(6) Permanently and totally disabled person. The term "permanently and totally disabled person"
means a person who is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity which can be expected to result in death, or can be
expected to la:st for the duration of such person's life.
(7) Real estate. The term "real estate" includes manufactured homes.
8~ Relative. The term "relative" means any person who is a natural or legally defined offsprin~g,
s~ouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, parent, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew of the owner.
6g) (9~ Taxable year. The term "taxable year" means the calendar year for which the exemption is
claimed.
(9-) (10) Total combined income. The term ''total combined income" means the income received
from all sources during the preceding calendar year by the owners of the dwelling who use it as their principal
residence and of the ov, v, er's by_the owners' relatives who live in the dwelling. The following amounts shall
be excluded from the calculation of total combined income:
(a) The first sixty-five hundred dollars ($6500.00) of income,~,,,,,r ...... ,~,,~,,u ,,,,,,~l-~'~" ....., ~, ,,~,,,,,*'~-
· u~ ,u ................... :~:~- :~ ,u~ lling the s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s_s~u
................. t, .... , ....... ~ ......dwe . of each relative who is not se of an owner living in
the dwelling and who does_not qualify for the exemption proxi~~di~inn 9 c hereof.
(b) The firsi seventy-five hundred dollars ($7500.00) of income for an owner who is
permanently disabled.
(c) If a person otherwise qualifies for the exemption and if the person can prove by clear
and convincing evidence that the person's physical or mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only
alternative to permanently residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for
physical or mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for the person, and if a relative does
move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of the relative's spouse shall be counted
towards the income limit, provided that the owner of the dwelling has not transferred assets in excess of five
thousand dollars ($5,000.00) without adequate considerations within a three (3) year period prior to or after the
relative moves into the dwelling.
(2-15-73; 3-20-75; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, § 8-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-
98; Ord. 03-15(2), 11-5-03)
State law reference-V& Code ~§ 36-85.3, 58.1-3210, 58.1-3211; 58.1-3217.
Sec. 15-704 Persons eligible for exemption.
Persons who satisfy all of the following requirements are eligible for the exemption established in
section 15-703:
A. The person claiming the 'exemption shall have either:
1. Reached the age of sixty-five (65) years prior to the taxable year for which the
exemption is claimed; or
exemption is claimed.
Became permanently and totally disabled prior to the taxable year for which the
dwelling.
The person claiming the exemption shall be a person ownmg title or partial title in the
1. The person claiming the exemption shall own title or partial title to the real estate for
which the exemption is claimed on January 1 of the taxable year.
2. A dwelling jointly owned by a husband and wife may qualify if either spouse is
sixty-five (65) years of age or older or is permanently and totally disabled.
3. Except as provided in paragraph (B.2), the exemption shall not apply to a dwelling
jointly owned by a person who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older or who is permanently and totally
disabled (an "exempt person"), and a person who not an exempt person.
C. The person cla/ming the exemption shall occupy the dwelling as that person's sole dwelling.
~. L The dwelling shall not be used for commercial purposes.
~. 2_~ The fact that a person who otherwise qualifies for exemption established by this
article resides in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for physical or mental care for
extended periods of time shall not be construed to mean that the real estate for which the exemption is sought
does not continue to be the sole dwelling of the person during such extended periods of other residence so long
as such real estate is not used by or leased to others for consideration.
D. A manufactured home is real estate eligible for the exemption established by this article if the
person claiming the exemption demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director of £mance that the manufactured
home is permanently affixed. Either of the following shall be evidence that the manufactured home is
permanently affixed:
1. The person claiming the exemption owns title or partial title to the manufactured
home and the land on which the manufactured home is located, and the manufactured home is connected to
permanent water and sewage lines or facilities; or
2. Whether or not the manufactured home is located on land on which the person
claiming the exemption owns title or partial title, the manufactured home rests on a permanent foundation and
consists of two (2) or more units which are connected in such a manner that they cannot be tOwed together on a
highway, or consists of a unit and other connected rooms or additions which must be removed before the
manufactured home can be towed on a highway.
E. The total combined income shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for the
calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year.
F. The net combined financial worth shall not exceed eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00) as of
December thirty-first of the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year.
(2-15-73; 3-20-75; 11-9-77; 8-13-80;6-12-85; 5-13-87; Ord of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Ord. 96-8(2), 12-11-
96; Code 1988, § 8-26; 9-9-81; Ord. 12-19-90; Code 1988, § 8-26.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(2), 9-
20-00; Ord. 03-15(2), 11-5-03)
State law reference-Va~ Code ~ § 58.1-3210, 58.1-3211, 58.1-3212, 58.1-3214, 58.1-3215.
This ordinance shah be effective on and after January 1, 2004.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of __ to __, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
.Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
October 13, 2003
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 40t2
20-10-03A08:20
RCVD
Ambre Blatter
Omnipoint T Mobile
5029 Corporate Woods Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
RE: SP-03-54 James or Julie Herring (Omnipoint/T-Mobile); Tax Map 53, Parcel 6
Dear Ms. Blatter:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 30, 2003, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the
conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and
any antennas shall be sized, located and built, as shown on the concept plan entitled, "Crown
Communications CAP Operations, LLC /Herring Rawland", dated September 9, 2003 and
provided with Attachment A.
2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole
. above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation.
3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) shal never exceed seven (7)
feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five feet. In no case shall the pole exceed 66
feet in total height at the time of inStallation without prior approval of an amendment to this special
use permit or personal wireless facility permit.
4. The monopole shall be made of wood ane be a dark brown natural wood color.
5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole
shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the
application plans.
6. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole
beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case
shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12
inches.
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole.
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in
diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole.
9. No guy wires shall be permitted.
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor
lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully
shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest
.part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire
is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to
distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power
supply.
Page 3
October 13, 2003
your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me (434) 296~5823.
Sincerely,
Stephen B. Waller, AICP
Senior Planner
SW/jcf
CC:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
James Herring
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP
SEPTEMBER 30, 2003
NOVEMBER 5, 2003
SP 03-054 HERRING (OMNIPOINT/T-MOBILE)
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant's proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which
would include a wood monopole, approximately 66 feet in total height, and with a top elevation
that is approximately 1324.5 feet Above Mean Sea Level (Attachment A). This would result in a
monopole that is approximately 9.1 feet taller in height AMSL elevation than a nearby 56-foot
tall tree. The monopole would be equipped with an array of two 6-foot long, 8dnch wide, flush-
mounted panel antennas at the top and supporting ground equipment would be contained within
three 4.7-foot tall by 4.3-foot wide cabinets. The property, described as Tax Map 53/Parcel 6,
contains approximately 83.4 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas in the White Hall District (Attachment
B). This site lies within the area designated as Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan.
Petition:
The applicant, Omnipoint Communications, operating nationally as T-Mobile Communications,
is in the process of expanding its service into the region including Albemarle County and the City
of Charlottesville. This request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a personal
wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers. The proposed site for the facility is a 900
square-foot lease area. This request is being made in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which allows radio wave transmission and relay towers, and their
appurtenances by special use permit.
Planning and Zoning HiStory:
SP 99-10 Scenic Lookout Mountain (CV 159) - At its meeting on May 19, 1999, the Board of
Supervisors approved a request to allow CFW Wireless (now operating as nTelos) to construct a
personal wireless service facility on an adjacent parcel that shares common ownership with the
subject property. This approval allowed the construction of a facility utilizinga wooden
monopole that was not to extend any higher than seven (7) feet above the tallest tree located at
the same base elevation as the facility, within 50 feet. This monopole was installed at
approximately 54 feet in height.
SP 00-030 ALLTEL/I-64 West (CV 144) - At it's meeting on September 13, 2000, the Board of
Supervisors granted approval of a request to allow ALLTEL to construct a personal wireless
service facility on an adjacent parcel that shares common ownership with the subject property.
This approval allowed the construction of a facility utilizing a wooden monopole that was not to
extend any higher than seven (7) feet above the tallest tree located at the same base elevation as
the facility, within 50 feet. This monopole was installed at approximately 56 feet in height.
SP 00-041 Triton PCS/Herring (CV 349H) - At it's meeting on September 13, 2000, the Board
of Supervisors granted approval of a request to allow Triton PCS to construct a personal wireless
This proposal qualifies as a Tier Two facility. The standard conditions of approval for Tier Two
wireless facilities require ~the use of brown, treetop monopoles that are no more than 10 feet
above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related ground equipment that is painted brown.
Open Space Plan and Chapter 2:
Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets,
provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets the
goals for preservation and management of those resources and the environment for future use.
The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that identifies the areas where the
critical resources are present throughout the County. Some of the resources that have been
identified as potentially being impacted bY this request are mountains, the entrance corridor
overlay district for 1-64 and forests.
With consideration for the other relevant components of the Comprehensive Plan, the Wireless
Policy has also identified various "Avoidance Areas" which are locations where the unwise siting
of personal wireless facilities could result in adversely impacting important resources. The
Comprehensive Plan designates mountains as major open space systems that provide scenic
views, naturally forested areas and, wildlife habitat, and are recommended for protection in the
Rural Areas. Except when strategically sited and designed to minimize visibility and mitigate
their impacts upon the natural landscape, personal wireless facilities should not be located within
"Avoidance Areas" such as mountains. However, in this case, staffrecognizes that the area for
proposed the facility would require no additional clearing for installation, utilities or access.
Furthermore, the existing facilities, which are of a similar design and heights as the proposed,
blend very well with the dense vegetation that is present behind them. Furthermore, balloon tests
and field visits that were performed for the two most recently approved facilities at this location
demonstrated that the mountain is so steep and densely vegetated that visibility of the site is
protected from all points on Skyline Drive, which traverses its ridgeline.
Staff's analysis for personal wireless service facilities focuses mai~. ly on the visibility of the site
from nearby properties and roadways. The proposed facility site is located within the Mountain
Resource Area, which begins at the 1200-foot contour for Bear Den Mountain. A balloon was
floated at the proposed pole height of 58 feet during a recent field visit to the site, and staff
obServed that the balloon was visible from the eastbound lane ofi-64 while travel,ling at low
speeds, and from the scenic overlook adjacent to that lane (Attachment D). The trees located on
the south Side of the access road effectively obscure the view of the existing ground equipment
from 1-64 and the lower portions of the monopoles, and the monopoles are not skylighted due to
the extensive backdrop that is provided by the incline of the mountain. If restricted to a height
that is consistent with those of the existing facilities, the proposed monopole would also be
afforded adequate camouflaging to make it appear as a minor feature upon the natural'landscape
to those who can actually locate it. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that an additional facility in the
proposed location and with a brown monopole of similar design to monopole would not be
highly visible from 1-64 or from other nearby properties.
The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is, in part,
"to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the coUnty's natural, scerdc and
historic, architectural and cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic
resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, "to protect the County's attractiveness to
impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Conversely, those sites have often been
pointed to as an example of how well personal wireless serv/ce facilities can be designed to blend
in with the natural environment. Based on the observation of the balloon test, view of the
proposed facility would also be adequately screened and camouflaged from adjacent parcels and
roadways. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility employing a monopole at the
requested height would not draw additional attention to the facility sites that already exist.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Staff notes that a concern for the proliferation of multiple wireless facilities within the same
vicinity has been brought forth~in the review of past proposals and there are already three
facilities within one hundred feet of the proposed facility's location. ~ However, due to their
distance from property lines and roadways, and the backdrop provided by the incline of Bear Den
Mountain, the existing personal wireless service facilities at this site have often been pointed to
as examples of how well facilities can blend into the natural envirOnment. Each of those existing
facilities were approved with conditions that limit their maximum heights of their mounting
structures to seven feet above the tallest tree within 50 feet, at the same base elevation. This
request and all of the previous requests are based Upon the trees that are actually located behind
the facilities. Therefore, staff's recommended conditions of approval include a height restriction
that would keep the proposed facility consistent with the existing ones (seven feet above a
specific tallest tree within a given distance).
Whenever requests to allow horizontal co-locations are being reviewed, staff attempts to ensure
that the tree conservation plans for existing facilities are not altered to a point where the treeline
and canopy providing camouflaging of the mounting structures and ground equipment are
compromised. Because the site for this facility is located within the 200-foot diameter tree
conservation area for each of the existing facilities, staff has required that the applicant to
provide an update to the tree conservation report (Attachment F). The applicant has provided a
new conservatiOn report, which was prepared by the same arborist that prepared the original
report for Triton. This report states that there are no anticipated adverse impacts upon the trees
surrounding the- Site.
Once the facility has been constructed and is fully operational, staff does not expect that the
scheduled site visits would create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. Like
the past applicants for the existing facilities at this site, Onmipoint's representative has
confmned that the proposed facility would be unmanned and that service personnel would only
have to travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance visits. This would result in an
average of eight (8) vehicular trips per month, when counting triPs to and from the property. It is
also anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be necessary on occasions if electrical power to
the site has been interrupted by weather or other unexpected occurrences. Therefore, staff does
not expect this schedule of infrequent site visits to create a significant increase in activity or
traffic within the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Section 1.5.
facilities, it is staff's opinion that this special use permit can be issued in compliance with the
provisions for public health, safety and general welfare.
2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulatiOn of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless
facilities by any state or local government or instnuuentality thereof shall not prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following
language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility, the
applicant is required to meet the FCC guidehnes for radio frequency emissions. These
requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal
wireless service. However, both do implement policies and regulations for the siting and design
of personal wireless facilities. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the
availability, or lack thereof, of alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered with the
new antennas at this site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the denial of this apphcation would
not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the folloWing factors, which are favorable to this request:
According to the report that was provided by a certified arborist, none of the trees within
200 feet of the existing site will be adversely affected by this proposal;
The monopole for the proposed facihty would have a mountainous and well vegetated
backdrop;
When viewing a balloon test at the proposed height of the monopole from 1-64, the
balloon and existing facilities only appeared to be minor features in the natural
surroundings;
This site is accessed from an existing fire road and utilities have already been extended to
the nearby facilities; and,
The facility would not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties.
The following factors are relevant to this consideration:
There are already three (3) existing personal wireless service facilities on the subject
parcel, and within 100 feet of the proposed facility;
There are existing and reasonable by-fight uses that could be estabhshed on the subject
property; and,
The existing facilities were allowed to have monopoles that only extend seven (7) feet
above the tops of the tallest trees within 50 feet.
7
13.
14.
used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or
vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified
arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall
specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be
removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All
construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including
necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree
conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees
within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot
buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of
site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff
shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use
permit have been addressed.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met:
15. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet
above-ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator.
16. Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed two feet above
the tower; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the
Zoning Administrator.
17. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than
2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the
County Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
18.
19.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal
wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which
equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider.
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter
of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
...county of Albemarle
I6FFZC~ ~jSv_ONLY' ' .-[ '"
ATTACHMENT A ---
Application for Sipecial Use Permit.':.: i
· { · .
Tax map and parcel o3'Aao.. ,t~ m r:O&_dx~ Physical Add{~or~i~
Do~s thc owner of this properly ipwn (or have any oczner~hip'.-}~ter~st in) any. ab'mO..ag property1.' [f y~, pl~s¢ list
those tax map and pamel numbers - '-.' :-., - · _
.om~sso.~v 5; ,cO · ' ' '~
· 0 ~an~:
~mnt m~i=~:of Sim ~v~op~t PI~ ~ Y~ '~.No , '-' ~:'~ ~-' .. '.-
.401 Mclntire Road ~- Charlottmwille, VA 2290~ -:- Voice: 296-5832
FAX 45¢ 972 4128
in. volv=c[ in the use, Ol~.rafing hours, and any uniqt~ featuv--_s of~e use: . . ......
ATTACHMENT A
l~:orded plai or t~und~ survey of the pmper~ reXtu~,,d for .the rt=nnin~ If ttx~e is
no r~mted pial or boundary survey, please provid~ le4/al description Of the property a~d
the Dee. d.l~ok and page nttm[~ or Plat Book and ~ number., -
Note: If you ai~ requmsting a special'~ permit ofily for a portian at' rim proimr~, it
.- needs to b~ described ordelinea~vxt ou ;~ copy of r&= plat or'survwded drawing.
2.,~)wne~hip inform,~on - If owmirship of il~ prope~y h in the n~'i~ of any tlri~
· · ~%P-. -endr~ Or organization inclu, ding, but not lingied m, ch~ narr~ Of a corporation: panncrshi~
glo do so. . ' . .
.if th~ nppl~t is a contract purc~r, a d~urn=nt ..a[.~ptable to ~ C~u~
sub~ ~nlt ~ o~'s w/t~ ~t to ~c'appff~on.'
applicant iS the a~ent of Rte owner, a d~-ume~ acceptable to ~he Count~ must be
.,rubm,/t/ed that is evidence of ~¢ ex/s~¢ and sco.oc of th~ agency. -
. .oPTIONAl. ATrACKMENTS:
3. Dzawin~ or col~m, al plata, if any.
[~ 7 4. Additional Information, if any.
~ l~mby ccrtif~ that I own ~ subje, k:t propcrty, or haw ~hc legal power to act on bchalfof ~o owner in
flung tlt/s apg. liicati~ri. I aho ctttify'that th~ ktfotmati~rt provided is tree and accurate to the best of my
:. ....
D .ayah= phone number of Signatory
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Depanmeqt of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
20-~0-03A08:18 RCVD
October 13, 2003
Ambre Blatter
Omnipoint T Mobile
5029 Corporate Woods Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
RE: SP-03-55 David T. Pastors (Omnipoint/T-Mobiie);.Tax Map 55, Parcel 19D1
Dear Ms. Blatter:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 30, 2003, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions
listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas
shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, "Crown Communications CAP
Operations, LLC/Pastors Rawland", dated September 9, 2003.
2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above
the pre-existing, natural ground elevation.
3. The top of the pole; as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) shall never exceed seven (7) feet
above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five feet identified on the revised concept plans. In no
case shall the pole exceed 99 feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an
amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit.
4. The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color.
5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall
be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application
plans.
6. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond
the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the
distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches.
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole.
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch in diameter
and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole.
9. No guy wires shall be permitted.
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting
shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such
that all light emitted is projected below a horizonta plane running though the lowest part of the shield
or sh,eld~ng part of the lumina~re. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting
unit.cOnsisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position
and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
Page 2 ..
October 13, 2003
11. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area
shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
12. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to
justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
13. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility
access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be submitted to
the Zoning Administrator .for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and
procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site-- both inside and outside the
access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and
equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be 'n accordance
with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two
hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required
for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject
facility.
14. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for
construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans
to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed.
15. The construction plans shall be revised to reflect the correct tax map and parcel number for the
property upon which this facility site is located.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to
any facility operation, the following shall be met:
16. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above
ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum
identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
17. Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed two feet above the tower;
and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
18. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are stee per than 2:1 unless
retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are
employed,
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the followin,q requirements shall be met:
19. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning
Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider
that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the
ground, are associated with each provider.
20. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be
disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued.
The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines
at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the
permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety Satisfactory to
the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned
upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
Page 3
October 13, 2003
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on November 5, 2003. 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,
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me (434) 296-5823.
Sincerely.
Stephen Waller, AICP
Senior Planner
sw/jd
CC:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
David T, Pastors
Omnipoint/T-Mobile
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP
SEPTEMBER 30, 2003
NOVEMBER 5, 2003
sP 03-055 PASTORS (OMNIPOINT/T-MOBILE)
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant's proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which
would include a wood monopole, approximately 98 feet in total height, and with a top elevation
that is approximately 802.42 feet Above Mean Sea Level (Attachment A). This would result in a
monopole that is approximately 9.53 feet taller in height AMSL elevation than a 22-inch
diameter, 88-foot tall tree. The monopole would be equipped with an array of two 6-foot long, 8-
inch wide, flush-mounted panel antennas at the top and supporting ground equipment would be
contained within three 4.7-foot tall by 4.3-foot wide cabinets. The property, described as Tax
Map 55/Parcel 19D 1, contains approximately 7.363 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas in the White
Hall District (Attachment B). This site lies within the area designated as Rural Area 3 by the
Comprehensive Plan.
Petition:
The applicant, Omnipoint Communications, operating nationally as T-Mobile Communications,
is in the process of expanding its service into the region including Albemarle County and the City
of Charlottesville. This request is for a special use permit to allow the conStruction of a personal
wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which
allows for radio wave ti'ansmission and relay towers. The proposed site for the facility is a 200
square foot lease area located within a larger lease area, which was obtained by Crown
Communications for a previously approved facility. This request is being made in accordance
with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows radio wave transmission and relay
towers, and their app~urtenances by special use permit.
Planning and Zonin~ History:
SP 00-051 Pastors (Triton PCS) - At its meeting on November 8, 2000, the Board of
Supervisors approved a request to allow Triton PCS to construct a personal wireless service
facility on the subject property (Attachment C). This facility utilizes a wooden monopole that
was approved to extend no more than seven (7) feet higher than the tallest tree within 25 feet as
its mounting structure.
SUB 02-002 Pastors, David T. Boundary Line Adjustment - On May 17, 2002, a plat showing
the reconfiguration of boundary lines shared between Tax Map 55 - Parcel 93A and 19D was
approved administratively. This reconfiguration resulted in the lease area held by Crown
Communications being situated on Parcel 19D instead of 93A where the special use permit was
originally approved.
SP 03-13 Pastors (Triton PCS) - At it's meeting on May 7, 2003, the Board of SupervSsors
granted approval of a request to amend the previous special use permit, allowing Triton PCS to
replace panel antennas on an existing monopole and install new attachments and equipment
supporting GPS and E-911 technology.
Character of the Area:
The subject property is located in Yancey Mills, on the north side of Interstate Route 64 within
an existing 15,625 square foot Crown Communications lease area, just west of the Rockfish
Turnpike [State Route 250] overpass. This site is accessed from a driveway off of Half Mile
Branch Road [State Route 684], located approximately 1/8-mile north of the intersection with
Yancey Mill Lane [State Route 738]. With the exception of the property identified as Tax Map
55A/Parcel 45, Which is zoned Village Residential, all adjacent parcels are zoned Rural Areas.
The existing 12-foot wide gravel driveway, located within a 20-foot access easement that
branches offto the west, extends south and then back east to the exiting Triton facihty site.
The site lies more than 300 feet north of Interstate Route 64 within a heavily wooded area
containing large and mature trees. There are no dwelling units located within 200 feet of the
facility site and the nearest existing structure is located approximately 580 feet away on an
adjacent parcel with common ownership. The existing 99-foot tall monopole serving the Triton
facility on this property is located approximately 25.7 feet northeast of the proposed' monopole
location. The 88-foot tall poplar tree which is being used as the basis for the requested height is
located approximately 13.8 feet north of the location for the proposed pole and situated at nearly
the same base elevation as the location designated for the monopole itself (704.42 feet AMSL).
The site of the proposed facility is surrounded by many tall trees that have an average top
elevation of 77.8~_£eet AMSL. This includes another 92-foot Poplar tall tree that is located
approximately 22 feet south of the site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Because the proposed facility would take access from the road serving the existing Triton PCS
facility and all:u~i![O~ ~ar~.'readily available, the amount of clearing necessary would be minimal.
Therefore, this request is being reviewed for compliance with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan that mainly focus on the visual impacts that could result from the presence
of the facility's-iii'0'~iop---Si~e-~d"ground-based equipment in the proposed locatiOn. The Personal
Wireless Service Facilities Policy is the component of the Comprehensive Plan that provides
specific guidelines for the siting and review of wireless facilities. Both the Open Space Plan and
Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, provide
staff with guidance for managing the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and for the
preservation and conservation of those resources in order to protect the environment for future
use.
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy:
The guidelines set forth in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy are focused largely on
reducing the visual_impacts of wireless facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. The
Wireless Policy~recommends the implementation of a three-tiered approval system to address
criteria related to the siting and design of new facilities. The first tier sets a preference for the
development of "stealth" facilities that can either be completely concealed within existing
structures, or attached to existing conforming structures. Tier Two calls for sites that can
designed to blend in with the natural surroundings in a manner that mitigates their visual impacts,
2
by limiting mounting structure heights, based on the heights of the surrounding tree canopy. This
proposal qualifies as a Tier Two facility. The standard conditions of approval for Tier Two
wireless facilities require the use of broWn, treetop monopoles that are no more than 10 feet
above the tallest tree within 25 feet, and related ground equipment that is painted brown.
Open Space Plan and Chapter 2:
Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled Natural Resources and Cultural Assets,
provides guidance for protecting the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, and sets the
goals for preservation and management of those resources and the environment for future use.
The Open Space Plan Concept Map provides an inventory that identifies the areas where the
critical resources are present throughout the County. Some of the resources that have been
identified as potentially being impacted by this request are forests and farmlands and the
Entrance Corridor overlay district for 1-64.
Staff's analysis for personal wireless service facilities focuses mainly on the visibility of the site
from surrounding properties and roadways. The site of this proposed facility is relatively flat,
and is surrounded by tall, mature trees. A balloon was floated at the originally proposed pole
height of 102 feet during a recent field visit to the site and staff observed that the balloon was
only visible for a short distance while travelling at a low speed in the eastbound lane on 1-64
(Attachment D). Staffalso attempted to locate the balloon from the several of the adjacent
properties located on Route 684, and observed that the balloon was most visible fi-om points that
are directly in front of the subject parcel when looking west from the road. The trees located at
varying d/stances between the road and the facility's lease area acted to obscure the view of the
balloon from properties north and south of the subject property. Based on the observation of the
balloon test and the limited visibility of the existing Triton monopole, it is staff's opinion that the
brown monopole and ground equipment would not be highly visible from 1-64, or from the
nearbyproperties. Staff notes that this request was originally made using a different tree that was
actually 92 feet in height, and due to the dense canopy that exists directly above the facility site,
the balloon was actually floated approximately 30 feet southeast of the monopole's surveyed
location. Because of this, the balloon was actually located at a distance that was farther than 25
feet away from the 88-foot tall tree upon which this request is being based.
This site lies within Rural Area 3 by the Comprehensive Plan, in an area designated as forests
and farmlands on the Open Space Plan Concept Map. The Open Space Plan identifies forests as
large contiguous areas, which are currently forested, have the best soils for hard woods, and are
not in subdivisions. Farmlands are identified as large areas where the soils are of prime quality,
or best suited for a specific agricultural use. Both, forests and farmlands are defined as major
open space systems recommended for protection in the Rural Areas. Because of the minimal
mount of disturbance that will be required within the lease area, staff is of the opinion that this
particular facility would not impose any significant impacts on the natural state of the forests, or
have any adverse effects on the farmlands of the subject parcel and the adjacent properties.
The Architectural Review Board addresses the aesthetic impact of all development within the
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The ARB has reviewed this proposal and recommends
approval with conditions including one that would limit the top height of the monopole to 10 feet
above the tallest tree within 25 feet, but not to exceed the total elevation AMSL of the existing
Triton monopole (Attachment E).
3
The forests surrounding the proposed site of this facility are another resource that is recognized
by the Open Space Plan as being present on the subject parcel. However, when existing
structures are not available, the recommendations set forth in the Personal Wireless Service
Facilities Policy favor the practice of locating new facilities in forested areas where monopoles
and ground equipment can be designed to blend in with the natural surroundings. This includes
the preference for using structures that are no taller than the natural tree canopy so that they are
not "skylighted" against.the horizon so as to alter the ridgelines. Considering the limited amount
of disturbance that is anticipated for the.installation of this facility, and its distance from adjacent
property lines, it is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal would not greatly impact the
naturally forested state of the subject parcel, or any of the neighboring properties within the area.
Additionally, the applicant has already followed through on the standard condition of approval
for wireless facilities requiring the establishment of a tree conservation plan by a certified
arborist, which has been submitted prior to approval of the special use permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with some amendments to the standard conditions
of approval, and omission of the fencing proposed by the applicant.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address the issues of this request in four sections:
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and,
Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(ll) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent prope.rty,
Staffnotes that a concern for the proliferation of multiple wireless facilities within the same
vicinity has been brought forth in the review of past proposals for horizontal co-location of more
than one Tier Two wireless facility on a single property. The existing facility, with its monopole
that extends slightly above the tops of the trees, is not an obtrusive feature, that draws attention to
the facility, nor does it impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. This is both a
result of its location within a wooded area where its mounting structure is similar in height to the
nearby trees, and its distance from surrounding properties. Although the monopole for the
proposed facility would be one foot shorter than the existing one in total height above ground
level, it would actually be approximately 2.5 feet shorter in total height AMSL. This is an
important factor in the review of this proposal, because the treeline surrounding this site and the
existing Triton facility appears to be rather uniform from the distances at which they are visible.
During a balloon test, staff determined that the proposed monopole.would only be slightly Visible
above the trees for a very short amount of time while driving east on 1-64. Staff also observed
that the visibility of the existing facility and the balloon were limited to a portion of State Route
684 that is adjacent to the front ora property that shares common ownership with the subject
parcel. The trees surrounding this site would provide natural screening for the proposed ground
equipment and the monopole which would be built at a height that is comparable to the existing
Triton monopole which appears only to be a slight extension of the tops of the trees. Therefore, it
is staff's opinion that this monOpole will be a minor feature that is not highly distinguishable
from adjacent properties in the area and blends well into the existing natural landscape.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district include preservation of the agricultural and
forestal lands and activities, and conservation of the natural, scenic and historic resources. Uses
allowed by right in the in the Rural Areas are residential, and those related to agriculture and
forestal activities, while uses allowed by special use permit are most often those that provide
services in support of the by-right activities~ Staff recognizes that support for locating personal
wireless service facilities that comply with the Wireless Policy in the Rural Areas zoning district
has not been uncommon. This is because the key purpose of the County's Wireless Pohcy is to
site tower facilities in locations where there is a very minimal potential for intrusion upon on the
surrounding~eas. In this case the applicant is proposing to install a facility that has access to an
existing service road and nearby utilities that are already in place.
Whenever reqUests to allow horizontal co-locations are being reviewed, staff attempts to ensure
that the tree conservation plan for any existing facility is not altered to a point where the treeline
and canopy providing camouflaging of the mounting structure and ground equipment is not
compromised. Because the site for this facility is located within the 200-foot diameter tree
conservation area for the existing Triton facility, staff has required that the applicant to provide
an update to the tree conservation report (Attachment F). The applicant has provided a
conservation report, which was prepared by the Same arborist that prepared the original report for
Triton. This report states that there is no anticipation of any adverse impacts upon the trees
surrounding the site.
Once the facility has been constructed and is fully operational, staff does not expect that the
scheduled site visits would create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. The
applicant has indicated that the proposed facility would be unmanned and that service personnel
would only have to travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance visits. It is also
anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be necessary on occasions when electrical power to
the site has been interrupted by weather or Other unexpected occurrences. Therefore, staff does
not expect this schedule of site visits to create a significant increase in activity or traffic within
the area.
Based on the above-cited factors, staff f'mds that the proposed facility would not impose any
substantial detriment to adjacent properties.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, and with further reference to Section 1.5.
"To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community," is provided
as one purposes and intents in Section 1.4.3 of the Ordinance. As evidenced by the expanded
and rapid increase in use, mobile telephones clearly provide a public service, and the
establishment ofw/reless service facilities expands the availabihty of communications
opportunities and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. In the event of
emergencies, the increased access to wireless communication opportunities is clearly consistent
with the accepted principles of public health, safety and general welfare. Although personal
wireless service facilities are not often credited for enhancing the visual appearance of the
surrounding areas, the guidelines of the Wireless Policy are intended to ensure that equipment for
those facilities are not responsible for imposing obtrusive upon the important resources that
promote the attractiveness of the community.
Section 1.5 (Relation to Environment) states in part that the "ordinance is designed to treat lands
which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in a like manner with reasonable
consideration for the existing use, and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the
suitability of property for various use...; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of
agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the
encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the County." It has not been
demonstrated that these types of uses conflict with any of the other agricultural and forestal
objectives that are set forth for the Rural Areas, when they are designed and sited properly.
The introduction of the second wireless facility within the immediate area by approving this
request would clearly increase the level of services that are available in the Rural Areas.
However, because of the limited visibility of this site it is also staff's opinion that if it is
approved with the recommended conditions this request could be approved in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
Aside from restrictions on tree cutting within a certain distance of the facility, approval of this
proposal would not act to restrict any of the current uses on the subject parcel, or by-right uses
allowed on any other property within the Rural Areas district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public
health, safety and general welfare.
Section 5.1.12a of the Zoning Ordinance contains regulations for locating public utility structures
in a manner which "will not endanger the health and safety of workers and/or residents in the
community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the
development of the same." The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations set
forth in the Telecommunications act address the most significant concerns for public health and
safety regarding personal wireless services. Staff has attempted to address the concerns for
possible impacts upon neighboring properties in the area throughout this staff report and in the
recommended conditions.
The Ordinance also contains section 5.1.40, which sets the requirements for the submittal, review
and approval of applications for personal wireless service facilities. When those regulations
6
combined with the standard conditions of approval that are applied to all Tier Two personal
wireless service facilities, it is staff's opinion that this special use permit could be issued in
compliance with the provisions for public health, safety and general welfare.
2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless
facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following
language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility, the
applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. These
requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal
wireless services in Albemarle County. However, both of those documents do implement
policies and regulations that specifically address the siting and design of personal wireless
facilities. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the availability, or lack
thereof, of alternative sites to serve the areas that would be covered with the new antennas at this
site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
According to the report that was provided by a certified arb0rist, nOne of the trees within
200 feet of the existing site will be adversely affected;
A balloon flown at a height that was actually four (4) feet taller than the currently
proposed monopole was only visible from Interstate Route 64 and State Route 684 for a
very short period of travelling time;
There is another tree that is approximately 92 feet tall located within 25 feet of the
proposed monopole location;
Access to the facility will be provided by extending an existing driveway and gravel
service road; and,
The facility would not restrict any of the permitted uses on adjacent properties.
The following factors are relevant to this consideration:
The monopole at the facility would appear as an extension of the treelines from points
within the property;
There is an existing personal wireless service facility on the subject parcel, within 25 feet
of the proposed facility;
o
There are existing and reasonable by-right uses that could be established on the subject
property; and,
The Architectural Review Board recommends approval of this request with a condition
that would prevent the monopole for this facility from being any higher in top elevation
above mean sea level than the existing Triton monopole.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions.
(In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus
direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff
to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.)
Recommended conditions of approval:
The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows:
1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with
the conditions listed herein, the facihty including the monopole, the ground equipment
building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan
entitled, "Crown Communications CAP Operations, LLC/Pastors Rawland", dated
September 9, 2003.
2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the
pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation.
3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall never exceed ten
feet above the top of the 88-foot tall tree identified in the concept plans, which has a top
elevation of 792;89 feet AMSL. In no case shall the pole exceed 98 feet in total height at
the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit
or personal wireless facility permit.
4. The monopole shall be made of wood and be a dark brown natural wood color.
5. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the
pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set
forth in the application plans.
6. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the
pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted. However,
in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be
more than 12 inches.
7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole.
8. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one-inch
in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole.
9. No guy wires shall be permitted.
10. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided.
Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire
shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the
purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting ora lamp or
11.
lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect th~
lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply.
The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the
lease area shall not be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met:
12.
13.
14.
15.
Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been
used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator.
Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or
vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified
arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall
specifytree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be
removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All
construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including
necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree
conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees
within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit
amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot
buffer, after the installation of the subject facility.
With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of
site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff
shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use
permit have been addressed.
The construction plans shall be revised to reflect the correct tax map and parcel number
for the property upon which this facility site is located.
After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or to any facility_ operation, the following shall be met:
16.
17.
18.
Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet
above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or
reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator.
Certification confirming that the grounding rod: a) height does not exceed two feet above
the tower; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one-inch, shall be provided to the
Zoning Administrator.
No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than
2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the
County Engineer are employed.
After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met:
19.
The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the
Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal
wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which
equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider.
9
20.
All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter
of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS:
Special Use Permit Application and Conceptual Construction Plans
Parcel and Location Maps
Approval Letter for the Existing Facility
Balloon Test Photos
ARB Recommendation
Revised Arborist's Report
10
10/24/2002 15:36 FAX 434 972 4126
BLD CODE & ZONING (V~r'~ZS~- ATTACHMENT A
· Comity of Albemarle ? Department'of. Building Co¢le ana ~,,~ ~
ApPlication for S pecial Use Perm:t.' -:
.. ~. ~. ~ ~ --~
';
y~me ehone( ~ 5 P~t~'//79' :.~ Fax#,., ; ,E-hail
Stat~ V,4 Zip,tX ~$A
Tax map and parcel O;5'_.5-cr, , c'o ~ ~9~ :~RO_ _,
Location g£ pVop cr~y 0m~ im=rs~r/iona, or lather) "_
Physical Addr~s
Does thc owner of this property !~own (or have any ownership-interest in) any. ab'utti)Tg property?, if yes, pl,-ase list
those tax map andparc~l numbers ' - ,' ..::
401 McIntire Road + Charlott~wille, VA 22902 + Voice: 296-5832 + Fax: 972--4126 ~. '[
10/24/2002 15:36 F.~.~ 434 972 4126 BLD CODE & ZONING __
~ ; .i ATTACHMENTA
$~¢tion 31,2.4. I-of thc Albe~le County Zoning Ordinance states tha~ii ~'Fh~ board of sup~rvisom'
hereby r~servcs unto Smell the right to issue all special use .p=rmim permitted hereunder. Special use
permim for ~es ~ provid~ in t~is or~n~ce may ~ i~ued ~pon a findin~ by ~e bo~ of supe~iso~
~hat such use will not be of sab~nfi~ deffimeat to adjacent[property, that ihe ehmcter of the di~ct
will not be. changed thereby ~d:~ ~at ~uch use will:be in h~mony wifl~ thd pu~ aad int,nt of ~is'
ordinate, with the us~ per~iue~ by dght in th~ district, With addition~ ~g~la~6m provi~d in section
5.0 of this ordin~ee, md WI:~ ~e public h~, ~afety ~d ~ene~ welf~e~ '
The item which follow will b~ reviewed by ~e ~t~ in ~e~r ~y~i~ of yg~ ~u~['Ple~e complete
~S fo~ ~d provide ~dition~ :infoma~on which will ~si~t ~ County ~ im review' of
If you ne~ ~ist~ filling oud~e imms, st~f is av~lable. ' . :
What is ~e ~mprchensivc Plan d~ign~tion for ~is p~my? ~/ ~m
How will th~ pro~s~ s~ci~l us~ ~f~t th~ ch~t~ of ~c d~tr~c~ su~undm~ mc'~ropccy... '.? h~. &n ~ c
Howis~cmcinhamonywi~cp~andin~tof~c~ningOrdinanm? ~ ~&~l" ~_~ o~, '-
.... How is th-' usc i~ harmony wi.th thc use~ pe. rmitw.~l by fight in
/ : ~ .. .~'.
Whm additional ~gulations p~vid~ i~ S~tion 5.0 of ~c ~ning
How w{II th~s use prOmote thc public h~lth, ~afcty. a~d g=er=I ,~elrar~ 0f'me commu~i(3~':~'m,¢..), _bc~; ~
t / * '
..,~uo o;o~rr~ tie' LRSERJET
BID gODl~ & ZONING
ATTACHMENT A
~ur.~lues~ in detail aad i~:lude ali ~ ir~rmadea suc~ ~ ~c nmzd~r~ ot'pcrsoas
the use, ot~:r~Jng boat~, aad any ~miquc ~ of ~ use.4,,,
O {.
applicant is the a~eut of the o'~mr, a docum~} ~ac~txable m, gu~ County mu~t bo
subaiitt~d ~ Ls evidem~ o~ d~ exi.smm~ and scope of risc agency.
. oP'rIoN.,M,, A'rYA~:
Drawings or c~tcet3.mal plaas, if my. '
I h~b)' can~ a~at I o,,,m ~ sabj~e.~ Wopeay, or haw ~ ~gai power ra ac~ o, behaffat' t~ owner ia
fUirtt~ ~ appBca~u. I also c~!i~.'. 'that th~ ia~mmaOzm pmvid~ is u'u~ and accma~ to d~ b~ of my
Sign~u~
'Primed
Da~im,, phone uum~cr of Sigrator~